Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Pennsylvania in condemning Iran's attack on Israel, and I also express my growing concern at this situation. I hope that President Biden continues working to de-escalate tensions. I don't think that any of us want this to turn into a broader conflict that puts even more civilians at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank President Biden because, as Commander in Chief, he ordered our military to shoot down more than 70 drones and 3 ballistic missiles that Iran launched. Because of his actions and his work to unite our allies in the region, Israeli airspace was defended, and 99 percent of the projectiles fired by Iran were intercepted.

That is real. That is concrete. That is tangible.

Listening to my friends on the other side. I think they blame Joe Biden for everything. I mean, they blame him for Iran's attack more than they blame Iran. I think they have people on their side who blame Joe Biden for the earthquake, and I think one of my friends on the other side of the aisle blamed Joe Biden for the eclipse. This is crazy.

At some point they need to stop playing the blame game and work with Democrats to address these global challenges in a thoughtful and bipartisan way. Instead of doing that, instead of bringing everybody together, what we have from Republicans is a fake response to a real crisis.

The majority dusted off a bunch of old bills, some of which have never had a hearing and have never been marked up by committee, and they are bringing them to the floor. I guess they decided the original schedule for the week would have looked bad because they originally planned to bring up bills dealing with household appliances.

You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. With all the crises going on in the world, the majority's plan this week was to bring up a bill about refrigerator freedom. Not just one bill or two bills; they had a whole week, six bills, dedicated to appliances. They wanted us to debate the Liberty in Laundry Act this week. It took an actual international emergency to get them to notice how out of touch and absurd their policy agenda is.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been saying for months and months that we need Republicans to get serious about helping our allies, and for months we have heard excuse after excuse from Republicans.

First, they said we had to wait until H.R. 2, their extreme MAGA border bill, became law. Then they changed their tune because they tanked their

own border bill. Next, they told us to wait until the Federal Government was fully funded. We did that, and the MAGA caucus moved the goalposts yet again. Then Democrats were told aid for Ukraine had to wait until the House reauthorized FISA.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Republicans are out of excuses and our allies are out of time. Speaker Johnson's inaction has consequences. He has emboldened our adversaries and left our allies wondering: Where is America? I hear reports that he is in backroom discussions with Members to find a way forward on Ukraine funding, and I hope that we see the aid our allies need on the floor this week and that there is no partisan B.S. attached to it.

What our allies need right now aren't more empty, do-nothing exercises and political messaging like we are doing today. They need our help immediately.

These bills we are debating do not meet this moment at all. The very first thing we should have done this week is come back and debate a bipartisan bill that can provide real, tangible help to our allies. Instead, we get more wasted time, more broken promises, more useless rhetoric from this Republican majority.

Has anyone even asked the Senate if these bills are going anywhere over there, Mr. Speaker?

They passed the sanctions bill on Iran 6 months ago and haven't sent it to the Senate yet. Are they going to send any of these bills to the Senate or is this all for show, so they can send out a press release to say they did something?

Meanwhile, the world is wondering when America will get our act together and when this Republican majority is going to get their act together, stop playing politics, and start doing their job.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say I have never heard so much B.S. in my life, to be honest with you. Let me just remind my colleagues that Donald Trump, the guy they apologize for constantly, is the one who let Iran attack U.S. troops.

Donald Trump is the one who allowed not one but dozens of Chinese spy balloons to fly overhead without telling us.

Donald Trump is the one who gave classified Israeli intelligence to the Russians, intelligence they could have given to Iran.

Donald Trump is the one who went to North Korea--remember that--and tried to get a brutal dictator to love him. He said, hey, Kim Jong-un and I are in love.

Donald Trump is the one who tried to extort Ukraine by withholding our aid, and he was impeached over it.

Donald Trump praises Putin, he fawns over Xi Jinping and Victor Orban, and he sends Kim Jong-un love letters.

It is pathetic. It is pathetic.

Donald Trump is the one who praised an angry mob who attacked the United States Capitol and injured people. That is all good for my friends on the other side.

