Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you I have significant concerns about why it does not address some material potential violations of Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. It really has to do a lot with upstream collection, and I will explain what it is.

Upstream collection is where the government and the State can go in the backbone and collect data about all Americans, whatever they want, and then they have to go through minimization procedures. Supposedly, this minimization procedure is supposed to limit the data that they incidentally collect about Americans.

Well, the challenge is no one ever audits and checks what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, if you remember what happened in 2016, where pretty much these minimization procedures didn't allow to collect about information. It means that if you have the name of some potential terrorist in the body of your email, they can collect your data but NSA still did it. They collected the data.

Mr. Speaker, what happened? We don't know what happened; but we also know in 2022 that a new technique was authorized where, according to the review of the oversight board, if used in a widespread way and not minimized, it can be extraordinarily intrusive.

This is a very new sensitive technique, but no one ever checked this. We know these agencies, how they felt so many times collecting data on Americans. We are turning into a police state. This is a material flaw with this bill, and I want to raise significant concerns that it has to be addressed or we are just putting lipstick on a pig.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 44 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 724.

Mr. McHENRY Mr. Speaker, due to an unforseen circumstance, I was unable to cast my vote for H.R. 2365. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 724.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 705 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 706.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a lot of important discussions this Congress, but there is one important discussion that I truly believe we need to take very seriously. It is section 702 of the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I want to remind us that our main job as Representatives of the people is to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property. We will never have equal opportunities and will always want to have equal outcomes, but the equality of rights is the job of Congress and the legislature.

We know very well that the constitutional rights of Americans have been violated.

I am going to cite some excerpts from the report that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board just issued recently. That board was created to oversee due processes, and the issue in line was the reauthorization. It is actually run by Democrats, and the chair is appointed by President Biden.

This is from the report: ``The board finds that section 702 poses significant privacy and civil liberties risks, most notably from U.S. person queries and batch queries. Significant privacy and civil liberties risks also include the scope of permissible targeting.''

It also talks about new types of procedures that have been recently authorized, in 2022, and we had challenges about collection that some thought Congress would put a stop to. However, it says that the new procedures that we just authorized were used in a widespread fashion. It could be extraordinarily intrusive.

It also says the board finding a risk of overboard government collection of communications is very real and can cause harm with no individualized judicial review of targeting decisions. We had an almost 300 percent increase in surveillance since 2013, double in the last 5 years.

This search is very concerning since there is no specific review of that.

Also, it says that a lot of things that are collected could be political, religious, and social advocacy. There are significant concerns about this program overall.

The changes that the FBI has done, they say, have not been sufficient to protect privacy and civil liberties. It is also actually confirmed by the internal audit of a recent report--the most recent was in May 2023 when the internal audits of the FBI was talking pretty much about over 90 percent of queries not having any evidence of justification for these queries.

It is like the FBI is very good. They don't record and don't recall, so they want all the liability. It is a serious issue.

We had some discussions, and I think the Judiciary Committee bill is somewhat bad. At least it requires a warrant for queries of a U.S. person. Still, both the bills that the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee are proposing lack some very serious consideration.

There is no outside review of what data is collected, and this is something the board pretty much recognizes. As an agency, they collect information on Americans, but they cannot assess how much. At the least, there needs to be some sampling by a FISA court when they do certification to start figuring it out because, ultimately, there is a potential that our agencies have access to be able to collect without warrant and surveil many Americans. We don't know how many Americans they are surveilling and what the NSA is doing when they do filtering procedures.

There is no ability for us to even know what is going in the review of that. The board brings these concerns, but also there are concerns with documentation.

I think Congress should have for us--we do it in other areas, and in accounting, we do it, too--where, through evidence and documentation, we can have preventative controls in systems. When queries are run, there is evidence of review and evidence of approval and justification by the FBI as to why they are using this loophole in the law that potentially violates the rights of U.S. citizens and many Americans.

I think the magnitude of this problem is significant, and the magnitude of violations could be very material. I think Congress needs to be much more serious in its consideration before we reauthorize the section.

The other thing the board talks about is national security. It is an important section, but actually, the agency didn't prove that queries that they are doing actually give justification to what they are doing to provide them more expansion on that.

I think we need to put up more guardrails, and I hope we will have more discussions on this issue and this bill if they are going to move forward in the way they are because I want to remind us that if we are not willing to stand up for the rights of Americans here, then I don't know why we are even in Congress.

This Fourth Amendment right is a significant right, and it is a bipartisan issue. I hope we will take a more serious look at how we can improve this FISA reauthorization before it is reauthorized and have better legislation.

Madam Chair, unfortunately, muscle memory is very strong in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, Wall Street and K street are very powerful in Washington, D.C.

