Massie на полу Палаты: дебаты по 45‑дневному продлению FISA 702 — против Раскин, Чип Рой, Дэвидсон, Селф

What purpose is the gentleman from Ohio seat recognition? Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass S-4465. The clerk will report the title of the bill. Senate 4465, an act to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, to extend the authorities of Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and for the purposes. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, each will control 20 minutes. What purpose is the gentleman from Kentucky seat recognition? Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in actual opposition to the motion. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Maryland opposed to the motion? I do not oppose the motion, Mr. Speaker. Then the gentleman from Kentucky will control the time for the opposition. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I act to unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S-4465. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, 10 minutes to announce unanimous consent, that he be permitted to control that time. Mr. With that objection, so ordered.

The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not the outcome that any of us wanted for the FISA 702 program, but here we are. The 702 program is incredibly important for protecting our national security and advancing our interests abroad. This temporary extension will ensure that there is no disruption to the program while we work out our differences on a longer reauthorization. I urge all members to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of our time. Mr. The gentleman in reserves, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Senate just unanimously passed this 43-day extension. Yesterday, I was struck by a point my colleagues from House Intelligence made here on the House floor, that the FISA 702 authorities were too important to turn off. We agree. But I also know that we cannot turn off our constitutional values and principles. Nothing about protecting our safety should prevent us from protecting our rights. We can have both. When we talk about protecting civil liberties, we're not speaking of theoretical threats. We're talking of real violations perpetrated by the FBI, not just in 2022, but over the past year and still going on today. The March 2026 Fisk opinion describing the Fisk judge's concerns about the FBI's violations of FISA is still classified by an administration that seems intent on keeping the public in the dark as we debate this fundamental problem. We can say with some confidence that the FBI has no idea how many U.S. person queries they ran last year, how many times they spied on American citizens. And we should not have to take this vote without being able to explain these serious deficiencies.

We have a right to know how many times the communications of American citizens were accessed. Every day that goes by where the Trump administration and Kash Patel's FBI can circumvent our constitutional values to spy on American citizens is one day too many. But I won't oppose this short extension, but only because it is my fervent hope and determination that it will give us the time to work together across the aisle to implement meaningful reform. It is long past time for Speaker Johnson to stop blocking members of this body from coming together across party lines to work in good faith to strike a bipartisan deal on Section 702 that is the support of a robust bipartisan majority, which believes that the program is important for foreign intelligence, Republicans, but must be made consistent with the essential constitutional values of our privacy rights in under the Constitution. A significant majority of members in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans alike, want real reforms to protect Americans privacy and civil liberties, not the paltry restatements of current law that have been offered to us so far. The vast majority of members of this body, American people want a federal judge, not an FBI agent or an FBI lawyer, to stand between them and their private communications. That's the constitutional design. You go to a judge, you don't leave it to the executive branch itself to check its own behavior. The Speaker must allow the House to work its will. The Speaker must allow the House to serve the American people, to bring to the floor legislation that lives up to the spirit of the Fourth Amendment and ensures Americans are protected from their government, as the founders intended. So as a gesture of good faith, we will give a few-week extension here, but we would love the Speaker of the House to get serious and allow us to have meaningful bipartisan negotiation and compromise. I've heard from so many distinguished Republican members over there, including a number of former federal prosecutors who say we can work this thing out. Let us do the people's business and let's work it out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I reserve. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this clean reauthorization of FISA and, in particular, to this short-term reauthorization of FISA. A short-term infringement of the Constitution is still an infringement of the Constitution. How long has the Senate had to act on this? Is this an emergency? Is this something we haven't known about? No, I appreciate the work of my dear colleague and chairman of our committee, Mr. Jordan, on this issue for so many years of trying to get warrants before Americans are spied upon. And, in fact, my colleague Zoe Lofgren and I, on the other side of the aisle, over a decade ago were successful in passing an amendment to FISA during the appropriations process that would have prohibited funds to be used to use the FISA program without a warrant. What happened to that amendment? It died in the Senate. It died in the Senate. They've had over a decade to work on this.