At every step of the way, Trump stood with America's adversaries and those who oppose democracy. I am sorry that is an inconvenient truth for my Republican friends, but it is the truth.

Contrast that with Joe Biden. Joe Biden rallied the world to Ukraine's defense. He defended our ally Israel in their air space, and he has rebuilt our image on the world stage and has stood up for democracy.

My friends on the other side said nothing when the previous President was apologizing and praising every tin horn dictator in the world who had no regard for human rights.

Democrats are the party of democracy. Republicans can use whatever rhetoric they want about the far-left this and the far-left that. Their party has been radicalized by MAGA extremists.

Here we are at this late date debating legislation that is going nowhere when, in fact, our allies, specifically Ukraine, is out of money and out of equipment to defend themselves against Russia, and my friends just sit there and twiddle their thumbs.

This is pathetic. This is pathetic.

I urge my colleagues to understand what is going on here. We are doing this exercise that is going nowhere. I do not know who it is designed to please--maybe to show that we are doing work when we are not doing work.

We actually passed a bill on Iran--6 months ago to be exact--that is still here. They never even sent it over to the Senate. This is all for show. Meanwhile, we have a real crisis on our hands.

I hope my friends will get serious. Let's waste this time doing these bills that are problematic and that are

going nowhere, but don't come and lecture us about democracy or about protecting Israel, about protecting democracy in Ukraine.

It is because of House Republicans that the world right now is on the brink, and I hope that hopefully in the next couple of days you come to your senses and allow us to provide relief to our ally Ukraine. I hope that we do that because if not, it will be too late. You have waited so long, constantly giving in to the most extreme rightwing elements of your party, people who have nothing but contempt for Ukraine, for democratic movements who couldn't give damn about human rights.

It is pathetic that at this late date we are here doing this and not doing what we should have done a long time ago--and that is provide Ukraine the assistance it needs to push back on Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Oh, my goodness, Mr. Speaker, listen to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy). He got up, and he blamed the President of the United States more for Iran's attack on Israel than he blamed the supreme leader of Iran.

It is pathetic. It is pathetic.

I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), yes, we are emotional when we talk about this stuff. We are emotional when we talk about this stuff because the bottom line is people are dying, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle who continue to use Putin's talking points in defending why we are not giving aid to Ukraine. That is not me saying that. That is the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

So, I mean, this is a really important moment here, whether we are going to stand with our friends in Ukraine, whether we are going to help them stand up to Russia, or whether following the example of Trump we are going to turn a blind eye. I mean, Putin is hoping that maybe Trump wins and the Republicans win because then he knows he can take over Ukraine.

Yes, we are emotional because people are dying. Russia has launched a vicious war against Ukraine, and we are emotional when we talk about not only protecting Israel but protecting innocent people in Gaza as well because we actually think human rights matter.

Human rights knows no political party, knows no country's boundaries. Everyone's human rights ought to be upheld. We are emotional because we are sick and tired of the rhetoric coming from my Republican friends. We are sick and tired of them apologizing for Putin all the time or turning a blind eye on human rights abuses in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.

Coming to the floor with bills that my friends know are going nowhere--I mean, we have done similar bills before that are still being held at the desk and have not been sent to the Senate. This is all about show business.

Enough. Enough.

We have an opportunity to come together, put politics aside, and do the right thing. I hope my friends will join us in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard everything. The gentleman from Florida just talked about regular order, saying to vote for this rule because it represents regular order. I mean, he and I have a different opinion of what regular order is.

There are six bills. Five of them are completely closed rules. Is that regular order?

Two of these bills that are closed never went through committee or never had a markup in committee. Is that regular order?

Boy, I need to send the gentleman a textbook on what regular order is. This is not what it is.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) is giving us lectures about Biden and leadership. I should remind the gentleman that the Republicans are on their second Speaker of this Congress right now. If reports are to be believed that were in the newspapers this morning, you have Republicans wanting to get rid of this Speaker and go on to a third Speaker.

I mean, please, oh my goodness, lecturing us on leadership?

