got it done, we got it done and then we worked with the -- i think we got it done and then we got it out within like two months of getting it done in committee and working with the house. so it depends obviously. the fall being an election year could make some changes but -- and i can't remember whether we got that done in a lame duck or not. where's melissa. go grab melissa. or you might know. >> appropriations bill in 2020. sen. cantwell: so it was after the election. so i think that gives us, you know, time too. but i think what we decided was that there was so much right now on safety in f.a.a. with the number of air traffic controllers, near misses, aviation inspectors, that we wanted to get it done right now. that we didn't want to miss that opportunity. i think it helps us actually focus more on -- just like he said, it was a good start but it's not the ending period. so the challenges to get

implemented, the last acting administrator probably wasn't as aggressive -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> we'll leave this here as the u.s. house is about to gavel back. in members today will be working on several iran-related measures and a bill that would prevent law enforcement and other government agencies from buying american citizens' data from service providers. now live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. i prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. holy god, you call us to hold

fast to faith. to trust you, the creator of the universe. to answer our personal needs even while you attend to the multitude of demands in our communities, our country, and our world. how is it that you could hear us when the whole world cries for deliverance from warfare and famine and disease? may our faith be strong enough to believe that you in your divine power will replenish us as well as these deserts of disaster with your ocean of grace. our despair has names like israel, ukraine, gaza, suzanne, and taiwan -- sudan, and taiwan. what answers will be had which will address the injustices, injuries, inhumanity that overwhelm these regions. god, give us reason to hope in you our redeemer that we would be patient in tribulation and constant in prayer.

transform our fears, our pains, our worries, and concerns with your love. a love greater than all that seeks to defeat or overtake us. for in all our efforts fail, when no solution is in sight, these three remain -- faith, hope, and love. the greatest of these is the love we receive from you. in the name of one who loved us first we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, chaplain. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house the approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, dr. joyce. mr. joyce: please join with me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. joyce: mr. speaker, i rise to address the house and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. joyce: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of johnstown, pennsylvania, native u.s. captain of the army harry cramer. in 1957, u.s. army captain cramer was attached to the 14 special forces operational detachment when he was killed while training soldiers.

in giving his life for his country, he became the first of 58,281 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who would be killed during the vietnam war. throughout his time in the army, captain cramer showed incredible bravery and was awarded a silver star and two purple hearts during his service in the korean war. last week, captain cramer was recognized when highway 403, a road originally built by his family in the 1890's, was renamed in his honor. america owes a debt of gratitude to captain cramer that can never be fully repaid. may god bless him and the entire kaymer -- cramer family. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california -- for

what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog recognition? >> request permission to speak for one minute. reserve the right-to-mend -- right to amend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a group of smart, dedicated, and science loving students in my district from north hollywood, california. mr. cardenas: last month the joins bowl team at north hollywood high school won first place at the science bowl, the regional qualifying tournament for the department of energy's national science competition. the team made up of these students rose to the challenge and topped other formidable science teams. north hollywood high school has won an astounding 25 of 27 regional competitions and two-time national science bowl

champions, having won in 2021. i want to commend the team coaches for fostering a culture of academic excellence and spreading the love of science to these remarkable students. i wish them all the best in the upcoming 2024 national competition. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise for one minute speeches, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, sir. mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the sermon family of baldwin county, alabama, on being our family farm -- the 2024 alabama farm of disti

distinction. mr. carl: sermon farm is owned by joe joel and patty. his mother who makes great cookies, and brother james helps run the fifth generation family owned farm. the farm -- they grow cotton, peanuts, corn, and sweet potatoes on over 4,500 acres in bell forest community. they will go on to represent alabama in the sunbelt agriculture expo in the southeastern farmers of the year contest this fall. congratulations to the sermon family and their family farm. i'm thankful for the impact they have made to our state. i'm proud to be their representative. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is

recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you so much, mr. speaker. this black maternal health week we confront the glaring reality that black women in america are three times more likely to die from pregnancy related complications across socioeconomic criteria, and education than similarly situated white women. research highlights a disturbing attribution that black women are also significantly more likely to encounter disrespectful treatment during childbirth facing scolding, threats, and even outright hostility. these disparity in treatment are not new. they are deeply embedded in the fabric unfortunately of our health care system and our society. the fact that maternal death in the u.s. has more than doubled over two decades with black mothers suffering the highest rate is a national tragedy. moreover, the c.d.c.'s finding

that over 80% of those deaths were preventible should be a call to action. as a mother of five and the mother of a daughter, find the current trajectory deeply troubling and wholly unacceptable. it poses a severe threat to the health and safety of black women and all women across our nation. it's paramount we improve awareness of the urgent maternal warning signs and ensure the provisions are timely, respectful, and quality care. we must save these lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. flood: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and service of officer ross bar bartlett.

officer bartlett died in the line of duty last week on april 12 in nebraska. he served as a police officer for over 30 years. his three decades of service took him across nebraska before arriving in the village of seresco. he was not only a police officer but a husband, dad, grandpa, friend, and so much more. he had a great sense of humor and loved to serve his community. one way he did this was by volunteering at fire departments alongside his wife. they had a passion for helping every community they lived in. i was fortunate to work with him as he served in madison. i have great respect for him and his service in madison county and beyond. we have lost a great officer and an outstanding nebraskan with a big heart for public service. may god be with his family and friends during this difficult time. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to hopper the victims of the horrific mass shooting that occurred at columbine high school on april 20, 1999 in littleton, colorado. mr. crow: 25 years ago, 12 teenagers and one teacher were killed just for going to school. 23 were injured. and many still struggle with lifelong injuries. today we remember those we lost. cassie, steve, corey, kelly, matt, daniel, danny, rachel, isaiah, john, lauren, kyle, and dave. we remember the families, survivors, and entire columbine community. some who became the country's first gun violence prevention advocates. those like tom, father of daniel, who for 25 years has

gone toe-to-tow with the gun lobby to fight for change while wearing the shoes his son was wearing the day weigh-e was killed. to honor their memories we cannot allow another 25 years to pass before we say never again and final mean it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the assistive technology day. a.t., is any item, peace of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals living with disabilities and older adults. having spent nearly three years as a therapist for rehabilitation services manager, licensed nurse home administrator before coming to

congress, i have a personal understanding of the challenges facing those who require ass assistive technology. whether it's a veteran dealing with service connected injuries, children with autism, individual diagnosed with debilitating cancer or adults with cerebral palsy, the bottom line is these technologies make people's lives better. mr. speaker, not only do i want to celebrate and recognize critical role a.t. plays in the lives of those who need it. i want to recognize and thank all the a.t. specialistses, programs, professional organizations, and researchers who are dedicated to facilitating access and acquisition of assistive technology. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. magaziner: thank you, mr. speaker. this week nearly 30,000 runners

from 118 countries and all 50 states came together to run the 128th boston marathon. that makes this a fitting week to recognize the legacy of elwill ison "tarzan" brown a rhode islander and member of the narragansett tribe. born in 1913, his exceptional athleticism earned him the name tarzan after the popular films of the time e was also known as deer foot to his tribe. despite facing adversity throughout his life with no formal training or proper footwear, he emerged as one of the world's greatest athletes. he was a two-time winner of the boston marathon. in 1936 and 1939. and represented the united states at the 1936 olympics in berlin. round browne is one of two indigenous north americans to have won the boston marathon and only indigenous person to have more than one vicktory. i would like to take this moment to honor tarzan brown, a legend who brought honor to rhode

island anti-narragansett people and to echo the words of his nephew, a lot of people leave a footprint. he left a trail. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: mr. speaker -- mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. biden and far left democrats continue to jeopardize the safety of american families and national security with open borders. biden's failure has allowed over nine million illegal aliens crossing borders, including more than 300 on the terrorist watch list. due to biden irresponsibility, all families are at risk as evidenced by the brutal murder of laken riley of georgia. house republicans continue to work to protect americans and strengthen our borders including passage of the secure border act to re-enforce border security

and impeaching department of homeland security secretary mayorkas who shamefully put every american family at risk of murderous attack. .. in conclusion, god bless our troops who protect us as the terrorists move from everseas to the united states. we don't need more border laws. attacks are imminent as repeatedly warned by the f.b.i. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. daste: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. the united states coast guard marathon brought together runners from far and wide to

elizabeth city, north carolina. city and u.s. coast guard leaders rolled out the red carpet with a warm welcome. i was delighted to see the u.s. coast guard commandant linda fay began in northeastern north carolina in support of the marathon. we are glad to celebrate the u.s. coast guard's commitment to the marathon and above all toe liz beth city. congratulations to all participants, particularly to the winners who persevered through the challenging course. to the u.s. coast guard marathon, you are indeed and effort that helps to elevate this wonderful northeastern community to even greater heights. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. de la cruz: this week i introduced legislation that pays tribute to a true cultural icon, selena quintanilla. this will honor her legacy with commemorative coins produced by the u.s. mint. selena, known affectionately as the queen of the law noah music, was the pride of south texas. she transformed the music landscape with her dynamic performances and timeless hits. she brought tejano music beyond south texas and garnered admiration from millions worldwide. it is fitting that we choose this week to introduce this bill. why? because tuesday would have been selena's 53rd birthday. through these commemorative coins, we honor her artistic

talent and her role as a trail blazer for hispanic artists. let the coin reflect the brilliance of selena's life. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: today i rise to honor the life and legacy of pat. as a scholar and football star pat led leland high school to the division championship and earned a football championship to arizona state. his time at a.s.u. was spent studying business and marketing and athletic achievement as sun devils linebacker.

he was drafted to the nfl. he breck records as a linebacker. after the terrorist attack on 2001, pat and his younger brother kevin appsed the call to service and deployed in the united states army. he was deployed in support of iraqi free tom he returned to fort benning, georgia, to complete training school. on april 22, 2004, in afghanistan, pat was tragically killed by friendly fire. he was award the silver star and purple heart for making -- for making the ultimate sacrifice. let's not forget his patriotism and call to service. may we all be eager to answer that call if our own lives for this wonderful country. my thoughts and prayers are with his family and all united states military families at home an overseas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlemanis recognized for one minute. >> i rise to celebrate the 75th anniversary of wdum. they've provided local and syndicated programming. it's a division of the family-owned media company jacobs media corporation mr. clyde: earlier today, wdum celebrated this milestone by returning to its roots, returning to the gainesville renaissance building just steps away from where they first went on the air 75 years ago. i know i speak for all listeners in thanking the station's talented employees for their commitment to local journalism. it's a privilege to frequently join their programs to connect with folks akoss the ninth district, to tell them about my work in congress. whether it's breaking news,

insightful announcement, safety announcements or heartwarming story, wdum has been there to inspire and unite northeast georgians. as president trump said on "mornings on main street," the station is a really special place and a special voice. here's to 75 years dedicated to local journalism and many more to come. congratulations. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 4639. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 1149 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. 4639. the chair appoints the gentleman from alabama, mr. carl, 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. 4639 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend section 2702 of title 18, united states code, to prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from obtaining subscriber or customer records in exchange for anything of value to address communications and records in the possession of

intermediary internet service providers, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. general debate will 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 judicial and respective designees. the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. hagelman, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. hageman. ms. hageman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hageman: today the house will vote on the fourth amendment is not for sale act.

