Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, James Madison warned us that: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive.'' Madison called it the crown jewel of Congress.

The Framers understood a simple truth: To the extent that warmaking power devolves to one person, liberty dissolves.

If the President believes military action against Venezuela is justified and needed, he should make the case, and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America.

Let's be honest about likely outcomes. Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?

Previous Presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it is the same playbook, except we are told that drugs are the WMDs.

If it were about drugs, we would bomb Mexico, China, or Colombia, and the President would not have pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez. This is about oil and regime change.

When it comes to regime change, we have already been down this road with Venezuela with nothing to show for it. In 2019, we recognized Juan Guaido. We seized their embassy here in D.C. We were told that regime change was imminent. Years later, Maduro remains in power.

Today, we are told to place our hopes in other exiled figures: Edmundo Gonzalez and Maria Corina Machado. I wish them well. I do. But Congress should not express moral sympathy in the form of a blank check for military escalation and American lives.

Let's take a moment to acknowledge the contradiction at the heart of this policy. This administration tells us that the Maduro regime is made up of narcoterrorists. By escalating toward war, we would predictably create countless refugees. At the same time, this administration has moved to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and deports them back to the very regime it condemns. So which is it?

Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans who will likely become refugees and lose billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?

If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it, as a voice of the people, and in accordance with our Constitution.

Yet today, we aren't even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we are voting on is a war powers resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is an extraordinary day in this Chamber.

If my colleagues will vote for this measure, then we will see justice triumph over politics. Truth will triumph over deception and obfuscation. Transparency will triumph over dark money. Partisanship will fall away to bipartisanship, and grass-roots, the people, will reclaim the people's House with this vote.

It is going to be a victory for survivors; not just survivors of the Epstein sex trafficking scandal, but the 1,000 survivors who exist. Some of them are victims. They are no longer alive, and some have committed suicide. They share one thing in common: Their youth was robbed from them, and much of their lives were robbed from them. But they are claiming it back. We are going to help them claim that back.

However, it is not just a victory today if this vote prevails for those survivors. It is a victory for every person, man or woman, boy or girl, who has been victimized sexually in this country. Anybody who has been a victim of sexual assault, or maybe they have been victimized by a family member, maybe it is not a billionaire, but they are all waiting and watching to see what we do today.

They are wondering: If I go to mom or dad, will anything happen?

If I go to the sheriff, will anything happen?

We have a chance today to make something happen, something that has not happened, something that should have happened decades ago, and that is to get justice for these victims and survivors, and transparency for America.

That is what this vote is about today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the generosity of Representative Jim McGovern for granting us this time.

I am embarrassed for my own party today. I am embarrassed we withheld swearing in a duly-elected Representative of the people for 49 days just to avoid this vote that is finally going to happen today.

I am embarrassed that my own party isn't going to yield me time to debate this. Even though they say they support it and I authored it, they don't even want to yield me time to debate this during the bill debate.

However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you whom I am thankful to: these three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. They have been threatened, and they have been intimidated physically and politically--it is disgusting--not by the far left. They have been intimidated by people in our own party.

For what?

It is for seeking justice for these victims.

So my hat is off. I congratulate them for standing strong.

I have always wondered: Where were the Republican men during this battle?

We have taken 5 months. These three women and I have had to drag our party to this floor today to even vote on this.

Ro Khanna is the most to be thanked here. In an extraordinary display of bipartisanship, he did not hesitate when I asked if we wanted to bring this bill to the floor together, if he would stand in the trenches with me. He said yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, and we have had a lot of good men doing a lot of nothing on the other side of the aisle until we did something. Three brave women, myself, and the Democratic Caucus, we did something. Then, what did they do? They have opposed us every step of the way. They have lied about the legislation.

Let me tell you some of the lies they have told. They have said that it doesn't protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference, urging this body to pass this legislation? It is because this legislation specifically protects victims.

They have said this legislation does not prevent the release of child pornography. Of course it does. We have a specific provision in our legislation to prevent that.

They have said so many falsehoods about this legislation, but now they are going to vote for it--hopefully enthusiastically. Really, they have been drug to this.

Our judicial system is broken. If it were working, there wouldn't be a thousand victims who haven't seen justice yet. They are victims of the Epstein class.

I begrudge nobody's success if they become a billionaire, but if you think being a billionaire or buying politicians keeps you out of the judicial system, lets you rape young women, lets you traffic women, you have another thing coming when this bill passes.