And what does FISA stand for? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This, when it was originated, was never meant to be used to surveil Americans or to search through databases for their information. It was intended for foreign intelligence, but now it's used on Americans without a warrant. FISA databases have been used to query political activists, journalists, members of Congress and their staff, random romantic interests of FBI agents. And we're told, "Oh, don't worry, it's not being abused anymore." Well, maybe that's because they changed the definition of a query, and so when they use the program anymore and abuse it, it's not a query by their definition, so they don't have to tell you when they have violated the law. They're interpreting it differently. As a matter of fact, there's a secret interpretation of how this law is used by the FBI. So secret that you've got to go three floors underground to read about it.

We can't tell the American public exactly how they're being spied on. But it's a particularly nefarious way, I think it's also unconstitutional. I know it's also unconstitutional. So, for this and many other reasons, I oppose this FISA reauthorization, and I reserve the balance of my time. General Reserves, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my friend from Kentucky for his always unswerving leadership on behalf of constitutional values, privacy, the civil rights and civil liberties of the people. The question here is, how are we actually going to move the Speaker, who seems to be immersed in some combination of inertia, bureaucracy and chaos, and the Senate, which doesn't seem to be living up to its traditional role in trying to reconcile our foreign policy and national security agenda with the constitutional values of the people. So we're saying, let's give it a few weeks now. I hope that Chairman Jordan will echo my endorsement of us really getting together to have bipartisan negotiations and compromise on this. This is not a partisan problem. We have people on all sides of this, on both sides of the aisle. But the vast majority of the Democrats want to make sure that we have a program that protects the privacy rights and the civil liberties of the people.

No, we do not trust Kash Patel to have conversations with Tulsi Gabbard as a successful substitute for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. And I'm sure you don't trust whoever you would liken to Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard on our side. That's fine. That's partisan politics. That's why we want this to rest on some level of constitutional principles that will cut across party lines. So let's take a few weeks to have serious, meaningful discussions. So as a gesture of good faith, we say we will work with the Speaker if the Speaker will work with us. We see him conducting negotiations in the middle of votes on the House floor. How about we all get together the way that Congress is supposed to and have meaningful discussion and dialogue? And let's do the same thing with people in the Senate. I challenge the members of the Senate to stand up for a system that the American people can believe in. But we simply cannot leave it up to Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump to enforce our civil rights and civil liberties for us. That's not going to work. They are partisan actors.

They've proven themselves to be partisan actors and they don't make any bones about that. They're unashamed of it. Fine. Then we need to put principles in place that are going to protect the American people. I reserve. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. My friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee and also on the Rules Committee, Chip Roy, has labored tirelessly to defend the constitutional rights of his constituents in Texas and all Americans. And I would like to yield him three minutes. The gentleman is recognized. I thank my friend from Kentucky. It's nice to have the gentleman from Maryland on the pro-warrant side of this conversation, this go-around. I would note that there were a significant amount of abuses by the previous president with respect to the amount of focus on the American people using FISA and the abuses therein. I hope we can achieve a bipartisan consensus here on how we reform this, regardless of who's in the White House and regardless of who has control of Congress. We need to do that in defense of the Constitution. And the reason that I rise in opposition, the reason I rise in opposition is because this body, this House, spoke and we sent a bill to the Senate that has reforms that our Intel chairman worked on, that a number of people worked on. We had reforms on there to stop the central bank digital currency. We sent it to the Senate and they didn't even give it a vote. They didn't even put it on the floor for consent. They just said, "Stuff it, we're going to send you a 45-day extension." By the way, 45 days, which takes it to June 12th, which some of us several weeks ago said, "Let's do a 60-day extension and let's sit down and work," like the gentleman from Maryland said. That's what we ought to do. We should go to committee. We should have a full-throated debate in committee. We should amend it. We should have a debate about warrants. We should have a debate about protecting the American people from the abuse of power by government. My colleague from Texas, my friend over here, Mr. Cloud, he came into a meeting and he said, "The Intel community never walks in, ever, saying we have all of this power to collect information. Oh, we're going to give it back." That never happens. The only way that happens is if we act, is if this body acts, the people's representatives. And the question that I would ask — Mr. Chair, Speaker, can we have order? The House will be in order. The gentleman from Texas. I thank the Speaker. The question I would ask is how much warrantless surveillance, how much spying on American citizens should we allow? How much?