the judiciary committee reported the act by 30-0 with one member voting present. this bill makes crucial changes and closes a glaring loophole that allows the government to sidestep requirements of the fourth amendment to purchase data of americans. i thank my colleague, congressman davidson, for introducing this much-needed legislation. this bill is the result of years of bipartisan negotiation and i look forward to this debate and vote. the fourth amendment guaranteed that all of us -- guarantees all of us the right to be free of unreasonable government searches and seizures. however the law and doctrine concerning the fourth amendment has filed keep pace with the development of digital technologies. nearly 40 years ago, congress passed the electronic communications privacy act or ecpa in an attempt to navigate the digital age. but it's clear that legislation is now insufficient to protect the constitutional rights of americans.

it is time that congress accounts for the technological advances that have occurred in the decades since ecpa was passed. today, seemingly every american carries a smart phone with them wherever they go. these devices contain vast amounts of information of americans. such as where they travel what they purchase, their health information, and so on. as the supreme court has noted these devices, quote, hold for many americans the privacies of life, end quote. before the modern internet, the fourth amendment required law enforcement to execute a search warrant and subpoena the items they -- they wished to review. the officer executing the search would have to provide a copy of the warrant and inventory of the property seized. but today, federal agencies often sidestep the requirements of the fourth amendment and access and collect massive amounts of private information on americans by exploiting a legal loophole in the ecpa and fourth amendment doctrine. while ecpa prohibits

communications companies from vied providing customer information to the government in the absence of a subpoena or other court order, no such prohibition cysts for providing this information to third parties such as data brokers. instead of going to a judge to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant, government agencies like the federal bureau of investigation, the internal revenue service, the drug enforcement agency and the department of homeland security can simply turn to data brokers and purchase mass amounts of american's day. he government is collecting vast amounts of data by purchasing it from data brokers or other third parties. many reports have detailed some data brokers have tracked people at places of worship and at protests. while the j judiciary committee has advanced bills to change ecpa, those bills have not become law. it is long past time congress acts to protect the prief i have so americans. there's strong bipartisan

support in congress to finally address and close the data broker loophole this. bill is exactly the type of legislation needed to rein in the federal government and protect the privacy rights of americans. the government is rightfully -- is rifling thru your personal information. you should have the right to know about it. but the government can just purchase your highly sensitive information from data brokers and use it against you without you ever knowing the fourth amendment is not for sale act would close this legal loophole and ensure the government may only use existing statutes, comply it with the fourth -- compliant with the fourth amendment, to lawfully surveil americans. when the government uses personal data it should be required to get a court order. with this, the government will no longer be able to make and end run around the fourth amendment to purchase data of americans. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves.

the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i grant myself such time as i may consume. mr. nadler: i was plowed to join congressman davidson in introducing this strong bipartisan legislation to prohibit government overreach by prohibiting the overreach of customer daytasm when the committee considered this bill at markup it received a rare unanimous 30-0 vote. when we download applications through our phones we do so because we think they'll make our lives a little bit better. weather apps tell us to bring an umbrella to work, delivery apps allow us to order groceries to our homes, employer work apps show us or schedule for the week. some apps come with a dark side they don't generally disclose to

the american public, that the data they get from us is immediately sold to the highest bidder. third party source os of this data, often called data brokers, collect and package the data to sell to market researchers and government agencies to name a few. while they say the data is de-identified, experts agree just four points of data are needed to re-identify this data because of this, the purchase offer a -- purchaser of a data set can get information about us. they can track commuting habits what businesses they drive by on their way to work and even when they visit places not part of their normal commute. that anyone has americans' private information is troubling to me. that our government can obtain it without a warrant should be troubling to all of us. the supreme court in u.s. vs. jones unanimously found that the

government'sus of a g.p.s. tracker on the subject's car is considered a search under the fourth amendment. but in 2004, when the search in jones occurred, not everyone had a phone in their pocket. the ecosystem of data brokers had not jet come to life if the government wants to track a suspect today they can go through the trouble of establishing probable cause and getting a warn which is what they should do, or federal law enforcement can purchase data from a third party about the target of their operation. . during ensuing criminal trial no obligation to tell the court how they obtained the initial data in the first place. we have the fourth amendment for a reason. if law enforcement wants to gather information about you, they should first obtain a warrant. they should have to go to a judge and explain why there is probable cause and why they need to know this information.

when federal law enforcement agencies purchase this data, however, they bypass our judicial system entirely. our current state of affairs is clearly not what our founders intended. our right to privacy is being abrogated every day by those whose job it is to keep us safe. the fourth amendment is not for sale act would change that. under the bill before us today, the federal government would be prohibited from exchanging anything of value for data from third party vendors. the law already prohibits applications in websites. electronic communication services and remote computing service from sharing information with the government without a warrant. the fourth amendment is not for sale act would extend that same rule to the data brokers to which they sell. this legislation would also ensure that the government does not circumvent these rules by prohibiting both i direct acquisition of information and agency sharing of third party data. this way federal law enforcement

could neither acquire prohibited at that time from individuals who purchase the data and pass it on to the government nor could they receive the desired data from nonlaw enforcement federal agencies. the whole point of this bill is to stop the end run that is being done around the fourth amendment because of modern technology. i thank congressman davidson and chairman jordan for their leadership. i thank my democratic lesion, representatives lofgren, jayapal, and jacobs for their hard work to get this bill to the floor. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. hageman: mr. chair, i yield to mr. davidson of ohio such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: i thank the chairman. i thank my colleagues, frankly, in the house.

it's rare today we have an issue that doesn't break on party lines. privacy, unfortunately, isn't unanimous. the fourth amendment's clear that if the government wants to search your data, they need to have probable cause and a warrant or a subpoena. the fourth amendment is a restriction on what government can do. it's not a restriction on commerce. unfortunately, government agencies are buying nonpublic data that would otherwise require a warrant or a subpoena. congress confronts an opportunity today to end that practice by passing the bipartisan and bicameral, fourth amendment is not for sale act. nothing in this bill would prohibit a search paid for or otherwise of public information. it would, however, restore privacy protections, grossly infringed by current practices. congressman higgins is offering -- he's a career law enforcement officer.

he's offered an amendment today that makes that clear. we have heard from law enforcement agencies and we want to make it clear nothing in this bill is designed to make your job harder to do. but mr. lalota offers an amendment i do oppose. frankly, it strips much of the content of the bill and i regret that i do oppose that amendment because it undermines the intent of the bill. closing this data broker loophole is an important step towards restoring a government small enough to fit within the constitution. we could afford a government that small. finding bad guys would be easier if you had perfect information on everybody and full surveillance all the time. it's been recognized that the third amendment was put in place despite the fact that we all might be more secure if we had a soldier stationed in our homes. the third amendment prevents the government from doing that. the reality is the technology

today effectively puts the government everywhere we go. we all essentially have a digital i.d., a phone number. and we carry it with us. it's tracked. it goes to your car. your car spies on you as well. this data is being collected. people say this amendment doesn't deal with all that. let me address that concern. people back home might not realize that the way the committee's structure in congress is broken up in areas of jurisdiction mean that certain committees can deal only within their area of jurisdiction. the judiciary committee can reform things in that committee of jurisdiction. but other committees like energy and commerce would have to address a broader topic. people wonder why are there so many half-baked solutions to problems back home. a lot comes down to our jurisdictions. we don't solve the whole problem often. what about foreign governments buying our data? congress in the house passed a

ban on that last month. just prior to the house ban exporting your data was banned by executive order from the biden administration. so these are safeguards that are bipartisan and in some ways they have already reached to the executive branch. but, again, the fourth amendment is designed as a limitation on what the government can do. i'm grateful to have the support of over 150 organizations from gun owners of america on the one hand to the american civil liberties union on the other. this is an issue that goes far and wide. it's important to understand, too, people might realize that if they've got a journal that they close it up and keep it in their house, whether it's by their bed or in a bookshelf or safe, the government has to get a warrant or subpoena to get access to that. but your electronic communications don't enjoy the same kinds of protection. they are not being protected by the fourth amendment because you

have trusted a third party with that. like g mail, microsoft, apple. somebody has your emails. because of that the government is getting access to some of this very private information, nonpublic information because they are able to buy it. they shouldn't be able to buy it. if this bill passes and becomes law, they won't be able to buy it and bypass your fourth amendment rights. i encourage all of our colleagues to support this important legislation. freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed. we have such an opportunity today to reclaim the right to privacy that is supposed to be protected by the fourth amendment. i hope everyone will join me in defending freedom today. i yield back. mrs. hageman: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from washington,

representative jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i am very proud to co-sponsor this important bipartisan bill that protects americans' constitutional privacy rights in this digital age by closing loopholes so that the government cannot purchase americans' private data from data brokers without a warrant. last year the office of the director of national intelligence declassified a report on how the intelligence community buys significant amounts of americans' data from data brokers. we are talking about very sensitive, personal information that can cover anything from americans' location data to internet activity. that report noted that this data, this is a quote, has increasingly important risks and implications for u.s. persons' privacy andcy of liberties as the data can reveal sensitive and intimate information about

individuals. so this isn't just some small group of people saying we don't like this. it is actually the office of the director of national intelligence saying that this practice of buying people's personal information without a warrant from these data brokers is dangerous, it's a enaround our constitutional protections-it's a run around our constitutional protections. it's important that this body today protect americans. protect our constitutional rights. and ban this practice. vote yes on this bill. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. mrs. hageman: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. mr. jordan: i thank the lady for yielding. mr. chairman, the government's not allowed to get your information without a warrant. not allowed to do it. even if they buy it they are not allowed to do it. that's all this thing says t

couldn't be more straightforward, more simple. it is a respect for the fourth amendment, respect for americans' privacy. what we are saying is, it's been said before by the ranking member and ms. jayapal and the gentlelady fromy wyoming. you can't do an end run. work around. you can't say we are allowed to get information we otherwise wouldn't be able to get because we are going to purchase it from a data broker. no. you can't do that. that's all this says f it would otherwise require a warrant, you can't buy it or do a work around. it is a fundamental principle in our country. if the executive branch wants to get your stuff, wants to look at your information, they have to go to a separate and equal branch of government and get a probable cause warrant. they can't go around that and say they are purchasing. this is -- they can't do it. plain and simple. i want to commend the ranking member on the democrats of the committee, the ranking member said, we very seldom have legislation that comes out unanimous like this. but this committee charged with more than any other committee in

congress with protecting american civil liberties, their rights, the fundamental principles and liberties that make our country the best place ever, unanimously agreed this thing should pass. i want to thank them. i want to thank mrs. hageman for leading the debate in the committee for our team. of course the sponsor of the legislation, mr. davidson. this is so simple. last week we had a similar fight. similar debate. unfortunately we lost 212-212. let's hope we can win this one. i think this makes so much sense. so common sense, so consistent with how this great country has always operated. one branch of government doesn't get a side at all. we have separate and equal branches of government this branch wants information, executive branch wants your information they have to go to a separate and equal branch and get warrant. they can't buy it from somebody else and be sneaky about it and avoid what the constitution clearly mandates has to happen. i urge a yes vote. with that i yield back to the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. hageman: i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: -- the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield to the jail from california, ms. jacobs. ms. jacobs: under almost any other circumstance law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to access our personal information. even, even in the cases of utmost national security. like when americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, or cyber crimes our government gets a warrant. this process isn't too burdensome t doesn't prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes or bringing people to justice. but there are a few loopholes in this process. when it comes to section 702 queries, and the data broker loophole, which allows our government to circumvent our fourth amendment rights to access our personal information without a warrant, a court order, or a subpoena. this is only legal because they are buying the information.

