H.Res. 1224

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. Con. Res 33 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here because my Democrat colleagues have shut the United States Government down, the Department of Homeland Security, for now 74 days. They have held the American people hostage and have imperiled the safety of every citizen of this country for their ridiculous and even dangerous demands.

They are not serious. We had a four-corners agreement between Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate. They reneged. If it weren't for President Trump's intervention, we would have the hardworking public servants at the Department of Homeland Security going 100 days without pay.

Ask me, Mr. Speaker, how many days my Democrat colleagues have gone without pay or how long they would tolerate going without pay.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports. This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis.

This is the moment we take the keys from the kids, we say no more of this nonsense, we open up the people's government, and we restore the safety and the security of the American people.

Now, you will hear my colleagues, no doubt, say: If we could just agree on some commonsense reforms, we would have opened up the Department of Homeland Security. We would have been glad to work with you.

But let's think about these commonsense reforms. To require this administration to get a judicial warrant to expel criminal aliens from our country, there is not a Democrat or Republican former Commander in Chief who would ever find that acceptable.

In fact, these criminal aliens have had their day in immigration court, and they have their orders to be expelled because they are not here with cause. They are here with threat to my family and to my community and to my great State of Texas and to this beloved country of ours. It is unacceptable.

They would effectively stop all deportations. But we had an election after 4 years of lawlessness and chaos at the southern border, crime, criminals, and all kinds of criminal elements and drugs that killed more people than the entire Vietnam war in 1 year.

This President was elected to restore law and order. Rule of law in this great civil society of ours has been an embarrassment for those 4 years. He has done it, and that is what the people sent us here to do. That is the mandate they gave us, along with unified Republican leadership.

There has been one wall of obstruction after another for this President and this administration. That is one example of their ridiculous, absurd, and unserious demands.

The other one is--I heard this at the Rules Committee, and I couldn't believe my ears. They called our law enforcement agents, who risk their lives to keep us safe--their families pray and

wait for their mom or dad to come home, wondering if something goes wrong and the bad guys win that day, and they never see their family member again. Yet, my Democrat colleague repeatedly referred to our honorable ICE and CBP agents as masked thugs.

When evil is called good, and good is called evil--do you remember that quote? Do you remember that admonition? These are the days.

Mr. Speaker, we have given 16 chances and all opportunities to vote to turn this government of the people back on and support our ICE and CBP agents, to protect our ports by funding our guardsmen, to protect the CISA agents to protect our critical infrastructure while cyberattacks are on the rise, and to resource our FEMA agency to be ready to respond to our citizens in a natural disaster. They said no 16 times. No. Here we are, demasking our agents and calling them masked thugs.

There is an 8,000-percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in death threats to these gentlemen and gentlewomen who wear the badge, who wear the uniform, and who protect the thin blue line, a 1,300-percent increase in assaults, and a 3,200-percent increase in vehicular assaults.

We know who they are. We have made great efforts to identify each agent so they would be held accountable if they did anything illegal or inappropriate.

We have cartel members who have bounties of tens of thousands of dollars on their heads. We have masked, leftist, radical, violent folks who are assaulting them in the streets while they are trying to do their dangerous jobs.

You want to know why we are here, Mr. Speaker? Do you want to know why we are here, American people? That is why we are here. We say enough is enough.

Today, we put forward this budget resolution with reconciliation instructions to fund the people's homeland security, to protect our citizens, and to do right by these hard-working, God-fearing public servants who go to work every day not knowing if they are going to come home.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately and conveniently, some of my Democrat friends have had a bad case of amnesia. I am going to remind the American people that when Joe Biden and the Democrats had control of this town, this Chamber, Congress, and the White House, they took inflation from 1.4 percent all the way past 9 percent.

We had a 22-percent increase cumulative of prices of everyday goods that Americans depend on.

It was Joe Biden and the Democrats who lit the fuse on the inflationary firestorm that the American people, especially working Americans, suffered. The average inflation rate during the Joe Biden- Kamala Harris era was 5 percent.

Inflation is down. The average inflation under this President, President Trump, is 2.7 percent. Wages are up. Business investment is up, growth and GDP are up, and there is money in people's pockets, because had we relied on the Democrats, then we would have seen a $1,700-a-month tax hike on the American people. However, we said no tax on tips, no more tax on working people with respect to overtime or seniors on a fixed income.

I am very proud of what we did as one strategy to provide much-needed relief after the cost-of-living crisis that was caused by the unbridled spending and failed economic policies of my Democratic colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the American people to a great man and patriot. Lloyd Smucker is a dear friend and the vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of the absurd demands of asking for judicial warrants after immigration judges have ruled that these criminal aliens are not with cause, for heaven's sakes, in our country, we included body cameras, millions of dollars. The President reviewed protocols included and strengthened training programs.

Here is the root cause of what people saw on their TV sets at night when they saw the mayhem and they saw the chaos: It was lawless sanctuary cities, rogue leaders who incited violence against our law enforcement officers while they were doing a dangerous job to rid our country of criminal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, how in the world do we expect them to do this job when we have State and local leaders who refuse to cooperate, who thumb their noses at the rule of law, and who make things not only more difficult but more dangerous for the men and women in uniform who courageously protect us every day?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's play back the tape: 4 years, wide-open border flooding the zone, and by the zone I mean the entire country, crime, criminals, drugs, record number of people on the terrorist watch list, record number of people from countries of interest, record number of illegal immigrants dying in the desert, record number of humans trafficked to this country; record, record, record, open border, disaster.

Now, after this mess, when we have to get the brave men and women to go clean up the streets from the criminals that roam in the great cities of this country and threaten our citizens, they want to call them what I heard in Rules Committee, masked thugs. That is what they are calling our law enforcement officers.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised because that is the party that wanted to defund the police. That is the party with the battle cry, ``Defund ICE.'' That is the party which, at the top of their ticket in the last Presidential election, had a Presidential nominee who compared ICE to the KKK, and her Vice President compared them to the gestapo.

No, no, sir, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised, not surprised that now that they created this self-inflicted disaster and mess, and our brave ICE officers are trying to clean it up, that they would want to impede them and insult them, but they only insult law-abiding American citizens, I assure you that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell), my dear friend from the Tar Heel State and a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a note on cost: When the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, they spent a record $12 trillion. Now, $5 trillion of that is because of the record interest rate hikes that were associated with an almost half-century high inflation. Combined, we are talking about, again, almost $12 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, what did we get for that? What did the American people, the shareholders, get for that? What return did our citizens get for that ``investment''? They got green energy subsidies to corporations, which were a disaster for our energy economy. It made the prices of gas and electricity for our consumers skyrocket.

