Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, go to any community anywhere in this country and walk up to someone on the street and say: Do you think it makes sense--in light of the fact that 10 million migrants have come into the country in 3\1/ 2\ years and 99 of those individuals are on the terrorist watch list-- do you think it makes sense before a new voter registers to vote that they demonstrate they are a citizen of this great country?

Any person you ask that question to will say: Well, of course, of course that makes sense.

Every Democrat and Republican district will all say the same thing. Everyone will agree with that except Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. They disagree with that.

They say: No, no, no. We can't have that requirement on a bill that spends

what we are already spending. We can't put that requirement on a bill.

That is ridiculous.

As Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a couple of years ago in response to the state of the Union, the divide in America today is normal versus crazy.

It is a crazy policy position not to agree with that, not to put the SAVE Act on this bill.

Think of the positions the left now takes. It is crazy to defund the police, it is crazy not to have a border, and it is crazy to say that men can compete against women in sports. Those are all positions that the left takes, and they take the position that in light of the 10 million people coming into our country in 3\1/2\ years you shouldn't have a requirement to demonstrate you are a citizen before you register as a new voter.

The people see this. The people understand in this country that this is crazy.

Support this legislation. This is a good bill with a commonsense, normal policy that we are putting in the legislation that makes absolute sense. Nonetheless, they are going to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the report (H. Rept. 118-527) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1292) recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.''

Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't allowed to keep, he shared it with people who weren't allowed to get it.

On page 231, the special counsel told us why President Biden did this. He said: ``Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. He had decided months before leaving office to write a book,'' a book for which he got paid $8 million.

So we have motive, an $8 million motive, and we have the elements of the crime, knowingly keeping classified information, knowingly disclosing classified information.

Despite all this, Special Counsel Hur declined to recommend prosecution for President Biden because Joe Biden is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.''

On page 207 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations, both at the time he spoke to [the ghostwriter], Mr. Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office.''

The committees need the audio recordings to determine whether the Justice Department appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting the President.

Remember what they told us. The Justice Department said we are going to operate independent of the White House. They said we will be impartial, independent arbiters of the facts.

Maybe so, but what we do know is this: One former President is being charged; Joe Biden is not being charged. We think we are entitled-- actually we know we are entitled to all the evidence and the best evidence. The transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the state of the President's memory, especially since the executive branch has a history of changing transcripts.

We saw this in late April. The transcript the White House put out didn't match the video and audio recording of President Biden's speech, and only after the White House was caught did they change the transcript.

In that case and in this case, the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke.

Following the release of Special Counsel Hur's report, both the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas requiring Attorney General Garland to turn over the transcripts of the audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter.

To date, the Attorney General has failed to produce those recordings. In fact, he told us last week he wasn't going to do it, and that is why we are here. Despite the committee's best efforts, the Department has continued to withhold the audio recordings of those interviews without providing any constitutional or legal basis to do so.

Just hours before the committee was set to meet and consider the contempt resolution, the Department notified the committee that President Biden had asserted, at the Attorney General's urging, executive privilege over the audio recordings.

It is simple. Attorney General Garland holds information vital to the committee's legislative oversight and the House impeachment's inquiry. Remember, this body voted December 13 of last year to enter that phase of our oversight duty and impeachment inquiry. The Department has a legal obligation to turn over the requested material. Attorney General Garland's willful refusal constitutes contempt of Congress.

This resolution upholds the institutional power of the House by recommending that the House find Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the committee's subpoena. Our oversight and impeachment responsibilities are too important to allow the Attorney General to willfully disregard this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a good friend.

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

First of all, I never said I wouldn't testify in front of the January 6th Committee. I just wanted to know what the parameters of that testimony were going to be. I never did say ``no'' to that.

Second, the speaker before just said we don't know what we are looking for. We are looking for equal treatment under the law. Special Counsel Hur found that Joe Biden knowingly kept classified information and that Joe Biden knowingly disclosed classified information. He told us that on the very first page of his report, and then he told us later why he did so. He said he had strong motivation for ignoring classified procedures because he was writing a book for which he got paid $8 million.