but our rights shouldn't have a price. and cash shouldn't hold the same legitimacy as a warrant. law enforcement claims they even say, they say this, this is their claim, this loophole, this data that they buy from data brokers, is most useful before probable cause can be demonstrated. that is the whole point of the fourth amendment. of our right to prevent unreasonable seizures and searches. if you can't establish probable cause, you shouldn't be able to access or buy this information unless a court says otherwise. that's why we need this bipartisan fourth amendment is not for sale act which i'm proud to co-lead. our bill doesn't inhibit law enforcement's investigations. instead, it ensures that police searches are aboveboard, follow due process, and protect americans' privacy. in a congress where it feels almost impossible to get anything done and where the american people think all we do is disagree, this shows that we

can do big things and there is bipartisan consensus, especially when it comes to americans' privacy rights. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. mr. ranking member, i yield back. mr. nadler: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. hageman: mr. chair, i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rutherford: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 4639, the fourth amendment is not for sale act. and all of the attending amendments as well. mr. speaker, i also stand with, i think, every mother shooed law enforcement agency azoth socialation--d -- measured law enforcement agency in the country. this bill will only make our communities less safe by

preventing local law enforcement, state law enforcement from being able to access information that has been legally collected, and publicly open sourced information. every day law enforcement officers every day, law enforcement uses this sort of open sourced information that's collected legally we use that to collect the dots to actually develop and find the leads to solve crimes like child abduction, drug trafficking, terrorism. all sorts of different heinous crimes. the fourth amendment is not for sale, others publicly open data google and facebook and access it. cartels and criminals can access it. private actors can access it but not the police. only law enforcement will be blocked. i can tell you as a former sheriff, police officers work on

time sensitive cases. we're access -- where accessing information quickly is a matter of life and death. i can think of dozens of cases where minutes mattered and my officers saved lives by accessing this data now, some of the supports of the bill say, well all those other folks i just listed that still have access, they can't put you in jail. let's be truthful here. the police can't but put you in jail either without probable cause of a crime. so the fourth amendment is not for sale act will make communities for a less safe. by making officers' jobs harder, and in fact it helps out only the criminals. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous, anti-police bill. i yield back. ms. hageman: verve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming.

ms. hageman: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. d'esposito. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. d'esposito: i rise this morning in strong opposition to h.r. 4639, the fourth amendment is not for sale. while i do thank my good friends and colleagues and house republicans from the judiciary committee for all the work they do to keep law enforcement safe, and to give law enforcement the resources they need to protect and serve, this bill is only going to hinder their ability to investigate crimes. and like my good friend mr. rutherford from florida said, you cannot arrest a suspect without probable cause. the information that is no longer going to be obtained by law enforcement agencies is information that is already been legally collected. nearly every major law

enforcement union and agency throughout this country is opposed to this legislation. i was proud to serve in the new york city police department as a detective and have investigated thousands of crimes. and we've utilized these third party platforms to obtain information. information that has already been legally collected. this legislation with -- would without a doubt make communities less safe. and in the process would also lead us to follow in the same disastrous direction that new york democrats have by handcuffing the ability of law enforcement to do their job. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back. ms. hageman: reserve the plans of my time.

the chair: the gentleman -- the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from new york reserves. ms. hageman: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collide. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collide: thank you. thank you very much. i rise today to strongly support h.r. 4639, the fourth amendment is not for sale act. this critical bill would prohibit government agencies, including the intelligence community, from purchasing america's data from third party data brokers. u.s. government agencies are purchasing american's data through a loophole with third party groups when they would otherwise need a warrant. recently the internal revenue service purchased records and locations of millions of american's cell phones and the f.b.i. purchased geolocation data for mobile advertising. the cato institute reported that data brokers collect and sell huge amounts of american's

information including if they have interest in firearms. they have lists of shooting fanatics. concealed carry license gun owners. even sell information about america's interest in political organizations. government agencies like the f.b.i. purchase this information as a loophole to obtain priest information about u.s. citizens without a warrant. i am deeply concerned that the practice of buying commercial data could not only threaten america's fourth amendment rights, but it could also pose a threat to their second amendment freedoms and be used as a way to track and target lawful gun owners in america. we must prevent this. h.r. 4639 will provide the necessary guardrails to ensure these three-letter government agencies including the intelligence community does not and cannot overstep and infringe on american's constitutional rights so why can civilian companies buy this data but not the government without a warrant? because the government can take away your liberties they have government can put you in jail. civilian companies cannot do

that. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with the constitution and support h.r. 4639, the fourth amendment is not for sale act. and i yield back to the chair. ms. hageman: reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. ms. hageman: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my fellow representative, mr. dan bishop. no? ok. mr. chairman, i believe that we're ready to close. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. nadler: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: data brokers collect massive amounts of information about americans that can track and identify our most intimate details. it is bad enough that companies have access to all this personal data but now the government can

access this data too. without securing a warrant just by purchasing it on the open market. this amounts to an end run around the fourth amendment. this legislation would thend practice and protect our privacy as the constitution demands. i urge all members to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hageman: there are a couple of points, mr. chairman, that i would like to make. one is that i reject the notion that in order to beat china or other foreign adversaries we must become like they are. if the real opposition to this bill is that it prevents the united states government from becoming the same type of surveillance state that communist china is, then i think that says everything that we need to know about those opposed to the bill.

and i challenge them to explain that position to their constituents. i am a constitutional -- i believe absolutely in protecting our constitutional rights and i believe that it is important to understand the significance of how these various federal agencies have been abusing this power to surveil and persecute american citizens. as part of the committee on the judiciary's investigation into the i.r.s.'s troubling visit to the home of journalist matt taibbi on the very day he testified before the select committee on weaponization of the federal government, we've learned that the i.r.s. collected personal data from data brokers to use in its investigation of mr. taibbi. for example, the i.r.s. collected data from the data broker anywho, a people search website. it is concerning enough that the i.r.s. would take the extreme step of visiting someone's home

on the day he testified before congress, but the i.r.s. also compiled its information from a data broker, potentially accessing vast amounts of taibbi's private information. that is the nature of the abuse that these federal agencies are engaging in and violating american civil rights. the fourth amendment exists for a reason. there is no exception to the fourth amendment requirement of getting a warn. it is my understanding that mr. turner from ohio would like to speak for 90 seconds on this bill and i will yield that amount of time to him and then i will finish with my closing. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. turner: thank you so much. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 4639. vote no on 4639. the bill bans law enforcement from paying for information available to any willing buyer

in all contexts. there is no exception. zero. there is no exception to even allow law enforcement to pay for stolen information to investigate and solve identity theft, data theft, data breaches, ransomware attacks. the bill will not make people safer. the bill puts police officers' lives at risk it bans the police from data use to understand the danger they face when executing a search warrant or arrest warrant. if this bill becomes law, police will be going in blind when they execute a search warrant and this could cost lives. this is bad for lawence fortment, bad for the intelligence community and bad for americans. that's why "the new york times" editorial board poweed an op-ed opposed to this. it is opposed by the national association of police organization, the national association of chiefs of police, the federal law enforcement association, the major county

sheriffs of america, the national district attorneys association, the national fusion center association, the national markets officers association coalition. i urge my colleagues to do not digitally defund the police. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reclaims her time. ms. hageman: i think it is important for the american people to understand the scope of what we're talking about and what our government is purchasing from third party brokers. data brokers aggregate and sell the data from a variety of sources including those described today. often they have thousands of different data points reflecting information about a point -- about a person that when combined reveal information about an individual that would otherwise be unavailable. for data brokers, consumers and their information are the product. for example, data brokers can receive geolocation data, sometimes accurate to just a few yards, and from a mobile device

up to 14,000 per day. this data allows a purchaser to identify patterns that can reveal where a person lives, where they work, and where they spend their free time. these actions allow government agencies and law enforcement to evade the fourth amendment if they're allowed to purchase this data and collect limitless information from americans. the fourth amendment is not for sale act closes this legal loophole and stops data brokers from selling american's personal information to the government by requiring the government to obtain a court order before acquiring customer or subscriber information from a third party. the fact is that we all support our police and we want them to have the tools that they need to catch the bad guys. but i think if there is anything that has been disclosed over the last several years, is that for people within our intelligence community and that work for the federal government including the f.b.i. and the i.r.s. and similar agencies who are abusing their power and authority and

going after people for political reasons. that is one of the most important reasons as to why we need to close this loophole. as technology continues to advance and americans incidentally share more data through the devices we use every day, it is imperative for congress to protect privacy interests and ensure that government agencies and law enforcement abide by the fourth amendment. this bill does nothing more and nothing less. it simply protect ours fourth amendment right. every person who has been elected to this body took an oath of office to uphold our constitution. that is what we are attempting to do with the fourth amendment is not for sale act. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for yen debate has expired. pure sunt to the rule the bill shall be considered for amendments under the five-minute rule. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of a text

of the rules committee print 118-28 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purposes of further amendments under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be ordered except those printed in house report 118-464. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by the member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for a time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