Do not let the Senate muck this up. There have already been efforts to derail our discharge petition. The Oversight Committee has released thousands, tens of thousands of documents. That is fine. Keep working. How many names have they released? Zero.

They are still protecting, or the DOJ is protecting, pedophiles and sex traffickers. The time for that to stop is now.

Our Speaker says: Oh, this bill needs to be amended in the Senate, and specifically, he is trying to create a loophole. He is trying to categorize the pedophiles as victims. He is saying: Oh, we don't want to embarrass the people who went to the rape island. We should protect those names against unreliable accusations. Is he calling all of these victims unreliable?

They have testified to the FBI. The FBI has these names in their possession.

I asked the FBI Director in a hearing: Have you looked at the documents?

No. He trusts everybody who has been there for decades.

That is wrong. Do not let the Senate muck this bill up. If Senators are a party to that in the Senate, they are part of this coverup that we are trying to expose. I am sorry if one of their billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.

That is what they have coming. In fact, they need to be on the other side of bars, a lot of them. Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.

Mr. Speaker, how will we know if this bill has been successful? We will know when there are men, rich men, in handcuffs being perp-walked to the jail. Until then, this is still a coverup.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues: Do not muck up this bill.

The President has already said that he will sign it. That means that he will sign the bill that we have here today.

Do not change this bill. He is ready to sign it. Give it to him. Put it on his desk. Let's get justice for these victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following proclamation Honoring Mr. Chase Crawford:

Whereas, Chase Crawford, a distinguished filmmaker,

producer, and resident of Fort Thomas, Kentucky, has been

inducted into the International Indie Filmmaker Hall of Fame

at the Indie Gathering Film Festival; and

Whereas, Chase Crawford over the past decade, has worked

tirelessly to amplify independent voices in cinema through

projects that have reached audiences both locally and

internationally; and

Whereas, Chase Crawford founded Four by Three Productions,

which has produced a dozen award-winning films and more than

fifty comedy specials, and has served as Executive Producer

on groundbreaking projects; and

Whereas, Chase Crawford's film Between Mercy and Me, filmed

in Northern Kentucky, premiered in 600 theaters across the

United States, bringing recognition to the creative spirit of

our Commonwealth;

Whereas, Chase Crawford, in addition to his professional

achievements, has demonstrated deep commitment to service,

including his volunteer work in Eastern Kentucky, where he

teaches women in recovery the skills of filmmaking,

photography, and editing, an effort recognized with his

commissioning as a Kentucky Colonel in 2025;

Now therefore, I, Thomas Massie, United States

Representative for the Fourth District of Kentucky, do hereby

recognize and congratulate Chase Crawford on his induction

into the International Indie Filmmaker Hall of Fame, and

commend him for his remarkable contributions to the arts, to

independent film, and to the people of Kentucky.

Proclaimed this 24th day of October 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to stand here and tell the American people that we can cut your taxes and increase spending, and everything is going to be just fine. I can't do that because I am here to deliver a dose of reality.

This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible 5 years from now. Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises?

This bill is a debt bomb ticking.

Congress can do funny math, fantasy math if it wants, but bond investors don't. This week, they sent us a message. Moody's downgraded our credit rating, and the bond investors who buy and finance our debt demanded higher interest rates on the 10-year note, 20-year note, and the 30-year note. What does this mean? Very soon, the government will be paying $16,000 of interest, interest alone, per U.S. family.

What are we telling them? Instead of taking care of that problem, we are going to give them a $1,600 tax break.

Under the taxing and spending levels in this bill, we are going to rack up, the authors say, $20 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years. I am telling you, it is closer to $30 trillion of new debt in the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, we are not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic tonight. We are putting coal in the boiler and setting a course for the iceberg. If something is beautiful, you don't do it after midnight.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the United States of America, is the guardian of our liberties. It embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law.

September 17, 2024, marks the 237th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States by the Constitutional Convention.

It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it.

To honor this year's Constitution Week, I ask my fellow citizens and my colleagues here to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties.

Moreover, don't forget, Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not give us rights, and it does not grant us rights. The Constitution seeks to bind our government and protect our God-given rights.

I extend my sincerest gratitude to the members of the John Guill- Polly Hawkins Craig Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution for their steadfast commitment to honoring the history of our great Nation and for hosting a Constitution Week celebration for my constituents.

Continuing Resolution

Madam Speaker, we are told today that we are going to vote on a continuing resolution with another bright, shiny object attached to it.

I feel like this legislation is insincere and unserious.