The American people got tens of thousands of IRS agents. They expanded the IRS by $80 billion because that is what they thought the American people needed after a 22-percent increase in prices. They bailed out student loan programs, schools that wouldn't open, and the union pension fund. It was one bailout after another. It is hard to keep up with it.

If you go back and look at the executive order from President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the time, they actually provided healthcare at the cost of taxpayers to people in this country illegally, and we wonder why we had record numbers of illegal immigrants pouring into this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend from the Buckeye State and the House's chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Van Epps).

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

Mr. Speaker, just, again, setting the record straight for the American people, the only moneys we are spending are moneys that the Democrats in the House and Senate agreed with us to spend to operate the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE and CBP. Then, they reneged on it. They went back on their word, and they shut the Department of Homeland Security down for over 70 days.

All we are doing is using reconciliation, a budgetary tool, to fund ICE and CBP because they want to defund ICE and CBP.

I mean, you hear it in their rhetoric. I mentioned the masked thugs and the comparison to the KKK. They are talking about protecting the illegal immigrant, but you haven't heard a word about Laken Riley and her family. You haven't heard anything about Jocelyn Nungaray and her family or the thousands upon thousands of American citizens whose lives are forever changed because of the harm that was perpetrated upon them from an illegal, criminal alien who was allowed into this country with impunity because our President at the time was derelict in his duty to uphold the laws of the land because he refused to provide for the common defense. When Texas and other States tried to protect their citizens, they were harassed and obstructed at every turn.

What choice do we have: go back to the open border and a sanctuary Nation for criminal aliens? That is not acceptable to Republicans, and that is not acceptable to the people in the popular vote, in the electoral vote, or in every swing State. They sent us here to put America first and the American people first and to restore law and order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I remind my colleagues and friend that the average gas price under Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership was over $5 per gallon. Under President Trump, it is just a little over $3 per gallon.

He talks about cost, but if you look at the CBO, which is a nonpartisan scorekeeper, they would tell you that in the first 6 months of this fiscal year, compared to the last 6 months of the last fiscal year, the deficit has actually gone down for the first time in almost a decade by $138 billion.

That is not me telling you that. That is not conjecture on the part of either party. It is the watchdog, scorekeeper, nonpartisan, telling you that when we held the line to control spending on the discretionary side for the last 4 years, we have saved almost $500 billion. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is big and beautiful because we protected tax dollars, and we preserved the safety nets for American citizens who need them and depend on them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the CBO about the Medicaid coverage impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress

Washington, DC, June 24, 2025.

Re Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in

Title IV of H.R. 1.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Brett Guthrie,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Arrington and Chairman Guthrie: You have

asked the Congressional Budget Office for information

concerning changes to insurance coverage that would occur

under H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as passed by

the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025. You asked

specifically about changes related to Medicaid under title

IV, Energy and Commerce.

CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in

title IV would increase the number of people without health

insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline

projections under current law. Of that number:

About 4.8 million would be able-bodied adults between the

ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and who do not meet

the community engagement requirement in section 44141 for

participating in work-related activities at least 80 hours a

month.

About 1.4 million would be people who do not meet

citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid

enrollment but who would be covered under current law in

programs funded by the states.

About 2.2 million would become uninsured because of other

provisions in H.R. 1. including provisions increasing the

frequency of verification of eligibility to enroll in

Medicaid or those that would lead states to change their

Medicaid enrollment requirements in response to federal

policy changes.

CBO estimates that the interactions among the policies

would, on net, reduce the number of people without health

insurance by 600,000 in 2034 relative to the sum of the

estimated effects of the individual policies because some

people would become uninsured under more than one policy.

You asked several questions about the number of people who

would be enrolled in Medicaid under the legislation and about

the number of people who would not have health insurance

under H.R. 1. You also asked about the effects on state

Medicaid spending under H.R. 1.

For the number of individuals estimated to be without

health insurance in 2034 as a result of the Medicaid policies

in H.R. 1, what share would be eligible for other health

insurance subsidies but would be estimated to not

participate?

CBO estimates that of the projected increase of 7.8 million

people without health insurance in 2034, 1.6 million would

have access to, but would not take up, other forms of

subsidized coverage, such as premium tax credits for

insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by

the Affordable Care Act or employment-based coverage; that

number also includes people who would remain eligible for

Medicaid but would not enroll.

For which provisions in H.R. 1 does CBO estimate that there

would be an increase in the number of people without health

insurance resulting from state discretion in the management

of enrollment within their own Medicaid programs? What does

CBO estimate would be the effect on the number of people

without health insurance under those policies?

CBO estimates that enacting several sections would reduce

resources available to states to fund their Medicaid programs

or state-funded insurance programs:

Section 44107 would eliminate the authority of the Centers

for Medicare & Medicaid Services to waive penalties for

payment errors and would reduce federal funding to states for

errors in eligibility determinations.

Section 44111 would reduce the federal matching rate for

people enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion of the

program provided in the Affordable Care Act from 90 percent

to 80 percent for any state that uses its own funds to

provide coverage to certain immigrants through state

programs.

Section 44132 would prevent states from increasing current

tax rates on providers and bar them from creating new tax

arrangements for providers.

Section 44134 would make additional changes to what

constitutes a permissible provider tax and would effectively

limit collections of those taxes in certain states.

CBO expects that in response to those provisions, states

would modify their Medicaid or state-funded insurance

programs to curtail their spending by reducing provider

payment rates, reducing the scope or amount of optional

services, and reducing Medicaid enrollment.

CBO estimates that state responses to those provisions

would increase the number of people without health insurance

by a total of 2.0 million in 2034.

Does CBO estimate that the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1

would result in a net decrease in state spending on the

Medicaid program, before accounting for how states respond to

the federal policy changes, and if so by how much?

CBO estimates that, if combined, enacting all of the

Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 would reduce the states' total

share of spending on Medicaid by $13.1 billion, on net. over

the 2025-2034 period. Some provisions would reduce state

spending, and some would increase it. CBO estimates that over

the 2025-2034 period, provisions that make changes to program

eligibility and enrollment processes, as well as some payment

changes, would cause states' spending to decline by $214.4

billion. Reductions in federal or other resources available

to state programs would cause states' spending to rise by

$201.3 billion.

What is the number of individuals whose citizenship,

nationality, or satisfactory immigration status is not

verifIed, but would be covered under current law in programs

funded by states?

CBO estimates that enacting section 44111 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 1.4 million

in 2034 because, in order to maintain the 90 percent federal

matching rate, most states would stop using state-only funds

to provide health insurance coverage to people who do not

meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for

Medicaid enrollment.