. it is now an order to consider amendment number one, printed in house report 118-464, for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: 118-464 offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1149, the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. from ohio. mr. davidson: i thank the gentleman. the purpose of the amendment is a technical correction. often this is done simply in rules. for some reason they chose not to do it. the bill lists, frankly, the bill itself states that existing

federal laws are the exclusive means by which the government obtains location information of u.s. persons or persons inside the united states, their web browsing history, internet search history, or any other data that would require a court order. the list is complete, except for section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. that needs to be added, and that's all this amendment does. it simply covers comprehensively the list of authorities, including section 702, as a covered authority. the bill isn't really complete without covering that. i think last week the body spoke that they want to continue to have the foreign intelligence surveillance act, so this bill would say, yes, it also coffers everything, including what just passed last week. so with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i claim the time in

opposition, though i support the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i grant myself such time as i may consume. this amendment makes technical changes to the bill to clarify that it does not interfere with section 702 of fisa. fisa, including but not limited to section 702 is the only way the government should acquire data that in any other scenario would need a warrant. we may have different opinions on how the government should treat the incidentally collected u.s. persons data as we debated last week, we should all agree that this bill is not intended to address or affect section 702 in any way t. this is a technical change to correct the minor error in the bill, this amendment, and i hope all members will support it. i thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and i yield back the balancing of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: i'd like to close by saying i think the case is clear. i appreciate mr. nadler for working with me. i really want to say thanks to senator widen over in the senate

and senator lee in the senate for really being champions of this on the senate side, and i want to thank the unusual cohort of colleagues here, where we have lofgren, jayapal, jacobs, nadler, and on our side chairman jim jordan, andy biggs, thomas massie and i. and there are so few things today that everyone agrees on. when you've got the political spectrum covered from those angles, i think that hopefully the american people will see this is a reliable solution. it moved through the judiciary committee with unanimous support. we don't believe it will get unanimous support today, but i sure hope that it passes. i encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. 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, and the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number two print on the house report 118-464. for what purpose does the gentleman from will i will you seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak on behalf of my amendment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in house report 118-464, offered by mr. higgins of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1149, mr. higgins and the member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. as the underlying bill was being developed as those of us on both side of the aisle are concerned about constitutional protections

and the preservation of our representative republic, the principles of individual rights and liberties and freedoms and privacies that our representative republic relies upon, that our citizenry anticipate and expect, rightfully so, that their congress shall protect, as the underlying bill was being developed, there were concerns communicated from law enforcement citizens across the country at the local level especially, and there began an effort, a very good-faith effort across the spectrum politically here in this body to address those concerns. that's what my amendment does. the fourth amendment specifically calls for probable cause to be necessary for a warrant, particularly describing the place to be certained and

the persons or things to be seized. my amendment seeks to address concerns of law enforcement that of course have sworn an oath to protect our constitution, but we are bound by duty to protect the communities that we serve. therefore, investigations, legitimate investigations are required, consistent with that ethic, i propose my amendment to not include as a covered record the following items to ensure that law enforcement has the clarity to know that they will continue to have the tools they need to succeed. records made available to the general public on social media, this remains available to law enforcement, and that's clarified by my amendment. records made lawfully available through government records or widely distributed media.

again, this remains available to local law enforcement and is clarified in my amendment. records wherein consent has been given by the citizen or the business for the government to access for background check, this remains undisturbed and is clarified by my amendment. records generated by public or private alpr's, automated license plate recognition systems, this is a very important consideration that law enforcement was concerned about. again, my amendment clarifies and addresses the fact that this right for legitimate investigation through alpr remains undisturbed. so, mr. speaker, i encourage full support of my amendment from my colleagues. i would like to recognize my friend and colleague of the thin

blue line, congressman troy neils. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neils: i rise in strong support of mr. higgins' amendment before today, which seeks to address some of the concerns several groups have with this legislation. as someone who has served in law enforcement for nearly 30 years, i understand the concerns our brave men and women in blue have with this bill. now more than ever we must uphold law and order in our society and also ensure the fourth amendment rights of the american people are protected. that is why this amendment is so important, so important. it clarifies bad expectations for public content, public records, background checks, license plate readers in order to help preserve some of the tools law enforcement currently uses. give you an example. a kid threatens to shoot up a

school on facebook. a data collector is scanning social media for posts like this and sends it to local law enforcement. the police would be able to use this information gathered from social media under this amendment because it is public user generated information. the same applies to police records, property deeds, and other public records. we want to make crystal clear these records will remain available, will remain available for our law enforcement community to use in their investigations while also preventing unreasonable search and is he sure by the government. -- search and resure by the government. i will always back the blue, and always uphold the constitution and the rights of citizens therein. i believe this amendment allows us to do both. i would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: how much time is remaining? 15 seconds. mr. higgins: 15 seconds for the gentleman from louisiana, just about enough time to say thank you, mr. speaker. and i encourage support of my amendment. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i claim time in opposition, though i support the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, this amendment would clarify the underlying bill would not impact information publicly available, that the government has in its own databases or that the government lawfully acquires. scraping pictures and data off public social media accounts for facial recognition technology is certainly a problem. but it is not this problem.

it does us no good to late one surveillance issue with another. this legislation is intended to prohibit the purchase of data in cases where federal law enforcement would otherwise need a warrant. license plate databases, facial recognition technology platforms and advanced policing tech knolls are often powered by publicly available data. we are not here to impede government access to data that is public or that law enforcement already contains in its databases. while i have serious concerns about the irresponsible deployment of advanced policing technologies, those are fights for another day. i thank the gentleman for his amendment. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it. and i yield two minutes -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, print in house report 118-464. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: printed in house report 118-464, offered by mr. lalota of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1149, mr. wilson and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognized the gentleman from new york. mr. lalota: indeed, mr. speaker, the fourth amendment should not be for sale. we agree on that. that is to say our government should not be able to buy from a third party information about an american citizens that it could otherwise not obtain without a warrant. so of course the title of the bill, the fourth amendment is

not for sale is compelling. we are all agree. yet the language of the bill does not coincide with the title of the bill. the bill without amendment is somewhere between innocently misleading and a full-on fourth amendment bait and switch. my amendment would narrowly tailor the bill to include searches an and seizures normaly covered. the fourth amendment states the right of the people to be secure in their person's houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." so let's agree, congress should restrict the government from via a third party searching or seizing persons that it should not otherwise search or seize without a warrant. we should all agree on that.

everyone in the house, freedom caucus to the squad and everybody else should agree on that. if that's what the bill actually said, the bill would likely sail through the house without any real legitimate opposition, because government should not be able to contract out its violation of our fourth amendment protections. yet, without my amendment, the bill would prevent our law enforcement officers from utilizing information currently publicly available, information that is accessible without a need for fighting, without a need for a warrant in fighting crime. this conference, this republican conference backs the blue. it is part of our commitment to america to keep america safe. unfortunately, the bill without my amendment breaks out of commitment and would prevent law enforcement from using everyday tools which do not violate any americans' fourth amendment rights.

. my amendment would clarify that any information obtained would not include any information lawfully obtainable without a warrant. if my amendment is adopted the name of the bill would fit then. then the bill would give more weight and confidence to our nation's fourth amendment. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this would create exceptions for government purchase of data that an agecy can obtain without a warrant. i'm sure my colleague means well but i worry this will create confusion in the long run rather than clarify an area where we both agree. i agree the government should continue accessing information it can already access without a warrant. but we should be closing the door on government purchasing of third party data period.

first it's unclear how a purchase for only that information that government can purchase would work. second, when section 2703 of the electronic communications privacy act which this bill amends, was passed back many 1986, the internet was in its naysency. at that time there were few, if any, data brokers purchasing data and selling it to the government. i'm confident if they existed then, third party data sales would have been included in the prohibition against service providers sharing their data with the government without a warrant. as i said, i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do butky not agree with this approach. i oppose the amendment. i encourage my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new york -- mr. lalota: i'm prepared to close.

mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davidson: i thank the gentleman. i strongly oppose mr. lalota's amendment he was makes a great point, we all want to stand with law enforcement that's a unifying position for republicans and i think most democrats want to support them as well. nothing in this bill prohibits them from doing their job. the fourth amendment is a restriction on government activity, though. they're already used to getting warrants for all kinds of things. the novelty is the way they acquire data to avoid getting a warrant or subpoena. in fact, under the electronic communications privacy act and communications act, they're required to get a court order. this amendment doesn't make it clear that this is an effort to expand that and say you don't have to do that anymore. it's an expansion of surveillance without a warrant instetted of -- instead of the purpose of the bill so it is hostile to the entire purpose of the bill. it guts the core of the protection that's meant to be,

you know, restored here. and so for that reason, i oppose mr. lalota's amendment and strongly encourage our colleagues to do the same so that we can pass a very functional fourth amendment is not for sale act and restore the infringed right to privacy that americans need restored. i yield back. mr. nadler: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. lalota: i'm prepared to close. mr. nadler: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, has the right to close. you are recognized. mr. lalota: thank you, mr. speaker. we cannot say we support law enforcement officers and take away the tools they need to do their job. my amendment would strike a proper balance between ensuring our government does not use a third party to violate the fourth amendment while the same time preserving the ability for law enforcement to do its job.

without adopting my amendment, this bill will make it almost impossible for state, local, and federal law enforcement to investigate crime. we should be making it easier for law enforcement to do their job, rather than tying one hand mind their back while at the same time we should protect against government's warrantless searches and seizures of american citizens. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. nadler: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. we all support the police. we all support criminal investigations. but we all support, we hope, the fourth amendment. the requirement to get a warrant of probable cause in order to search something or somebody. this bill is to avoid an end run around that by the government

purchasing information from data brokers for which they should need a warrant. this amendment would cut that -- would gut that and destroy the whole noimp by the bill is essential to protecting liberty and protecting the protections of the fourth amendment. i urge defeat of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the nays have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. lalota: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment buffered -- on this amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek

recognition? mr. davidson: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the smogs adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 4639, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4639 and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 149, i call up the bill h.r. 6046 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6046, a bill to designate insarallah as a

foreign terrorist organization and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1149, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on foreign affairs, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 11-29 shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of foreign affairs or their respective designee. the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

mr. mccaul: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their rashes and include extraneous material on this measure. i ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record exchanges of letters with other committees of referral on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccaul: i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: we are here today because of the egregious errors of the biden administration. the biden administration's failed policies have emboldened the houthi rebels that the eexpense of our regional partners by projecting weakness on the world stage this administration has invited aggression. the houthis were previously designated as a foreign terrorist organization, f.t.o., especially designated global terrorist organization.

then secretary of state mike pompeo issued both designations in january, 2021. this was in response to the houthis' violent takeover of yemen's capital, years civil war and wide scale suppression of yemeni civilians as well as hundreds of cross-border etas on saudi arabia and the united aremember emirates. the houthis ons took this entire campaign of -- undertook this entire campaign of destruction with the backing of iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism. regrettably, the incoming biden administration removed the two terrorist designations even though houthis continued to traffic in terror. removing these designations with no concessions only emboldened the houthi rebels. after this designation was removed, the houthis breached the former u.s. embassy compound in yemen. after the biden administration

removed that designation. they forcibly detained several current and former u.s. embassy locally employed staff and international aid workers. and houthi cross-border attacks against saudi arabia doubled compared to the previous year. but the houthis' terrorist activities reached new heights after hamas' october 7, 2023, terror attack on israel. since then, the houthis with the support of iran and their hezbollah proxies have undertake on a deadly and disruptive campaign. they have launched over 100 missiles and drone attacks on global shipping in the red sea and the gulf of aden. the houthi missiles and drone attacks have sunk a ship. they have hijacked a ship and continue to hold its crew hostage.