Again, we have motive, and we have him knowingly disclosing classified information. He doesn't get charged, yet President Trump does. President Trump gets charged by Jack Smith, the guy who had to file with the court a notice saying that he actually altered the order of the documents he seized in the raid of the President's home. He had to tell the court that. The physical documents don't match up with the scanned documents.

You are not allowed to change the sequence of the documents you seize, but Jack Smith did. Jack Smith mishandled the documents he is accusing President Trump of mishandling. You can't make this stuff up.

That is what we are focused on. By the way, we are in the midst of an impeachment inquiry. We are entitled to the best evidence. That is why we want the audiotape.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1215) calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to join in efforts to educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish American community, as amended.

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 on H. Res. 1215.

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

Jewish American Heritage Month, first proclaimed by President George W. Bush and each President since, recognizes the contributions of the Jewish community to our country.

Recognizing this month is particularly important following the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel and the flood of anti- Semitism that we have seen in its aftermath.

Weeks after the October 7 attacks, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the topic of anti-Semitism on college campuses. We examined the slow reaction to the sometimes violent pro-Hamas rallies and encampments at top institutions across our country.

One witness, a student from Cornell, testified that she had to think twice about having an outward sign of her Jewish faith because she feared for her safety on campus. Unfortunately, schools continue to see anti-Semitic and anti-American encampments and protests lasting months.

According to the American Jewish Committee, nearly half of American Jews have altered their behavior due to concerns about anti-Semitism. Almost two-thirds of American Jews feel less secure in the United States than they did a year ago.

Hillel International has reported 1,597 anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses since October 7, which is a 700 percent increase over the same period last year.

Last month, the Judiciary Committee held a second hearing about anti- Semitism on college campuses with students and experts. One student testified that bigotry, violence, and harassment had become part of daily life as a Jewish student at Penn.

Another testified that a university employee threatened him with a machete after the student denounced the defacing of campus posters that displayed the names and faces of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and simply cannot continue.

This House, elected officials at the State and local level, faith leaders, community leaders, and university administrators all have an obligation to confront this anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the ranking member of the committee for his work, and I thank the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the Jewish American people have done so much for our culture and our country as have the Jewish people all over our planet.

I will also say that the Jewish nation has just done amazing things and they are our dearest and closest friend, the Jewish State of Israel.

My wife and I have had the opportunity to travel there five times, and we have enjoyed every single visit. It is just a fascinating, amazing place, amazing country, with amazing people.

We, as Americans, should do everything we can to help Israel win, as well as celebrate all the amazing contributions. We want to make sure they win this battle against a terrorist organization, not put limits on them, not tell them what they can and can't do, but help them win.

I think this resolution is in support of that overall effort, and we strongly support it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 106) expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund local law enforcement agencies.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extent their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 106.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from the great State of Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who is a sponsor of the legislation).

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

Madam Speaker, a little over a year ago, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave the response to President Biden's State of the Union Address. I thought she did a wonderful job, but the line that stuck out to me was, in the course of her remarks, she said that the divide in America today is normal versus crazy.

My colleagues can start thinking about some of the crazy policies that are advocated by the radical left. I mean, it is crazy not to have a border. It is crazy to think noncitizens should be able to vote in our Federal elections. It is crazy to think boys should compete against girls in sports.

How about this one: It is crazy, in my mind, to let a Chinese spy balloon fly clear across the country and then shoot it down. I don't know, but I think most people I represent would probably have shot it down before it went across the country.

Additionally, it is crazy to defund the police. Americans understand that instinctively, yet that is something that the left has advocated now for--what?--5 years. We should thank the numerous law enforcement officers who have come to Washington, D.C., for Police Week and all those across our great country. Every day, police officers put their lives on the line to safeguard our families and communities.

The left's defund the police movement continues to cause detrimental effects across our Nation, with attacks against police officers increasing and

becoming more brazen. We have all seen it. We saw it on the streets of New York City. We have all seen it happen, the harmful rhetoric that has demoralized our police officers and directly impacted their ability to maintain public safety.

Law enforcement agencies across the country are facing challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified law enforcement officers. It is why I supported the bill that we just passed. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) was right on that one.