What are the changes in the number of uninsured people that

would be associated with provisions aimed at verifying

eligibility for the Medicaid program, specifically sections

44102 and 44108 of H.R. 1?

Section 44102 would prevent one part of what is termed the

Eligibility and Enrollment final rule from being implemented,

administered, or enforced through the end of 2034. That part

of the rule changes the way that states process applications

and renewals for coverage under Medicaid and the Children's

Health Insurance Program. For example, the rule specifies

that states can only conduct eligibility determinations for

people who are aged, blind, and disabled once a year--less

frequently than under some states' prior practices. The rule

also specifies that states cannot require in-person

interviews during eligibility redeterminations for that group

of enrollees. CBO expects that enacting section 44102 of H.R.

1 would reduce enrollment as states returned to earlier

administrative practices.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44102 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 600,000 in

2034.

Section 44108 would require states to redetermine Medicaid

eligibility every six months, instead of once a year, for

some enrollees. CBO expects that enacting the section would

result in some people being removed from the program sooner

than would occur under current law.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44108 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in

2034.

In CBO's baseline, how many individuals are enrolled in

Medicaid in 2025 and how many are enrolled in 2034? How many

would be enrolled in 2034 under H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline projections, 85.0 million

people will be enrolled in Medicaid this year, rising to 90.0

million in 2034. CBO estimates that under H.R. 1, 79.5

million people would be enrolled in Medicaid in 2034--10.5

million fewer than under current-law projections.

In CBO's baseline, what is total federal Medicaid spending

in 2025 and in 2034? What would total federal Medicaid

spending be in each of those years accounting for the effects

of H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline, the agency estimates $655.9

billion in Medicaid spending in 2025, increasing to $985.7

billion by 2034. CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid

provisions of H.R. 1 would reduce Medicaid spending by $125.2

billion in 2034, to total $860.5 billion that year.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please contact me

if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the letter says? Let me summarize. The millions of people who are no longer on Medicaid or SNAP are people who don't qualify to be on there. They are people who are in this country illegally, and they were people who refused to work even though they are able to work. Hardworking taxpayers are willing to support their fellow Americans, but it is a social compact, and there is a responsibility. That is what we did as Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the American people sent us here to do.

We can talk about the cost. Deficits are coming down. There is more money in people's pockets. Safety nets are being restored, protected, and preserved for the American citizens who depend on them. We are protecting tax dollars, and we are looking out for our kids and future vulnerable Americans who need these programs that are unsustainable because my Democratic colleagues haven't lifted a finger to help us root out waste and fraud.

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

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

Unleash chaos. Think about that. Ask the American people what they believe about unleashed chaos, millions upon millions of people flooding our country. The Biden administration released 5-plus million people into our streets and into our neighborhoods, record number of criminals, record number of terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I think the chaos that was unleashed was from the Biden administration and the Democrats opening up our border and throwing complete caution, rule of law, and the security of the American people to the wind, and we have suffered greatly as a country.

We are trying to fix it. We are trying to be the adults. We are trying to fund the government. We are trying to support our ICE agents and all those at the Department of Homeland Security that are protecting our ports and our critical infrastructure. They are doing their job for the country they love, and we are preventing them from getting a paycheck.

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

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

I heard from my Democratic friend about rising to support the vulnerable in this country who need healthcare. Well, let's just face the harsh facts. I know it is difficult for my Democratic colleagues because they created this monster, but ObamaCare since its inception has doubled premiums, doubled deductibles. It has made healthcare anything but affordable.

And then Joe Biden writes an executive order to allow illegal immigrants to avail themselves of social services, namely, healthcare, when American people are standing and waiting in line getting sicker at hospitals and other healthcare providers.

I think it is unacceptable.

This is the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigrants, Mr. Speaker. We are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We are going to protect the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Another week, Mr. Speaker, another chance for this Republican majority to show the American people what they actually care about. Once again, sadly, it is not affordability. It is not lowering prices. It is not the issues that my constituents raise with me at townhalls back home.

For 16 long, long months, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Republicans have been running the show for over a year now, and what have they done?

Have they lowered prices? Not grocery prices; those are up. Not gas prices; those are up, too. Not healthcare costs; those are up, too. Not utilities or childcare; those are more expensive than ever.

That is the problem with winning power, Mr. Speaker. At some point, the problems you complain about become your problems, and if you fail to fix them, then that failure is yours. That is where this Republican majority finds itself.

You guys have failed to deliver big time.

Donald Trump promised he would end the war in Ukraine. Not only did he fail to do that, he started a new one in Iran.

Republicans promised they would lower prices on day one. We are now in year 2, and where are prices? They are not down. They are up, way up. Ground beef, vegetables, fruit, sugar, it is all up, according to Trump's own USDA.

Whose fault is it? Democrats did not start the war with Iran that is driving up food and gas prices. Republicans did that. It wasn't Biden who put in place tariffs that are hurting American farmers and jacking up costs. Republicans did that. The left did not give massive tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from the program working families use to buy groceries. Republicans did that.

This administration and Republicans in Congress spent years claiming Democrats drove up prices and promising they would bring them down on day one. They failed. If you want to know why, look no further than the bills on the floor this week.

It is a greatest hits album of MAGA extremism, corporate giveaways, and political theater: a culture war bill targeting trans kids; a budget resolution that moves Heaven and Earth to give even more money to ICE and CBP while FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard remain shut down because Speaker Johnson refuses to advance a bipartisan Senate agreement that would pass overwhelmingly if brought to the floor; a FISA bill that lets the government spy on Americans without proper warrant safeguards; and a farm bill that locks in long-term cuts to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, after Trump's big, ugly bill stole nearly $200 billion from the program in order to give tax breaks to billionaires.

We are talking about a food benefit that gives barely over $6 a day to some of the poorest people in this country, many working multiple jobs and still unable to make ends meet and many others who are seniors, who are veterans, who are children, and Americans with disabilities.

That is the meager benefit you guys cut to give tax breaks to rich people. Give me a break.

Let's not forget the provision in this farm bill that helps chemical companies dump toxic chemicals into our food system, poisoning farmworkers and polluting our air and water. Who the hell asked for that? Was it drafted in the Monsanto boardroom?

Thankfully, a popular bipartisan amendment was made in order by the Committee on Agriculture to fix the provision. While I am glad that we will be able to take a vote on it and see where Members lie on this issue--my hope is that it passes--it still doesn't fix the rest of this awful, terrible bill.

Costs are up. Corruption is up. Chaos is up, and you guys are screwing over poor people. This is beyond outrageous. It is immoral. It is sick. It is wrong.