iran and hezbollah are, according to declassified u.s. intelligence, directly involved in the houthi campaign against international shipping. these disruptions pose a serious threat to the global economy. ships are rerouted around the horn of africa, adding approximately 10 days in additional travel time, and up to $1 million in fuel costs. and insurance premiums for ships using the red sea has increased 10-fold. the united states and our international partners have responded with military force to defend against the incoming attacks. and in some cases undertaken strikes on houthi military infrastructure in yemen. but we need to be exerting all forms of pressure and deterrence on the houthis to stop these attacks. we cannot ignore the houthis' true nature, their slogan, mr. speaker, is death to america,

death to israel. curse on the jews. victory to islam. they are a terrorist organization. and must be designated as such. this will ensure that all forms of support the hue toes -- houthis are subject to sanctions or criminal penalties. while the biden administration reimposed the special global terrorist designation it has carveouts that weakened the impact and essentially rendered it useless. the stakes are too high, mr. speaker. think about last saturday night when iran fired missiles and drones, over 300 of them, into israel, the first time in history that israel's fired rockets out of iran into the state of israel.

we must take action. and that's why this bill directs the secretary to redesignate the houthis as an f.t.o. with no exceptions and no carveouts. the houthis are waging an all-out war on global commerce and freedom of navigation. iran is bankrolling them. if the united states and international communities do not respond, we are, in essence, yielding to the demands of the terrorists. we are emboldening them and empowering them. the biden administration's weakness invited further houthi aggression, now it is up to the congress to act to preserve our national security. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized.

violating international their disruptive campaign has not only endangered merchant vessels but also united states personnel with the clear clear e of intention that said, i believe that this legislation is

the wrong approach. the biden administration has undertaken the correct approach. in response to the houthi's unprecedented attack in the red sea, the administration, as it does, we don't do things by ourselves, he worked multilaterally with more than 40 countries to curb the houthi behavior while not escalating tension in the middle east. the administration has targeted military strikes on houthi targets and implemented specifically specially designated global terrorist sanctioneds with appropriate humanitarian provisions. working collectively with our allies, not america alone is the way that we win this battle. that is the correct route, not

this measure, which does not address the houthi threat. instead, it undermines the united states national security objectives in the region and endangers innocent yemenis who are already on the brink of perishing. first, h.r. 6046 mandate does not include humanitarian provisions, thereby unnecessarily punishing millions of yemeni civilians. this would create a scenario in which commercial vessels and humanitarian organizations would not be able to continue to provide life-saving goods to many yemenis due to severe criminal penalties they incure for doing so. after nearly a decade of brutal war, the majority of the yemenese, nearly half of them

children, face serious malnutrition and millions more yemenese remain on the brink of starvation. this legislation would only deepen the humanitarian crisis at a time when aid is most needed. that is why a broad coalition of n.g.o.'s and humanitarian organizations oppose an f.t.o. designation without humanitarian provisions. and while some may point to existing general licenses or provisions as a mitigating factor, the legal implications of a f.t.o. designation and the sweeping consequences it entails without regard to type of activity or transaction rendered such licenses moot without any such new statutory

authorizations or exemptions. secondly, this designation would also undercut important ongoing diplomatic efforts by the united states, the u.n., and european countries to achieve deescalation in the region. the world, together. that's how, and that's the right thing to do. and finally, mr. speaker, this bill is theatrical. it will have no real-world impact on the houthi behavior, zero, none, nada. but it will likely serve as a public relations win and a recruiting fodder for the movement. while at the same time the people that would be punished are the yemenese, those innocent children, women, and men.

and it is unnecessary, this and any future administration already has the authority to implement such a designation per section 219 of the immigration and nationality act. for these reasons and others, i urge my colleagues not to support h.r. 6046, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i yield six minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. clyde, a member of the committee on appropriations, and the author of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for six minutes. mr. clyde: thank you, chairman mccaul. thank you for your leadership on this bill as well. it's greatly appreciated. i'm grateful that we're considering my bill h.r. 6046 the standing against houthi aggression act today. this legislation would reimpose the foreign terrorist organization designation on the iran-backed houthis, as well as

reinstate additional sanctions against the group. the houthis have long been a source of terror and violence, not only to yemen, but to the whole region. and yet for incalculable reasons, the biden administration refuses to call them what they are. they are terrorists. president donald trump rightfully classified the houthis as a foreign terrorist organization in january of 2021 after a series of heinous attacks against civilians. however, in a shocking and politically motivated retraction, the biden administration reversed president trump's decision just one month later, further empowering the iran-backed houthis in their acts of terror. the houthis have carried out a series of ongoing attacks in recent months, including ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks against international shipping vessels in the red sea. the attacks began last year when houthi forces landed a helicopter on a cargo vessel and seized the crew.

since then there have been more than 40 attacks on commercial ships by the houthi rebels. we express our deep gratitude to the brave men and women of the u.s.s. carney, who who have taken defensive measures against the houthi anti-ship ballistic missiles on multiple occasions to safeguard the waters of the gulf of aidan. tragically, two navy seals were recently lost at sea and later declared ceased after a u.s. operation to intervene and seized iranian weapons being transported to the houthis. american blood has been spilt because of the houthi terrorists. over this past weekend, the houthis joined iran's assault on our greatest ally in the middle east, israel. while the israeli iron dome and the united states central command thankfully intercepted 99% of the project tiles, the houthis growing aggressives represent a danger in the region n. response to these ongoing attacks, the biden

administration felt pressured, and so they recognized that they had to do something, so they designated the mouth he auto movement as a specially designated global terrorist group in january, but this lower tier designation is simply not enough. it comes nowhere close to matching the force of a foreign terrorist organization designation. president trump designated the houthis as both, and they should be both designations. the foreign terrorist organization designation has provided in this bill goes much further, allowing for special criminal penalties for material support like military supplies, immigration restrictions, and the ability for victims to seek recognition. h.r. 6046 would require the houthis receive the foreign terrorist organization designation within 90 days after the enactment of this bill. the houthis' intentions are abundantly clear.

but by passing my bill, we make our intentions perfectly clear, that the united states does not bargain with nor capitulate to terrorist regimes much as sponsor of this legislation, i urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to house resolution 6046, the standing against houthi aggression act, to forcefully show that there will be consequences for the houthis' egregious act 67 terror. thank you, and i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. gat from new york is recognized. -- the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i have no further speakers, ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from, it, it is recognized. the gentleman from texas is raped. mr.: mccaul, i yield minutes to georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes.

>> i rise today ■insupport of 6046, the stand against houthi aggression act, which i am proud to be a cosponsor of. mr. carter: quite frankly, mr. speaker, i'm appalled that i have to say this, but the president of the united states has emboldened iran to attack our greatest ally in the middle east and the only democracy in that region, israel. in february of 2021, the biden administration removed the houthis from the u.s. list of foreign terrorist organizations. this was a terrible, terrible misjudgment that mirrors this administration's complete lack of authority on issues of national and international security. iranian-backed terrorist organizations have repeatedly, repeatedly proven that they will carry out the iranian regime's radical islamic idea owology to no ends. this weekend was a sobering reminder of that. it's time to hold iran and its proxies accountable for their

actions. this requires that the u.s. take a firmer stance against iran's state-sponsored terrorism. the stand against houthi aggression act places the houthis back on the list of foreign terrorist organizations where they should have been all along. and it opposes immediate, immediate sanctions on any individual associated with the group. if president biden refuses to lead, i hope this body will step up in his absence to fight against antisemitism and state-sponsored terrorism. anything less than that, mr. speaker, is unacceptable. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meek: thank you, mr. chairman.

h.r. 6046, which forced the the administration to designate the houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, without humanitarian provisions and consequently make the humanitarian crises in yemen even more dire. now, mr. clyde says that the biden administration doesn't want to call the houthis what they are. but let me read what they are and sanctioned already. they are a specially designated global terrorist. that's what the biden administration said. and the difference between the two, being a sgdt, as owe poised to f.t.o., is one allows

humanitarian aid in and the other doesn't. this bill would have significant adverse impacts, creating a situation in which humanitarian organizations and commercial shippers would be reluctant to provide food, aid, and medical equipment to yemen out of fear of the severe criminal consequences this bill would impose. it does nothing, really, to change the houthis' behavior. it just hurts innocent yemenese people. so i support the administration's efforts to counter houthi actions with targeted military strikes and the implementation of that

specially designated global terrorist sanction, which includes the humanitarian provisions that this bill lacks. this is by far the better path toward ceasing hostile houthi actions. the biden administration approach holds the houthis responsible for their violent, destabilizing oxes without deepening the crisis for innocent themmennee citizens. so i'm going to stand with a broad coalition of g.n.o.'s and humanitarian organizations and those that understand the well and the richness of human life trying to save human beings.

. not turning ourbacks on them. not with a piece of legislation that will do nothing to the hue toes or change their behavior. so all of these n.g.o.'s, all of these humanitarian organizations, oppose an f.t.o. designation without humanitarian provisions. so i encourage my colleagues to do the same. we should make sure that the n.g.o.'s and the humanitarian organizations are able to help save innocent lives. so i oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, let me just say, i learned one thing in my 20 years here. and a history major as well. it repeats itself. you know, if you message weakness, that invites aggression, conflict, anwar. if you project strength you have peace. whether it be israel, whether it be ukraine, whether it be china and their am bigs with taiwan, we are projecting weakness. and now we're seeing around the world our global hotspots. the world is on fire now, mr. speaker. these fires lit by a policy of appeasement. when they lifted the f.t.o. designation on the houthi rebels, there's a direct cause and effect. i respect my good friend from the other side of the aisle but messaging counting. deterrence does count.

what happened after the biden administration lifted the terrorist designation? we had cross borders on saudi arabia that doubled to over 400 attacks, more than 180 on international shipping and they're shutting down the red sea and commerce. we are just only in em-- we are just only emboldening and unfortunately the policy in the middle east has always been to appease and accommodate iran so maybe iran will one day sit down and we can break bread and have this glorious iran deal. now i'm an idealist. and an optimist. but i'm also a realist and pragmatic in my world view. that's not going to happen. and what have we seen? the biden administration lifted sanctions on energy. $80 billion in energy sold to china. $80 billion going to iran to

kill, for terror operations, through their proxies. $80 billion to send missiles and rockets and drones to russia to kill ukrainians. and it's all connected. those three. our adversaries and our enemies. all three of them. this is not the time to be sending a message of weakness. to the largest state sponsor of terror. to do so will only invite more aggression. we also have let go and waived sanctions on the drones and missiles manufactured by iran. that just went away. now iran can sell their drones and missiles wherever they want. putting more money into iran for their terror operations. i can go on and on. we know what's happening.

