Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 21 to H.R. 8771, which blocks funds for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO.

The FAO exists within the U.N. system as a specialized agency. It has 194 member states, and it has a mission to improve food quality and combat hunger in over 130 countries.

This sounds like a good cause, so why my amendment. Simply, FAO is the current target of the Chinese Communist Party influence strategy within the multilateral system, facilitated by FAO Director General Qu Dongyu, a Chinese citizen and former Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the CCP.

It is no secret that the CCP is waging a multilateral influence operation with the intent to undermine the U.S. as a world power while reorienting the global system in its favor. Seeking to advance this cause by gaining legitimacy inside the U.N., the CCP is targeting elections for leadership positions within these specialized agencies, then seeking to shift its policies in the CCP's favor.

Over the course of the last 12 years, China has run the World Health Organization, the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, and now the FAO. In 2020, China nearly succeeded in its bid to lead the World Intellectual Property Organization.

All of these organizations coordinated major sectors crucial for development in modern life, yet I am concerned that the State Department is not taking these threats seriously and only engages with countering Chinese ascensions to these leadership positions when elections get down to the wire or if there is media scrutiny.

It is time to step up and counter CCP influence. It starts by engaging with agencies to prevent CCP control.

The U.S. contributes 22 percent of the FAO's regular budget compared to China's 12 percent. If we are going to foot the bill at international organizations, we should not do so at the expense of promoting the CCP.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, for my colleagues who may share my concern about CCP influence but are concerned about not supporting the FAO mission, I would also note that Director Dongyu's tenure has been marked with criticism, including from U.N. officials, for mismanaging the agency and failing to properly respond to global food shortages.

A December 2022 Politico article, interviewing more than a dozen U.N. officials and diplomats, highlighted these concerns. These officials criticized the top-down authoritarian management of the FAO, saying, ``It is not him. It is China,'' and, ``I am not convinced he would make a single decision without first checking it with the capital,'' referring to China.

It is a matter of fact that the invasion of Ukraine, a major food exporter, further contributed to food shortages, especially for Ukraine's trading partners. U.N. officials criticized the FAO for refusing to realize this reality, even though it falls directly within its jurisdiction. The concern got so bad that U.S. and EU officials had to force an emergency meeting of the FAO council.

Under his watch, the priorities of the collective FAO have been sidelined for the director general's priorities, which the West has warned are similar to China's Global Development Initiative.

I would also note that, according to the base text of this bill, there is precedent for such a policy, as section 7048 restricts funds for a specialized agency chaired or presided over by a country which supports international terrorism.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment No. 22 to H.R. 8771, which prohibits funding for the United Nations' International Organization for Immigration, or IOM, activities in the Western Hemisphere.

What is at stake with this amendment is twofold: ending the channels connecting U.S. taxpayer dollars to activities facilitating mass migration to the southern border and reclaiming Congress' control over the allocation of funding.

The underlying bill allocates $2.4 billion for migration and refugee assistance to carry out sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, which allow for membership and contributions for IOM and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Congress broadly allocates this pot of money for these purposes, and then the State Department and USAID have the discretion to allocate these funds as they see fit.

While this process alone should raise concern about the appropriations authority, we should be even more concerned that this system is helping the IOM, which is facilitating mass illegal migration, creating the crisis at our southern border.

We have uncovered the fact that the IOM is using contributions from countries, including the United States, to lobby the Biden administration to repeal and replace policies that secure the southern border and also engage in activities providing assistance that facilitates mass migration to that same border.

Shortly after President Biden took office, IOM issued a statement in support of his executive orders, which set this administration off on its destructive border and immigration agenda. The IOM has also risen in support of the Biden administration's creation of unlawful parole categories, the kind this body impeached Secretary Mayorkas for, and continued to criticize the U.S. for keeping title 42 restrictions in place.

The IOM also pressured the Biden administration to end the remain in Mexico policy, which it considers ``inhumane and against international law.''

Of the most concern is how U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to the IOM are then being provided directly to illegal migrants, facilitating the mass migration to our southern border, causing this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, to add insult to injury, U.S. dollars provided to the U.N. are also sent to NGOs that use these funds to provide cash, debit cards, food, clothing, medical treatment, shelter, and even ``humanitarian transportation'' to U.S.-bound illegal immigrants in Latin American nations and Mexico. In short, U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent over our borders to the IOM, which is then using them to facilitate the crisis at our border.