Fortunately, we have people on the Republican side that are willing to stand up for Main Street, willing to challenge their own leadership to deliver on issues of national security.

This institution went through tougher times. We deliberated a lot of issues, but we used to be able to come together on issues of national security and our border security. Our destructive debt situation is destroying American lives.

I hope the other side will join Republicans to win this battle for the American people. It shouldn't be a political issue, politicized. If this government cannot deliver maybe it is worth it to shut it down. What is it for then? If we cannot come together on this, then we are not worthwhile to represent the American people.

So I hope that the other side stops being sheep and starts to actually not be afraid to challenge their own leadership and do something for this country because American people are sick and tired of us being worthless. We need to protect this country because if we don't save this Republic, no one else around the world will be able to defeat a lot of enemies, foreign and domestic.

I will tell you one thing, there is nothing unreasonable or extreme to serve the people, to secure the border, and deal with our debt.

I would appreciate it if the other side wakes up and supports Republicans.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple but very important amendment. All this amendment says is that the Secretary of State cannot use any funds in this appropriation that are not explicitly authorized by Congress to be given to the United Nations. I think it is very important.

I have been in the trenches quite a bit with a lot of conflicts and where people are dying in many countries.

The American people are very generous and help a lot of people around the world, but we want to make sure that this money doesn't go to very fancy executives that pay themselves big salaries in the U.N. and are driving very fancy cars, eating steak dinners, and staying in very fancy hotels while the people next door are dying. It actually should go to the people that the American people are willing to help.

I think it is very important that unauthorized funds by Congress won't be frivolously given out by the Secretary of State.

That is the intent of Congress, and I think this is a very good amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has misrepresented this amendment. This amendment says if Congress doesn't authorize these funds, they shouldn't be spent by the other branch and given to the U.N. It should not preclude Congress from doing its job and actually authorizing the funds.

I tell you, this organization failed many people around the world. Millions of people are dying in Africa.

When I talk to these people, they haven't seen the big input the U.N. is doing. They failed to deter from conflicts, including Ukraine. I haven't seen them on the ground in Ukraine or Poland.

We have major issues around the world. I saw what is happening in countries in South America. Don't tell me we are not giving money in the Middle East. I just went there. What is happening in Syria and other countries--don't tell me that this organization didn't fail the American people and people around the world.

If our Congress is going to continue this, we need to look seriously at why they cater to Russia and China at the expense of American taxpayers and their hard-earned money.

I think Congress needs to do its job. Before any money would be given to this organization, they have to be accountable to the American people, and they have to be authorized.

If Congress authorizes money and gives it to the Secretary of State to provide to the United Nations, you can still do that, but we have to start doing our job because a lot of people are suffering around the world. If America doesn't stand up for them, no one else will.

The American people expect accountability for our hard-earned money, and I hope that it can be on a bipartisan basis because there are a lot of people who make a lot of money around the world over there.

They have very high-paying jobs, but a lot of poorer people, including in Africa, are dying. I think we have to be accountable and responsible for that, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

We actually just had a bipartisan codel, and both the committee chair and the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia Subcommittee chair were concerned about what they heard about the U.N. from real people, not executives at the U.N. They have this job and protect their salaries and live a very good life, but actual, real people are suffering.

We are willing to help real people that are suffering, but we need to put pressure on the U.N. to be accountable to the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up with the people, not with the special interest groups that lobby for a lot of things here, destroying our Republic and destroying peace around the world.

These organizations were created for some purposes, and they failed. Maybe it is time to rethink what kind of structure we should have that actually benefits peace around the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one more time that Congress is supposed to authorize this funding. If we are not doing the job, we shouldn't waive the rules.

Mr. Chair, are they doing their job or not? If Congress believes, based on consideration, that these funds should be provided, the other side needs to make the case. We can authorize these funds, but they have to be accountable that the funds are used wisely.

All it says is unauthorized spending is not going to be waived by Congress. We need to stop waiving and neglecting our job.

Maybe if we get a little bit more pressure, we will start doing our job. We should be actually authorizing funds and appropriating funds.

If not, then we have to be accountable. I truly believe this is very important for Congress to start looking at spending and start providing proper oversight.

I truly believe that this is an issue that I hope will be supported on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I know that accountability is a foreign concept in Washington, but accountability builds trust. It is very important, considering the track record of this administration, considering the track record of the Department of Defense that hasn't been audited, and considering the track record of the Ukrainian Government, that the American people do have proper accountability.

