Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak today about Jeffrey Epstein or January 6. I am going to confine my remarks to two things that I know about.

I am going to take a deep breath right now because to stand here and have to listen to the gentleman from Louisiana, in the guise of just asking questions, besmirch one of the finest Members I have had the honor of serving with, I think, would offend the sensibility of anybody in this Chamber.

I am going to limit my remarks to two things I know very well: number one, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and what we need to do to preserve that very special environment; and, number two, the character of Delegate Stacey Plaskett. On HPSCI, I have served for 10 years, and with Chairman Turner and now with Chairman Crawford, we have fought for that decade to keep the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence immunized from the sewage that flows through this Chamber, the partisan attacks, the hideousness. By and large, we have been pretty successful, with one exception, when that committee got involved in the political investigation around Ukraine in the first Trump administration.

Every single day, the leaders of that committee work hard, establish friendships, and do the work we need to do to make sure that the toxicity and the sewage that we are hearing right now

don't impinge the critical work of making sure that our intelligence communities are keeping Americans safe, not violating civil liberties, and not doing things inconsistent with the desires and character of the American people.

This effort put forward by a bunch of people who haven't served on that committee and who have no idea the comity and the grace with which that committee serves, you, sirs, will hurt this committee badly.

I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--and I will say it again--I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows Ms. Plaskett and knows the committee to vote ``no'' on the idea that, without evidence and without due process, Ms. Plaskett should be removed from that very special committee.

This resolution would strike a devastating blow to HPSCI's ability to work effectively. By removing a member in good standing based on a newspaper article about texts--no due process, no evidence, nothing offered other than a newspaper article which has moved the gentleman from South Carolina--a member who has consistently engaged in a bipartisan and productive way with the committee's work, to make some unrelated political statement will do profound damage to this essential committee.

Now, let me just talk for a moment about Ms. Plaskett. I have served in this institution for 17 years, longer, I think, than most people in this Chamber. I have not had the honor of serving with somebody with the integrity, the commitment, and the hardworking bona fides as Ms. Plaskett.

We can argue about the wisdom or the judgment associated with those texts. I am told that, apparently, Mr. Epstein was a constituent.

For any one of us, on our worst day, our biggest misjudgment is not to be judged without any due process, especially in the context of this superb Member, this critical, critical member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The result of this resolution, if it were to pass, will be to undo the efforts of the Republican Speaker and the Republican chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Crawford, to restore the committee to what it was intended to be.

While the bill for that decision won't come due immediately, it will come due over time in the form of a less accountable and less effective intelligence community with less effective oversight for Congress.

I don't expect the gentlemen who have offered this up to back down now, but I do expect every single member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that elect, those few who understand what it is we need to do, to close the door on the flow of partisan sewage, which we see now threatening the critical work that we do.

Vote ``no'' on this appalling resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the United States.

His first visit since 2021, he joins us on his eighth Apostolic trip to our country during which he will receive the prestigious Templeton Prize for his environmental advocacy.

The ``Green Patriarch's'' landmark 1997 speech in Santa Barbara--in which he first posited the notion of ecological sin--is striking for how revolutionary it was then, and how prescient it remains today. In particular, one line from His All-Holliness' remarks 28 years ago struck me as worthy of meditating upon in the tumultuous times in which we find ourselves.

In his speech, His All-Holliness offers the following: ``we lovingly suggest to all the people of the earth, that they seek to help one another to understand the myriad ways in which we are related to the earth, and to one another.

Now, perhaps more than any time in my recollection, that call to engage with one another, identify our commonalities, eschew clinging to our differences, and help--how we can, where we can--feels vital to the moral health of the American people and the long-term viability of our global environment.

On behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Christian community of Southwestern Connecticut, I would like to extend my congratulations to His All- Holiness for his Templeton Prize; it is a well-deserved acknowledgement of his years of advocacy. I hope his trip is a success and that he enjoys his time in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a big thank you to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member, and to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend, for their support of this bill.

I just want to elaborate for a minute on what I think the need is for this bill. This grew out of the work we did many, many years ago on the JOBS Act, in which we observed that the regulatory expenses faced by a company seeking to go public were roughly $2 million to $4 million in size.

It is also true that a small IPO, a medium-sized IPO, anything up to about $200 million, is subject almost always to a 7 percent gross spread. That is 7 percent of the proceeds, or in the case of a $200 million offering, $14 million. On a $150 million offering, it is $10 million, well more than twice the regulatory cost that we identified in working on the JOBS Act.

What is very strange about that 7 percent fee is that, regardless of what period of time you examine, IPOs from about $30 million up to about $200 million are always subject to a 7 percent fee. Now, all of us who observe markets know that that is odd behavior in what should be a competitive market.