This resolution is exactly what is needed. Congress must declare that we oppose the defund the police rhetoric. H. Con. Res. 106 seeks to correct these false and harmful narratives by explicitly condemning efforts to undermine law enforcement agencies.

This resolution acknowledges and expresses the gratitude of Congress for the dedication and commitment shown by the men and women of law enforcement. Law enforcement officers and their families serve and make sacrifices every single day for the good of our communities.

This resolution is rooted in commonsense, normal policy. I believe we can all agree that the defund the police movement was a disgrace, and our police officers deserve better.

Let's all work together, taking a stand against cutting our police department funding and calling for not abolishing the police but actually funding our law enforcement officers, again, in our municipalities, in our counties, and all over our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you went out on the street today and asked someone, almost anybody on the street, and said: Do you know that we do a Census every 10 years and we count up the number of people in the country, and do you think it is okay if we found out how many of these people are citizens?

That person would say: Well, yes, but aren't you already doing that.

That is what they would think.

All this bill says is: Let's count persons, like the Constitution says, but let's also find out how many are citizens because that is what should determine how congressional representation, how apportionment is done.

It is so darn simple.

By the way, to my good friend from Maryland on the other side, we ask all kinds of other questions on the Census anyway.

What is wrong with asking the fundamental question: Are you a citizen of this great country, the greatest country ever?

That is all this does, and that is an important number to get. It is important information to get when you are figuring out who is going to represent and how many congressional Members there will be from each of the respective States.

This couldn't be more simple. I don't know why they oppose it, but they always do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Ohio Military Hall of Fame will hold a ceremony at the Statehouse in Columbus on Friday, May 3, to mark the induction of its 2024 class. Selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor that has

been accorded to fewer than 500 Ohioans since 2000. To be considered for induction, individuals must have been decorated for heroic action in a combat situation.

I am honored to commend to the House this year's 17 inductees:

Private First Class David F. Winder (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Private First Class Marcus G. Collins, Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

Captain Stephen B. Cook (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

Private First Class Henry R. ``Rick'' Hausman, Jr. (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

Sergeant Gary Lee McKiddy (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

Master Sergeant James Brian O'Keeffe, Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

First Lieutenant Joseph D. O'Meara (posthumously), Army Air Corps, recipient of the Silver Star.

Corporal Gregory A. White, Marine Corps, recipient of the Silver Star.

Chief Warrant Officer Fourth Class Gregory R. Fleming, Army, recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Major Arthur A. Wallace, Air Force, recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Lieutenant Colonel Arnold W. Bokesch (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. France, Army, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael R. Kelvington, Army, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Sergeant Kent S. Knight (posthumously), Army, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Sergeant William G. Lee, Army, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Sergeant William L. Webster, Jr., Army, recipient of the Bronze Star.

Master Sergeant Brad L. Bonnell, Army, recipient of the Army Commendation Medal with ``V'' Device.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Calls for the destruction of Israel, our dearest and closest ally, are wrong. Attacks on Jewish students on college campuses are wrong, as well. I thank Representative Lawler and Representative Gottheimer for this fine piece of legislation, and I thank the chairman of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

The only way you stop this is to take action, and the Judiciary Committee started that yesterday. We sent a letter both to Secretary Blinken and Secretary Mayorkas asking three simple questions: Are the students, are the people engaged in this activity, this wrong activity, this radical activity on campuses against Jewish students, are they here on a visa? If they are, is the State Department taking actions to revoke that visa? If the State Department is taking those actions, is the Department of Homeland Security looking to remove these individuals?

Pretty basic questions, pretty important questions I think the Congress has the right to know about and the American people have a right to know about if we are ever going to stop the egregious activity going on. In order to stop it, you have to take action.

We are a legislative body. We have a piece of legislation that begins that process. Let's pass this legislation, and then let's do the oversight to get the answers to those questions so the bad guys doing this stuff on college campuses can't do it on a visa.

Remember, at Columbia, 55 percent of the student body is here on a visa.