Now, why is it unserious?

It is unserious because we are cramming all government spending into one bill, and instead of deciding what to spend on, we are saying: Let's just spend at least as much as we spent last year and not worry about running any of these bills through committee or debating how much we should spend on things.

It is also unserious because we spent 2 years uncovering deficiencies in our government. We have been stonewalled by the FBI and the Department of Justice with that familiar refrain: Oh, Mr. Congressman, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and it is our longstanding policy not to comment on that.

They can say that in a press release, but they shouldn't be saying that to Congress. However they get away with it because we don't cut their spending every time they do that to us.

If we would withhold the ink cartridge for one printer at the FBI, they would come to heel. Yet we are not going to do that in this bill, this continuing resolution. It is just unserious.

It is also very insincere. It is an insult to the American people. It is an insult to their intelligence to bring this bill to the floor because it sets up a fake fight that we all know here is fake. Somebody come down here and tell me it is not fake. You all know it is fake.

Here is what is even more insincere about it: The compromise has already been reached in a smoke-filled backroom here. They already know what we are going to do. It is going to be a clean CR when we get to September 30.

What is the deal they have reached?

It is the same deal they reach every year: We will let you spend a few billion dollars more if you let us spend a few billion dollars more.

In fact, what we should be doing is correcting this country's course. We are on a course to financial ruin.

I ask my colleagues: When history looks back, how will it judge you for what you do today on this vote?

Will it say: Oh, well, this is a person who was unserious and insincere, and

instead of making the tough arguments and having the tough discussions with their voters decided to go along to get along on the path to financial ruin or will you be one of the people who stands up and says: This is unsustainable. We must stop it. I will not engage in a fake fight. I will not be part of this political theater.

Will you stand your ground?

Will you be one of those people?

I hope you will.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the continuing resolution with the fake shiny object attached to it.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law.

September 17, 2024, marks the two hundred and thirty-seventh anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention.

It is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it.

To honor this year's Constitution Week, I ask my fellow citizens, and especially my fellow Members of Congress, to reaffirm the ideals the Framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties.

I extend my sincerest gratitude to the members of the John Guill- Polly Hawkins Craig Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution for their steadfast commitment to honoring the history of our great Nation and for hosting a Constitution Week celebration for my constituents.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which simply recognizes that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Our Constitution establishes a very clear framework for making treaties by the executive and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Our Constitution also establishes a clear framework for making laws that affect our domestic affairs. If any provisions of a treaty are to have legal bearing on United States citizens, those provisions must pass both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate and be presented to the President, as all Federal laws must.

Treaties don't override our constitutional process for making law. Presidents can't make U.S. law by agreeing to new terms in an international treaty. Every law that American citizens live under must pass the House and the Senate.

My colleagues have eloquently made the point that a President can't enter into a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and, in doing so, they are standing up for the sovereignty of American citizens. They are requiring the Senate to be that portion of the legislative branch that decides what laws will bear on citizens, depending on what the treaty is.

My amendment here is very simple. It says that, if a treaty has a law in it that has a bearing on United States citizens, on our domestic activities, then it has to follow the lawmaking process of the Constitution.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bulk of my speech in support of my amendment actually doesn't come from me. It is going to come from Alexander Hamilton, who describes in Federalist 75 the treaty-making powers of the executive. He states: ``Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith.''

This is the most important part: ``They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.''

What is he saying here? He is saying domestic laws can't be made using a treaty. Treaties can't bind the United States to declare war. Treaties can't raise taxes. Treaties can't create new laws for us. The United States should not take part in international institutions that erode our sovereignty. Congress should not legitimize blatantly unconstitutional notions that agreements that come out of these institutions supersede the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying this: Do we believe that the Senate itself and the President, without consulting the House, could implement a vaccine mandate by merely calling it a treaty and finding another sovereign party to enter into it with? I do not.

Do we believe that they could implement or impose social distancing on U.S. citizens by calling it a treaty and finding another sovereign to enter into an agreement with? I do not. They have to come to the House.

Let's take the example of gun control. By the way, this is not a hypothetical. Do we think they could impose gun control on U.S. citizens in a treaty with the United Nations and some other sovereign countries merely with the advice and consent of the Senate? That would take two-thirds or 67 votes in the Senate, but it could completely leave out the House of Representatives. No, they cannot do that. That is outside of our Constitution. We are guaranteed a Republican form of government with a legislature that makes the laws that bear on citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I will close with this most important part of my amendment, which says: ``If any provisions of a treaty are to have legal bearing on United States citizens those provisions must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate and be presented to the President, as all Federal laws must.''