This is money, of course, that goes to the investment banks that underwrite these IPOs. I know this because I spent many years working in those investment banks.

The bill here simply says, having done the work that we did on the JOBS Act, what can we do to examine the underlying market forces or nonmarket forces creating this 7 percent gross spread and costs of many, many millions of dollars for companies when they are small and capital is at a premium.

This study, I think, would illustrate some things that would allow us to do even better than we did in the JOBS Act and make it that much more possible, maybe even probable for companies to seek capital in our public markets.

Mr. Speaker, I thank once again the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Corporal Edmund ``Ed'' Burke of Wilton, Connecticut who will celebrate his 100th birthday next week.

Born and raised in the Bronx, he attended Fordham Prep High School and was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1944. Just eighteen at the time, Corporal Burke reported for basic training at Camp Wheeler, Georgia without hesitation, knowing his call to serve came when his country needed him most.

Assigned to the Seventh Armored Division, he was an Infantry Machine Gunner in the European theatre of World War II. He saw action at the Battle of the Bulge, where his division took over 100,000 German prisoners, with Corporal Burke personally capturing enemy soldiers. His bravery earned him multiple commendations, including: a Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, ETO ribbon with four battle stars, Presidential Unit Citation, Meritorious Unit Citation, Belgian Fourregiare, and the Combat Infantry Badge.

After receiving an honorable discharge in 1946, Corporal Burke pursued engineering degrees on the G.I. Bill, first at Manhattan College where he earned his Bachelor of Civil Engineering, later at Columbia University, where he completed his Masters in the same field. Throughout his tenure as an engineer, Corporal Burke would join the New York State Department of Public Works, as well as Corbett, Tinghir & Co. Engineers, ending his career as a partner at Moran, Proctor, Mueser, and Rutledge. There, he was renowned for meticulously and thoughtfully applying his expertise in foundational engineering to the projects on which he worked, including over one hundred sites right here in Washington, D.C.

Corporal Burke's life stands as an all-American success story, one which we would all do well to share with our constituents as a model of how service, hard work, and patriotism come together to form a life well-led. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Ed Burke for his service, our congratulations on reaching this milestone in a full life, and a sincere happy birthday. May this be his best one yet.

Mr. Speaker, on this consequential day, when this body is likely to make law and debate critical things, it has already been a good and blessed day because our day was opened with a prayer by Reverend Dr. Lindsay Curtis.

Dr. Curtis is well into his second decade leading as senior pastor at Grace Baptist Church, a 129-year-old faith community in the center of my district, Norwalk, Connecticut.

The church has thrived under Pastor Curtis' leadership, and I admire him as a friend, as a mentor, and as a spiritual guide not just for his understanding of the Scripture, but for his deep commitment to ministry.

Dr. Curtis, over the course of his career, has served as president of the Connecticut State Missionary Baptist Convention. He has served as chairman of the Advisory Board of Directors of Norwalk ACTS, which is a partnership of civic leaders. He has acted as the president of the Norwalk NAACP, commissioner of the Judicial Selection Commission, and when he sees a problem, he uses ministry to solve it.

Just this summer, out of nowhere, he conjured up a summer camp for 150 children in Norwalk, Connecticut, who might not otherwise have a way to constructively spend their days.

I have always loved the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. That quote is familiar to so many of you: Always preach the Gospel. Sometimes use words.

Lindsay Curtis embodies that idea in his ministry, and his superb record is blemished perhaps only by my suspicion--and it is a suspicion--that he thinks that somehow the Chicago Bulls fit into the Trinity, but above all else, our God is a forgiving God, so I am sure that that will not be a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Curtis so much for opening us up today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for this opportunity to speak because this is one of the most ignorant things I have seen this House produce in a very long time.

It stuns me, frankly, that my good friends, Congressmen Hill, Steil, and Barr, are associating themselves with this bill.

Let's be super clear about this. Nobody knows whether a CBDC is a good idea. A couple of years ago, I wrote a white paper on CBDC, and I concluded that it is not clear. The arguments for and against are being mooted today.

Yes, it could be abused by an overwhelming executive if we had a President, for example, who showed disdain for the Constitution, who was comfortable acting illegally, and who wasn't comfortable with judicial rulings. It is hard for us to imagine that President, but this could be abused.

It could be used for monetary policy, a bad idea. It could be used for taxation, a bad idea. It could also, by the way, be a trusted electronic currency

for an unbanked population. It could be a way of supporting the primacy of the American dollar. I don't know.

The truth is that nobody on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle knows either, but we are going to forbid any inquiry around this to figure out whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. We are going to say we can't even research it.

This is a stunning definition of ignorance. Imagine if 100 years ago we had said that electricity is scary. It can kill you and is produced by burning coal, which is dangerous, so we are not going to research electricity or atomic power or the automobile. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because of the automobile.