we saw what happened last saturday, the reign of terror. thank god we have provided, the united states, the moneys for the iron dome, david's sling and the arrow which brought down 99% of these attacks were actually brought down and stopped and intercepted. because of this partnership against terror. so i would say to our service members defending freedom of navigation, right now, in the red sea, against the threat of houthi rockets that they intercept every day, and for the other side to say it's in the connected to iran. just defies our u.s. intelligence community. we know exactly where it's coming from. they are the proxies. iran, the ayatollah, the head of the snake. and the proxies are the tentacles. it's time to deal with the tentacles and it's also time to cut the head of the snake off.

with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. pursuant to house resolution 1149, the previous question is ordered and the bill as a-- on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to designate ansarallah as a terrorist organization and impose sanctions on ansarallah and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. mccaul: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered and pursuant to clause 8

of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, seek recognition? mr. mccaul: pursuant to house resolution 1149, i call up the bill h.r. 4691 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4691, a bill to provide for congressional review of action it is terminate or waive sanctions imposed with respect to iran. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1149, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rule committee printed 118-30, is department and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debated for one hour, equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs or their respective designees. the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, each control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. mr. mccaul: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccaul: i ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record exchanges of letters with other committees of referral on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccaul: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: even after the trump administration rightfully withdraw from the dangerous joint comprehensive plan of action or jcpoa, the biden administration entered office committed to pursuing a new nuclear deal with iran.

throughout this administration's dealings with iran, it was abundantly clear that iran was taking advantage of the administration's blind commitment to negotiations just for the sake of negotiating. a nuclear iran is not acceptable, full stop. however, throughout 2021, 2022, the biden administration continued to push negotiations even as iran escalated its nuclear provocations. iran suspended compliance with the iaea, additional protocol. iran installed new advance centrifuges. iran increased its uranium stockpile toward enrichment. iran refused to cooperate with an iaea investigation. in fact, i met with the director of the iaea in his office in europe and he said that the iranians had a cyber attack on their office and stole all their

documents pertaining to their investigations dealing with compliance from iran on the sites. that is not a good sign of good faith. you can't negotiate with somebody like that. but still, they are intent on getting this nuclear deal done. it became very clear that they are desperate to reach a deal even if it was a bad deal. the irony, mr. speaker, is this. the very individual charged by congress and the administration, the special envoy to iran, mr. mallory, is under f.b.i. investigation for violations of his security clearance. that is our top negotiator. to iran. and my colleagues and i have been gravely concerned that this administration would lift iranian sanctions in exchange for insufficient limitations on

iran's nuclear program. these concerns created a more severe, again, after rob mallory came under f.b.i. investigation which the state department failed to notify congress. when i invited him to testify about the iran deal i was told he was not available. and now we know why. it's deeply disturbing that the united states government no longer trusts the one who is spearheading our negotiations with an enemy regime. we can't afford any strategic miscalculations when it comes to iran. again, as i said in the prior debate, deterrence is key. and the only -- and you only deter and get peace through projecting strength. these include easing -- include strengthening our economic sanctions while they have eased them. every dollar that goes to the iranian regime in any form has the potential to be dead lay.

and the events of this past weekend demonstrate that. iran launched over 350 missile and drone attacks on our ally in israel. unprecedented in history. israel, the united states, and other partners intercepted 99% of these weapons. iran is not 10 feet tall. but that's why this legislation is so important. congress and the american people need an opportunity to review any proposed plans to lift sanctions, especially the ones that congress has mandated on this rogue regime. this bill which i want to thank my good friend mr. self on the foreign affairs committee, also if the great state of texas, this bill requires the president to report congress on any plans to terminate or waive sanctions on iran. it codifies a process for congress to conduct oversight.

of these proposed waivers and terminations. we have that power. under article i of the constitution. when they waive sanctions that congress passed, they're not notifying us. we deserve that right. and we have responsibility to keep the american people safe. and that requires the executive branch and congress to work together to determine the national security interests of the united states. congress must have a say in any attempt to broker any kind of deal with iran. with that, i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hex: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 4691. as i've explained during committee consideration, i have serious concerns about what this bill means to the overall

practice of american foreign policy and therefore must oppose it. some think diplomacy is weak and the only way you show strength is go to war. we've heard from generals that if war was the only option we had on he -- had on the table it would cost us much more in bullets and armor and that diplomacy helps the -- helps the military. in fact, i would say it is strength. anybody can say i'm going to fight. and it's strength in trying to negotiate and dealing with diplomacy. if that should fail, going to war should be your last alternative. diplomacy and people in the state department who exercise it

is absolutely essential and strength and brings others with us so that we're not out there by ourselves. working in a multilateral way. it is hard for any member, particularly me as ranking member, to be opposed to a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight. of sensitive foreign policy issues. but in the specific case of this bill as drafted, were it to be signed into law, i believe it would damage america's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. and here's why. here's why. when dealing with our enemies, a strong diplomatic corps and a strong military are both necessary to achieve our goals.

in the specific case of iran, they can clearly see from our consistent joint military exercises regional deployments and last weekend's missile defense that we mean business. our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. case in point, the successful implementation was verifiably cut off all pathways to an iranian bomb, the dangers of nuclear movement we now find ourselves in where iran has stockpiled highly enriched uranium and is limiting the access of inspectors is the direct result of the short-sided cancellation of diplomatic agreement. the iranian nuclear threat has

never been more dangerous than right now. and again, when we had the jcpao working in a multilateral way with our other allies and even at that point two who are not allies, and when you speak to most individuals, iaea included who had eyes on what was taking place in iran, once we pulled out and stopped using diplomacy, they have no eyes now, which is why iran is more dangerous today than it was when they were in this agreement. so the united states must keep diplomacy on the table as a tool

to address the iranian threat. if this proposed bill is set into law, iranian negotiations will know and allied negotiators will know that the executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot independently make decisions. our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. other parties, friend or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions implementation and become a subject to a motion of disapproval. carefully negotiated multilateral agreements, risk becoming subject to partisanship, where? right here in the united states house of representatives in congress. such an action is worrisome and also without precedent. i also believe that this bill

directly interferes with the process, the bipartisan agreement currently in statute to provide congress the ability to approve or disapprove a negotiated nuclear agreement. diplomatic agreements with iran are already subject to congressional review as a whole. this bill goes far beyond that statute. even if the united states congress cleared an iran deal through a comprehensive process, sanctions implementation would once begun become subject to binding congressional review, risking the agreement itself. this legislation could also harm efforts to de-escalate tensions with iran, shy of a comprehensive agreement. if this or a future administration tried to negotiate a short-term

diplomatic agreement or nuclear or other issues, such a regional troop -- such as regional troop protection, this legislation would interfere with that process. i'd also like to make a more general point about sanctions that i believe this congress sometimes forgets. i feel i have to make over and over and over again nowadays in this congress. sanctions, guess what, folks, sanctions are meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. you don't keep a sanction if the goal has been achieved. our nuclear sanctions were not passed to foment regime change in iran, no matter how much we hoped they were. they were designed to drive iran

to the table to negotiate an end to their nuclear weapons program. and if we reach the agreement that clears an area, one that cuts off pathways to a nuclear weapon, we have to live up to our end of the agreement. legislation like this one is designated to thwart our obligations, damaging our diplomatic flexibility and trustworthiness if we care about diplomacy. now, maybe we don't care about diplomacy. i think that's the wrong way to go. but i think that we should very much care about diplomacy. finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a policy vis-a-vis russia. that is inaccurate. the scope of russian sanctions is much smaller.

for instance, national emergencies past and present are included in this proposed bill, but not in casta. the new russian sanctions aren't covered in casta, and any new iran e.o. would be. there are also many sanctioneds in casta where there's no congressional review. this bill, however, would apply to the entire universe of iran's sanctions. and finally, casta mechanisms were established specifically to deal with russian interference in the 2026 presidential election. it wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate diplomacy, as this bill will do. my friends and colleagues who must look beyond iran before going down this road, i've been around here 26 years, and i know

that if passed into law this type of policy will not stop with iran. if this were to become law, it will only be a matter of time before the lifting of any sanction, no matter how small, would be subject to a congressional vote. it is our duty to provide the authority and the appropriations for effective foreign policy, not to undermine diplomacy in this manner. we cannot have 535 secretaries of states in the negotiating room. it never happens that way. you do not negotiate that way. diplomacy does not work that way. so i say please think, think carefully before steering us down this road. think what it means. if you think diplomacy is

important. if you don't think diplomacy is important and the only thing that is important is going to war, then we have a difference of opinion. so with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, madam speaker. i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. self, a member of the committee on foreign affairs and the author of the bill as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. self: i rise in support of h.r. 4691, my bill. in response to the surprisingly bellicose comments by the ranking member, madam speaker, no one wants to go to war with iran. but when the iranian regime chants "death to america" or "death to israel," america's response must be swift with immediate deterrence. while i cannot compare to the

chairman and the ranking members' years in this body, i did spend many years as a military planner, and i will tell you i agree with president reagan. we know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. a case in point, iran's massive attack on israel just days ago. make no mistake, the biden administration has covertly fueled iran's global sponsorship of terrorism. three times in the last year the administration signed off on a sanctions waiver to iran, unlocking $10 billion that were previously frozen. then in september, the president agreed to give $6 billion to iran in exchange for hostages. lifting sanctioneds freed up billions of dollars that iran used to support terrorist

proxies such as hezbollah, the houthi rebels, and hamas. shockingly, after hamas terrorists savagely murdered 1,200 israelis on october 7, the white house refused to correct course. before president biden was sworn into office before president biden was sworn into office, iran had $4 pillion in foreign reserves. -- had $4 billion in foreign reserves. that number today is $70 billion. again, $4 billion before, $70 billion today. congress was never involved in these decisions. and this is the only most recent tip of the iceberg. let's not forget obama's iran deal, which most agree was a disaster. the joint comprehensive plan of action, otherwise known as the jcpao, was a plan of action to benefit iran. the jcpoa did not end the

nuclear weapon production, but lifted sanctions, including access to at least $50 billion in liquid assets. later in 2017, congress passed a sanctions bill against the areas overlooked in the iran deal by an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. there is no reason to allow the white house to override congress by providing sanctioneds relief to the number one donor to hezbollah, the houthi rebels, and hamas. my bill, the iran sanctions relief review act, will prevent just that. this legislation establishes a detailed procedure for congress to review any action by the president to terminate, waive, or modify sanctions on iran. under the bill, the president must report to congress on any proposed sanctions relief, and the reasons for the change in

policy. congress must not allow the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to get a pay day as it continues to spread its maligned influence on a global scale. madam speaker, congress must rein in the actions of a lawless president. congress must reassert article one authority, and i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. mccaul: i'm prepared to close after the ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, madam speaker. i think everyone has heard by now how important diplomacy is. i think that we should show it in our budget.