You are upset that Joe Biden used the U.S. military to help intercept Iranian missiles into Israel. You say that is a lack of leadership by President Biden. On the contrary, that is leadership. It is protecting our ally from missiles from an adversary.

When Donald Trump was President and 109 U.S. troops suffered brain injuries in a strike by Iran, what was the leadership that the former President demonstrated? He did nothing, no response. Iran just did it, and he did nothing. He downplayed it like it was no big deal.

I am sorry, we have a different opinion of what leadership is all about. The fact of the matter is that we are looking for some leadership on the other side of the aisle to support Ukraine in their fight against Russia. I mean, the Senate acted a long time ago, and my Republican friends continue to do nothing but sit back and scream about Joe Biden and cover up all of Donald Trump's misdeeds and ignore all of his weaknesses. Meanwhile, Ukraine is literally at the edge right now.

I mean, this is a strange way of defining leadership. Do you want to show some leadership? Let's help our ally Ukraine. Let's stop Russia in its tracks rather than giving comfort to Vladimir Putin.

Now, I know when the former President was in office, he had a lot of nice words to say about Vladimir Putin, praised him as this great friend and this great leader. Then again, the former President also said he and Kim Jong-un, one of the most notorious dictators in the world, were in love. How pathetic. How disgusting.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, not one, not one of the bills under this rule, would prevent Iran from carrying on future attacks, not a single one.

What are we doing here? The answer is simple. Republican leadership can't organize their clown show of a conference. MAGA members are playing politics with a global crisis, blaming Joe Biden instead of Iran, and to top it all off, many of them continue siding with Putin, an ally of Iran, in his war of aggression against Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine have been bombarded by Iranian drones for months and months and months, and Republicans have refused to do anything about it, not a single thing.

Republicans had an emergency Rules Committee meeting. They scrapped their whole agenda this week to debate these useless bills that we are talking about right now. There has been nothing for months and months while the people of Ukraine beg for our help, nothing. In fact, not only has this Republican majority done nothing, they have Members who echo Putin's propaganda and mimic Kremlin talking points. You can't make this stuff up.

What do our allies see when they look at us now? When the Speaker even mentions potential action to support our allies, extreme MAGA Republicans threaten to remove the Speaker and shut down Congress again.

Mr. Speaker, is this the message we want to send our allies when they need us most? This is shameful. We are at a turning point right now, an inflection point in human history. Are Iran, Russia, and their allies going to write the next chapter of the story, or are people around the world going to stand up and say democracy is worth fighting for? Is America going to fulfill our obligations and lead the free world as we have always done and as Democrats want to do, or are we not?

We can't only do it sometimes or when it is politically convenient for one party or the other. We need to do it all the time. We need to do it in Ukraine, where people are fighting and dying for their freedom and begging us for support. It is beyond time we pass something real to help them.

The bills that we are talking about right now are messaging bills. We don't even know whether, if they pass, they will even be sent to the Senate because we have passed bills on Iran before, and they are still being held up by the House. We haven't sent them to the United States Senate.

I think people are sick and tired of my Republican friends going through the motions or making believe like they care about human rights or making believe that they care about ending the conflict in Israel or ending the fighting in Ukraine. I think people see through what my Republican friends are doing. They come to the floor and yell and scream and blame Biden for every single thing, yet they continue to do nothing.

This is the last week before we have another break, and it remains to be seen whether or not there will be a package that comes to the floor that will actually help Ukraine stand up against Russia.

I get it. There are a lot of Republicans who apologize for Putin and apologize for Russia; think Russia can do no wrong. The former President, in all of his meetings with Vladimir Putin, praised him and praised him and praised him and said they are really good friends. He doesn't really want us to help Ukraine at all and is imposing all of these new conditions.

We are running out of time. We either do something now or it is too late. What a tragedy to basically hand

Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin, as if that is where he will stop.

This is about human rights. This is about doing what is right. This is about standing up for the principles that this country is supposed to be all about. I just hope we do it.