We don't know, and the majority says let's not learn because they have some ideological fixation that, frankly, I don't understand.

Two hundred years ago, the private sector, which my friends on the other side of the aisle hold up, had issued currency. It was called scrip. Companies and banks issued their own currency, and this country learned that this was a terrible idea and that, in fact, the central bank should issue currency, which is one of the reasons we are who we are today. You might give the CBDC at least some benefit of the doubt instead of being ignorant about whether we want to know the truth.

We need to stop this. We held this institution up for 2 days over a bizarre MAGA obsession which is rooted in insanity and ignorance. Don't even find out the answer. The ranking member said that this is like a boy who is hiding from the truth. I have another metaphor. This is like a young 5-year-old who is angry and covers his eyes and ears and believes he is invisible.

Just imagine my good friend Andy Barr saying we are not like China, we are not like--what if there is a sterling or--

Mr. Speaker, for all the rah-rah patriotism, think about this. Again, I will acknowledge that we don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea, and we ought to find out.

Let's imagine that the European Union, which Mr. Barr wants to dissociate himself with, puts out a CBDC that picks up real usage. Now all of a sudden, we have a threat to the dollar because we are still handing around pieces of paper because the Republican majority said we shouldn't even research something that may or may not be a good part of a modern, 21st century economy.

Don't go with ignorance. You are too smart for that. Don't risk putting us behind on something that could be really important to the future of the American dollar. Vote ``no'' on this ignorant bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of the Honorable Mia Bourdeau Love, a trailblazing public servant, devoted wife and mother, proud Haitian American, and

the first Black Republican woman elected to the United States Congress. I enjoyed serving with Congresswoman Love during her time in this body and considered her a friend.

Born Ludmya Bourdeau in Brooklyn, New York, to Haitian immigrant parents Jean Maxime and Marie Bourdeau, Mia embodied the values of compassion, resilience, freedom, and service to others--principles instilled in her from childhood and manifested through decades of unwavering commitment to family, faith, and public leadership. At age five, she and her family moved to Norwalk in Southwestern Connecticut where she would grow up and later attend Norwalk High School.

Mia inspired countless individuals through her historic example-- serving as a councilwoman, mayor, congresswoman, commentator, mentor, and friend. Her light, wisdom, authenticity, and spirit of service have left an indelible mark on both the Haitian American community and the state of Connecticut, and her voice will continue to resonate across generations.

I offer my deepest condolences to the Love and Bourdeau families and all who knew and loved Mia. I look forward to partnering with the Haitian American Collaborative, a national organization located in Mia's former hometown of Norwalk, to honor her memory by continuing her work of uplifting Haitian communities, building legacies of impact, and preserving the rich cultural heritage she so proudly represented.

Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, as early as today, we may be passing legislation that is explicitly designed to maintain historically low tax rates on the Nation's wealthiest people.

The richest people in America will be served by this institution so that they can pay the lowest tax amounts possible. The corporations in this country must have their record-low tax rates maintained.

The problem is this comes with a cost, and that cost will be paid, as the Republicans have laid it out for us to see, by the Medicaid program and by the addition of trillions of dollars to the United States debt.

Let's talk for a second about Medicaid because it serves about 80 million Americans. Not all Americans have experience with it, but an awful lot do. We are told, and the fantasy is, that the money can be saved by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse.

Make no mistake, that is a fantasy. If you are rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, you hire more people, investigators, and auditors to go after it. We are doing the exact opposite. Elon Musk and DOGE are firing the people who go after waste, fraud, and abuse.

It turns out that people don't wear signs around their necks saying: ``I am committing waste, fraud, and abuse.'' No, it is hard to identify this stuff. It exists, but it does not exist in any conceivable number that the Republicans are talking about cutting out of the Medicaid program.

That number is almost $100 billion a year, $100 billion out of roughly $600 billion in spending. Mind you, that is not trimming. That is taking a wheel off the car.

Here is what is going to happen. As I said, Medicaid covers 80 million Americans with health insurance. It also provides the funding that allows grandma to stay in an assisted living facility after she has run out of assets.

What I really want to do is tell you about Conner Curran. Conner is a 14-year-old from the town of Ridgefield, which I have the honor of representing. His mom is a teacher. His dad works for a local municipality. These are wonderful, middle-class folks just like anyone else in this country.

The problem is that 10 years ago, when he was 4 years old, Conner was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a terrible disease. Your muscles waste away, including your heart and your lung muscles. As a consequence, people who have this terrible diagnosis tend to live between 20 and 30 years. Conner is 14.

Lately, because of breakthrough research, some people diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are living into their forties and fifties.

You might imagine what the Curran family felt when those research programs were devastated by Elon Musk and DOGE. Imagine that.