After huddling in back rooms and arguing among themselves, Republicans are now sending to the floor a year-round E15 bill--get this, Mr. Speaker--that adds billions of dollars to the deficit. They are doing it in a very clever way. Once the E15 bill passes, it gets combined with the farm bill before it gets sent to the Senate.

Where are my Freedom Caucus friends? Do you even know that this provision is in the bill? Do you even know what is going on here? I mean, billions and billions of dollars are being added to the deficit. I thought you cared about the deficit, but apparently you don't. It is a reason to vote against this rule. If you don't know about it, then the leadership of this House pulled a fast one on you.

Since the day Trump took office last year, the national debt has gone up $2.8 trillion. Full Republican control--full Republican control has added nearly $3 trillion to the debt, and now we are

adding billions more with another Republican backroom deal.

I mean, during our Agriculture Committee markup, Chairman Thompson said over and over and over again that we had an obligation to remain budget neutral. He said that that is why we couldn't do anything to address the horrible nutrition cuts, why we couldn't do anything to provide any more support for our farmers, and why we couldn't modernize our conservation programs.

We can't do any of those things, but if it is for war or if it is for tax cuts for the rich or for this E15 bill, Republicans are more than happy to add to the debt.

Gut it. Gut it.

Mr. Speaker, people are struggling. They are working hard, and they are falling behind. If Republicans spent half as much time lowering costs as they spend passing nonbinding resolutions congratulating themselves, maybe we could actually get something done around here, but they can't help themselves.

The billionaires say, jump, and the Speaker asks: How high?

Monsanto says: Bail us out. Republicans ask: How much?

Big Tech, Big Ag, and Big Oil, they all run wild. It is pathetic, Mr. Speaker--pathetic.

The American people were promised lower costs. They were promised a Congress that would fight for them. They were lied to. Instead, they got extremism. They got a majority that wakes up every morning and asks how to make life easier for the rich and powerful. They got an administration and a Congress that covers up for Epstein-elite pedophiles instead of fighting for everyday people. Enough already.

This is an awful rule. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments. It blocks 7 of 10 Republican amendments, 8 out of 10 bipartisan amendments, and 9 out of 10 Democratic amendments. No Member of this House has had an amendment debated on the floor in nearly 100 days. Now that we do, here is what we get.

In case it was not clear yet, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say to my colleague from Georgia: Keep bragging about gas prices and see how that works for you in November.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``U.S. Gas Prices Hit Highest Level Since Beginning of War in Iran.''

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee: We offered amendments because we haven't had a vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days. No Democrat and no Republican has been able to vote on an amendment in nearly 100 days.

Mr. Van Orden, who is sitting there, had two amendments that were blocked. Mr. Neguse offered one of them last night, and every Republican voted against it.

Some of the amendments that we offered, quite frankly, I support. The Biggs amendment on FISA, I support. That was really an interesting display of theater because we had the votes, but one of the Republicans, Mr. Griffith, every time we brought it up, conveniently got up and walked out of the room so he didn't have to cast a vote. We called it up several times, and he kept on walking out of the room. If you want to talk about theater, that really does deserve an Academy Award.

There were a lot of other amendments, quite frankly, that we brought up that I support. By the way, we brought up amendments that I don't support, but just because I don't support them doesn't mean they don't deserve to be debated on the House floor.

That is one of the problems with the Republican leadership right now in Congress. You don't believe that this place is a deliberative body. You believe it is kind of your way or the highway, and it is not just Democrats who are getting locked out.

What is the percentage of Republicans? Republican amendments were blocked 70 percent of the time. Most of them were germane. Some of them weren't even particularly controversial in any way, shape, or form. They were blocked.

Bipartisan amendments were blocked 80 percent of the time. I know you don't care about Democrats, but 90 percent of our amendments were blocked. I mean, 70 percent of your own party were denied amendments in the Rules Committee. Again, it has been nearly 100 days since we have had a debate on any amendment, Republican or Democratic amendment.

Again, if that is how you all want this place to be run, have at it, but I would urge my Republican colleagues to take a stand now. Say ``no'' to this. Say ``no'' to this, and I guarantee you that it will change. Yet, going along to get along has resulted in even Republican Members being denied the right to offer their amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture who has done an incredible job standing up for our farmers and for the most needy in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

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

I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have great respect for him, but that is a lot of words basically to say that Democrats and Republicans will be denied the right to be able to debate and vote on a warrant requirement.

Madam Speaker, I have already spoken about how terrible the bills in this rule are, but let me just take a minute to talk about how much of a dumpster fire the last 48 hours have been from a process standpoint.

The way this place is being run by your so-called leadership, Madam Speaker, is beyond incompetent. It is pathetic.

We spent all night waiting around while Republicans fought amongst themselves. We were told nearly at midnight on Monday to go home. We were then told Rules would meet at 8 a.m. on Tuesday. We showed up for that meeting only to be told there would be no meeting because Republicans were still busy fighting with each other.

Madam Speaker, you guys had all weekend. Didn't you think to do a Zoom call or something like that with your members to find out where they were? On FISA, this thing has been going on for weeks. Didn't you have a meeting or a phone call or a text thread or something to try to work that out?

Finally, at long last, we convened and reported out a rule, but based on public reporting, it is not clear whether the rule that we are debating right now can pass.

So what the hell are we doing here? I mean, can somebody please, please call the Republican whip and ask his office if they have the votes? Maybe they can ask them if they know how to count. We keep running around in circles here, Madam Speaker, and I will tell you why.

You guys have a tiny, slim majority. Rather than trying to work things out with Democrats, you cut us out of the process. The result is endless chaos, endless incompetence, and endless delay, and everyday Americans are the ones who pay the price.

Here is just one example. Democrats tried to make in order many Republican amendments in the Rules Committee last night. One of them, authored by Representative Biggs, would require a warrant before the government spies on Americans. Last time the amendment came to the floor, it tied. Clearly, this is an important issue with members of both parties on both sides. It is exactly the kind of debate Congress should be having out in the open.

What did Republicans do? Well, there were two Republicans who voted with us to bring the amendment to the floor--again, an amendment to make sure the government can't spy on Americans without warrants. That was what the amendment was. Then, a third Republican, as I mentioned before, kept getting up and leaving the room every time we called the vote. It was really comical.

That is why we won't be having a floor debate, again, on a Republican amendment. That was a Republican amendment we tried to bring to the floor, and it was blocked by a Republican who literally had to get up and leave the room because if he didn't, it would pass. I just wonder who asked him to leave. What an embarrassment to this institution.

For the record, it isn't just one amendment Republicans have blocked here. It is hundreds. Seven out of 10 Republican amendments are blocked. Eight out of 10 bipartisan amendments are blocked. Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked. Let me repeat that: Nine out of 10 Democratic amendments are blocked in this rule.