Maybe the American people have a right to know the answers to those three questions. We posed them yesterday to Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Blinken. Let's hope we get an answer soon. Let's hope the Biden administration steps up and starts taking action to stop what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats called this bill a joke. It is not a joke to put back in place the policies that worked. In fact, I would call that common sense. Remember what happened on day 1 of the Biden administration? They said we are going to get rid of the remain in Mexico policy, we are going to stop building the wall, and when you get here, you will be released. Well, who the heck wouldn't come if that is the policy? That is exactly what has

happened, and we are on pace to get to 12 million migrants entering the country in the Biden administration. So this bill fixes those things.

It says we are going to build the wall, provide money to do so. We are going to put back in place the remain in Mexico policy, which worked. We are going to end this catch and release. Guess what else it does? Guess what else it does? It changes the way they are doing parole, the very program this administration put in that allowed the individual to be released into the country who killed Laken Riley. That is not a joke. That is good policy, policy that will help protect Americans, policies that make common sense.

So I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Moore) for sponsoring this legislation, for managing it on the floor, and the Judiciary Committee who has worked on this, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who have worked on this for a long time. This isn't quite H.R. 2, but it is close, and it is the policies that need to happen.

Again, understand the magnitude of the problem. We are on pace to get to 12 million migrants coming in this country in a 4-year time span. That is what the Biden administration has given us. Everyone knows that is wrong. Everyone knows the policies they have done intentionally, deliberately willfully on day 1 have been harmful to the country. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Independents know it. Polling shows it all across the country. Let's take a step in the direction of fixing it and pass this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, the government is not allowed to get your information without a warrant. They are not allowed to do it. Even if they buy it, they are not allowed to do it. That is all this thing says. It couldn't be more straightforward or simple. It shows respect for the Fourth Amendment and respect for Americans' privacy.

What we are saying is--and it has been said before by the ranking member and Ms. Jayapal and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), you can't do an end run. You can't do a work-around. You can't say, oh, we are allowed to get information we otherwise wouldn't be able to get because we are going to purchase it from a data broker.

No, you can't do that. That is all this says.

If it would otherwise require a warrant, you can't go buy it, you can't do a work-around.

It is a fundamental principle in our country. If the executive branch wants to get your stuff, wants to look at your information, they have to go to a separate and equal branch of government and get a probable cause warrant. They can't go around that and say, oh, we are purchasing it. This is public. They can't do it. It is plain and simple.

I commend the ranking member and the Democrats on the committee for their bipartisanship. Again, as the ranking member said, we very seldom

have legislation that comes out unanimous like this.

But this committee, which is charged with more than any other committee in Congress with protecting Americans' civil liberties, their rights, the fundamental principles and liberties that make our country the best place ever, unanimously agreed this thing should pass. I thank them, and I thank Ms. Hageman for leading this debate on the floor today for the committee and for our team. I also want to thank, of course, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Davidson.

This is so simple.

Last week, we had a similar fight, a similar debate. Unfortunately, we lost 212-212. Let's hope we can win this one.

I think this makes so much sense, so much common sense. It is so consistent with how this great country has always operated. One branch of government doesn't get a side at all. We have separate and equal branches of government. If this branch wants information, the executive branch wants your information, they have got to go to a separate and equal branch and get a warrant. They can't go buy it from somebody else and be sneaky about it and avoid what the Constitution clearly mandates has to happen.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in 2021, 2022, the FBI did over 3 million U.S. person queries of this giant 702 database--of this giant haystack of information, 3 million queries of United States persons. Make no mistake, query is a fancy name for search. Three million Americans' data was searched in this database of information, and guess what? The FBI wasn't even following their own rules when they conducted those searches. That is why we need a warrant.

This is not Jim Jordan talking about it. This is not Ranking Member Nadler talking about it, but The Washington Post reported last May that 278,000 times the FBI found, the Justice Department found, that they didn't even follow their own darn rules when they searched this giant haystack, this giant database of information on Americans.

What we are saying is, let's do something that the Constitution has had in place for a couple hundred years that has served our Nation well and protected American citizens' liberties. Let's make the executive branch go to a separate and equal branch of government, the judicial branch, and get a probable cause warrant to do the search.

After all, it has done pretty well for this great country, greatest country ever, for a long, long time. Why wouldn't we have that here?