The real threat to Conner is what is going to happen in this Chamber this week as they find a way to slash Medicaid.

Conner's medicines, the medicines that have kept him alive, cost thousands of dollars a month. A middle-class family can't pay that. Medicaid does.

His lung function is compromised, so he needs a $12,000 machine to breathe. He needs help in school. He wants to go to college, but he needs a little help because he is severely handicapped by this terrible disease.

Conner comes to my office almost every year to tell me about his aspirations and to beg that we keep funding not just the research that may provide him with a normal lifespan but those things that give him a reasonable quality of life, a shot of achieving that dream of going to college.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are not voting on numbers this week, although there are billions involved. My colleagues are certainly not voting on waste, fraud, or abuse. Let's leave that fantasy behind. My colleagues are voting this week on what kind of future, if any, Conner can expect and what kind of future, if any, 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid will have.

My colleagues must take seriously the pain that is about to be caused to some of the most vulnerable Americans out there as they think about their vote, as they think about what they are trying to achieve, as they think about what they aspire this country to be.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident to me that 2 weeks into the new administration, we no longer have a Congress and that we no longer take care that laws be faithfully executed.

We passed a law that says TikTok must either be sold or be shut down, but that doesn't matter. It will not be shut down. The Constitution of the United States says that birthright citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right, but that doesn't matter. Apparently, it is not.

We have happily given up the power of the purse. USAID is a legally established organization, whatever you may think of it. We have given up the power of the purse.

Mr. Speaker, what we cannot give up in this institution is our obligation to keep the American people safe, safe from terrorism, safe from gang violence, safe from fentanyl. What concerns me as the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, much of what I am seeing out there is the attack, the purge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, which Americans know is the premier law enforcement agency on this planet. Thousands of FBI agents go to work every single day, going after fentanyl dealers, going after violent crime, uncovering terrorist plots. I tell you this as a person who represents a district that was badly hurt on 9/11.

It is now part of the catechism of the Republican Party in the House and the Senate that the FBI is a corrupt and evil organization that must be turned on its head and that people who have dedicated their lives to the service of keeping Americans safe must be fired.

Mr. Speaker, the list is unbelievable: Executive Assistant Director Tim Dunham, 22 years of service; EAD Bobby Wells, 21 years of service; EAD Mike Nordwall, 22 years of dedicated service; Jackie Maguire, 24 years of dedicated service; Ryan Young--I could go on for my full 5 minutes of senior people who have been told that they must either resign from the FBI or be fired.

We hear that the FBI is being told that anyone who worked on the January 6 prosecutions, when this building was attacked and 140 police officers were assaulted, that they must be on a list, undoubtedly for retribution.

What does the FBI actually do? In June of 2024, the FBI arrested several people with suspected ISIS ties; October 2024, the FBI arrested an Afghan national for plotting a terrorist attack in the name of ISIS on election day. This goes on and on. The FBI investigated the assassination attempt on President Trump. Every day, all day, FBI agents are out there keeping us safe.

Why this attack on the FBI? I heard my colleague, Jim Jordan, just this weekend on Fox News once again promoting the conspiracy theory that the FBI was somehow involved in the attack on this Capitol on January 6. That is false.

Yes, there were 26 confidential human sources. These are people who know drug dealers and terrorists that the FBI talks to. Not one of them was authorized to break any law or to participate in January 6. There were no undercover FBI agents here in the Capitol on January 6. Yet, this continues because Donald Trump insists that that conspiracy theory animated rage against the FBI.

I am the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we can get away with a lot of foolish things in this institution, but keep up the attacks on the FBI, keep it up, because there will be terrorist attacks. There will be an increase in drug deaths. There will be an increase in violent crime, and I promise you, Mr. Speaker, I will stand right here to hold those accountable for the attack on this storied American institution and the carnage it will visit on the American people if this keeps up.

The FBI deserves our support. They are not perfect, but they go to work every single day to keep our people safe. It is time for the majority in this Chamber to stop their attacks on these patriotic Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, here we are on the final legislative day of inauguration week.

As a Democrat, this was a week of mixed feelings for me and for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I am also a genetic optimist, so on Monday, I went to the inauguration, yes, concerned, but also optimistic about new possibilities, committed as I always have been to finding ways to work with my Republican colleagues for the benefit of my constituents, and celebrating the peaceful transfer of power this time.

This time because, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, 4 years and 17 days ago today, in this Chamber, a brutal, violent, criminal attempt was made to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy.

Thousands of people rioted and descended on the Capitol. They broke windows, and they attacked police officers with heavy objects, with bear spray, with their fists, with anything at hand. Several carried firearms.

There were 140 police officers who were assaulted. Let me say that again: There were 140 police officers who were assaulted that day.