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and wish a very happy and special 100th birthday to my constituent, Mr. Oakley Farris.

Mr. Farris grew up near Lexington, Kentucky. After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the United States Army and fought heroically in World War II. After returning from his tour of duty in Europe, Mr. Farris settled in Covington, Kentucky, and began working as a salesman, traveling up and down the East Coast.

It was on a sales trip to Miami that Mr. Farris met his future wife, Eva. An immigrant from Havana, Cuba, Eva went on to study at Columbia University. She motivated her husband to capitalize on his hard-working and entrepreneurial spirit. Together, the Farrises built a successful real estate business, and at one point, owned over 40 residential buildings.

Mr. Farris and his late wife made countless investments in our community. Many schools, medical establishments, and organizations in Northern Kentucky have benefited from Mr. Farris' generosity. Mr Farris has said he came into this world with nothing and plans to leave it the same way--a true testament to his charitable nature. I am grateful for all that Mr. Farris has done for my constituents, and I am honored to represent him in Washington.

Happy Birthday to Oakley. May he have many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to wish a very special 100th birthday to my friend and constituent, Mr. Oakley Farris.

Mr. Farris grew up near Lexington, Kentucky. After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the United States Army and fought heroically in World War II. After returning from his tour of duty in Europe, Mr. Farris settled in Covington, Kentucky, and began working as a salesman, traveling up and down the East Coast.

It was on a sales trip to Miami that Mr. Farris met his future wife, Eva. An immigrant from Havana, Cuba, Eva went on to study at Columbia University. Together, the Farrises built a very successful business.

Mr. Farris and his late wife made countless charitable investments in our community. I am grateful for all that Mr. Farris has done for my constituents, and I am honored to represent him in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to Oakley. May he have many more years of good health and happiness.

I object.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly thank the chairman for yielding me time because he knows I am slightly opposed to the rule, so he is very gracious.

I am concerned that the Speaker has cut a deal with the Democrats to fund foreign wars rather than to secure our border, but what I want to talk about today is process.

The bill that will come out of the House after all of this is a bill that began as H.R. 815 to expand the eligibility for veterans to receive reimbursements for their emergency care. How did a bill that was intended for veterans that came out of the House become a bill that may bring us to the brink of war in at least three places on the globe by sending $100 billion to military contractors?

Well, it started in the House, and then the Senate took it and stripped every word from the bill.

Why did they do this? Were they trying to get around the origination clause in the Constitution? Were they trying to shortcut some process? It is one of those things.

What we have got now is a collection of bills, and I do appreciate that we get individual votes on four of these bills. They include $100 billion, but they don't include securing our border. They include a bill called the REPO Act, which could call into question the value of our Treasury bills when we go out to auction those next if we are going to confiscate Treasury bills that we sold to other countries. It also includes a bill that allows the President to ban websites based on his discretion. I am concerned about that.

This bill, H.R. 815, started as a veterans bill, went to the Senate, got gutted, and then became the foreign aid package bill. Now, here in the House, we are going to vote on four separate titles, but we are going to package them back as amendments to that H.R. 815. So we are actually going to send it back to the Senate as the bill they sent to us, which is the gutted veterans bill.

I know this is all confusing, but why is this all being done this way? Some will say to force the Senate's hand, but really what it is going to do is jam the conservatives in the Senate who would like to have a more fulsome debate.

I am opposed to the rule, and I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call

up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of 8-4 a rule providing for consideration of the following measures: H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act; H.R. 529, the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act; H. Res. 1112, Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies; and H. Res. 1117, Opposing Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel With Respect to Gaza.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, under a structured rule.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees.

Let's talk about the rule for H.R. 7888, the highly anticipated and heavily debated Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.

There will be six amendments allowed for this bill, and they break down into three different categories.

There are three amendments from the Judiciary Committee that basically limit or constrain the government in its use of the FISA 702 program.

The first one is Mr. Biggs' amendment. It is probably the most discussed amendment, and it would prohibit warrantless searches of U.S. person communications in the FISA 702 database.

The second is Mr. Roy's amendment, which requires the FBI to report to Congress on a quarterly basis the number of U.S. person queries conducted.

Mr. Cline's amendment prohibits the resumption of ``abouts'' collection under section 702.

The intel amendments basically expand the FISA program.