By the way, in a bipartisan fashion coming out of our committee, 35-2 vote, we said we will even put exceptions in there. If it is an emergency situation, the FBI doesn't have to get a warrant. They can do the search. If it is an emergency situation, they can do it. We have put exceptions in there.

Here is the fundamental question that I raised the other day: Of the over 3 million searches in a 2-year time span, how many of those aren't covered by the exceptions we have in our warrant amendment? What is the number? Guess what? We can't get an answer. They won't tell us, which should be concerning in and of itself, but if it is a big number, we should be particularly frightened.

If they don't follow the exceptions and they are searching Americans, searching your name, your phone number, your email address in this giant database, that should scare us. And if it is a small number, then what is the big deal? We can't get an answer to that question.

The underlying bill has got some changes and reforms that are positive, that are good, but short of having this warrant amendment added to the legislation, we shouldn't pass it.

This amendment is critical, particularly when you think about the 278,000 times they abused the system, didn't follow their own rules. Now we say, oh, we have got some new rules, they will follow them now. No. No.

The real check we have in our system is a separate and equal branch of government signing off on it. That is how we do things in America. And never forget, this is the FBI who has had some other abuses in different areas.

This is why we think this warrant requirement is so darn important, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Before yielding to my good friend, I just want to underscore what the gentlewoman from Washington just described. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, says that our amendment is consistent with what should happen. Our amendment is consistent with the majority recommendation of that board.

This was a board specifically created to protect Americans' liberties, looking at how the intelligence community operates by the 9/ 11 Commission Act of 2007. The majority of that board said this amendment is what needs to happen.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Self), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a Judiciary Committee member and friend.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think the ranking member is right. The vote was 35-2 on a major piece of legislation. That doesn't happen a whole lot in our committee.

I thank our committee and I thank the Members on the Republican side who worked so hard over the last year putting this legislation together. We had three individuals in particular, Ms. Lee, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. McClintock, who served on a task force focused on this getting in right. I think they have a good product if, as the ranking member just said, the warrant amendment is actually adopted into the base text.

I also thank the Democrats who worked so hard, and their staff working with our good staff, on putting this together: Ranking Member Nadler, Ms. Jayapal, and several others working together to defend a fundamental principle.

The Judiciary Committee is supposed to be that--we are all supposed to do this, but where it is really focused is the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be that committee that is determined to make sure Americans' liberties are protected. I think the staff and the Members have worked hard to put together a product that will do that if, in fact, this amendment gets added here in a few minutes.

When the folks who started this country came together, they had it right when they created separate and equal branches of government. The checks and balances in our system are good. They protect our rights, our liberties, and key principles.

We should adhere to that. As I said earlier, it has served us well. This amendment follows that fundamental principal, so I hope we adopt it. Then if we adopt it, I hope we adopt the legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chair, I would just point out that my good friend from Ohio says that we are searching foreigners in this database. Well, if we are just searching foreigners, why do we have this distinction called ``U.S. person queries''?

If you are just searching the bad guys, that is one thing, but you are not or you wouldn't have violated U.S. person inquiries 278,000 times. That is the fundamental distinction.

You can search all the bad guys you want--that is what we want. Do surveillance on them. They are in the database. You want more about them in the database, go do it. But if you want to search an American-- their name, their phone number, their email address--you have to get a warrant.

That is all this does. We shouldn't make it too complicated. That is all this does.

Mr. Himes just used the term, ``U.S. person queries.'' That is not a foreigner, that is someone here in the United States who is a person, and they are being searched. All we are saying is if you are going to do that, go get a warrant from a separate and equal branch of government.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, now they want to expand it. This is the second amendment in a row where they are going to expand FISA.

We can't have a warrant for the existing program, this giant haystack of information. You can't have a warrant when you go search American citizens there, but now they want to expand it and tell us you still can't have a warrant.

Holy cow. Pretty soon, this is going to be everybody gets searched for any darned reason they want. That is not how it works in America, at least it is not how it is supposed to work.

The third amendment is going to expand it, too. We spent all morning talking about the warrant requirement, which should be so obvious, and they want to expand it.

Mr. Chair, I understand we have a border problem. Holy cow, do we understand that. I may not agree with my

Democratic colleagues on how to fix it. In fact, I know I don't, but expanding FISA, you have to be kidding me. This amendment authorizes surveillance of a whole new category of individuals.