All of us have memories of that day. I started the day up in that corner of the gallery, and when it became clear that we had to evacuate, because I was in the gallery with some colleagues, it took a long time. We saw what was happening on the floor.

We saw the Capitol Police with weapons drawn as an object broke the window of the main door to the House. We watched the Capitol Police move a heavy article of furniture. In this country, it was an article of furniture that prevented the rioters from getting into this Chamber.

We have all seen those images. This time, we had a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, on Inauguration Day, I kept that optimism until the moment that the new President took the decision to pardon not those who were wrongly convicted for their actions on that day, not those who just got caught up in the frenzy and maybe didn't know that they were committing an offense by trespassing on the Capitol Grounds. The new President pardoned every single person, including those involved in those assaults on 140 police officers--every single one of them.

That was an uncomfortable moment for some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side. They were asked, and, well, they hadn't read the pardons, hadn't heard the story. It was an uncomfortable moment.

The Speaker responded by saying, yeah, we are not looking backward; we are looking forward. Then, very shortly thereafter, he reconstituted a committee to investigate the people who investigated what happened here on January 6.

The Speaker of the House said, House Republicans are proud of our work so far in exposing the false narratives peddled by the politically-motivated January 6th Select Committee during the 117th Congress; the false narratives.

Mr. Speaker, I get it. I get it. Sometimes people on my side of the aisle do things with which I do not agree, and I try to have the principle and the integrity to call them out for it.

You have two choices when people on your side do things that are wrong: You can call them out, you can stand with principle, and you can be clear; that is what leaders do. You can also obfuscate and try to change history, try to suggest that what we all saw and experienced traumatically wasn't what we all saw and experienced.

You can make stuff up, like maybe the FBI instigated it. Maybe it was really Nancy Pelosi's responsibility. Maybe it was antifa. Oh gosh, maybe the people who assaulted 140 police officers were just, like, tourists.

That is not the way of leadership. That is some dark, dark and evil way of proceeding. Why?

Because it dishonors the truth on which the stability of this Republic relies and maybe just as importantly: It dishonors all of us who were there that day and who saw with our own eyes what happened.

Maybe worst of all, it dishonors the brave men and women who put their lives on the line that day to protect us. Those of us who put up the signs on our office doors saying: Thank you, Capitol Police, only to turn around and remain silent when the attackers of the Capitol Police were pardoned on Monday.

These were people who put their lives on the line to protect us and the democracy. I think it is worth spending a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to remind us who these people were and what happened.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, he stood outside the gates here and fended off the attackers as they bear sprayed him in the face and eyes.

The very next day, Officer Sicknick suffered two strokes and ultimately died, making him the first fatality of January 6. Officer Brian Sicknick was only the fourth Capitol Police officer to die in the line of duty.

Julian Khater pled guilty to pepper-spraying Brian Sicknick, and he was pardoned on Monday.

Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department, he fought off rioters in the Capitol that day only to be struck in the face by a metal pole as the siege continued that night. You can imagine the trauma. We feel it. We didn't get struck in the face by a metal pole though. Days later, Officer Smith climbed into his Ford Mustang and shot himself in the head.

Those who assaulted Officer Jeffrey Smith are now pardoned.

Officer Howie Liebengood grew up in the Senate. He followed his father

around. His father, at the time, was the Senate Sergeant at Arms. On January 6, Officer Liebengood was posted to Senate security where he faced down the rioters.

He came back to work, despite what he had seen on January 6, on January 7, January 8, and January 9, unwilling to quit and inconvenience his fellow, similarly depleted and exhausted, officers. On the night of January 9, Howie Liebengood took out his service revolver and shot himself.

Officer Gunther Hashida was a decorated Metropolitan Police Department officer. Officer Hashida earned the Medal of Valor, the Lifesaving Medal, and a variety of other medals throughout his 18-year career. He served on the Department's emergency response team and responded here on January 6. Officer Hashida took his own life at home in July of 2021.

Officer Kyle DeFreytag was 26 years old. He had been on the job for 5 years when he deployed to the riot, to the insurrection. He was tasked with enforcing the curfew put in place that evening. He was 26 years old when he committed suicide.

The trauma suffered by these officers was not an accident. It wasn't an act of God or an act of nature. It was done to them by people, each and every one of whom has now been pardoned. Not just pardoned, but they are out there now celebrating and thinking about what is next.

I have three questions for my colleagues before I invite them to reflect on what this week has meant to them. The first question I have is: We put up the signs on the doors that say: Thank you, brave police officers.

Do we honor the heroic work of those who protected us, or do we denigrate it by suggesting that it just wasn't that big a deal?

Is this just about signs on office doors, or do we raise our voices and say: Those who attacked the people who protected us don't deserve a pardon and certainly don't deserve celebration.

