Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking Chairman French Hill and Ranking Member Maxine Waters for doing a remarkable thing. In this polarized and angry Congress, we are actually getting something done, and we are getting something done that is really important.

Throughout my district, from Greenwich to Bridgeport, from Ridgefield to Oxford, I don't spend a day where I don't hear somebody say: I can't afford the rent. I can't afford to buy.

We have a crisis of housing in this country. While this won't fix everything, this is a huge step in the right direction.

There is a lot of work that remains to be done. Our colleagues at the State and municipal levels need to take a hard look at the regulations, at the land use policies, and at the zoning. It continues to inhibit the ability to build housing and, therefore, offer affordable rent and affordable mortgages to America.

What we are doing right here is big. I was delighted to be able to contribute a couple of things to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues at this point in time: Let's listen to the American people. Let's do something for them. Let's make housing more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I rise very sadly tonight in opposition to this legislation.

I have spent hundreds of hours negotiating this, including with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, my friends on the Republican side, reauthorization after reauthorization. I have the scars to show for how much work has been done.

Here we are on the verge of a great deal. The Senate has a bill that reauthorizes FISA and puts in stronger safeguards than the bill that we passed here in the House. We are all ready to go, and we move on, and then the President of the United States decides that Bill Pulte, a man who has never held a security clearance, a man who I am not sure 2 days ago could have told you what the initials DNI stand for, a man who has distinguished himself in the role he currently has as an attack dog to go after the political enemies, that gets thrown in, and we are asked for yet more indulgence at that moment in time.

There is a simple way out of this conundrum. The President can follow the law and allow the Principal Deputy DNI, a Senate-confirmed appointee of the President, to assume the role of acting DNI until a suitable nominee can be confirmed by the Senate. That is all that needs to happen, and none of us needs to swallow what has just happened.

This is a funny moment because I have lots of Republican friends, and in person they have told me what a catastrophic appointment this is. We are not going to hear that on the floor or in public, but we all know that this is the path. It did not need to be this way. There is still time, though very little, to choose a new and responsible path consistent with our obligations to national security.

When this vote fails, and it will, I hope that the President sees the writing on the wall and puts national security first.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Meeks for yielding me the time.

Five days ago, I was in Ukraine, and I saw what so many of us have seen: truly remarkable courage, absolute commitment to fighting for their freedom, innovation like you would not believe, and, interestingly, something I had not seen before in my previous trips to Ukraine, which was the optimism and joy in the face of missiles and destruction that the Ukrainians are winning.

They are winning because they are executing deep strikes into Russia, which have resulted in 30 percent of Russia's refining capacity being eliminated. They are winning because they are retaking territory, and they are winning because they are inflicting a staggering and horrible number of casualties, 30,000 a month, on the Russians.

The Russians are responding to the fact that they are losing by lashing out in desperate fashion, saying diplomats should leave Kyiv, attacking Romania with a drone, because they know they are losing. This is an inflection point.

We could debate for 6 months or 12 months. We have done that before, and the Ukrainians paid with their lives for

that delay, or we could join the fight at the moment that it is being won.

The Ukrainians that I spoke to are the bravest people I have ever seen fighting for their freedom. They want to know one thing. They are wondering whether the people here, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, will be side by side with them. That is all they are wondering. They just want a little help. They don't want our people. They want our technology, and they want to know that we are there with them.

Look around this Chamber. This is the Chamber in which we made the sacrifices to defeat communism. This is the Chamber in which we made the decisions to defeat Nazism. Since 1857, when we have been meeting in this Chamber, we have stood for freedom and liberty. Those who opposed it with buts and conditions, history was not kind to their memory.

Let's do what we have always done and support the brave Ukrainians in their desire for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating something that is not debatable. It is in the Constitution that every single one of us pledges to uphold. You can read it. It says that the Congress authorizes military action.

It doesn't matter how good or bad or evil or close to a nuclear weapon a foe is. What matters is that the Constitution says we debate and approve military action.

Today, of course, we are well beyond the 60 days of the start of this hostility. Not only is this action unconstitutional, completely unapproved by the Congress, but it is now illegal. The War Powers Act requires that troops be withdrawn, absent the approval of Congress, after 60 days.

The chairman says over and over and over again that the Democrats said that it is an evil regime. Yes, we can all agree that it is an evil regime, but the chairman knows that the world is full of evil regimes. It doesn't, therefore, follow that you declare war and go to war and raise Americans' gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and spit in the face of the Constitution just because we all stipulate that the Iranian regime is evil.