We should absolutely vet foreigners who seek to enter the United States, whether legally or illegally, but Congress should not expand FISA or section 702 beyond its current scope of authority.

This whole year, we have been focusing our committee on limiting FISA and reining it in so that we still can do what we needs to be done: look after bad guys and look at bad guys but not infringe on Americans' liberties. This just expands it. That is not what the purpose of this bill is.

We should address the border problem. Holy cow, our committee spent a boatload of time on it. That is an issue where, unfortunately, we didn't get a 35-2 vote on H.R. 2, which is a good piece of legislation.

This is going to sweep up so many more Americans, where the FBI 278,000 times illegally--not illegally but didn't follow their own rules when they queried the database. Now, they have even more.

Holy cow, Mr. Chair, this is the wrong way to go.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

I will close my time by saying, Mr. Chairman, every time you expand FISA, you underscore the need for a warrant. The bigger and bigger this database gets and the more that U.S. persons are going to be searched, you underscore the need for a warrant, which we spent a whole morning debating.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support the rule, but like the gentleman, I will not support the legislation unless we get this warrant amendment requirement in the legislation itself.

Query is a fancy name for search, and the intelligence community will tell us right now there are 200,000 queries, 200,000 searches that take place every year on U.S. persons, on American citizens--200,000 a year. Those things are done on American citizens without a warrant, and this is the FBI that my friend and member of the Committee on Rules just talked about, who has abused the system.

Mr. Speaker, 278,000 times. It is not Mr. Roy, not Mr. Jordan, that is giving you that number. That is the number from The Washington Post, 278,000 times.

The Inspector General at the Justice Department determined that FBI did not follow the previous rules when they searched this database on U.S. persons. Now, we are supposed to believe, Oh, we have new rules, stricter rules, better rules--and I am all for those--now they are going to follow the new rules. They didn't follow the old ones but now they are going to follow the new.

Why don't we go to the tried-and-true method. If you have the executive branch wanting to look at American citizens' information, they have to go to a separate and equal branch of the government, the judicial branch, and get a probable cause warrant.

It has worked pretty darn well for 200-plus years in the greatest country ever, but somehow, we can't do it here?

Our warrant requirement has three exceptions and the first exception is if it is an emergency situation you don't have to go to a judge and get a warrant. You do the search, you find out, and you protect America.

There are two other exceptions in there, as well.

Here is the fundamental question: If there are 200,000 searches done on U.S. persons a year, how many of them aren't covered by the exceptions?

Guess what? Nobody seems to be able to give us an answer. That is the question we need to know because if it is a big number, we should all be scared. If it is a small number, what is the big deal?

No one will answer that question. That is what we need to know.

Mr. Speaker, the best way to safeguard the liberty of the people we get the privilege of representing is to do what has been done in this country forever: Go get a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share positive news about young people from Ohio's Fourth Congressional District. Today, I am pleased to commend to the House thirteen high school students who are being honored for their outstanding leadership skills and volunteerism.

On Wednesday, the Noon Optimist Club of Lima will recognize Alexander Arellano, Samuel Burkholder, Leyton Chambers, Devan Foster, Delaney Jones, Keegan Klosterman, Daniel Koh, Brody Roof, Delaney Sawmiller, Brady Shively, Connor Smith, Abby Stechschulte, and Maisie Strawser at its annual youth appreciation luncheon. These students were each nominated by their schools for being good role models for their peers.

I thank the Optimists for their efforts to celebrate the many achievements of these students and am proud to join in the accolades to them. They have my very best wishes for continued success in their lives in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a story as old as the hills.

You have got a politician who does certain things. Those actions then benefit his family financially. Then there is an effort to conceal it and sweep it under the rug.

The best example is to go back to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

There are four key facts about Hunter Biden's involvement with this company and Joe Biden's involvement.

First, Hunter Biden gets put on the board of Burisma. Second, he is not qualified to be on the board of Burisma. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, he said it himself.

Third, he is asked by the executives of Burisma: Can you weigh in with Washington, D.C., to help alleviate the pressure we are under?