Question number two: Are we--and when I say we, each and every one of us and each and every American--are we committed, without reservation or condition, to the idea that our differences are worked out in here with words and debate, not out there with bear spray and clubs?

Are we committed to that idea, or do we celebrate and pardon and elevate those who wield bear spray and clubs?

I hear all too often something that is pernicious in moral thinking and a corrosive of our political dialogue: the whataboutism. Yeah, I was bad on January 6, but what about Black Lives Matter throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows in Seattle? What about the Biden pardons?

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not a fan of the Biden pardons either. I am not afraid to say so because of that thing about principles.

Yet, the whataboutisms that equates a violent attempt to change the peaceful transfer of power with some idiot who throws a brick through a Starbucks window in Seattle or Portland, that is a lack of discernment.

More to the point, what a moral failure. We don't let 3-year-olds defend themselves with the idea that somebody else did it too.

How has this become an exculpatory thing in our politics?

Third and last, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that I think each and every one of us should reflect on: Where is your line? At what point do you say no? At what point do you find the courage to say no, Mr. President, that is not right?

This week, we learned that for most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the pardon of the attackers of these police officers was not outside that line.

At what point do you say no?

At what point do you remember that the Congress is here to be a check and a balance on the President, regardless of the President's party?

Mr. Speaker, if you can't answer that question, if you don't have that point, and if you don't have the commitment to principle and the courage to stand by that point, well, Mr. Speaker, I fear for the future of our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), my fellow New Englander.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vermont for her words as we close this up.

As is so often true in this Chamber, we heard lots of words, and I think they were powerful words, honoring those who protected us and honoring the truth, but what can we do? What is the action? What can we actually do?

Under the law passed a few years ago, Congress is required to produce a plaque to honor those officers who sacrificed so much on that fateful day 4 years and 17 days ago.

I have a little photograph of it here. The plaque reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''

You can only look at the photo of the plaque because the plaque has never been put up, as required by law, in the Capitol of the United States. It is a little curious. We say, ``Their heroism will never be forgotten,'' yet the plaque, as required by law, is not yet displayed in the Capitol of the United States.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero, Captain Paul Bucha, a Medal of Honor recipient and a longtime resident of Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Captain Bucha was the son of a World War II veteran, attended West Point, and ultimately earned a master's degree from Stanford University. He was deployed to Vietnam in 1967 and assumed his first command after only 2 months in country.

In March 1968, Captain Bucha and his men encountered a North Vietnamese force more than 10 times the size of their own. Outgunned and outmanned, Captain Bucha rallied his troops, commanding a vigorous all-night defense that deceived the 1,500 enemy combatants into believing that his own force of 89 was much larger.

He personally eliminated a fortified enemy position and directed the medical evacuation of his wounded men, all while coping with his own shrapnel wounds.

President Nixon bestowed the Medal of Honor upon Captain Bucha 2 years after his courageous actions, citing his ``extraordinary heroism, inspirational example, outstanding leadership, and professional competence.''

At the time of his death, he held the distinction of being Connecticut's only living Medal of Honor recipient. Captain Paul Bucha passed away in July 2024 and is survived by his wife, Cynthia, his four children, and his nine grandchildren.

A true American hero, may he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Judge Stanley Novack of Stamford, Connecticut.

Judge Novack was a pillar of the Stamford community and a scion of Jurisprudence, serving 49 years on the bench across various judicial appointments in Connecticut. First elevated to the bench in 1975, Judge Novack was one of the longest presiding Connecticut Superior Court judges who had a special affinity for his time adjudicating family law cases. He handled these particularly fraught situations with a sincerity, good-humor, and empathy that regularly left litigants and lawyers grateful to have come before him to have their cases heard.

Coined ``the father of family law in Connecticut'' by his colleagues at a celebration of his 40th year on the bench, Judge Novack was the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the Distinguished Service Award from the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Fairfield County Bar Association.

Beyond his laudatory judicial career, Judge Novack was known to be a truly remarkable human to his colleagues and family. He was famous for his uncanny ability to remember the birthdays of his fellow judges, the lawyers who argued before him, and the legal secretaries who transcribed his notes--and even their children. Alongside his wife of over thirty years, Muriel, Judge Novack never missed one of his granddaughters' ballet recitals, theater performances, or academic graduations. And, in keeping with his devotion to our great state, he was an avid fan of the UCONN Men and Women's basketball teams, excitedly welcoming each of his alma matter's national championship victories.

Judge Novack's life stands as a testament to his dedication to public service and commitment to his community. His legacy, both in the form of the case law he created and the wonderful family he leaves behind, will serve as a tribute to his many years of hard work. I thank Judge Novack for all that he did for Connecticut.