Let's take a quick tour backward here. We have had no explanation for this war, beyond the fact that we all understand that the regime in Iran is evil. The President himself told us that the nuclear program was obliterated 9 months ago. Iran, as awful and as dangerous as they were--which, again, isn't a license to go to war--was perhaps in the weakest position it had been in a generation due to the war of 9 months ago, so the notion of imminence is absurd. You are hearing that from the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Where we find ourselves now is that gasoline prices are up $1.50; food prices are rising; the inflation print of last week was pretty terrifying; and my friends in the majority know how utterly politically toxic this war is. They will not do their constitutional duty because they saw what we all saw, which is that this President decides who amongst Republican Members of the House and the Senate get to survive.

The Senator from Louisiana crosses the President; he is gone. The gentleman from Kentucky crosses the President; he is gone. As a political matter, it is fascinating to me that any President has that kind of choke hold over his party, but that is not a reason to spit in the face of the Constitution.

Lose your job for what you pledge to uphold and defend. No career is worth abnegating a pledge you took to the Constitution of the United States, especially when it is creating massive economic hardship for the people who we represent.

Do you think this is ending quickly? It is not. The Iranians are now in the strategic position to decide when this is over because they know the pain that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing.

The only responsible action, the only legal action, and the only constitutional action is to debate this war and to stop it in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.

The chairman can say it over and over and over again that we agree that the Iranian regime is evil.

It therefore does not follow that we must attack them.

Simply because a regime is evil does not authorize a war against it. The chairman knows that.

If the gentleman will yield.

If the gentleman will yield.

Does the gentleman believe that the Iranian regime is the only regime on the planet that would like to attack the United States of America?

They are certainly not. Does the gentleman, therefore, believe that we should take military action against all the other regimes that would like to attack America?

Sir, the definition of ``imminent''--and you can look it up--is that they are about to attack us. I can tell you, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee who did not leave, that they were not about to attack us. You can make up a different definition for ``imminent,'' but that does not make it correct.

If I could point out to the chairman--and I respect his military service--if he were, in fact, in a foxhole facing a .50- caliber machine gun, at least for the last 100 years, he almost certainly would have been in that position pursuant to an Authorization for Use of Military Force by this body.

Well, I think what we should do is pause our military activities while we exercise the constitutional and just the smart act of debating a war which has now affected every single--

Look, if this body chooses to maintain the military action, I will respect the body.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for this important debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my Republican colleagues, and they will get no argument from me on the notion that we have been at war with Iran for decades. They will get no argument at all.

As Mr. Mast keeps saying, this is a bad and evil regime. Yes, we have been at war, but at no point in those decades have we been so obviously losing that war in any strategic sense.

The Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the ocean. We have broken a bunch of their missile launchers, and I guess the nuclear material is a little more buried than it was when we obliterated it 9 months ago, but let's look at the balance here.

Let's set aside the constitutional issues that the majority has been quite happy to set aside now for a month and a half and let's talk about the regime change which occurred. We changed the regime to a younger, much more vicious regime that is now in power in Iran. We also demonstrated that Iran can sustain the most brutal military attack that we have to offer and that regime can still survive.

We have shown the regime--and this is the key point--that they have a weapon more powerful than any of ours, which is they control the energy markets on the globe right now.

As we speak, each and every one of our constituents is paying about $1.25 more per gallon of gasoline than they did before this ill-advised war.

By the way, we have broken the alliance with Israel. Joe Kent, the former National Counterterrorism Director, is running around saying that we are in this war because of Israel. Now, I wasn't in the Oval Office, but that is not a good thing for that alliance. We have spent billions of dollars for what? Most importantly, there are 13 dead Americans, precious lives given for something where the mission is unclear.

We should support our troops, but our troops deserve a strategy. They deserve a sense of mission. They deserve to know that the people's House debated their life or their death.

Yes, this is a terrible regime, and, yes, we are at war, but you are in the process of losing it. Now is the time for Congress to finally reassert its constitutional authority and give a sense of mission and give a sense of meaning to those young men and women who were deployed.

Mr. Speaker, vote for H. Con. Res. 40 so we can finally do our duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of Au Pair in America (APIA), a program of the American Institute For Foreign Study (AIFS). A pioneering cultural exchange program, it has strengthened families, expanded educational opportunity, and advanced people-to-people diplomacy between the United States and nations around the world.