I say to my colleagues: Vote ``no'' on this rule. We are wasting the time of this Congress. What we need to do is do something concrete before the end of the week to help Ukraine.

I know it is uncomfortable for my friend from Pennsylvania to hear that. I know he doesn't want to have to scold some of his Republican colleagues who would like nothing better than to turn a blind eye while Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine.

I was in Ukraine. I met with not only Mr. Zelenskyy, but I met with a lot of average citizens in Ukraine. They are counting on us and the world community to help them protect their country from invasion. I hope that we do that. This, what we are doing today, is a colossal waste of time. That is what we do on a regular basis in this Chamber.

The Republican majority has done a horrific job, and we are now out of time. Let's hope after we get this rule done and get whatever we are going to vote on done here, that before the end of the week we can actually bring a package to the floor that will help save Ukraine from a Russian invasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1149 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Rules Committee and my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all

Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 1149 provides for consideration of six measures: H.R. 6323, H. Res. 1143, H.R. 4691, H.R. 5947, H.R. 6046, and H.R. 4639.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6323, the Iran Counterterrorism Act of 2023, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1143, a resolution condemning Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5947, which provides for the rescission of certain waivers and licenses relating to Iran, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6046, the Standing Against Houthi Aggression Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order three amendments.

Mr. Speaker, President Joe Biden's foreign policy decisions have been a complete disaster on the world stage and have emboldened our adversaries and empowered foreign terrorist organizations.

Sadly, we were forewarned about all of this. Former President Obama's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, stated nearly a decade ago regarding President Biden: ``I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.''

He is right. Let's look at the facts.

In the first year alone, the President green-lit Nord Stream 2 to provide Russian gas to Europe while simultaneously blocking the Keystone XL pipeline here at home. He issued 94 executive orders on immigration, which has led to an unprecedented invasion at our southern border. To appease his far-left radical base, he delisted the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, which directly led to this conflict in the Red Sea. He is responsible for the complete surrender of Afghanistan, which killed 13 American servicemembers, stranded thousands of Americans, returned the Taliban to power, and expanded ISIS-K and al-Qaida.

In 2022, his policies of appeasement led to the largest invasion of Europe since World War II. To help his party in the mid-terms, he depleted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest levels since I was born, 1983, and he sent millions of barrels of oil to Communist China.

In the first days of 2023, he allowed a Chinese spy balloon to cross the entire country, which collected intelligence on innocent Americans. On the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, on the very anniversary, in an insult to the people who suffered those terrorist attacks, Joe Biden unfroze $6 billion in oil sanctions to Iran just days before an Iranian proxy group killed over a thousand people in Israel.

How does Iran thank us? Our troops in the Middle East faced over 100 attacks from proxy networks, which led to the death of three servicemembers in Jordan.

Just this year, Biden waived billions of dollars in sanctions to allow Iranian energy exports into Iraq--and I kid you not--while also announcing an indefinite pause to new approvals of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports from here.

Guess who benefits from that? It is not the United States. It is not the American worker. It is Russia, China, and Iran who benefit from Joe Biden's reckless foreign policy.

This administration's policies truly embody the slogan: America last. That is why House Republicans are bringing to the floor this week legislation to condemn Iran's recent attack on Israel, block Biden's ransom payments to Iran, redesignate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, and apply maximum pressure on the Iranian regime.

We cannot stand idly by as the Biden administration hands over the keys to the Ayatollah; the dictator in Communist China, Chairman Xi; and the dictator Vladimir Putin.

This week's votes will be very clear: Do you stand with our ally and strategic partner Israel, or do you stand with the authoritarian regime in Tehran?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days, far-left activists have chanted ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.''

In Chicago, cheers broke out over the weekend when Iran started attacking Israel during a meeting about the upcoming DNC convention. Just think about that for a moment. This isn't your grandfather's Democratic Party.

In the 3 months following the October 7 attack, there has been an increase of 360 percent in anti-Semitic incidents in this country. It was reported earlier this year that there was an exodus of Jewish families leaving Oakland, California, because of the anti-Semitic radicalization of the teachers union in that city. This isn't 1930s Nazi Germany. This is 21st century California where we are seeing this happen.