Madam Chair, wow, the oppressed citizens of Canada, really? We have gone into conspiracy world here in what was otherwise a trajectory of remarkable bipartisan work on this new strange world of cryptocurrency and crypto assets. Now we are talking about the oppressed citizens of Canada, the surveillance state. They are going tell you what their cars and appliances are doing.

I guess we can't do too much bipartisanship before we have to revert to the madness of conspiracy theories.

Madam Chair, why did we do what we did yesterday with FIT21? It split my party. There were people of good will on both sides of that.

The reason a number of Democrats, including myself, supported FIT21, which was not our preferred bill, was because in the context of the possibility of innovation, you open options. We don't know what this stuff is going to look like 5 or 10 years from now, so we open options. That is why we did what we did yesterday.

Today, because of conspiracy world, we are closing options.

Now I don't know what a CBDC might look like 5 or 10 years from now. I suspect having written a white paper on it, that there might be a portion of the population that instead of using Joe's stablecoin might actually value a stablecoin that was backed by the full faith and credit.

I don't know and you don't know, so let's keep our options open. Let's allow for the possibility and research that, by the way, every other country out there, like the United Kingdom--not China but the United Kingdom--is doing, to see if we can open the path for innovation. Let's not close it.

I hear China, China, China. Guess what, we do contract law and police services and public safety radically different than China does, so don't scare us with China.

We can do this right. Let's just not in the context of innovation foreclose an option. Please vote against this bill, which is an anti- innovation bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation.

First, let me emphasize again that, as the chairman said, section 702 is our single most important intelligence authority. We use it every day to protect the Nation from threats ranging from China and Russia to terrorist plots, fentanyl traffickers, and much more. It cannot be allowed to expire.

It is also true that the 702 program requires substantial reform. We have done this before, and we are doing it in this base bill.

I would also make a critical point here, which is that this is arguably our most heavily scrutinized and overseen intelligence authority. It is approved--and I am going to say this twice--every single year and has been since 2009 by Federal judges, Federal judges who crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations and looking for violations of law, and since 2009, they have recertified this program.

It is also overseen by the Congress. The chairman and I see problems with the program. It is overseen inside by the Attorney General. It is the most scrutinized intelligence collection program that we have.

The bill before the House today is the product of very serious oversight, resulting in a base text that preserves the value of 702 while putting in place more than 50 significant reforms aimed at preventing its misuse, those misuses that were detailed and that the chairman referred to, which, by the way, are down to the tune of 90 percent. This bill would codify those reforms and require that the FBI continue to follow those rules.

This legislation contains the most significant reforms to 702 ever. Among many other proposals, this bill will continue the progress already made, which I referred to, by the Biden administration and others to ensure compliance.

The bill would ban queries conducted to find evidence of a crime and cut by 90 percent--90 percent--the number of FBI personnel that can approve U.S. person queries.

That is what we give up if we don't pass this bill.

We will consider several amendments to the bill, most of which I will support. However, I am opposed to the Biggs amendment. It is an extreme and misguided proposal that seriously undermines our national security.

I understand the instinct. There is no way to collect intelligence on foreign emails and texts without having some Americans on the other side of this. This bill puts in place protections to make sure that the abuses of the past don't continue into the future.

I would add that I understand the concern. Federal judges crawl all over this program every single year, and not one Federal judge--not one--has found constitutional issues with U.S. person queries.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the PCLOB, proposed a warrant that is much less extreme than the one in the Biggs amendment. The PCLOB--and by the way, this proposal was split on the PCLOB--proposed that only in the event that a U.S. person query produces information, only in that event, which is about 2 percent of all queries, would a warrant be required.

The Biggs amendment would require a warrant for every single U.S. person query that the government makes inside information that it already has.

The narrow exceptions included in this amendment will also not work. You don't need to take that from me, Mr. Chair. Talk to anybody in the government who uses this program.

We don't know if a query is about something that is an exigency until we know what is in the information that that query would turn up.

Enacting this amendment would make us far less safe. We will lose the ability to disrupt terrorist plots, identify spies, interdict fentanyl, and much

more, not because it was constitutionally required but because we simply chose not to look.

As Jake Sullivan said this week: ``The extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.''

I would point my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to the President's extraordinarily strong Statement of Administration Policy in which he reiterates the damage that will be done by this amendment should it pass.

Mr. Chair, with a lot of what we do here, the consequences don't appear immediately. If we turn off the ability of the government to query U.S. person data, then the consequences will be known soon, and we will audit why what happened happened. The consequences will be known soon, and accountability will be visited.