How much is acceptable? Because right now, we know for sure there is warrantless collection of information on the American people. We have other issues we've got to deal with. The kill switch, surveillance in automobiles, central bank digital currency, tracking what we spend, how we spend it, what we can buy. This body ought to be defending the people of the United States against the power of government being used against us. Under no circumstances should we allow technology to breach the wall that the Fourth Amendment created that the government is not supposed to go through to get into your personal business, get into your homes, to look at your information, and to breach the privacy that you're guaranteed to not have the Fourth Amendment break. I rise in opposition to this. We should move forward and actually try to get actual debate on this, but I do not accept what the Senate is doing to step over what the House did earlier. The Senate should take up that bill and pass it. I yield back. Reserve.

General Reserves. Please take your conversations off the floor. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. Speaker, we reserve. General Reserves. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The critical point is that we need to have a judge standing between the FBI and the private communications of the American people. This has got to be the essential constitutional value that's vindicated here. We need to interpose the authority and the independence of a judge between the FBI and the communications of the people. And the reform that my friend from Texas just mentioned is to have Kash Patel report his abuses to Tulsi Gabbard. And if you think that's a good substitute for the Fourth Amendment, well, then you can go with what the gentleman was talking about, which was this three-year extension. We're not willing to go with the three-year extension. A hundred and ninety one of us voted against it, including a dozen Republicans. So we're willing to give you 40 more days or 45 more days for us to negotiate this thing if the Speaker will actually sit down with us. We want the Speaker to sit down with us and we want the Senate to take its constitutional responsibilities seriously here. Because the privacy rights of the people are too essential. And the privacy rights of the people should not be pitted against the national security interests of the country. So we can make this happen if we're willing to get rid of all the chaos and the pandemonium that we've seen over the last several days and simply sit down and have a meaningful conversation and write the legislation. I will reserve. General reserves. Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. You know, after observing the FBI and other intelligence agencies spy on members of Congress, Congress, including members who are in this debate right now, I am at a loss to understand why both Democrats and Republicans are arguing for a clean reauthorization of this program that's clearly been used to overstep the boundaries of the other branch of government. And with that, I would like to yield time to a gentleman who serves on the Finance Committee who's warned us about the Orwellian dangers and powers of the Central Bank Digital Currency. I yield three minutes to Warren Davidson from Ohio. The gentleman is recognized.

Thank you. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a fine tool for foreign intelligence. Unfortunately, it's been abused and corrupted. I'm encouraged to hear Mr. Raskin reclaim his opposition to warrantless surveillance. And I am encouraged that there's a bipartisan effort to reform it. In fact, I think the will of this body is that we defend the Constitution and we defend this nation. We can do both. We presented this false dilemma that somehow if you just abandon your freedom, you can be more secure. That's a false trade-off. Freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed, but by God, we're here to reclaim it today. We want both. We want a warrant to protect the civil liberties of American citizens. And we want the foreign intelligence to be focused on foreign intelligence. We trust the leaders in the Central Intelligence Agency, the NSA and others, to do what they're supposed to do to target foreigners. But clearly, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has abused their access to this data.

They've targeted Americans under all sorts of authorities and not just under 702. So we have come together in a bipartisan way. And frankly, the bill that we sent to the Senate just this week was bipartisan. And not only did it deal with 702, it dealt with the money. People need to pay attention. The future of the money is going to determine the future. Central bank digital currency is communist money for the digital age. And unfortunately, some of my Democrat colleagues, who are united in opposition to warrantless surveillance of all forms, somehow don't see the central bank digital currency for what it is. It's the most dystopian surveillance tool ever developed. It corrupts money into a tool for coercion, surveillance, and control. And we rejected that. And the Senate didn't even give us a debate. John Thune asked to be the leader of the Senate, but he is not leading. He didn't even bring this to the floor for a debate. He keeps throwing up excuse after excuse. Well, I'll tell you, anyone can find an excuse. Leaders find a way. And it's time for John Thune to do that.