Over 50 times in the Rules Committee last night, we asked to simply have an up-or-down vote on these important issues on the floor. Over 50 times, we were blocked.

I understand my ideas won't always prevail and win, but to not even be able to get a vote--I mean, what the hell are Republicans afraid of? Isn't it our job to debate and to vote?

This is an interesting statistic. For the record, we had more amendment votes in the Rules Committee last night than we have had on the House floor this entire year. That is not okay. We call ourselves one of the greatest deliberative bodies of the world, and we aren't deliberating on anything, for God's sake.

Republican leaders are blocking nearly every amendment, and that is what this rule does. It blocks idea after idea after idea from being debated and voted on.

We can't debate more aid for farmers. We can't debate more help for hungry families. We have Republican Members who are publicly threatening to take down this rule because their amendments were blocked, too. I disagree strongly with some of their ideas, and I would vote ``no,'' but they deserve a vote, don't they?

These bills are take it or leave it. The leadership dictates every single letter, every comma. This is no way to run this place. It is no way to run a banana stand. It is pathetic. It is a disgrace. The Speaker and the majority ought to be embarrassed by what is going on here. You are screwing over your own Members.

Madam Speaker, you write bad bills, and you block good ideas. You refuse to work with Democrats in a bipartisan way. You bend over backward to appease the people in your Conference who have no interest in governing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Rules Committee who was there during the entire fiasco in the Rules Committee yesterday, to further expand on what I have been talking about.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado.

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

I would remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that he is in the majority party and that 100 percent of his amendments were blocked. I don't know what he did to tick off Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, but he voted against his amendments in the Rules Committee last night.

By the way, I am somebody who believes that we ought to debate amendments, even the ones that I don't always agree with, because I think this is a place where diversity of opinion and ideas ought to be brought to the floor and ought to be debated.

I am sorry the gentleman doesn't share that passion. I will tell you this: If you vote for this rule, as you just said you would, you can look forward to your future amendments being blocked by the majority in your own party, because that is what they have been doing.

We haven't had a debate on a single amendment on this floor in nearly 100 days. I am not okay with that, and I hope my Republican colleagues are not okay with that, either.

They ought to send a message to your leadership that this bs has to stop now. Individual Members have to be respected, and their ideas need to be brought to the floor.

I will say one final thing on the E15 matter. I think it is a legitimate issue. Our problem with it is that we are told that we can't address the issue of hunger and food insecurity because it adds to the deficit and the debt.

The Republican leadership in here knows that the Office of Management and Budget has said that the E15 provision will cost billions--billions with a b. Rather than offset it, they came up with a clever way to vote on it separately and then merge it with the farm bill at the end and send it to the Senate.

Again, none of this is paid for. What happened to fiscal responsibility? I guess when it comes to helping poor people, everybody on that side is: Oh, we can't do it because we have to be fiscally responsible. On other things, the sky is the limit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague from Georgia does not believe that we can help both farmers and hungry families, but I do. That is what I am fighting for.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now to fund all the law-abiding agencies under the Department of Homeland Security.

Enough is enough. This is the deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security while we discuss changes in ICE and CBP. It is a bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously in the Senate twice.

The situation is so dire now that even the White House has sent a letter urging the House to pass the bill.

I am, once again, giving all Members of this body a chance to do the right thing and to provide a vote on this bipartisan DHS bill. Stop the games. Stop the games.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge all Members to reject this madness and the games my friends are playing on the other side of the aisle and vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can fund, finally, DHS.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just wish the E15 measure was paid for and wasn't going to explode the deficit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Speaker, I don't have any more speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, prices are up, debate in this House is down. We are debating culture war nonsense instead of adhering to an affordability agenda. We are giving more money to ICE and CBP that are lawless and that don't need any more money. We are giving more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. Farmers are getting screwed over, poor people are getting screwed over, hunger is going up in this country, and enough is enough. Enough is enough.

My friends on the other side do not care.

I will say to my Republican colleagues: If you are tired of getting rolled by your own leadership, then vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate

only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, providing for consideration of H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, to be considered under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 57 amendments in order.

The rule provides for consideration of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and provides one motion to commit.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides for consideration of S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035 to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 7567, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1346, should it pass the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 7567.

The rule also provides that in the engrossment of S. 1318, the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1919, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of the House amendment to S. 1318.

Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules at any time through the legislative day on May 1, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule on five pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

Mr. Speaker, our country's farmers and ranchers are currently experiencing years of high input costs, shrinking margins, and uncertainty heading into the growing season. Misguided policy decisions from the previous administration have led to overregulation and consolidation, leaving the American producer to pay the price.

However, Mr. Speaker, through the body's work on H.R. 1, we achieved the first meaningful investments in the farm safety net since 2002, we brought integrity back to our nutrition programs, and we provided relief to our farming families through tax cuts.

H.R. 7567 builds on the accomplishments of H.R. 1 and completes the long-delayed farm bill process, addressing the remaining farm country needs. H.R. 7567 reinforces the farm safety net, allowing our producers the certainty they need to endure unpredictable markets, volatile weather, and rising input costs.

Strengthening ARC and PLC, expanding disaster assistance tools, and improving support for specialty crops gives producers the stability needed to keep producing the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.

The bill reaffirms our Nation's commitment to locally led, science- based conservation practices through improvements to programs like EQIP, CSP, and CRP. Promoting precision agriculture and science-based practices helps protect our natural resources while keeping working lands productive for generations to come.

Additionally, H.R. 7567 modernizes trade and global food assistance, codifying the move of the Food for Peace program to the USDA. Streamlining Food for Peace authorities and reinvesting in proven export promotion programs strengthens U.S. competitiveness abroad, while ensuring American commodities remain central to feeding vulnerable populations worldwide.

H.R. 7567 bolsters the future of American agriculture by improving access to farm credit, especially for those beginning, young, and small farmers. This farm bill ensures they have the capital they need to build and sustain their operations.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is centered on affordability and is a win for rural America. Investments in broadband, childcare, healthcare, workforce needs, and critical water and infrastructure projects strengthen our rural communities and give them the support to thrive in the years to come.

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 delivers for our producers, strengthens our rural communities, and protects the security of America's food supply.

This is thoughtful legislation that has culminated from years of listening to farmers, ranchers, and families across our country in response to current realities with real solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and all the staff for the work that went into the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Moving on to S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker, this would authorize section 702 for 3 years. I will be clear: We cannot allow section 702 to expire at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities, accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our intelligence posture.

Allowing this authority to expire would leave the United States blind to threats that move at the speed of the modern conflict. Section 702 allows the United States Government to collect intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas--I repeat, foreign nationals located overseas--who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information.