Once again, Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote for the underlying bill and to oppose the Biggs amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). The Speaker Emerita is the single longest serving member of the Committee on Intelligence ever. She is a member whose, as my Republican colleagues regularly remind me, progressive bona fides are unchallengeable and who came to this institution to fight for civil liberties.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who, prior to coming here, defended this Nation's security at risk to his own life in the uniform of the 75th Ranger Regiment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his terrific work in the face of very real challenges and his commitment to bipartisanship.

This is a critical and bipartisan effort, and it is one that he and I and many others have spent thousands of hours on. As we close out debate, two things are very clear: Number one, this authority must be reauthorized.

I have heard too many Members saying that I will vote to reauthorize it so long as I get this amendment passed. If you are serious about keeping the American people safe, if you are serious about what you said, which is that this must be reauthorized, vote for final passage. This is our single most important tool to keep Americans safe.

Secondly, the Biggs amendment is an extreme amendment, and I understand the instinct.

As I mentioned before, the PCLOB, the President's Civil Liberties Oversight Board, proposed something that would require, in very limited circumstances, a judicial amendment. This amendment is far more extreme than that one, and it is not driven by constitutional concerns. Not a single Federal court after years and years of scrutiny has identified a Fourth Amendment issue.

This is a policy choice, and I would say to those friends of mine on my side of the aisle, maybe you have spent more time on this collection authority than I have. I have probably spent 2,000 or 3,000 hours, so maybe you have spent more. I am willing to concede that. Maybe you know better than I do, but I would ask you to listen to the people who use this every single day at the Department of Justice, at our intelligence community. I would ask you to read the last paragraph of the administration's statement of administration

policy, which concludes with the line: ``Our intelligence, defense, and public safety communities are united: The extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.''

We are Article I. You have probably done a lot of work. Maybe you know better on the Biggs amendment. We will find out. Pass the Biggs amendment. Do what the SAP says would badly damage our safety. We will find out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee for this important debate.

I sat here and listened to the Judiciary Committee's support for the warrant amendment, and the entire argument is constructed on the foundation of the notion that U.S. person queries violate the Constitution. That is the argument.

I am not a lawyer, so I tend to defer to my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, but I am likely to defer more immediately to the people who are charged with defending our constitutional rights in the Federal courts. I am going to quote from the PCLOB report here, a statement made by the FIS court in April of 2022: ``All three United States Circuit Courts of Appeals to consider the issue [the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits] have held that the incidental collection of a U.S. person's communications under section 702 does not require a warrant and is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.''

I am not a lawyer, but I am inclined to defer to three separate circuits.

So my friends on Judiciary point to the PCLOB. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) quoted the chair of the PCLOB. She did it right. She was quoting the Chair of the PCLOB in her personal capacity. The PCLOB had profound misgivings with their own warrant requirement, which was far narrower than the Biggs amendment warrant requirement.

The two Republican members of the PCLOB wrote a rebuttal of the PCLOB's proposal, and I will just quote this. The Republican members--I would suggest that I am always amazed by the Chairman of Judiciary's alignment with his party. The Republicans said that: ``FISC preapproval would most negatively impact the most important and urgent queries--the ones that show a connection between foreign targets and U.S. persons, the ones that the FBI must review as quickly as possible.''

Please vote against the Biggs amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Virginia. I support this amendment and will be recommending a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to the minority caucus.

I surprised the gentleman from Virginia in asking for a minute, because I think it is very important that this Chamber not believe that this is an argument between civil rights and denigrating civil rights.

Mr. Chair, again, I think I surprised the gentleman from Virginia in saying that I will recommend a ``yes'' vote on this amendment because I think it is very, very important that this not become a debate between civil rights and perhaps those who are less concerned about civil rights.

I will yield to no one in my defense of the civil rights incorporated in our Bill of Rights. I am the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I spend my days marinating in the depredations that the Chinese would visit upon us, but I voted against the TikTok ban because I felt it had, and courts have held that it has, First Amendment equities at stake.

This amendment is a good one. ``About'' collection, first of all, is not undertaken today by the IC; it is too technically difficult and too risky. There is too much of a risk that communications that are not about a target to an American get swept up in this ``about'' collection.

I will be adamant and stand with the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in saying that the Biggs amendment is not addressing constitutional issues, but this is an important amendment that I support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Institute For Foreign Study (AIFS) in Stamford, Connecticut, as they celebrate their 60th anniversary. Since their inception in 1964, AIFS has pioneered cultural exchange and educational enrichment, having impacted the lives of over 1.8 million individuals and deepened relationships across international borders.

In partnership with the U.S. Department of State, AIFS continues to operate a diverse selection of programs for their nearly 40,000 annual participants, including study and travel abroad, high school exchange, camp counselor, and intern/trainee programs, which epitomize the Administration's dedication to diverse partnerships. It is my unique honor to recognize the American Institute For Foreign Study for their 60th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating AIFS and their dedication to cross-cultural exchange.