If you doubt me, just listen to the leaders of the Democratic Party. Here is Representative Rashida Tlaib, who said: ``From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.'' This is an absolute lie. ``From the river to the sea'' is a call for genocide of the Jewish people and the destruction of the State of Israel. There is Representative Tlaib condoning a call for genocide.

Let's not forget about Representative Ilhan Omar, who said: ``We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.'' Equating the United States, the U.S. military, and the Israeli Defense Forces to terrorist organizations is not only disgusting, it is absolutely disgraceful. She also said: ``Israel has hypnotized the world,'' alluding to an anti-Semitic trope that we have seen for absolutely centuries.

Now, here is Representative Jayapal, as well, who said: ``Well, we condemn Hamas' firing of those rockets, but I think you have to look at what prompted even that behavior.''

It is very clear, far-left activists look to their leaders for direction. The Democratic thought leaders in that party sympathize with terrorists.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

You know, there is a lot of emotion coming from the other side of the aisle, but as a really good friend has told me before, facts don't care about your feelings. If you look at the facts it is pretty clear the difference between the Democrats, Obama and Biden, and President Trump.

Let's just look at Russia. It is not a coincidence that Vladimir Putin moved into Crimea and parts of Georgia when President Obama was in office, and then for the 4 years President Trump was in office, there were zero military incursions. Then as soon as Joe Biden took office, he moves into Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words. Again, those facts don't care about your feelings.

Let's look at Ukraine. You want to talk about conditioning aid? Joe Biden conditioned lethal aid on Ukraine, forcing the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor that was investigating a corrupt oil and gas company that Hunter Biden just happened to be on the board of. I will let you draw your own conclusions on that, but it is very clear that Joe Biden actually did what President Trump was wrongfully impeached for, and then he actually bragged about it on TV.

He also had many missteps. Remember at the beginning of the lead-up to the war, Joe Biden said that we would tolerate a ``minor incursion'' in Ukrainian territory, just whetting the appetite of Vladimir Putin. Then when the Russians did invade, and Joe Biden slow-walked lethal aid. Where were the MiGs that were sent? Why didn't we get the Ukrainians antiaircraft air batteries? Why didn't we jam the electronic abilities of the Russians to make sure that they didn't have air superiority?

The Ukrainians still don't have the lethal aid because Joe Biden and his far-left radical administration slow-walked the aid from the beginning of this war. It has been an absolute disaster because of Joe Biden's incompetence and the incompetence of those he surrounds himself with.

I find it very rich to then attack President Trump's record on Israel. Who was the first U.S. President to move the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? It was Donald Trump, making him the most pro-Israeli President we have ever had. Who was it that had the Abraham Accords? It wasn't Joe Biden. That was President Trump who had the Abraham Accords. If he was a Democrat, he would have won two Nobel Peace Prizes for that.

Let's not forget about Joe Biden, who still up to today, is calling for a ceasefire when our number one ally in the world, Israel, is fighting for its life against a terrorist organization in Hamas. The people across the aisle and people in the White House are calling for a ceasefire on that. I think that is absolutely unacceptable.

For all the talk about supporting our fellow democracies, let me remind you that there is one thriving democratic state in the Middle East. There is only one democracy in the Middle East, and that is Israel. It would be nice if my friends across the aisle would support that democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should congratulate my friends from across the aisle for finally realizing there is a link between Russia, China, and Iran. This has been U.S. foreign policy since at least the early 2000s, but better late than never, I guess.

I am taken aback by the fact that there is an allegation that Joe Biden is a strong President because he shot down the drones that Iran sent into Israel. If the President was strong, drones would not have been sent to Israel in the first place.

Again, let's not forget that under President Trump, Russia was not attacking Ukraine and Iran was not attacking Israel. It is the President's weakness and his policies of incompetence and American weakness that have invited this aggression.

For the talk about Ukraine, we on this side of the aisle have intellectual honesty and consistency on this because you can be for defeating Russia and also for Israel defeating Hamas. You can also be for holding Iran in check.