APIA is the longest serving au pair program in the United States, officially recognized in 1986. For four decades, the program has connected young people from abroad with American host families in a spirit of mutual learning and cultural understanding. The au pair program was made permanent when it was signed into law in 1997, reflecting its value to American families and its importance as a cultural exchange initiative.

APIA offers a flexible, dependable, and enriching childcare solution for American families. Au pairs become full-fledged family members, sharing a cultural exchange experience

that often leads to a life-long relationship with their host family. The program now spans more than 50 countries across six continents.

Over the past 40 years, APIA has supported over 130,000 au pairs and host families. The program plays a meaningful role in advancing U.S. public diplomacy by fostering cross-cultural understanding, global citizenship, and enduring personal ties between Americans and people around the world.

This milestone anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the program's lasting contributions to cultural exchange, the families who have welcomed participants into their homes, and the au pairs whose experiences in the United States have shaped lives, careers, and international friendships.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating APIA on its 40th anniversary and in acknowledging its continued role in strengthening cultural exchange and mutual understanding across borders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of the indelible Carolyn Vermont of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

As Members of Congress, we spend every day representing constituents to the best of our ability, attempting to balance competing interests, voices, and opinions. Today is a rare day when I know, as it relates to Carolyn Vermont, there is unanimity among those I have the privilege of representing: she was beloved--for who she was, for how much of herself she was willing to give to her city, for the affection she held for her neighbors, and for her zest for life.

Carolyn devoted her life to serving others, always eager to tackle another structural impediment or injustice which prevented any in her community from flourishing. She helped families achieve stability through homeownership as CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Coastal Fairfield County, fought for racial justice as President of the Bridgeport NAACP, improved safety as chair of Bridgeport's Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Intervention, and promoted education as a trustee for Fairfield University, her alma mater.

Carolyn also served as President of the Bridgeport Rotary Club, was a member of the National Coalition for 100 Black Women, and was involved with the Fairfield Community Foundation and her local chapter of the Urban League. She was an unstoppable force for good in the City of Bridgeport who constantly thought in terms of community.

For all the good she did, Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon you just how good she was. Spending a moment in Carolyn's presence brought you instant joy, lasting motivation to serve others, and the certainty of taking a selfie together. Hundreds--possibly even thousands--of my constituents have selfies with Carolyn hugging them tightly and smiling ear to ear. I know, since her passing, many of us have scrolled back to those photos to bid our friend farewell.

I would like to extend my sincere condolences to the Vermont family. We in Connecticut owe her an immense debt of gratitude for sharing Carolyn with us. She will not soon be forgotten. Trust that I, along with many others, will be there to carry on her legacy--manifested in the organizations she helped build, the initiatives she led, the people she believed in, and the city she loved.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to this debate since it began. The arguments being made by half of the Representatives of the people of the United States, the arguments as to why they should abrogate their constitutionally mandated duty, are bizarre to me.

Most of the arguments have not been arguments. The arguments are that Iran is evil, that they hate the U.S., and that they mean us ill. The majority will find no argument over here that that is true.

Oddly enough, when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they didn't say we shall declare war only when it is not clear that the belligerent is evil or means us ill. It was a categorical demand that the Representatives of the people, because blood and treasure would be consumed, that the Representatives of the people not just be informed but that they provide authorization.

I have heard the majority say that the danger was imminent. I am the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I can say with authority that, in the last 10 years, Iran's ability to create mayhem, while still very substantial, is at an ebb.

The President himself said the nuclear capabilities were ``obliterated,'' his word. Hezbollah has been largely rolled up in Beirut by the Lebanese Armed Forces. We have a pretty good sense of what the Houthis are capable of and how to counter them. If the argument is imminence, that is absurd. There was no imminent threat to the United States on Friday or Saturday of last week.

By the way, the argument that my friend from New York just made, which is that Obama did it, is beyond absurd. I wasn't here when Obama did it. We weren't asked to vote on it. I remember telling the Vice President at the time that our Constitution demands congressional assent.

Congress was not notified. It was not briefed. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the Constitution is clear that, with six dead Americans, with our treasure being consumed, we must approve this action.

Mr. Speaker, it is not about informing.

By the way, this Congress was not informed. Mr. Speaker, eight Members of this Congress were informed.

Set aside, if you will, for a moment the Constitution. Should the Representatives of the people authorize an action that will kill many of those people and that will consume blood and treasure? Our Framers certainly said the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Speaker, let's not abrogate our constitutional duty or our constitutional power. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, not much surprises me anymore, but to sit here and to listen to the storied House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by somebody who calls the opposition stupid, to hear our motivations as we stand up for a fundamental constitutional prerogative mocked through ad hominem attacks, shame, sir. Shame.