The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers of oversight.

While section 702 was first authorized in 2008 and has been reauthorized since with bipartisan support, it certainly has not been perfect. To account for needed reforms, Congress passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in 2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades.

This law mandated 56 different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI personnel with access to 702 data.

Additionally, to address concerns about the FBI's compliance on U.S. person queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report detailing any noncompliant queries and what accountability measures were imposed on each FBI person who was determined to have conducted a noncompliant query.

This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S. persons being reviewed by the

National Security Division and the FBI's Office of Internal Auditing. These reforms were not symbolic. They were structural, enforceable, and designed to ensure that section 702 remains both effective and accountable.

A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when comparing 2021 FBI queries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025 queries, which numbered 7,413.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains additional reforms that Congress has worked to include over the last few weeks. Failing to reauthorize this authority, which allows us to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil, would be a massive setback, one that our adversaries would exploit immediately.

The time is now to reauthorize section 702.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act. This legislation addressed an important issue facing our country today: protecting a parent's right to be informed and involved in conversations regarding their children's education and what is happening inside their classrooms.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act does that. It would prohibit any federally funded public elementary or middle school from changing a child's name, pronoun, or access to facilities such as bathrooms or locker rooms without parental consent.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about elementary and middle schools. This legislation emphasizes the fundamental role of parents in making sensitive decisions regarding their children's identity and accommodations in school. This legislation responds to recent developments across the country where parental rights are being trampled on in favor of a progressive agenda that is completely out of touch with the average American family.

This is an urgent moment for Congress to stand up for parents and children and to reinforce the critical need for parental engagement and awareness in their child's education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have S. Con. Res. 33, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.

This legislation would unlock the budget reconciliation process to fully fund both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection through early 2029, continuing to deliver on the GOP- led Congress' promise to ensure our borders are secure and the brave men and women of ICE and CBP have the necessary resources to do so.

Over the last 18 months, President Trump has delivered on his promise to America to secure the southern border, deport violent illegal aliens, and support the law enforcement officers at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

These officers work tirelessly to secure our borders and ensure Americans remain safe from foreign threats. It is time for Congress to do the same.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025. This legislation allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round. Furthermore, it provides additional reforms to the renewable fuel standard.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of these important points of legislation, and I urge passage of this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman brought up corruption. Certainly, we have seen what is going on in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and many of the other Democratic-run cities and States.

He brought up gas prices, as well. I am thankful that Donald Trump has believed in energy independence, and gas prices are lower than they were under the Biden administration, even when we weren't at war, simply because of the stupid rules and regulations passed by that administration.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my friend and chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I would just like to remind the American citizens that under the Biden administration, over 82 percent of farm bill spending was going to SNAP, and they virtually eliminated any of the support for the American farm families.

Again, Democrats demanded that over 80 percent of farm bill spending go to SNAP benefits. That is one of the reasons that the American farm family is suffering so hard today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), my friend and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

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

Madam Speaker, starving farmers the way Democrats did over the last several years, where they took and put 82 percent of farm bill spending into SNAP benefits, doesn't allow farmers the resources they need to grow the food that hungry people need.

We exempted anyone under 18 from the changes that we made. Anybody over 65 was exempted from the changes that we made. Anybody who is medically or psychologically disabled or unable to work is exempt from the

changes we made. Anybody who puts in the effort to work 20 hours a week is exempt from the changes we made.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my friend who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any recorded vote on the floor of the United States Senate. I am aware of a couple of actions being taken when nobody was on the floor of the United States Senate, but I am not aware of any recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), who has done tremendous work on the farm bill and the E15 issue.

Madam Speaker, I, again, want to give great credit to Mr. Nunn and the Iowa delegation as well as many others for their work on the E15 issue and the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will just remind the gentlewoman that New Mexico has experienced a historic financial boom driven by what President Trump has done in unleashing America's domestic energy production. I think it was the Senate later that said they had more money than they could figure out how to spend in New Mexico.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Customs and Border Protection is an extremely important part of protecting the United States of America. While the Democrats might want to eliminate Customs and Border Protection so that they can make the borders wide open, the American citizens want those borders secure.

This week, the House has the ability to advance five pieces of legislation, including the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, representing years of committee efforts and stakeholder engagement, strengthening rural America, improving conservation tools, and supporting American producers.

The Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act reauthorizes section 702, with reforms, providing the continued ability to collect intelligence on foreign nationals overseas, who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information, in order to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil--again, stopping terrorist attacks on United States soil.

We have no idea who the Democrats let into this country over the last several years.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act supports parents, strengthens transparency, and protects our children in educational environments.

The budget resolution is an essential first step toward ending this Democrat-driven shutdown at DHS and strengthening our Nation's national security and keeping our borders secure, which is what Democrats' real opposition is to the Department of Homeland Security.

Finally, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act allows the option to sell gasoline that is blended with 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol year-round and provides additional reforms to the Renewable Energy Standard.

Together these measures advance our commitments to American families, American procedures, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, in order to keep America's border secure, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues, with constitutional patriotism still beating in their hearts after this tortured and demeaning and visibly transactional process we have seen today, to oppose the legislation.

This bill is a 3-year permission slip and blessing for the Trump administration and the next administration to keep abusing the sweeping FISA section 702 surveillance authority to spy on American citizens' private communications and to violate the privacy rights of the people.

I want every Member of this body to be clear on exactly what is in this bill. It has no warrant requirement for queries of U.S. citizens. It has no probable cause requirement. It provides for no judicial oversight of these government queries.

It subjects U.S. citizens to completely subconstitutional standards, avoiding the Fourth Amendment entirely. It is in a parallel universe from the Constitution--or perhaps I should say a perpendicular universe to the Constitution.

The Constitution interposes a judge--a neutral, independent magistrate--between the government and a search of persons and their things. This 3-year blank check to Trump, Patel, and company leaves the executive branch free to conduct these searches with self-reporting and self-policing as the sole protection against their abuse of the section 702 program.

Without any meaningful guardrails, this U.S. person information collected under foreign intelligence standards that have nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment is ripe for abuse. It has been systematically abused to spy on American citizens in the past, and it will be used in exactly the same way by Kash Patel and Todd Blanche in the future if we pass this bill.

Last week, it came to light that FBI Director Kash Patel was unhappy about a New York Times article, which focused on the fact that he had used FBI SWAT teams and jets to chauffeur his girlfriend around the country at taxpayer expense.

What did he do? He didn't decide to change his policy on how he uses the people's resources. Instead, he had his agents query FBI databases for dirt on the reporter.