It is weird that the same people on the other side of the aisle who say if you talk about a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, that we are somehow using Russian talking points. Those same people will be the same ones who say we need to have a cease-fire in Gaza before the IDF is afforded their God-given right to destroy their enemy, Hamas. It sounds to me like the talking points of Hamas, but I will let others draw their own conclusion on that.

Talking about more failures in the Biden administration, let's talk about the southern border and about how many terrorists have crossed that southern border.

Since President Biden took office, there have been over 340 encounters at the southern border from individuals who are actually on the terrorist watch list. Just this month, news broke that a terrorist from Afghanistan, whose organization is responsible for the deaths of numerous Americans, was released twice--not once, but twice--into the interior of the United States after crossing our southern border. He then roamed around unrestricted for almost a year before he was captured.

Then earlier this year, a member of Al-Shabaab, which is an al-Qaida affiliate in Somalia, one of their members was able to live in the U.S. freely for almost a year, as well.

It is absolutely crystal clear: Biden and radical, extreme leftist Democrats cannot be trusted to protect our communities and secure the southern border. The numbers speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, talking about incompetence, let's go back and talk about the surrender of Afghanistan.

Remember, under President Trump, there were zero fatalities for the last 18 months before Joe Biden took office. Yet, the President, Joe Biden, felt the need to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban.

In 2021, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was absolutely the worst military blunder in my lifetime. The Biden administration abandoned the Bagram Air Base and released terrorist fighters from prison, including one that killed 13 servicemembers at Abbey Gate. It has led to a rise in al-Qaida and ISIS-K. The CENTCOM Commander testified just last month that ISIS-K will have the capability within 6 months to do external operations against the West.

We know through our OIG reports that President Biden and his failed bureaucrats in the State Department are funding the Taliban and al- Qaida through international assistance, but it didn't impact just the Middle East. This has also emboldened China, Russia, and Iran, the three countries that Democrats apparently just discovered there is a connection between in their anti-Western positions.

Reports indicate that the withdrawal helped Putin justify his invasion of Ukraine. It is just another blunder in a long list of Biden foreign policy failures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a sheriff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), my good friend and the author of the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Under President Trump's leadership, our Nation was safe and our adversaries were put on notice. He truly embodied the slogan: Peace Through Strength.

As President, President Trump destroyed the ISIS caliphate and took Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and the founder of ISIS, Al-Baghdadi, off the battlefield.

President Trump refocused our Nation on the Indo-Pacific and the growing threat of the Chinese Communist Party. He enacted a maximum pressure campaign on Iran by pulling out of the disastrous Iran deal, placing significant sanctions on the regime, and used military deterrence against their proxy networks.

In stark difference to President Biden, the Trump administration designated the IRGC and the Houthis as foreign terrorist organizations.

When former President Obama failed to enforce his own red line and allowed chemical weapons to be used against the Syrian people, it was President Trump who targeted the Assad regime through force.

He also helped bring peace and stability throughout the globe by negotiating the Abraham Accords, pushed our NATO partners to do their fair share, and moved our Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He stood up for the American worker, not the global elite, when he renegotiated NAFTA, placed tariffs on China, made America energy independent, and secured our southern border.

In comparison, the Biden administration's foreign policy agenda is worse than simply a nightmare because it is reality. That is why House Republicans this week will stand up for our ally Israel and block some of the disastrous decisions that have helped fund Iran's terrorist network.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. I was proud to join Congressman Davidson in introducing this strong bipartisan legislation to help prevent government overreach by prohibiting the warrantless purchase of customer data. When the Judiciary Committee considered this bill at markup last July, it received, as Ms. Hageman noted, a rare unanimous 30-0 vote.

When we download applications to our phones, we do so because we think they will make our lives just a little bit better. Weather apps tell us if we should bring an umbrella to work, delivery apps allow us to order groceries to our homes, and even employee work apps let us know the schedule for the week. Some of these convenience applications, however, can come with a dark side that they generally do not disclose to the American public, that the data they collect from us is immediately sold to the highest bidder.