i'm a firm believer in diplomacy. fact of the matter, a direct quote from general mattis was, if you don't fund the state department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition ultimately. and i guess my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle just want to buy ammunition, and that's why the state department is continually being cut. because they don't really focus on or put diplomacy on the same level. and that's what's happening here with this bill. this bill would significantly impede america's ability to conduct effective diplomacy with iran. by requiring that any adjustment in the sanctions implementation being subject to a joint motion

of disapproval, the bill would undermine diplomacy in u.s. negotiations, the negotiators, and makes clear to anyone sitting across from them on the table that's the negotiating table, not the battlefield, where we hope we don't have to go, but we are prepared and have shown that we're ready to do it if we must, and that's discussed first at a negotiating table. but this will also let them, when they're at the table, those that are sitting across that table, that they have no authority to relax on just sanctions. . it was subject to negotiations to undo congressional

partisanship. can anyone deny what we see happening on this floor and what is happening in this 118th congress, partisanship plays a huge role and we can't get anything done. you call that partisanship? iran would know this. in fact, our allies would know this. tied up, partisanship, would only weaken our position. only compromisees the agility to quiet to address international threats and opportunities. moreover, the stipulation of this bill undermine the very

purpose of sanctions, which are intended as tools to bring nations like iran to the negotiating table. not as a permanent punitive measure. but if they do something where they are disregarding and not working together and are aggressive at that negotiating table, we are letting them know that we are ready or have the capability to do it. this bill hurts diplomacy. it hurts trying to make sure that we are driving others to the negotiating table. so as general mad us said, he doesn't have to buy more bullets. let's fund the state department. let's promote and speak good

dlep will of diplomacy. it is the best way to move forward in a multi lateral way with our allies. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i agree with some of the things my good friend has said. diplomacy is extremely important. we deal with it on the committee all the time. it's called soft power. and then we have hard power. we sign off on foreign military weapons' sales. and diplomacy at all costs need to be tried, but when the diplomats fail, often we go to war or have conflict. the question before us is, two-fold. one, has iran negotiated in good

faith such that we would both waive or not enforce or let expire sanctions many of them passed by congress. second question is, article 1 authorities under the constitution. all we are simply asking for is when we pass the sanction or the administration does so, that they notify congress. i tell you why this is important. for months, i tried to get robert maali, our special envoy to iran into the committee to testify on this iran deal. guess what? they refused to come testify. why? because he was under investigation by the f.b.i. for potential violation of his security clearance. this great iran deal that they talk about has only brought iran

closer to a nuclear bomb, closer to weapons' grade uranium. they could go to 90% in days. if they get a nuclear war them head from russia or north korea, they will become a nuke car state and we cannot that happen. it also, they failed to declare nuclear sites in iran. they take out investigators from the iaea. and one of the most horrific displays of bad faith in negotiations, you know what they did, a cyberattack on the iaea to steal their documents relating to their investigations on the very sites that the jcpoa was supposed to allow them to examine. then they blocked the inspectors from having access to these

sites. i'm all for negotiating. i'm all for diplomacy. i don't think the eye tolla is a good faith partner and has our best interest. when they chant death to america, death to israel, the little satan, the big satan, they are closer to a bomb than they have ever been. all we're saying is, mr. speaker, before you waive sanctions that congress passed or not enforced sanctions, just let us know. i don't think that's a big deal. mali wouldn't testify before congress and we didn't know why, because they were hiding it from us and didn't want us to know about the f.b.i. investigation until the press reported it and we found out from the press, not from the administration, but from the press. but let's look at some of the

sanctions they let expire and they have waived and you tell me if that makes sense. the sanctions on energy, exporting energy to china, the majority going to china. we are allowing this action is of evil, to work with iran exporting energy $80 billion from china went into iran to fund the very missiles and rockets and drones that we saw last saturday night. first attack from israel from iran into israel in the history. then they let the u.n. sanctions on exports to other countries for their missiles and drones to expire. now we have a bill to reinstate those sanctions.

the very same drones and missiles that was used to attack israel last saturday night. the very same drones and missiles that had been bought by russia to kill ukrainians. it's all interconnected. chip's in this and ayotollah is in it and iran makes the stuff and the energy and they buy from them to put the money in iran to rain terror. i think it only fair that the american people through their representatives under article 1 have the opportunity to even know when they are doing this and not operate behind a vale of see creasy. when a republican president gets into office, what will the democrats say then if they were hiding things on sanctions and

investigations? i think we will hear the same argument that we're making on this side that congress -- and this is this is not a partisan issue. we have every right to know this especially the sanctions that we pass in congress and we always put a presidential waiver in these things, but remember northward stream 2, we put a presidential waiver. nobody thought that a president would wairve sanctions on a pipeline to put europe in the state of dependency on energy. and look how that worked one out. did we know about it in advance? no. that didn't work out so well. right after afghanistan, putin, russian federation and ukraine. he's looking at taiwan. we've tried. we tried acting in good faith

with them and they are not acting in good faith with us and the american people and its representatives and the congress, i say have a right to know. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to house resolution 1149, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide congressional review to terminate actions with respect to iran. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, on that, i request the yeas and

nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. self, seek recognition? mr. self: pursuant to house resolution 1149 i call up the bill h.r. 5947 and ask for its

immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. >> h.r. 5947 a bill to provide for rescission of certain waivers and licenses relating to iran and for other purposes. pursuant to house resolution 1149 the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one here controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. the gentleman from texas, mr. self, and the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, each will control on 30 minutes. mr. self: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. self: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. self: we saw iran unleash an unprecedented missile and drone

attack on israel. iran launched 350 missiles and drones. we are incredibly fortunate that israel, the united states and other partners successfully intercepted 99% of those weapons. had they not, the damage would have been catastrophic. how did a regime that has been subject to international sanctions for decades have the resources to develop such advanced weaponry? the answer is that iran is incredibly skilled at illicit finance, and exploiting every possible loophole to fund maligned activities. time and time again, we have allowed yourselves to accept the fiction that we can issue waivers for funds to the humanitarian transactions without enabling the regime maligned activities.

we need to face facts. this is patently false. money is fungible. and the iranian regime does not care about its people as evidenced by wide-scale human rights abuses and repression. under president trump's maximum pressure campaign, iran was starved for foreign reserve currency. this forced the iranian regime to make shard choices. but with these waivers in effect, every dollar we provide the iranian regime, even if for purchases of agricultural equipment or other humanitarian uses, pres up another dollar or euro that iran's regime will spend on missiles, drones, nuclear program or its terrorist proxies. beyond the question of money being fungible, iran has a demonstrated track record of

falsifying humanitarian purchases. in fact, the department of justice has previously charged -- and i quote, facilitating transactions fraudulently designed to appear to be purchases of food and medicine by iranian customers in order to appear to fall within the so-called humanitarian exception to certain sanctions against the government of iran, when, in fact, no purchases of food or medicine actually occurred. end quote. enough is enough. with this bill, h.r. 5947, we are eliminating the sanctions waivers tied to the $6 billion in iranian funds and restricted accounts in qatar and tied to the $10 billion iran has received from iraq in like that payments. it is too dangerous to allow iran continued access to these

funds even with the nominal restrictions on how they are used. i urge my colleagues in i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meek: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meeks: i rise in strong opposition of h.r. 5947. this legislation may be short, but it's equally short-sighted. with considerable long-term consequences. let's start with the impact this would have on iraq. this bill would rescind a waiver that currently allows iraq to pay for electricity from iran. this waiver is what allows the iraqi government to keep the lights on.

without it, massive blackouts would leave millions without electricity and cause precipitous chaos. it would hamper the stability of iraq, which it has achieved over the past several years. and i don't believe anyone in this building wants to see a return to an iraq of the past. where iraqis from previous decades suffered from never-ending wars and repression like that of the saddam hussein era. but the impact of this bill goes even further than that. it would harm and cause the iraqi people terrible consequences.

and iraq without electricity serves no american interests and would do nothing to promote our united states national security. let's remember, let's not forget, isis emerged from a chaosity iraq. isis, i'll repeat, emerged from a chaotic iraq. long-term consequences, short-term, short-sighted bill. and when isis emerged, the result was not just wide spread disorder, destruction, and violence in the middle east, but the growth of a global terrorist

movement that struck my home city and state of new york, orlando, and san bernardino, as well as paris and brussels and barcelona. and yes, i agree, we absolutely need to help iraq find alternative sources of energy besides iran. but it's simply not true that iran is filling its coffers with payments from iraq. there are roughly $10 billion in iraqi payments for iranian electricity being held in escrow. and only very small portions of the money have been transferred to an account, and to which the united states has oversight. and iran can only access that

account to purchase humanitarian goods like food or medicine. none of the funds, zero, nada of the funds are going to nefarious purposes. again, we are talking about soma difference. we don't care about humanitarian causes and humanitarian aid and things of that nature. i know my side of the aisle does. human life, innocent, human life is very important. and it's also how you show what our values are. this bill would risk our ability to have oversight and control of the $6 billion in iranian funds we are monitoring in qatar, and much more. this measure would have the opposite effect of what it

intends to do. leading to less control of iranian assets. so i'm deeply concerned that this bill removes all flexibility from our current iran sanctions program. the point of sanctions, again, is to bring iran back to, as i've said over and over on the various bills we've had today, the negotiating table. the negotiating table. sanctions are not an end, but a means to an end. a diplomatic path, i say again, is the best path, and this measure removes the flexibility necessary for that strategic objective and utilization of diplomacy. let me say a quick word about

process. yes, we need to respond to global events, and that is judge i supported seven iran-related measures on the floor yesterday, just yesterday. and while i disagree with some of the other bills on the floor today, at least those pieces of legislation received proper committee consideration. and yes, we do on the foreign affairs committee practice what i believe is some diplomacy. my friend and chairman, michael mccaul, and i talk. we give a chance to try to work it out first. sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. these bills never gave us a chance to do that.

process. this bill did not follow that process. it has not been marked up by the foreign affairs committee or, for that matter, the financial services committee, or, for that matter, the ways and means committee, or, for that matter, the oversight and accountability committee. even though every single one received a referral on this bill. process. you know, in my tenure as the former chair of the foreign affairs committee, now the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, this week is the first time ever that we are considering a bill under a rule

that had not gone through the committee process. not only in my time as a chair or ranking member, but almost an entire 25 years that i've been on the committee. this is, i believe, a very unfortunate precedent that we're setting here. if we actually want to support, i know i do fully, our ally israel, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan senate national security aid bill that would send important funds to israel so that they could defend themselves against iranian aggression as well as, of course, supporting our friends in ukraine and taiwan and

providing necessary humanitarian assistance, and i know we're going into negotiating, which is ok, but we know that, and we're going to try to figure out some of the things i'm hearing. but what we should be doing, what really is necessary right now, given the need of our allies is just pass a bipartisan vote, bill, 70 members of the senate in a bipartisan way passed it, it's waiting for us to vote on it. now, many of us, i think at least over 300 of us, will agree. if that bill just had the light of day on the floor, because our ukrainian friends are at desperate end. they need assistance right now. what took place in the middle east, the strikes against

israel, they need the money right now. our taiwanese friends need the money right now. and innocent individuals in gaza need -- and around the world, sudan -- need the assistance right now. if today we put that bill on the floor and let congress do its will, it would be on the desk of the president of the united states either later this evening or first thing tomorrow. signed into law. and our allies that we claim we care for would get the aid and assistance that they need now. that is the bill we should have been debating in february. that is the bill we should have been debating in march. that is the bill that we should be debating today, really.