Three days later the Vice President of the United States, now- President Joe Biden, goes to Ukraine and conditions American tax dollars for Ukraine on the firing of the prosecutor who was applying the pressure to the company Hunter Biden was on the board of.

That is why we are going with an official impeachment inquiry vote today. That is why this needs to be investigated.

There are two resolutions we are considering. They are H. Res. 918 and H. Res. 917, incorporated if we pass H. Res. 918.

There are three names mentioned in those two resolutions. One name, of course, is Joe Biden, the President of the United States. However, the other two names in H. Res. 917 are two Department of Justice tax lawyers, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. They are the two guys we want to talk to that the Biden Justice Department says we are not going to let you talk to.

With this vote we think we will get to talk to those individuals. Here is why it is important: These two individuals initially said that there should be felony tax charges for 2014 and 2015 in the Hunter Biden investigation.

That is important because those are the years when the bulk of the income from Burisma came to Hunter Biden. They initially said that there should be felony tax charges for those years. Then they changed their position. Eight months later they changed their position, and we want to know why.

Why did you intentionally let the statute of limitations lapse for those years?

My theory is that it is one thing to charge Hunter Biden on a gun charge in Delaware, but it is another thing to charge him on Burisma tax years because that gets you to Joe Biden and that gets you to the White House. That is why we need this vote.

The impeachment power, as the chairman said, is the power that solely resides in the House. When you have a majority of the House of Representatives go on record, that then sends a message. We think we will get timely participation from the witnesses we need to talk to, and the documents Mr. Comer has been seeking.

Finally, I would say this about this changing story from the White House and this changing story from the Justice Department. Today, Hunter Biden did a press conference. He was supposed to be in a deposition, but he did a press conference. At that press conference he said: My father was not financially involved in the business.

That is an important qualifier. We haven't heard that. For 3 years we haven't heard that. All we have heard is that Joe Biden had no involvement. Now his son does a press conference when he is supposed to be deposed, and he says that he wasn't financially involved.

What involvement was it?

We know there were phone calls, dinners, and meetings.

What involvement was it?

That is why we want to ask these questions with important witnesses, and that is why this resolution is important.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to commend to the House the memory of Mr. James C. Gorman of Mansfield, Ohio. A longtime philanthropist and industrialist, Mr. Gorman died on September 21 at age 99.

Mr. Gorman was born in Mansfield in 1924. A 1941 graduate of Mansfield Senior High School, he flew more than 70 combat missions in C-47s in New Guinea and the Philippines during World War II. He was a charter member of the Ohio National Guard's 179th Airlift Wing in 1948, flying P-51s.

Jim served as president of the Gorman Rupp Company, a pump manufacturing business founded by his father, J.C. Gorman, and business partner H.E. Rupp in the 1930s. His strong leadership and loyalty to his employees led to steady growth and international renown in the industry. It was just four years ago that Jim retired as a member of Gorman Rupp's board of directors, wrapping up 73 years with the company.

Jim was known throughout the region for his generosity and his dedication to his community. He and his family donated land to establish the Gorman Nature Center, the Bellville Dog Park, the Frank P. Lahm Aviation Museum, and an area YMCA sports complex.

Jim volunteered his time in many ways, serving as president of both the Mansfield Rotary Club and the Mansfield Aviation Club. He co- founded and led the Beechcraft Heritage Museum and was president of the Experimental Aircraft Association Foundation.

Among the accolades Jim received through his career were the Mansfield-Richland Area Chamber of Commerce Chairman's Award, the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association Lifetime Achievement Award, the North Central State College Hall Excellence Award, the Beechcraft Heritage Museum Young Eagle Award, and the Experimental Aircraft Association Chairman's Award, as well as induction into the North Central State College Entrepreneurial Hall of Fame and the North Central Ohio Industrial Museum Hall of Fame.

Jim was predeceased by Marjorie, his wife of 65 years who shared his love of aviation. He is survived by their son, Jeff; their daughter, Gayle; five grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that good men like Jim Gorman dedicate their lives to the service of others, enriching countless lives and giving back so much more than they receive. On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I offer his family my condolences as they continue to reflect on this pillar of the community and his contributions to Mansfield and Richland County.