The IOM is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to push our government to lower its border security policies and then aiding in programs rushing illegal migrants to the border, overwhelming the system in place and helping to facilitate the crisis we are facing.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not harm the United States' ability to help refugees if it so desires.

First, it keeps in place U.S. funding for IOM activities in other regions where there are refugee crises. It simply blocks U.S. funding for activities in the Western Hemisphere that are harming our own border security.

Second, if the United States wants to provide refugee services, it should do so directly and not rely on international organizations to administer these services.

To the extent that the U.S. does want to engage with international organizations, this does not mean it should not review how its funds are used and whether the organization is operating in the best interests of the United States. In this instance, the IOM is not, and the U.S. should not be complicit in bad policies that harm our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an organization dedicated to promoting oil and gas production in Wyoming over the last 50 years.

Western Energy Alliance was formed in 1974 to advocate for small, independent companies as our Nation was grappling with terrible energy policies during the oil crisis, and there was a period of conflict in the Middle East in the 1970s, a time that is similar to today when American energy leadership is so desperately needed.

Today, the Alliance continues to challenge Washington's anti-oil and -gas policies. For example, the Alliance teamed up with the Petroleum Association of Wyoming to counter plans to close off 2.5 million acres in Wyoming from production under BLM's Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. The plan would starve our Nation of the energy it needs to grow.

Because of the Alliance, our Nation over the past five decades has benefited from increased energy production and will continue to do so for the next 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 59 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 13, 2024, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 17 to H.R. 8580, which would prohibit the VA from continuing to decommission mileage reimbursement kiosks in its facilities nationwide.

As the age-old saying goes, if it is not broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, this basic premise was disregarded when the VA decided to quickly do away with mileage reimbursement kiosks at its facilities nationwide, which had previously provided veterans with an easy-to-use system to file their beneficiary travel reimbursement claims, among other key functions.

These changes were made as part of the November 2020 rollout of the VA's new online beneficiary travel self-service system, which sought to reform the way in which these claims are submitted and processed.

Since its introduction, the VA's new system has been plagued with countless issues and has ultimately disadvantaged a large segment of America's veterans, such as those who live in rural areas, including Wyoming, where access to the internet can be limited, and our elderly veterans are not as familiar with this type of technology.

An OIG report from May 2023 highlighted that from February 2021 through July 2022, the new system fell short of all four of the VA system performance goals. Initial feedback from veterans outside the VA and veteran service organizations was never taken into account during system development. The VA did not provide proper training to veterans on how to enter claims in the new system until almost 5 months after the system's launch.

Madam Chair, these mistakes are simply not acceptable. Combined with the removal of the mileage reimbursement kiosks, these foundational flaws have resulted in missed reimbursements and increased difficulties for America's veterans.

While I certainly understand the need to streamline and improve upon existing systems and processes, modernization should never come at a negative cost to any of our veterans who have devoted their lives to serving our Nation and safeguarding the freedoms that we hold dear.

It is our responsibility, and should remain our priority, to do everything in our power to ensure our veterans can easily access the benefits and care that they have rightfully earned.

Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will repeat, this is for the benefit of our veterans. This is a program that was not properly rolled out, and our veterans are the ones who have suffered as a consequence. They are the ones who have given their lives and their dedication to protecting our freedoms.

It is critically important that we make sure that we make it as easy as possible, as streamlined as possible for them to be able to seek the reimbursement that they are entitled to. These kiosks have been effective in doing that. Until there is an alternative that can replace the kiosks, we should not be decommissioning them.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I don't think that there is anything that epitomizes more the Democrats' obsession with abortion than bringing that issue in relation to an amendment as to whether the VA should be allowed to decommission kiosks for mileage reimbursement for our veterans.

The fact that that is the only issue that they are able to address when trying to find a way to make sure that our veterans are able to be properly reimbursed for the expenses that they incur just, I think, is a reflection on the Democratic Party as a whole right now. They are not even capable of discussing anything other than abortion, even when the amendment has nothing to do with that particular topic.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time and for his leadership on this important issue.

Since its founding in 2006, Mountain Gateway Ministries has been changing people's lives through the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the feeding and clothing of those in need, and the provision of water, food, equipment, and recovery assistance during and after natural disasters.