Or step aside and let somebody lead the Senate who will give us at least a debate, but deliver the results the American people have demanded in this election. I encourage all of our colleagues to come together and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I yield back. I reserve. General reserves. Gentleman from Ohio is recognized. I reserve. General reserves. I reserve. Also reserves. Gentleman from Kentucky. I'd like to yield three minutes to my good friend and colleague, staunch defender of the Constitution, Mr. Keith Self from Texas. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Everyone here wants 702 reauthorized. The case has been made that it is a national security, that our troops on the ground need it. They need the intelligence that it provides. We want the CIA and the NSA to run as fast and as far as they can to identify the bad guys. I've deployed on three continents and believe you me, we want our military to know who to deal with when they get on foreign soil. But the FBI has abused 702 and that's why we are here today. I want to reiterate my colleagues' comments about we are really dealing with two surveillance bills here today. Now 702 is getting all the attention, but the central bank digital currency currency is another surveillance tool that we sent to the Senate. We passed it in a bipartisan method. Let me explain the two to the people that are listening. The electronic surveillance is 702. Foreign agents on foreign soil. It says nothing about U.S. citizens, U.S. persons on U.S. soil. The central bank digital currency is financial transparency for the federal government. Do you want the federal government telling you that you cannot buy a Ford 350 or anything else that the government thinks that you may not want to buy, that they will not want you to buy? We have two bills that we are discussing today. All of the attention is on 702, but do not lose attention.

Do not take your attention off of CBDC. It is actually maybe more dangerous than 702. Let's get 702 reauthorized with constitutional protections and let's also address the central bank digital currency. We need both electronic privacy and financial privacy. and I yield back. I reserve. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Yeah, we reserve. Gentleman reserves. We reserve. Gentleman from Maryland reserves. Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. I'm ready to close. Gentleman's recognized. So, what are we opposed to? We're opposed to violating the Constitution. That's what's happening with FISA. It's happening with other provisions of law and court rulings. The third party doctrine allows the government to go after your phone records without a warrant with a simple subpoena, after your health records, after your bank records. That needs to be reformed. We need to end the mandate on electronic kill switches in cars. The Orwellian technology that would be the judge, the jury and the executioner shut your car off mid-stream, mid-drive if it determines some AI in your dashboard determines that you shouldn't be driving at that moment or maybe the government determines that. executioner, shut your car off midstream, mid-drive, if it determines some AI in your dashboard, determines that you shouldn't be driving at that moment, or maybe the government determines that.

There's a whole slew of ways that Americans' privacy, Fourth Amendment rights, and other rights are being violated. But chief among them is the FISA 702 program. We should not do a clean reauthorization of this program. So what would happen if you vote no today? Maybe there's some people wondering, how will I vote? Maybe they don't need my vote. Maybe it's going to pass. This has to pass with two-thirds vote. But what would happen if it did fail today? The Senate would go back to work. They're trying to punt. They want to go home, leave town, and leave us with the work of this. And we've done our work. We've done it for years. We've sent them versions of this. And yet they insist on another clean reauthorization. I object to that. And with that, I yield another three minutes to my colleague from Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have order. The House will be in order. Gentleman is recognized. The reason I asked for the gentleman to yield to me is precisely the response we just heard. You know what really the problem is?

People want to get home to fundraisers. People want to get home to dinners. People want to go back to their districts and go on trips. They have codels. Meanwhile, the American people are wondering what on earth is happening in this town. The gentleman will suspend. House will be in order. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Speaker. The American people are wondering what on earth is happening when they look at this body and see what we failed to do. We're continuing every single day to drive this entire country into bankruptcy. $40 trillion. Government spying on the people. Failure to stop government spying on the people. Kill switches in cars. Failure to stop sugar drinks going to children on the SNAP program voted by both sides of the aisle. And we go home and the American people say, "What are you doing?" Well, here we sit. And the response here is, "Please let us get on our flights so we can go home. Be away for 10 days while this country suffers because this body doesn't do its job." I yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky. I yield the remaining balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we can reconcile the essential constitutional values of the country with the national security of the country. This 45-day continuation is a mandate. It's a mandate to the Speaker to allow the House to finally come together to develop compromise legislation that guarantees that judges, not Kash Patel, not Tulsi Gabbard, not Donald Trump, will be the ones to ensure our privacy and our civil liberties. Let's use this period to engage in real legislative compromise and negotiation in the interests of the American people.

I yield back. The gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote and yield back. The gentleman yields back. The question is, "Will the House suspend the rules and pass Senate 4-4-6-5?" Those in favor say, "Aye." Those opposed, "No." In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds is being in the affirmative. Mr. Speaker. Gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Speaker. I demand a recorded vote. The gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. The gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. Those favoring a vote by yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a 15-minute vote.