not this bill. which we will have far greater impact on innocent iraqi civilians than any minuscule impact on iran. so i guess you know, i oppose this legislation. i urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. self: in order to return the attention to h.r. 5947, i yield to the gentleman, my colleague and friend from texas, mr. pfluger, a member of the energy and commerce and homeland security committees, and the author of this bill, such time as he may same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. pfluger: thank you, mr. speaker. the theme that we're talking about right now is a complete

overturning of a maximum pressure campaign on iran from 2017 through the end of 2020. and in 2021, we began a new theme, and that theme was appeasement. appeasement of iran, appeasement of its policies, an overturning of the jcpoa. a message to the world that we trust you, iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the globe. we don't think you're going to do anything. and that strategy has clearly not worked. i want to go back in time to september 11, 2023, and instead of mourning our nation and standing firm against terrorism, the president of the united states took the anniversary of 9/11 as an opportunity to give iran the world's leading sponsor of terrorism a $6 billion

present. it's no coincidence that shortly following this foreign policy, the iranian-backed terror group hamas was emboldened to launch an attack against our democratic ally, israel, murdering over 1 1,hundred innocent civilians and abducting some hostages, some of whom still remain inside gaza. is the six months following those attacks on the fate of the morning of october 7, iran's proxies, hamas, they believe, the houthis, the shia militia groups and others, have continued carrying out terrorist attacks against israel and as e cross the middle east, culminating in iran's direct and unprecedented attack this past weekend against israel. when it comes to foreign policy, the theme that i mentioned, turning away from maximum

pressure, turning away from holding a hard line and one towards appeasement, the president has gotten it wrong every single time. in fact, on september 10, 2001, one day before the attacks on 9/11, september 10, 2001, then-senator joe biden criticized president bush's proposed missile defense system as "dangerous and potentially disastrous and that it weakens us." no, in reality, president biden's decades-long strategy of appeasement is what weakens us. his choices have made our country less safe. they've resulted in the disastrous afghanistan withdrawal. they've emboldened our adversaries to attack our allies around when asked what his message to iran was in the

leadup to a possible attack on israel that we knew about, the president simply said, quote, don't. well, mr. president, they did. i agree with my colleague, the ranking member, that innocent human life is important, but i think the disagreement at this point in time is that we have had three-plus years of a strategy of appeasement that have not resulted in deterrence but weakened our interest, our allies and israel not just in the region but throughout the world. i want to talk about like that. yes, iraq needs like that. the fact is that the waiver given by secretary pompeo at the end of the trump administration that iernlg would reform its like that system and would not be needed for a long time. that was four years ago.

at what point is there accountability? at what point after waiver and waiver and waiver given do we cut the dependency and reform the system and make sure the iraqi yes citizens have what they need. this administration has taken an opposite approach. you know, when you look in the news just today, everyone around the world all the major organizations, the major nation states are considering additional sanctions on iran because they understand that apiecement doesn't work. they made decisions, g-7 and even france have made the decision to make stronger sanctions with no waivers. the theme is that president biden over three years ago made a decision to go from maximum

pressure on iran that resulted in unprecedented deterrence and peace to a strategy of appeasement and the examples are many. appeasement and weakness have led to chaos and agetion. every intelligence briefing, every national security pundit, every talking head on tv, every person who knows the same thing on this subject have said the same consistent theme, that the threat from the iranian regime towards the united states, partners and allies has only increased. and it culminated over this weekend with an unprecedented drone attack and we are so lucky that my brothers and sisters in arms, u.s. military and partner like the jordanians, the israelis, the air defense systems worked.

that the brave airmen and air defense personnel took out these drones and prevent not a single loss of life, to prevent the death of any -- anyone inside israel. unbelievable that was able to happen. the reason that we are doing this, i believe, is because the founders of this country knew that there would be a time when checks and balances had to be issued. there would be a time that we have to have a check on the executive branch because they got it wrong. this doesn't have to be a partisan exercise. in fact, i hope it's bipartisan and join together and say we don't believe in apiecement. that strategy has not worked and had 3 1/2 years to see if it works but it doesn't. now is time to check the executive branch and to pass

legislation that prevents the rescissions of these waivers, that prevents the $6 billion gift and other gifts from funding the iranian war machine, the terror war machine that is sowing chaos across the middle east and even broader in that region. if we remember back to september 11 and we know that this threat is real, let's believe the iranians when they have threatened us over the weekend. let's believe their threats, but let's not cower to their threats. let's stand strong and let's show deterrence. not a single dollar should be allowed to go to the iranian government. not a single dollar should go to the largest arbiter of terrorism on the planet. i hope my colleagues across the aisle will join in regarding our article 1 authority, will rejoin

in asserting american leadership around the globe to send a strong message not just to iran, but to other would be adversaries that we are serious about defending freedom and serious about defending israel, our greatest ally in the middle east. my legislation permanently freezes all iranian sanctioned assets and prevents the president using waiver authority including licenses and otherwise to lift sanctions. i urge my colleagues to stand strong to support this legislation, to pass 5947 to protect israel and to stop the iranian war machine. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i yield two minutes to the the gentlemanfrom

california, mr. khanna. mr. khanna: i rise today to oppose the neo con march into another war in the middle east. it is the same chorus, that time it's iran. john bolton who blundered us into iraq, now is calling for strikes on iran, all over cnn and cable news and senator marsha blackburn saying we need retaliatory strikes into iran and who could forget senator graham saying hit them hard. blow them off the map. this is foolishness. let me be clear. the american people, democrats or republicans or independents, do not want another war in the middle east. they do not want us to make the

same mistake we made in iraq. they do not trillions of our tax dollars going into foreign wars and instead demanding that we invest in jobs here at home, in child care, in health care, in america. i call today for the american people to stand up against the foreign policy blob and against the establishment and prevent them from getting us into another war in the middle east. i yield back the rest of my time. mr. meeks: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. >> i continue to reserve. no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. meeks: i strongly oppose this measure, which would remove

all flexibility to iran's sanctions program and there by strike a fatal blow to our ability to conduct nuclear diplomacy with iran. now, i have heard several times during the course of this debate about the failure of the jcpoa of which at the time the iaea had oversight. individuals were knowing what and where the nuclear material was and most of it as being said now was being moved out of the country. fact of the matter, if i recall correctly, general mat is, who

was an opponent of the jcpoa after seeing what it was doing and functioning became a proponent of the jcpoa. said it publicly. that it was a way through phloems to prevent iran have having a nuclear weapon. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with joy that the former president pulled this out of the jjcpoa. i ask what was accomplished by pulling this out? are we safer? is that what it did? because if we're safer by being pulled out, what are we talking about now? or are we in more danger?

or is iran now have a greater opportunity to get a nuclear weapon? do we know where the materials are now? it was a good thing to pull out from the jcpoa or do know less? do we have more access now since we pulled out of the jcpoa or do we have less? so why this thing of pulling out of the jcpoa was such a great thing. i am more worried today about iran getting a nuclear weapon than i was than when we were in the jcpoa. i ask my colleagues were you more worried when we were in the jcpoa than we are right now, because if i hear you are

worried right now about where iran is with a nuclear weapon and back then what we were talking about was diplomacy to try to prevent from having a nuclear weapon. are you telling me now we should just go to war? there are choices to be made here. i think we were much better off using diplomacy getting access to what was going on, watching them move nuclear material outside of the country than just saying we are going to blow you up. no oversight. nothing, no contact, no one looking in, no information, other than that they are free to do whatever the heck they want to do now. they are free to do because they

no longer have to be at the negotiating table. so are we safer now or are we safer under the jcpoa? let me say, this bill would have debater consequences across the entire middle east, particularly in iraq which this bill would focus on iranian energy and i remind us again, let's not be shortsighted, no energy, chaos in iraq, what happened before, isis was created. blackouts across iraq would sow societal chaos in iraq. does that help serve our national security objectives in the region?

i don't think so. if implemented, this bill would undermine the stability that iraq has sought to establish. is it perfect now? no. four years is a short period of time when we are trying to do some major accomplishments here. and importantly, this measure may also cost our ability to do what? to monitor and control the iranian funds in qatar and elsewhere. and we want to lose control, then you want this bill. smart sanctions. a smart sanctions policy has a purpose. it's not a blunt to reduce

regime change. that does not work and has never worked when it was used just to try to have regime change. our sections policies must be flexible and allow for the united states national security objectives to be realized through thoughtful and i use this word one more time, thoughtful diplomacy. a waiver is always necessary to that purpose. our middle east national security objectives should not be about providing what it should be. what it should be is about providing israel aid as part of our national security

supplemental and providing humanitarian aid to starving individuals. that's what it should be about. that's what we should be voting on. that's what we should be debating on, not just today, we should have done it months ago. . . . months ago. it shouldn't be about cutting off iraqis from electricity. creating chaos in the possible rise again of another terrorist group similar to isis that killed americans and allies abroad. this bill should be opposed. this bill is shortsighted. this bill doesn't accomplish what we need it to do and what

we need to do. let's vote it down. i oppose this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jacht new york yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized -- the gentleman from new york yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, again, returning our attention to the consideration of the bill at hand, h.r. 5947, congress granted these waiver authorities over a decade ago hoping that they could be used to help the iranian people without compromising our national security. what we've seen in the last 10 years is that iran cannot be trusted. these waivers failed. the jcpoa itself granted access to at least $50 billion, to the primary sponsor of terrorism around the world. since then we've seen some $70

billion, at least, given to the iranian regime by the biden administration. iran continues its dangerous, deadly buildup of weapons and other capabilities. the iranian people continue to suffer at the hands of the regime which uses evasive tactics to divert money that should be spent to on their people to support other malign activities. again, iran is the primary sponsor of terror around the world. and now our partners and allies all over the middle east are also victims of iran and its proxies. we have a responsibility to the freedom-loving people of the middle east not to be funding their oppressors. we need to revoke these waivers, we need to do it today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields. pursuant to house resolution 1149, the previous question is ordered on the bill.

the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for the rescission of certain waivers and licenses relating to iran and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to t

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span has your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these companies and more. including cox. >> koolen-de vries syndrome is extremely rare. >> hi. >> but friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox supports c-span as a public