These noble and selfless efforts have had far-reaching impacts on the lives of so many families and individuals extending far beyond the borders of any individual Nation.

In 2013, Mountain Gateway Ministries began their important work in Nicaragua, spreading the Lord's word to hundreds of thousands of people.

The ministry has started and supported multiple churches across the country, provided countless aid and helping hands through hurricanes and other humanitarian relief projects, and has even gone as far as to run a Fairtrade coffee farm with the goal of providing a source of stable income for local residents in nearby rural communities.

Over the course of 10 years, they have operated with the cooperation and approval of the Nicaraguan authorities. Unfortunately, this all changed after the ministry held a series of evangelistic services in 2023, which nearly 1 million people attended.

Shortly after those services ended, the Nicaraguan government rapidly changed its position and began a relentless campaign of wrongful persecution.

In December 2023, under the guise of false money laundering claims and with little to no notice, the Nicaraguan government canceled the ministry's legal status, arrested several Nicaraguan pastors and ministry partners, threatened the arrest of U.S. citizens involved with the ministry, seized the ministry's properties, and froze its bank accounts.

After spending months at a Nicaraguan prison with no access to legal counsel, no visits from their relatives, and being unable to hear the allegations against them, the trials against those arrested commenced.

During the trial, the presiding judge arbitrarily elevated the charges against these individuals to aggravated money laundering claims.

All the Nicaraguan defendants were found guilty of the elevated charges and sentenced to severe punishments, including over 10 years in prison and fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

These instances of wrongful targeting and persecution have unfortunately become routine actions by the Nicaraguan government.

The same government has taken similar steps against the Catholic Church, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and many other religious groups, charities, and civic organizations.

Mr. Speaker, what is currently unfolding in Nicaragua with the members of Mountain Gateway Ministries is a

travesty, an injustice on the greatest scale.

From the time of their arrest to the handing down of their sentences, the treatment of these individuals and the ministry is in complete contradiction to the most fundamental freedoms and beliefs that we hold here in America, including the freedom of religion, presumption of innocence, and the guarantee of due process and equal treatment under the law.

I commend Mountain Gateway founder Jon Britton Hancock and his family, who are constituents of mine in Wyoming, for bringing this to my attention and for their tireless efforts to advocate for the just treatment and release of these individuals.

I urge President Biden, the State Department, and all of my colleagues to call on the Nicaraguan government to take prompt action to address these violations of religious freedom and abandonment of justice and due process.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate Congress's intent to further describe its expectations of the executive branch when interpreting, administering, and complying with this bill's provisions should it become law. The legislative intent of this bill is simple, yet Congress is compelled to further clarify the record on this bill to pre-empt an executive branch that routinely seeks to avoid the letter of the law through rule- and policy-making, and in the face of an administration opposed to this bill.

The Fourteenth Amendment establishes that a U.S. citizen is a person born or naturalized in the U.S. Federal law further clarifies that a U.S. citizen is someone who is a citizen of the U.S. by law, birth, or naturalization. Under H.R. 7109, it is this citizenship status that the federal government is to collect through the decennial census, and then determine apportionment and the electoral college. Should this bill become law, Congress intends the executive branch to use this definition when implementing the Act, and no rule or policy can infringe on this requirement.

Congress would typically expect the executive branch to execute all of the Nation's lawful force as instructed by the legislative branch and as required by the separation-of-powers provisions found in the Constitution. Congressional and judicial scrutiny of the acts of the executive branch has continued to increase over time because of its propensity to ignore, misinterpret, or misapply Congressionally imposed restrictions or mandates. The current administration has a track record of routinely pushing the limits of, and outright ignoring, the law to achieve political goals through rulemaking and other executive policy.

The Biden Administration's regulatory abuse is exemplified through a variety of actions, such as the Department of Education's Income Drive Repayment Program; a slate of Environmental Protection Act rules, such as Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027. Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and the Clean Power Plan 2.0; the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation and Landscape Health Rule; and the Security and Exchange Commission's Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors. None of these rulemakings find a foundation in the laws, yet the Administration has moved forward with

them in furtherance of a political agenda. The scope of this issue is further confirmed as a contributing factor in the Supreme Court's consideration of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

Congress should also be concerned about the Biden Administration's willingness to carry out this Act as written in light of its stated opposition to the Equal Representation Act. Just this week, the Biden Administration issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy ``strongly opposing the bill.'' Contrary to the Administration's statement, this law is imperative to gathering important information on the number of non-citizens living here, to the integrity of U.S. elections, and to ensuring that only American citizens are counted towards Congressional apportionment. This is especially so at a time when the Biden Administration is allowing non-citizens en masse into the country.