We are here because we are standing for our constitutional right to be consulted on the most consequential decision that the United States can make: whether we engage in hostilities and put young men and women at risk.

The chairman's summer stock theater and cringey antics notwithstanding, this has nothing to do with whether there are troops on the ground in Venezuela. We will stipulate to your argument, pathetic as it is, Mr. Speaker.

What this is about is whether what we saw happen 3 weeks ago will happen again. There were boots on the ground 3 weeks ago, and we didn't know about it. This resolution is about saying that on the most consequential thing that this Congress can do, we have a voice--the Representatives of the people, the Article I authority.

Let's set aside Venezuela. I won't use that term again. Let's stand up for our constitutional rights to be consulted for what may happen tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or next week. Not much surprises me anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched my majority friends completely abandon their policy positions, brutally anti-immigration because of this President, obliterating free trade, completely leaving behind everything that the Republican Party used to stand for, praising Vladimir Putin, and attacking our NATO allies.

Mr. Speaker, policy flexibility is not the worst thing in the world. I wish it weren't happening because of the reason that it is happening, but policy flexibility is one thing. Yet abrogating your constitutional duty to be consulted into authorized force and then to be mocked for it, shame, sir. Shame.

We need to stand up as an institution and say that we get consulted on the most consequential things that we can do.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 334.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I came down here to debate something that this Chamber has been debating for generations, which is the push and pull between the Congress and the Chief Executive on the use of our military.

I was profoundly disturbed to hear the chairman denigrate the ranking member. To suggest that he doesn't care about the losses in his district, to suggest that we want the President to do nothing about narcotics, he knows that is not true. I will tell the chairman that I have opposed every Presidential attempt to use the American Armed Forces without congressional approval since I have been here.

This is about one thing, and it is not about the comity of this institution or the dignity that the majority should show in such a debate. This is about one thing and one thing only. It is not about the horrors of drug abuse.

We know that over here. There is not a Democrat who doesn't believe that 100,000 overdoses is an appalling outcome. There is not a Democrat here who doesn't experience the crushing, disgusting horror of those losses. We couldn't agree with the majority more that this is a huge problem.

What this is about is whether the Representatives of the people should be involved in a discussion about how we solve this problem--the Constitution says so--and the questions raised here.

For the first time in 250 years, the United States military is deliberately targeting civilians. They may be awful civilians, I will grant you that, but they are deliberately targeting civilians. We have the largest military force ever assembled in the Caribbean, with no discussion, no debate in this Chamber amongst the Representatives of the people.

The administration has created a war that is not a war, a non- international armed conflict. It is a war inasmuch as we have an aircraft carrier and massive amounts of military hardware in the region, and we have killed upward of 100 people in 23, 24 strikes. Yet, it is not a war that needs to be even informed to the Congress.

The only question that matters--and you can show all the pictures of decapitations, horror, and overdoses. We will stand with you 100 percent about how horrible that is, but do you know what else is horrible? That the majority is comfortable with the removal of the Representatives of the people on this most consequential of issues.

Let's agree that there will be a Democratic President someday who does something that the majority doesn't agree with, but every word they say here today will unbind the hands of that Democratic President to do whatever he or she wants.

This is about our privileges as the Representatives of the people. This is about our fidelity to the Constitution of the United States that demands us to have this debate.

Let's stop trying to scare the American people, and for the first time in a very long time, let's stand up with the dignity and decency that this topic deserves and debate how we are going to address this huge problem while preserving our privileges and prerogatives as Representatives of all the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I recognize the outstanding contributions of Nick Alton, who has served as Minister Counsellor Political at the British Embassy in Washington for the past four years. Throughout his tenure, Nick has been instrumental in strengthening the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. His work ensured that the ties between our nations remain robust and responsive to the challenges of a changing world, fostering collaboration on issues of shared importance and reinforcing the values that unite us.

Nick's efforts extended far beyond the day-to-day responsibilities of diplomacy. He played a pivotal role in coordinating and supporting visits by Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Members of the Royal Family to Washington and across the United States. His meticulous attention to detail and deep understanding of both British and American political landscapes ensured that these engagements were not only successful but also meaningful, advancing dialogue and cooperation at the highest levels of government and society.