Accountability will be the key to success for the very brave Ukrainian people fighting the fight against evil and winning that fight. I will strongly urge support for this amendment. It is a very, very serious war, and we don't want to have another pull-out like Afghanistan.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I know that accountability is a foreign concept in Washington, D.C., and there is no lobby for the people, but I would like to lobby for real farmers and consumers as a farmer myself. And, also, I have a cosponsor of my amendment, an actual real farmer, too. I would like to stand with the farmers.

My amendment is very simple. Farmers used to pay a voluntary checkoff fee when they do a checkoff to promote their commodities to boards, nonprofit boards. Well, Congress decided to make this fee mandatory and no transparency. If you are going to force farmers to pay some money, I think farmers need to know where the money goes. Do they promote commodities or promote jobs for very wealthy people in fancy suits? Farmers are working hard for this money.

My amendment has two parts, to help promote transparency with trying to do the farm bill, but also no taxpayer money should be used unless we know what is happening with these checkoff dollars to be used to promote them. I believe no one argues that these moneys are not used for checkoff fees.

This does not say that they cannot be used for checkoff fees. I thought this would be an easy amendment. Unfortunately, a lot of special interest groups that aren't supposed to even lobby with this money decided to go and attack: How can Congress ask accountability? How can Congress ask us what we are doing with the money? I believe now it has become imperative since they are lobbying with this money against this amendment, against transparency, I think it is becoming imperative that taxpayer dollars are not used or given to these boards until we figure out what is going on with the money.

This is a very simple amendment. They say they are not using this money, so just clarify the intent of the Congress that no taxpayer dollars are going to be used or given to these boards who knows where they spend the money. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, if my colleagues are saying that no taxpayer funds are used for these programs, I don't think that should be a debate, just to clarify that no taxpayer funds are used for these programs.

If they are so beneficial, I am looking forward to bringing transparency. They shouldn't be afraid to say that they are doing these great things for farmers, but so far, I have seen them serving large special interest groups and large monopolies, and farmers are becoming more and more consolidated because the little guy cannot survive.

This is ultimately the decision of Congress to stand up for the little guy, for consumers, for farmers, or we will continue to cater to large special interest groups making big salaries. Secretary Vilsack was making over a million dollars on checkoff boards while farmers were going bankrupt.

Congress needs to stop this insanity and not be afraid to challenge them and say that we do stand for the people, we lobby for the people, and we shouldn't be afraid.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I look forward to bring more transparency, but this is the clarity, and I don't see any opposition to something that everyone believes exists.

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

Mr. THOMPSON from Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, once again, these checkoff programs are commodity group driven. There are no taxpayer dollars for any of the activities or for USDA oversight of these activities. I look forward to the farm bill process where we can continue discussions I have had with the gentlewoman from Indiana and with her staff to be able to look at how we improve transparency, how we refine these programs to provide her and others confidence in them.

The attack on the checkoff programs really was rooted in animal rights organizations that have one goal, and that is to eliminate the livestock agriculture industry. Obviously, that is unacceptable, but increasing transparency is not unacceptable. I see the farm bill process as the appropriate path forward for that.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to say there are things where I agree with my colleagues, the Republicans. It is good to have healthy dialogue and discussion. We are a free institution here. I actually agree that we need to defend our borders, too. I actually agree that we need to have better oversight and go to better security assistance and not some other things, too.

I actually agree with them that we need to have the fiscal issues resolved at the Department of Defense and offered amendments, but I disagree that Ukraine is not a national interest.

Stopping this war and deterring aggressors like China and Russia is in our national interest. Many Americans were killed by Russian-made weapons around the world, and we need to learn from the mistakes of World War II that weakness invites aggression.

I truly believe this administration didn't do that good of a job deterring it, but now we need to help Ukraine. We need to understand that there are a lot of lives that are going to be lost for Ukrainians. We need to make sure that we don't have never-ending war, and better security assistance will help to restore peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our heroes who risk their lives for our freedoms and those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I share with you and the American people a memorial service note that my friend Lieutenant Colonel in Special Operations David Strysko wrote for his fallen brother, Master Sergeant Benjamin Franklin Bitner, who was killed in action in Afghanistan in April of 2011:

What does it mean to honor the fallen? In a word: Rise.

Rise to the occasion:

It is easy for us to conflate remembrance with honor,

because we all want to honor the ultimate sacrifices made by

our brothers, and the easiest way to do that is by

remembering them. Undoubtedly, the greatest travesty of a

free nation is when it forgets the sacrifices that keep them

free. But remembering is only the passive aspect of honor. It

is only when our suitable actions accompany our remembrances

that we truly honor their sacrifice.

But what actions truly honor? Laying wreaths, rendering

salutes, and pausing for moments of silence are all

commendable, but they fall short of true honor when

compared to the immense gravity of the ultimate sacrifice

they recognize.