Congress intends to collect information on the citizenship status of all census respondents, using the legal definition of a United States citizen, and to use this count to determine Congressional apportionment and the electoral college. No administrative rulemaking or policy can or should be used to waive, circumvent, provide exceptions to, or otherwise change the intent of Congress in the Equal Representation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Superior National Forest Restoration Act presented by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Stauber.

Northern Minnesota has a long, proud legacy of responsible mining that was pivotal in our Nation's victory in World War II. As we enter into greater strategic competition with China, we are presented with a similar challenge: We can either source American critical minerals such as those contained in the Superior National Forest ourselves or become even more dependent on our chief adversary for our mineral and energy needs.

America has the most stringent environmental standards in the world, and we are being forced to source minerals from dictators and despots who use child labor and who are without concern for the ecological impacts.

We have abundant resources here at home, including the abundant Duluth Complex. Despite the environmental and economic benefits of these minerals, the Obama and Biden administrations have consistently worked to block exploration and development of these lands.

This bill will reinstate the mining leases for the world's largest untapped copper-nickel deposit and help our Nation dominate the critical mineral sector while providing hundreds of reliable, well- paying jobs.

This is an economic issue and a national security issue. We can either be beholden and reliant on a foreign nation that seeks to supplant us, or we can be a global leader in the critical mineral industry.

I support the Twin Metals project, I support this bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, delisting the gray wolf does not mean we no longer monitor or manage the population. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

This bill allows State agencies who know their land and wildlife best and who already have management plans in place to manage wolves in a way that protects life and property and allows all species in the ecosystem to thrive.

Minnesota has the largest population of wolves in the lower 48. There are over 6,000 wolves in Minnesota, and they refer to the northern part of the State as the dead zone because wolves have largely wiped out all other wildlife: the deer, the muskrats, the beavers, et cetera.

It is our States, not the Federal Government, who supply the vast majority of time, money, and expertise to manage wildlife, and their record of success demonstrates clearly that species management is more effective when carried out by State and local agencies.

It is State management agencies, not the Federal Government, that recovered and delisted the gray wolf in 2020, only to have radical enviro-activists sue to keep them listed.

For years, populations throughout the West have been well above the recovery thresholds prescribed in the Endangered Species Act.

Yet, officials in the Department of the Interior, beholden to radical environmental NGOs, continually shift the recovery goalpost to keep species like the gray wolf and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear listed as endangered, preserving their budget and control over Western lands.

Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a recovered species, the Fish and Wildlife Service should focus its time and efforts on species that are actually at risk of becoming extinct.

The science demonstrates how successful State management plans for the gray wolf have been, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's own research has

stated that: `` . . . wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance. . . .'' And they also said: `` . . . do not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our State management officials, those who are on the ground and in the community, who are best equipped to manage our wildlife and can serve our environment, not unelected officials working from concrete buildings in Washington, D.C.

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are classic examples of this fact. All three have maintained a recovered wolf population for well over 20 years.

Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side would say, that the plans that have been passed by the States would never pass judicial muster, the facts are the opposite.

In fact, it was the Circuit Court of Appeals right here in D.C. that ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in the State of Wyoming.

I thank Ms. Boebert for introducing this commonsense bill and encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.

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. Speaker, the security state's abuse of their foreign intelligence authorities to unlawfully surveil American citizens and search their records has been exposed for all to see.

In 2021, the FBI conducted over 3 million FISA searches of Americans. In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of such warrantless queries per day.

In the 2020 and early 2021 time period, the FBI conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 FISA database that violated the Justice Department's own rules and often lacked national security connections.

The FBI is querying Americans of all political and religious affiliations. The FBI is even using section 702 to target elected and appointed government officials.

The FBI's abuses are well-known--using the 702 database to search for information on those individuals that it perceives to be political enemies of liberal orthodoxy, seeking to infiltrate the Catholic church, spying on parents at school board meetings, and working with Big Tech to censor Americans it disagrees with.