Was the FISA section 702 program one of the databases he searched? The FBI says no. He just searched every other database at the FBI. We have no idea because they don't have to go to a judge before searching an American citizen's information.

We depend now, in this system, on Kash Patel to be the check and balance against Kash Patel. We only know about the fact that it even happened because a reporter got the information. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have known anything about it.

Let it be a warning to people vigilant about our civil rights and privacy, about what actually goes on.

Even Republicans on the Rules Committee last night were registering their displeasure with these reports.

Look, the FISA section 702 program has been misused and abused under every section. Section 702 authorizes the government to collect information from electronic communication companies in the U.S. about non-U.S. persons who are physically outside the U.S. When the government gets communications to and from these foreign targets, it also incidentally collects large amounts of information about American citizens.

In 2022, the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, detailed a historical pattern of noncompliant queries at the FBI. Improper searches swept in elected officials, political campaign donors, Black Lives Matter protesters, and many others.

At other agencies, analysts used section 702 to query their own names, the names of their relatives, and even the names of former romantic partners.

Just last month, Federal judges on the FISC issued an opinion to sound the alarm about how the FBI is currently abusing FISA, violating the law and flouting the safeguards Congress imposed 2 years ago to snoop on Americans' private communications. The administration is deliberately keeping this opinion totally classified in a basement SCIF here at the House.

Reforms that we made during the last FISA section 702 reauthorization, which I strongly supported and voted for--unlike my friend Chairman Jordan--those reforms relied on internal watchdogs and required agencies to track and report the use of section 702 data to spy on Americans.

I strongly supported that reform, but, 1 year and change into the Trump administration, the watchdogs are all but gone. After returning to the White House, President Trump quickly removed the internal watchdogs charged with verifying FBI's representations that the reforms are working; he illegally fired a majority of the members of the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; and his Department of Justice reassigned other key compliance personnel. The watchdogs have been removed from the scene of the crimes.

The administration repeatedly claims that FBI compliance exceeded 99 percent in 2024 and 2025. Even if those claims are true--and I seriously doubt it--that is an admission that the FBI has illegally accessed the data of thousands of American citizens.

More importantly, these numbers are based on the violations and abuses that Kash Patel and Todd Blanche are willing to identify themselves and self-report. How can we believe these numbers when the administration has returned all the watchdogs to the pound? They are no longer there.

The FISC judges warned us just last month that the FBI is abusing its authorities to spy on Americans, so what makes us think that a 3-year blank check renewal will lead to self-correction?

Proponents of the bill claim that it protects privacy, but asking Kash Patel's FBI to self-report abuses of our civil liberties to Tulsi Gabbard's DNI is like asking Donald Trump to self-report his collection of millions of dollars from foreign governments directly to the U.S. Congress. That is actually the law under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Yet, he has never once come to ask for our permission for him to keep a foreign government emolument, whether pocketed through the Trump Hotels, the Trump golf courses, or the other Trump enterprises in crypto coins and scams, and so on.

If you think self-reporting is working well under the foreign government Emoluments Clause, go ahead and vote for self-reporting under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For me, I am sticking with the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. Under our Constitution, it is judges, not FBI agents or government lawyers, who must protect our privacy and our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. Speaker, the key point is this: Under this bill, FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans' communications without any review from a judge. It is the heart of the Fourth Amendment, Mr. Speaker, that search warrants have to be based upon probable cause, and you have to go to a judge to get a search warrant before you can invade the private expectations of the people in their places and in their things.

This bill leaves intelligence agencies in charge of policing their own compliance with the law. Asking Kash Patel to self-report his abuses to Tulsi Gabbard does nothing to protect the civil liberties of Americans.

That is not how our Constitution was designed. The whole reason we have the courts involved is to make sure that the executive branch doesn't get to be its own check and balance against itself.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Speaker, Kash Patel has been using government resources to chauffeur his girlfriend all over the country. Then when it was learned by the press that he was doing that, there was an article about it.

When he got mad about it, rather than say: Well, yeah, maybe there is a problem using an FBI SWAT team to shepherd my girlfriend around the country. Instead of changing the policy, he decided to go after the reporter and search the databases on the FBI.

This is while we are debating FISA.

If you need any more vivid demonstration, Mr. Speaker, of the danger of allowing law enforcement officials to govern themselves and to regulate whether or not they are violating the Constitution, check that out. We may disagree a lot about this FBI director's record. That is not directly relevant to this point.

Say you trust him, we don't, but we know you haven't trusted other people in the office before, Mr. Speaker. Let's legislate in a way that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the reason why we have to hold fast to the Constitution is precisely because we are all imperfect beings. I stood strongly for FISA 702 last time without the necessity of a search warrant because of all the reforms that I believed that the Biden administration would engage in, and they basically engaged in them.

Now the Trump administration is in, and President Trump came in and dismantled all of the safeguards we put in and just chased the watchdogs out of the FBI. That is why we must stick very closely to the Constitution, as my good friend, the chairman of the committee, argued the last time we debated this. He has convinced a lot of people that we need to stick to the Constitution. I am sorry we are not on the same side today.

The key point is that we do not trust government officials to regulate themselves. That is why law enforcement officers across the country, FBI, have to go to a judge to get a Fourth Amendment search warrant before they invade somebody's privacy unless there is exigency, unless there is an emergency, and we have accounted for that. We can deal with that problem.

Let's stick with the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is foreign intelligence, which is why when it comes to U.S. persons--U.S. citizens--the Fourth Amendment has to apply. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my distinguished colleague, said that the legislation is bipartisan.

I tell you what else was bipartisan--in fact, unanimous: the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Everybody got behind that. We are assured that there is reporting, but it is self-reporting. The distinguished ranking member says that it is by nonpolitical staff.

Yes, the nonpolitical staff left over after Kash Patel fired everybody at the FBI who they considered insufficiently loyal to MAGA and to Donald Trump and for those who worked on the January 6 case.

Then, we are told that the courts still can get involved at some point. Well, the courts are telling us right now that the FBI has been secretly breaking the law. Last month, the FISC court found that many of the government's 702 searches violated Federal law. We should be paying close attention to that as we move forward.

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

I rise in support of S. 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act.

I do so with some reluctance because the process that brought us here has been indefensible. Two weeks ago, when we walked off the floor after legislation to reauthorize 702 failed, Democrats made clear there was an open door to negotiate a bipartisan package of real reforms, perhaps one that would even pass on suspension in this Chamber. I have been discussing this issue for months now with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, and it is clear to me that there is a path to a bill that could do more than squeak through and only by attaching unrelated legislation that may not pass the Senate.