Third-party purchasers of this data, often referred to as ``data brokers,'' collect and package the data to sell to advertisers, market researchers, and government entities, to name a few. While many argue that the data they purchase from applications, websites, and social media is deidentified when it is sold, experts agree that just four points of data are needed to reidentify this data.

Because of this, the purchaser of a dataset can piece together significant information about us. For example, they can track an individual's commuting habits, including which businesses they drive by on their way to work, when they are not at home, and even when they visit places that are not part of their normal commute.

That anyone should have Americans' private information is highly troubling to me. But that our Federal Government can obtain it without a warrant should be troubling to all of us.

The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones unanimously found that the government's use of a GPS 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 yet come to life.

If the government wants to track a suspect today, they can go through the trouble of establishing probable cause in getting a warrant, which is what they should do, or Federal law enforcement could simply purchase data from a third party about the target of their operation.

If that purchased data included location data for their subject, they would have no need for checks and balances, no need for a warrant, and during an ensuing criminal trial, no obligation even 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 and websites, electronic communication services, and remote computing services 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 indirect acquisition of information and agency sharing of third-party data.

This way, Federal law enforcement could neither acquire prohibited data from individuals who purchase the data and then pass it on to the government, nor could they receive the desired data from non-law 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, and I thank my Democratic colleagues, Representatives Lofgren, Jayapal, and Jacobs for their hard work to get the bill to the floor.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, 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 end this practice and protect our privacy as the Constitution demands.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, 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. While we may have different opinions on how the government should treat the incidentally collected U.S. person 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.

This amendment is a technical change to correct a minor error in the bill, and I hope that all Members will support it.

I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment will clarify that the underlying bill will not impact information that is 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 conflate 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 technologies 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.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would create exceptions for government purchase of data that a Federal agency can already lawfully access without a warrant. I am sure that my colleague from New York means well, but I worry that this amendment would create confusion in the long run rather than clarify an area where we both agree.

I agree that the government should continue accessing information that it is already able to acquire without a warrant, but we should be closing the door on government purchase of third-party data, period.

First, it is unclear how a data broker subscription for ``only information that law enforcement could acquire without a warrant'' would work. By suggesting that some data could be purchased, we open up a Pandora's box of hypotheticals instead of turning off a tap that should not be on to begin with.

Second, when section 2703 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was passed back in 1986, the internet was in its nascency. At that time, there were few, if any, data brokers purchasing data and selling it to the government. I am confident that if they had existed, then third parties' 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, but I cannot agree with this approach.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We all support the police and criminal investigations, but we all support, we hope, the Fourth Amendment, the requirement to get a warrant for 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 gut that and destroy the whole purpose of the bill.

The bill is essential to protecting liberty and to protecting the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4639.

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

Today, the House will vote on H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.

Last July, the House Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act by a vote of 30-0, with one Member voting present.

This bill makes crucial changes and closes a glaring loophole that allows the government to sidestep the 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 guarantees to all of us the right to be free of unreasonable government searches and seizures. However, the law and doctrine concerning the Fourth Amendment has failed to 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 is 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 smartphone 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 ``hold for many Americans the privacies of life.''

Before the modern internet, the Fourth Amendment required law enforcement to execute a search warrant and subpoena the items they wished to review. The officer executing the search would have to provide a copy of the warrant and an inventory of the property seized. However, 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 providing customer information to the government in the absence of a subpoena, warrant, or other court order, no such prohibition exists 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 Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security can simply turn to data brokers and purchase mass amounts of Americans' data.

The government is collecting vast amounts of data by purchasing it from data brokers or other third parties. Media reports have detailed that some data brokers have even tracked people at places of worship and at protests.

While the Judiciary Committee has in recent years advanced major reforms to overhaul ECPA, those bills have not yet passed into law. It is long past time that Congress acts to protect the privacy of Americans.

There is 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 rifling through 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 your ever knowing.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would close this legal loophole and ensure that the government may only use existing statutes compliant with the Fourth Amendment to lawfully surveil Americans.