This is Stasi level abuse, and it must be stopped.

So my question for this body is, if catching the government violating the Constitution and our civil liberties is not the time for significant reform, then when is?

The proposed changes to FISA are a good first step, but they don't go far

enough. There are three additional amendments to assure accountability. One includes a warrant requirement to query the 702 database for Americans. There is no national security exception to the Fourth Amendment and we must ensure that these agencies adhere to the bill of rights.

This warrant amendment would not prevent the government from using all of the available national security tools. It simply requires the government to get a warrant.

Now there are some who would argue that requiring the intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before spying on American citizens would be too burdensome and unreasonably delay their efforts to keep the homeland safe. My first response is to note that if these agencies sincerely cared about national security, they would be doing everything in their power to convince President Biden and Mayorkas to close the border, but that has not been their priority and their silence is deafening.

My second response is to note that this reauthorization is only for 2 years. We can pass the warrant amendment and reassess the situation in 2 short years, making the necessary tweaks at that time.

The second amendment offered by Mr. Cline would end, once and for all, ``abouts'' collection, and the third amendment by Mr. Roy would enhance reporting requirements and bring more transparency to the FISA court process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments. If these three amendments do not pass, section 702 should not be reauthorized. I also urge my colleagues to reject the three additional amendments that we will be taking up, amendments that are actually designed to expand FISA. It is simply unacceptable to reward an agency's abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the three amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this resolution, which sets up the House of Representatives to consider much-needed reform and limitations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

With the pending expiration of 702 of FISA, Congress is tasked with reforming an authority intended for foreign intelligence collection, but which has turned into warrantless surveillance of the American people.

The targeting of Americans is well documented. Reporting from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence found that in 2021 the FBI conducted over 3,394,000 U.S. person searches without a warrant. In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of warrantless searches each day.

These queries target Members of Congress, State elected officials, judges, campaign donors, protestors, and more.

In May of this last year, The Washington Post reported that in 2020 and early 2021, the FBI conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 database that violated Justice Department rules and often lacked national security connections.

Even the FISA court found that `` . . . the FBI's querying of section 702 information have proven to be persistent and widespread.''

Warrantless surveillance of the American people by the Federal Government in violation of the Fourth Amendment is well documented and well known.

If such an alarming reality does not merit serious reform and paring back of authorities, then my question is: What does?

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was proud to be involved in the development of the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act through which we first advanced these important reforms.

The FISA working group was the next installment of this important process, and the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act is a good start, but there is more work which must be done.

The underlying rule makes in order three critically important amendments--one prohibiting warrantless searches of Americans in the 702 database, one ending the overly intrusive abouts collection, and one enhancing reporting requirements and injecting Congress into the FISA court process.

These amendments are crucial to placing limitations and imposing transparency.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support these three amendments.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6011) to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to notify applicants of the completion status of right-of-way applications under section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6011, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6011, the Right-of-Way Application Transparency and Accountability Act.

H.R. 6011, introduced by Congressman Valadao, would expedite right- of-way applications on Federal lands for energy projects by requiring agencies to notify applicants within 90 days if the right-of-way application is complete or deficient.

The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service would both be required to meet this deadline and specify the information needed for applicants that are deemed deficient.

The Federal Land Policy Management Act, or FLPMA, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant rights-of-way on Federal lands for several activities that cause land disturbance. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allows the respective Secretaries to issue rights-of-way for oil, natural gas, and refined product pipelines over Federal lands.

While both statutes include application requirements, neither includes timelines for the agencies to respond to applicants to tell them whether their applications are complete or deficient.

The lack of a timeline has created a bottleneck in the permitting process for energy projects that need a right-of-way to proceed, which is why this bill is needed.

During the Committee on Natural Resources' hearing on this bill, the American Clean Power Association testified in support of it and pointed out that the permitting system on Federal lands is overly burdensome and actively curtails investment.

Specifically, their testimony stated that ``delays are largely due to procedural inefficiencies in processing permits and have ripple effects throughout the economy, throwing off project timelines, domestic supply chains, and the indirect jobs and economic activity that would otherwise occur. Without further permitting reform, the United States may not be able to meet our growing energy demand.''

They also noted that the current average timeline for a project to obtain a right-of-way is often over 5 years, mainly due to the delays between filing an application and beginning the environmental review process.