The actions that speak true honor are those that pick up

where the sacrifice of our fallen brothers left off. And it

is often a rare and fleeting occasion that we get an

opportunity to honor our fallen through our own deliberate

actions.

It is to these occasions that we rise to honor.

When faced with difficult decisions, withering opposition,

physical and psychological peril, certain defeat, reprisal,

hopelessness, chaos, and terror, we rise to honor the fallen.

When the occasion calls for sacrifice, we rise to honor the

fallen.

Sacrifice can only be truly honored by sacrifice. Courage

can only be truly honored by courage.

When it is our turn to honor those who have mortally proven

their resolve, we must rise with courage to sacrifice.

It is in these moments, where courage and resolve are

tested, that we can with conviction rise to honor the fallen.

And in doing so, we will stand as living testaments to

those sacred words: `` . . . that these dead shall not have

died in vain.''

Today, we remember Benjamin Franklin Bitner, but only our

actions will honor him.

May God bless our heroes and our great Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Noah Jacob Shahnavaz, an Indiana police officer who was killed in the line of duty last year. Noah would have turned 25 today.

Noah was born in Indianapolis to Matt and Laurie Shahnavaz. After graduating from Fishers High School, he enlisted in the Army where he served as a sergeant and was awarded the distinguished Air Assault Badge. He was deployed to the Middle East and two border missions.

Following his honorable discharge, Noah answered the call to service once again and joined the Elwood Police Department in August of 2021.

On behalf of Indiana's Fifth Congressional District and our Nation, I share my deepest appreciation and gratitude for Noah's service to our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence to remember Noah and the heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. You will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my Democrat colleagues to unite with Republicans and put pressure on the Senate to have an adult conversation about our debt and spending.

We collected $4 trillion last year. Our mandatory spending is $4 trillion, automatic spending? And of the $2 trillion of discretionary spending, 80 percent is unauthorized. That means that 90 percent of spending is not even considered by this institution.

We have programs like Medicare that are going bankrupt. We have bipartisan issues supported by Trump and Obama that could save billions of dollars for the seniors to save Medicare, like site-neutral payments and overbilling by Medicare. It is fraudulent overbilling, dishonest billing that is supported by broad groups of think tanks.

We have to save these programs for the people that were promised them. We need to have the backbone in Washington, D.C., to stand up for we the people and challenge special interest groups.

I urge my colleagues to be with us on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on this resolution.

Our country was founded on the principle of protecting the rights of the minority. It is considered a republic for a reason because our Founding Fathers understood that majority rule can lead to tyranny from the majority, mob rule, and dictatorship.

Last Congress, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority took unprecedented actions removing minority party Members from committees. They also made a resolution of inquiry, which they used against the Republican administration, and also eliminated the ability for the minority party.

It was very disappointing. What I ask--you know, I want to differentiate this resolution for Speaker McCarthy. He added explicitly to this resolution to make sure that we apply the same standard not just to Democrats but also to Republicans--and it is actually stated in this resolution--and also added that, you know, we might look into a process of appeal.

I agree with the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that we didn't have any due process because it was unprecedented what was done by her party. So maybe at least the committee could have the ability to look if there is a way to look at the process if that is going to be continued.

I hope maybe we can reconcile it and have better collaboration as two parties, as we were talking today at the prayer breakfast, on a bipartisan basis. I think it is important for us to really look at us as a body and start respecting the minority.

Unfortunately, the other party started this unprecedented action when they were in the majority, and we have to work on that; how we can reconcile.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight an ongoing problem with our institution, which starts reminding one of a theater full of actors, a circus, or a dog-and-pony show with a lot of messaging, grandstanding, demagoguing, talking points, but no real results badly needed for the American people.

When Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and was asked what kind of government the delegates had created, he replied: ``A republic, if you can keep it.''

It has been over 200 years since that time, but do we really appreciate what it means to have a constitutional republic, the rule of law, presumption of innocence, and proper due process?

As someone who grew up under a dictatorship in the Soviet Union, I cherish these freedoms tremendously, and I understand how hard it is to get them back when you lose them and how many people have died for them.

Therefore, regardless of politics, I will vigorously defend our Constitution and our rights for all Americans. Congress is not a kangaroo court and has proper committees, like Ethics or Judiciary, to provide proper due process to all individuals, whether it is President Trump and Representative Greene or President Biden and Representative Omar.

I adamantly argued last Congress as a member of the Judiciary Committee to provide this due process, so I am not planning to become a hypocrite now and lose this credibility. We have to become the adults in the room and stop the bread and circuses in Congress.

No one is above the law, but no one is below the law.