Mr. Crenshaw's amendment expands the definition of foreign intelligence to allow targeting and collection of information about illicit drugs. Instead of just being about terrorism, it will expand the program to include illicit drugs.

Mr. Waltz' amendment expands the use of section 702 by allowing it to be used to vet foreigners traveling into the United States.

Mr. Turner's amendment expands the definition of ``electronic communication service provider'' under section 702.

We will have a full and robust debate on those amendments after this rule passes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), in his appointment as the new chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker.

Did the gentleman address his remarks to somebody on this side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. We are here today to pass a rule that will bring up a program for a vote that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times, abused by the FBI's own standards hundreds of thousands of times. Every time they have used it, they have actually abused it because they have not followed the constitutional requirement in the Fourth Amendment.

Today, if we pass this rule, we will have votes on six different amendments. Three of these amendments will expand the program, and three of these amendments will constrain the program.

There are people who say this bill is fine as is, that it doesn't need any amendments. Here is the problem with that: If we believed that, why would we put exemptions for Congress in this bill?

There are exemptions for Congress in the base bill of 702. What do they do?

They say that if a Congressman is going to have their privacy violated with the 702 program by the FBI, the FBI has to notify Congress. It goes on to say in this bill that if the FBI is going to tell us that they are doing it for our own good, they have to get permission from the Congressman whose privacy is going to be violated. Why does that only apply to Members of this body?

The Constitution provides that we should give these protections to everybody. The Constitution requires a warrant. That is one of the amendments that will be offered here today.

In fact, the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation, the committee that many years ago created the 702 program--have said that if the warrant provision is not adopted, they will not vote to renew this program. I applaud them for taking that stand because the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution says: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''

The FISA 702 program is clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We can fix it, for the most part, with one amendment. There will still be other defects in the FISA program.

I will just close by saying this: America is watching us today. They are going to watch the results of this vote. What will we do here today? Are we going to carve out exemptions for Congress? Are we going to protect ourselves but not the American people, or are we going to provide them with the protections that our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution?

We swore an oath to do that when we took these offices as legislators, and we need to follow that oath. That is why I urge adoption of this rule. I urge people to vote for the warrant amendment, and I urge people not to vote for the final bill if the protections of the warrant amendment are not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we are voting on a resolution that will bring forward reauthorization of a program that has been abused for decades, the FISA 702 surveillance program.

Before we vote on that program, though, this resolution that we are voting on now prescribes that we will bring forward an amendment to require warrants. If you want to spy on Americans, if you want to use this database as a back door to look at the private information of Americans, you would need a warrant if this amendment passes.

Now, there are some people who say, oh, getting a warrant is too hard. It will slow us down. You will put America in danger.

Listen, I have been in the SCIF, the classified area where they are supposed to tell us the problems with requiring a warrant, and they never have told us a single example of where getting a warrant would be a problem to national security.

In fact, we have a provision in the warrant amendment that says in exigent circumstances you can skip that step. You will hear today that everything is fine, that we don't need the warrant amendment, that we have 53 reforms in this package.

Here is the problem with those reforms: We rely on the same people who abused the system to enforce those reforms, and they still don't go to the constitutional level that is required in this country.

Who doesn't trust those 53 reforms? Congress--the authors of this bill--doesn't trust those 53 reforms. Do you know how I know? Because they put in two exemptions for themselves in this bill. That is right: If the FBI is going to use 702 FISA to spy on Congressmen, they have to tell Congress. They even have to get permission from the Congressmen they are spying on if they say it is for the Congressmen's own good. Why do we have a provision in there that exempts Congressmen but not all of America?

Americans deserve the protections that are enshrined in the Constitution. Nothing less should pass this House.

This is an enormous database. They will tell you that we are just looking at intelligence that was gathered on foreigners. The problem is, they are collecting this intelligence in the United States, using service providers in the United States, using internet connections in the United States. They collect a lot of stuff here.

Do you think the NSA employee who did a FISA search on a Tinder date was looking for information about Hamas? No.

There is all kinds of information in there, and that is why it is being abused and why we need the warrant provision. I urge folks to vote for this rule so that they can vote for the warrant provision amendment. If that amendment doesn't pass, they shouldn't vote to reauthorize FISA.

Madam Speaker, today we are setting a dangerous precedent. We are suspending the 3-day rule so that our constituents don't have time to see what is in this bill.

We know a few things that are in it. We know it spends too much money. We know it has got money to groom our children, down to ages of 12, into being trans. We know it has got funding for facilities to do late-term abortions.