However, we are where we are, and I am going to support this legislation because in my decade on the House Intelligence Committee, I have seen countless, countless instances where the intelligence obtained through section 702 quite literally saved lives. Section 702 is the single most important foreign intelligence collection authority we have, and every day it is used by apolitical professionals throughout the IC and apolitical professionals at the FBI to keep Americans safe here and abroad. There is no way to replace the value that section 702 provides, and the loss of this authority would be devastating.

Given the binary choice between reauthorization and expiration, the responsible choice is reauthorization. As President Biden's Intelligence Advisory Board put it: ``If Congress fails to reauthorize section 702, history may judge the lapse of section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time.''

As I said at the outset, we should be considering a much broader array of reforms than those in this package. For example, 2 weeks ago, I proposed an amendment to the base bill in the Rules Committee that would have created a judicial process for U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI in the 702 database. I want to be clear that we have seen no evidence--let me say that again, we have seen no evidence that this administration is misusing section 702, but nonetheless, we must remain hypervigilant, given the other abuses that we have seen from this administration.

My amendment to Rules would have required a Federal court approval before the FBI could access the results of a query it conducted involving a U.S. person. I regret that my amendment as well as a range of other ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle were not considered as part of this process.

However, as I said, we now have a binary choice, and the reality is that 2

years ago, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with the support of more than 70 percent of the Democratic Caucus, passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. That bill 2 years ago contained over 50 major reforms, the bulk of which were intended to address the longstanding and unacceptable issues of compliance at the FBI. Since enactment, the evidence shows that those reforms have been highly successful, with far fewer U.S. person queries conducted and with a compliance rate at the FBI of 99 percent.

It is easy to dismiss those numbers, given the political leadership of the FBI and the DOJ. I don't trust Director Patel any more than my Democratic colleagues do.

On January 6, 5 years ago, I was in this Chamber when it was attacked by the shock troops sent here to stop the peaceful transfer of power. I sat there for half an hour as police officers with guns drawn tried to defend our democracy, so I take a back seat to no one in my concern about the abuses of this administration.

However, the data we have on FISA is based on oversight of the professional and apolitical staff, not Kash Patel, the professional and apolitical staff, who are there at the Department of Justice Office of Intelligence, largely the same group of public servants who performed this work under President Biden, and their findings are validated not just by the Attorney General or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel, but by independent oversight, the DOJ's inspector general, the staff of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on an annual basis, and the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both Chambers.

We are not trusting this administration. We are verifying in all three branches of government. If we saw the slightest hint that these authorities were being abused, I wouldn't be standing here today to support this bill.

The legislation now before the House contains several reform proposals. These proposals are modest and well short of what I would like, but they are meaningful. Most importantly, the legislation requires that all U.S. person queries of the 702 database by FBI be reviewed by ODNI's Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer, and that any improper queries be referred from there to the IG of the intelligence community. This adds yet another layer of oversight of FBI on top of internal oversight, DOJ oversight, which I may not trust, court oversight, which I do trust, and congressional oversight which, yes, I do trust, since I am involved in that. The legislation also adds new criminal penalties for FBI employees who intentionally improperly use section 702.

Finally, the legislation requires that only an FBI attorney can approve a U.S. person query, building on a reform we made in 2024, which required preapproval from either an FBI lawyer or an FBI supervisor. Now, a lawyer is likely to be compliance focused rather than operations focused the way a supervisor would be, and will be especially careful and cautious before approving a proposed U.S. person query.

These are modest reforms, but they are not nothing. When viewed in combination with the 50-plus reforms of 2024, Congress will have built a substantial oversight structure around 702 to prevent abuse.

Section 702 is not a dragnet. It is not an authority that can be used to surveil Americans. It does not contain any commercially acquired information. It does not use artificial intelligence to analyze collected data. Despite the fact that we have heard this word a lot today, it is not unconstitutional. A Federal court certifies this program every single year.

If this were deemed by the judiciary, the branch of government which determines constitutionality, to be unconstitutional, we might have heard that from the courts at some point in the last 18 years in which they have been certifying this authority.

What it does have is an extremely robust set of oversight guardrails in all three branches of government, and this bill makes those guardrails marginally and modestly stronger. It is without question the most important foreign intelligence tool we have.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, despite my frustration with the process that has led us here, I will vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute here to address the question of the Fourth Amendment. Every Member in this Chamber swears an oath to support the Constitution, and it is important in this debate to remember that all of us care profoundly about the Fourth Amendment. I think it is wrong to suggest that the opposite is the case.

I want to draw an analogy for people who may be watching. In the law enforcement context, which is more familiar to most Americans than 702 is, a probable cause Fourth Amendment warrant is required. You have to get from the judge a Fourth Amendment warrant to take, for example, a wiretap on somebody that you suspect of selling fentanyl.

Let's just imagine under my example that Bill Smith is suspected of selling fentanyl, and law enforcement goes in front of a judge and gets a warrant to wiretap Bill Smith.

Now, Bill Smith, as the police listen, is talking to his brother, Joe Smith, and Joe Smith says, I will help you sell that fentanyl.

The police don't need another warrant on Joe Smith. That has been incidentally collected, and no court has ever held that Joe Smith's admission and incidental collection requires the Fourth Amendment for that to be used as evidence in court, which is the argument that the opponents of U.S. person queries are making.

I am not here to say that this is uncontroversial. We have to be obsessed with the protection of Americans' data, but let's not suggest that this is unconstitutional because it has had annual reviews by a Federal court. You might have thought that in 18 years, if a Federal court had thought that this was unconstitutional, they might not have certified. Let us not say that this authority should be subject to a radically different standard than a typical law enforcement warrant would be.

Lastly, I want to make this point. One of the reasons that we are hesitant to rush into a warrant is because many U.S. person queries are not done because we believe that an individual is complicit in a crime. If we hear ISIS talking about Jim Himes, it is unlikely that I am complicit in terrorism. It is quite likely that I may be a victim, and the FBI and Jim Himes would like to know that if that is the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his friendship and partnership, which I value.

This program is controversial for all the right reasons, and what we are doing here is what we have been doing for almost 20 years, which is finding the balance between an authority that keeps not just us but the world safe and protecting the civil liberties of Americans whose information is incidentally collected just as it is collected when there is a traditional police wiretap.

I wish we had had a more fulsome process. I wish I had been able to work with Ranking Member Raskin to have a more robust package of safeguards, particularly in the context of an administration that has demonstrated day in and day out their lawlessness, but we are where we are, and it is a binary choice. Allowing this authority to expire, which I think we are close to, is not an option.

Let's acknowledge to each other that this is not an unconstitutional authority but that we have work to do to continue to protect the civil liberties of Americans and move forward passing this bill with an eye toward what we can do in the coming years to make sure this is a better balanced authority.

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

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