When the government compels data brokers to disclose Americans' personal data, it should be required to get a court order. With this commonsense legislation, the government will no longer be able to make an end-run around the Fourth Amendment to purchase the data of Americans.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of points that I would 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.

Mr. Chair, I believe absolutely in protecting our constitutional rights, and I believe 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 IRS' troubling visit to the home of journalist Matt Taibbi on the very day that he testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, we learned that the IRS collected personal data from data brokers to use in its investigation of Mr. Taibbi. For example, the IRS collected data from the data broker Anywho, a people search website.

It is concerning enough that the IRS would take the extreme step of visiting someone's home on the day he testified before Congress, but the IRS 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 in violating Americans' civil rights.

Mr. Chair, the Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. There is no exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of getting a warrant.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) to speak on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, I think it is important for the American people to understand the scope of what we are talking about and what our government is purchasing from these third-party brokers. Data brokers aggregate packages and sell the data acquired from a variety of sources, including those that have already been described today.

Often, data brokers have thousands of different data points reflecting information about a person that, when combined, reveal valuable and intimate insights about an individual that would otherwise be unavailable.

In other words, 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, from a mobile device up to 14,000 times 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 are allowed to purchase this data and collect limitless information on Americans.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act closes this legal loophole and stops data brokers from selling Americans' 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. 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, it is that there are people within our intelligence community and who work for the Federal Government, including the FBI, the IRS, and similar agencies, who are abusing their power and authority and going after people for political reasons.

Mr. Chair, 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 protects our Fourth Amendment rights.

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.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Frankly, in the House it is rare today that we have an issue that doesn't break on party lines, and privacy, unfortunately, isn't unanimous.

The Fourth Amendment is clear that if the government wants to serve 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 is 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, a career law enforcement officer, is offering 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.

Mr. LaLota will offer an amendment that I do adamantly 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 toward restoring a government small enough to fit within the Constitution, and 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 has 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, but the Third Amendment prevents the government from doing that.

The reality is that technology today effectively puts the government everywhere we go. We all essentially have a digital ID. It is a phone number, and we carry it with us. It is tracked. It goes to your car. Your car spies on you, as well.

This data is being collected. People say, well, this amendment doesn't deal with all that. So let me address that concern. People back home might not realize that the committee structure in Congress is broken up into areas of jurisdiction, meaning 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 back home wonder why there so many half-baked solutions to problems. Well, a lot of it comes down to our jurisdiction. 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. These are safeguards that are bipartisan, and, in some ways, they have already reached to the executive branch.

Again, the Fourth Amendment is designed as a limitation on what the government can do. I am 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 is important to understand, too, people might realize that if they have got a journal that they close it up and they keep it in their house, whether it is by their bed or in a bookshelf or in a 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 Gmail, like Microsoft, like Apple. Somebody has your emails, and, 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. Look, 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.

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

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is a technical correction. Often this is done simply in the Rules Committee. For some reason, they chose not to do it.

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. That is all this amendment does is simply cover 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. This bill would say it also covers everything, including what just passed last week.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I will close by saying I think the case is clear. I appreciate Mr. Nadler for working with me.

I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Lee for being champions of this on the Senate side. I thank the unusual cohort of colleagues here. We have Zoe Lofgren, Pramila Jayapal, Sara Jacobs, and Jerry Nadler from the Democratic Party, and on our side Chairman Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Thomas Massie, and me.

There are so few things today that everyone agrees on. When you have the political spectrum covered from those angles, I think, 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.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose Mr. LaLota's amendment.

He makes a great point. We all want to stand with law enforcement. That is 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, and they are already used to getting warrants for all kinds of things. The novelty is the way that they acquire data to avoid getting a warrant or subpoena. In fact, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, they are required to get a court order.

This amendment doesn't make it clear that this isn't an effort to expand that to say, no, you don't really have to do that anymore.

It is an expansion of surveillance without a warrant 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 is meant to be restored here.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, I oppose Mr. LaLota's amendment, and I 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.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.