In addition to his work on political affairs, Nick demonstrated remarkable versatility by engaging across a wide range of fields, from security and defense to economic and cultural initiatives. Nick's dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to public service exemplify the very best of diplomatic tradition. Nick is transitioning back to the Foreign Office in London, and I wish him the very best for his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hard-working chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act. Importantly, the bill reforms the outdated acquisition process at the Department of Defense. It provides a pay raise for our servicemembers, supports our allies in Europe, including Ukraine, and takes other steps to strengthen our security.

I am pleased that this bill includes the Intelligence Authorization Act. I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member. I thank Chairman Crawford and all members and staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who contributed to this important legislation.

In both the unclassified text and the classified annex, the bill enhances congressional oversight of the intelligence community to ensure they conduct their work effectively, efficiently, and within the bounds of law.

Among other provisions, it increases oversight of the FBI's terrorist watch listing process, requires the NSA to notify Congress of significant changes in its collection posture, and improves our visibility in counter-narcotics-related operations.

It requires each IC element to designate a senior official to oversee work on biotechnology issues, an emerging priority.

It also extends the requirement that there be an IC coordinator to ensure accountability for Russian atrocities and adds Russia's forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to the list of matters under the coordinator's purview.

It requires each IC agency to develop metrics for the adoption of critical emerging technology.

Finally, it provides a narrowly tailored authority to the CIA to protect its domestic facilities from unmanned drones, a gap in the law that we have been seeking to close for more than 5 years.

Once again, I appreciate the strong bipartisan efforts on the IAA, as well as the NDAA, and I am pleased to support the final product.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Waters for the time, although I must say that I am a little bit confused. I am not going to frame this as a parliamentary inquiry, but I am very confused.

We have just gotten back from a 2-month paid vacation in which Federal employees didn't get paid, in which we started a war without congressional approval, in which electricity prices went up for 70 million Americans, and in which inflation is rocking along at 3\1/2\ percent.

I thought we were going to be in this Chamber talking about affordability.

By the way, my friends on the Republican side just got shellacked in an election, from sea to shining sea, where the word is affordability. They got shellacked on affordability.

What did we do this week? Congressman Norman, a guy who put a .38 Smith & Wesson on the table when he met with Moms Demand Action on Gun Safety and who called for martial law to stop the peaceful transfer of power to stop Joe Biden from becoming President, decided that Stacey Plaskett should no longer be on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We spent half a day on that.

Congresswoman Mace decided that Cory Mills should no longer be on committees. Apparently, we may do another one.

I prepared a speech on affordability with lots of good ideas on how to make stuff cheaper. It says it right there: Lots of good ideas on how to make stuff cheaper.

Good idea number one: Get rid of tariffs, which are a tax on bananas, coffee, vegetables, pasta sauce, pasta, televisions, automobiles, and burgundy, a fine French claret for my Republican friends over there.

Number two: Stop canceling generation projects, which will make electricity cheaper.

That was my speech. Instead, we are here to denounce the horrors of socialism. That is not what I was prepared to talk about. If I were prepared to talk about it, I would point out two things.

Number one, if you have ever cracked a book or talked to somebody, you would know that socialism is different than communism. The chairman and I both come out of a highly capitalist industry, banking. There are socialist countries that have exhibited horrors, like Denmark, like Finland, any other number of socialist countries. Communism, in fact, if this resolution said communism, I suspect we wouldn't even have to debate it because who likes communism.

Anyway, I would make that point if I were interested in having this debate, or I might point out--and I welcome the Republican majority in finally catching on--the fact that we are living in the most socialist administration in two and a half centuries.

What is the definition of socialism? Again, if you crack a book, you will see that it is state control over the means of production. This President has taken a 10 percent stake in Intel, a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, a 10 percent stake in Lithium Americas, and a 10 percent stake in Trilogy Metals, and we have a golden share in U.S. Steel-- state control of the means of production.

If the definition of socialism is political control over the means of production, welcome to the great socialist state of the United States of America.

The other definition, by the way, has to do with command and control. Those are words we remember from the Communist era, command and control. Well, holy smokes, there is not a media company, a law firm, or a university that has not been subject to the command and control of the Oval Office.

The President has demanded money. It looks a little like extortion to me, but in order to avoid making a personality, let's just call it dividends. The President has demanded dividends from any number of companies. This is command and control.

I am not actually interested in having that debate because I think we would all agree on much of this stuff, including the fact that we are now living in one of the most socialist countries on the planet.

What I really want to do is talk about affordability, which is what the American people care about.