That lag time, an unnecessary delay, is exactly what H.R. 6011 addresses.

This bill will also help expedite the process for rights-of-way for oil and gas gathering lines on Federal lands, which would help increase production while reducing emissions.

While this commonsense legislation is not a panacea for permitting on Federal lands, it does provide a meaningful step forward by allowing complete applications for energy projects to move forward and provide certainty to those with incomplete applications so that they can fix and resubmit those applications.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6011, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2024.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 6011, the ``Right-Of-Way

Application Transparency and Accountability Act''. Thank you

for collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the

matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support

such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 6011 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Valadao, for working across the aisle on this bipartisan, all-of- the-above energy bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6011, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4389) to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4389, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4389, sponsored by Congresswoman Salazar from Florida. This legislation reauthorizes the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which includes a grant program and research efforts designed to help conserve nearly 400 different species of birds that migrate between North America in the summer months and Latin America and the Caribbean in the winter months.

Protecting the habitat of these species is not only a good conservation policy but also good for economic activity. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study found that roughly 96 million people participated in bird-watching activities, including maintaining habitat to benefit bird species. This includes individuals who participate in these activities in their local communities and those who travel to do so.

Encouraging habitat conservation efforts, such as those reauthorized by this bill, is a win for the environment, recreational activity, and local economies.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar) for her leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar).

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

Many of us in this Chamber come from communities where being outdoors is part of our way of life and communities with vibrant ecosystems, particularly in places that serve as a home for migratory species.

We know that habitat conservation is critical to their long-term health. H.R. 4389 will help further conservation efforts by providing resources to those who are dedicated to advancing habitat restoration efforts and encouraging collaborative research efforts.

I thank Ms. Salazar once again for her leadership in reauthorizing this program, and I ask my colleagues to support this effort. I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1246) to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1246, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 1246, would amend the Long-Term Leasing Act to authorize any federally recognized Indian Tribe to lease land held in trust for the Tribe's benefit for up to and including 99 years, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

In 1955, Congress passed the Long-Term Leasing Act, which authorized the Tribal owners to lease any lands held in trust for the benefit of the Tribes for nongrazing purposes, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the

Interior, for only up to 25 years. Any nongrazing lease could be renewed up to one additional term of 25 years for a total of 50 years.

The restriction on the length of time a Tribe can lease their land can have a negative impact on a Tribe's ability to negotiate long-term commercial leases and, subsequently, a Tribe's economic development opportunities.

Congress has amended the Long-Term Leasing Act more than 50 times to adjust the terms and conditions of leases of Tribal lands and authorize specific Tribes or Tribal lands to lease for a term of up to 99 years, subject to approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

This legislation would put a stop to Tribes having to rely on Congress to pass specific legislation so that they can enter into long- term leases should they choose to do so.

H.R. 1246 would proactively extend leasing authority to all federally recognized Tribes while providing a more expedited path forward for economic development. This is commonsense legislation that will benefit Tribes long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my legislation would promote economic development for Tribes by ensuring that they are on the same playing field as other landowners who can enter into long-term leases on their land.

This legislation is a proactive step to support Tribes and their ability to create and pursue economic opportunity.

As the chairman of the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, I do and will continue to advocate for commonsense solutions for our Indian Tribes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6443) to take certain land in the State of California into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village of California Tribe, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6443, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act, would place 172.1 acres of land owned in fee simple by the Jamul Indian Village into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.

The Jamul Indian Village is located in San Diego County and is part of the Kumeyaay people of southern California, otherwise known as the Mission

Indians. While the Tribe's history dates back 12,000 years, it only received Federal recognition in 1981. The Tribe's reservation consists of approximately 6.04 acres, but the Tribe has continued to work to restore its land base.

Unfortunately, bureaucratic inefficiencies have delayed the process. The Tribe has submitted fee-to-trust applications for the parcels identified in this legislation, including one submitted in August 2015 that the Department of the Interior has not yet finalized.

This legislation would end that bureaucratic delay and place these parcels into trust. The legislation also would prohibit any class II or class III gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act from occurring on the parcels to be placed into trust.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for his work on this bill. I encourage the adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would take approximately 172.1 acres of land owned in fee simple by the Jamul Indian Village into trust by the United States for the benefit of this Tribe. I thank Mr. Issa for his work on this legislation to benefit his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.