Why would Republicans vote for that? It has got a dangerous cocktail that the swamp has always served, and we are drunk on it today. What is that cocktail? Earmarks and budget gimmicks with a chaser of the fumes from DCA, the smell of jet fuel at DCA.

What are we going to do? As soon as we betray Americans by passing this bill, we are all going to the airport and going on recess for 2 weeks.

This is not the way we should do the Nation's business. We need to preserve the 3-day rule. We need to follow our own rules. We need to bring these bills through committee and do regular order.

Madam Speaker, I urge people to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in actual opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the sponsors of this bill are sincere in their concerns and in their effort to protect Americans. They have described the TikTok application as a Trojan horse, but there are some of us who feel that, either intentionally or unintentionally, this legislation to ban TikTok is actually a Trojan horse. Some of us are concerned that there are First Amendment implications here.

Americans have the right to view information. We don't need to be protected by the government from information. Some of us just don't want the President picking which apps we can put on our phones or which websites we can visit. We don't think that is appropriate.

We also think it is dangerous to give the President that kind of power, to give him the power to decide what Americans can see on their phones and on their computers. To give him that sort of discretion, we also think, is dangerous.

People say that this TikTok ban will only apply to TikTok or maybe another company that pops up just like TikTok, but the bill is written so broadly that the President could abuse that discretion and include other companies that aren't just social media companies and that aren't, as some people would believe, controlled by foreign adversaries. Again, we are giving the President that discretion to decide whether it is controlled by a foreign adversary.

There were some people who were legitimately concerned that this was an overly broad bill, and they got an exclusion written into the bill that I want to read. It says: ``The term `covered company' does not include an entity that operates a website . . . or . . . application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.''

Why is this exception in the bill? Why did somebody feel like they needed this exception if the bill itself only covers social media applications that foreign adversaries are running? These and other questions we hope to answer in the course of this debate, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a data privacy champion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), who is my friend and fellow colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia), my friend on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), my friend on the other side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the other side is sincere. We have not questioned that here today, and I won't question their sincerity.

In fact, I think they have identified at least three problems that we have in America: moral decay of our society, invasion of Americans' privacy, and our competitiveness with China. However, in this case, their cure is worse than the diseases.

There are ways to get at these root problems. We just haven't taken it upon ourselves to address those root problems with actual legislative solutions that have been put forth here in Congress.

For instance, Mr. Warren Davidson's Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would put a strong stake in the ground to protect Americans' privacy, whether it is from our own government or some foreign governments. That is the kind of thing we need.

We need warrants in the FISA program. Our government shouldn't be able to spy on Americans without a warrant, yet they are. Let's bring that to the floor and vote on it.

These are the kinds of cures we need, not the bill that is offered here today.

The bill that is offered here today, even though I know it is offered genuinely, could also be named the Facebook protection and enhancement act because it is not the American people who are going to benefit most from this. It will be Facebook. Their stock is going to go up if this bill should pass the Senate.

What are some ways that we could improve this bill? It should at least have a sunset. That is the only reason we are able to debate whether FISA should have warrants in it, because it sunsets. What have we observed? FISA has been abused.

That is my concern with this TikTok ban. It will be abused. If it is just banning TikTok and ByteDance and copies of that, why does it need to be 13 pages long?

I know they say it doesn't ban it, but it forces divestiture of the company. This sounds like when American companies try to do business in Third World countries and a dictator says: You can do business here. You just have to give me your company, and now you can continue to do business.

We wouldn't let another country take over Ford Motor Company for selling Ford cars in their country, yet that is what we are wanting to do here.

Again, this is a cure that is worse than the disease. Who is going to be prosecuted by this bill? Is it ByteDance or TikTok? Will they be taken to court? No. They are the target of this, but how do you elicit or effect a ban on them? By prosecuting Americans.

The only way my colleagues can ban TikTok and the other companies from being here is to say what this bill says, which is the government will bring a civil action suit against you if you so much as host them here. If you have an app store that allows them to be here, and you are an American or an American company, you will be the target of this bill. Those are the only people who can be pursued under this bill. I know it is in order to go after TikTok, or so they say.

I close by saying that we are sitting here with phones made in China. We are wearing suits made in China. We drove cars here with chips that are made in China.

They are a foreign adversary, and, by golly, we are going to do something about it. What are we going to do? My colleagues are going to tell Americans they can't put a piece of software on their computer and can't go to certain websites that the President designates.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this well-intentioned bill because it will have bad consequences, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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