Providing for Consideration of H.R. Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act; Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies; and Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Opposing Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel with Respect to Gaza

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1125

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7888) to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours 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. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 529) to extend the customs waters of the United States from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 7219. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1112) denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1117) opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee reported out a rule for four pieces of legislation: H.R. 7888, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. This legislation reauthorizes title VII, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for 5 years from the date of enactment.

This bill is far from perfect, but we are going to have a lot of debate on that bill in just a moment in the rule and in 2 hours later. I will come back to that in a moment.

There are three other pieces of legislation. First, H.R. 529, Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act. This bipartisan legislation enhances Customs and Border Protections' air and marine operations mission by extending Custom's law enforcement authority from 12 to 24 nautical miles of the United States coast. This will help CBP combat unlawful activity in coastal waters at a time when we have significant problems with respect to our borders.

H. Res. 1112, denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies. This resolution denounces President Biden's open-border policies. It calls on the administration to immediately put in place policies that will end the crisis at our southern border. This is an important message. It is an important statement, but I hope this Congress will speak with one voice against an administration that refuses to enforce the law. This resolution is one statement along those lines.

H. Res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza. This resolution affirms that Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, has the right to defend itself against Hamas and makes clear that the House of Representatives opposes efforts to place one-sided pressures on Israel to implement an immediate cease- fire.

This resolution is necessary because regrettably, embarrassingly, this administration took a seat, sat down, abstained, abstained in the face of the horrors that we saw unfold on October 7 to our friend, Israel; by sitting down when the United Nations Security Council called for a cease-fire, and pushing on Israel to walk away from its efforts to combat what Hamas has been doing to the people of Israel.

We should speak with clarity as the Congress of the United States that we stand in solidarity with the people of Israel, and this resolution is one way in which we can do that.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we just returned from 2 marvelous weeks in our beautiful districts. I was invited to visit a food bank to highlight food insecurity and the need to provide families with nutritious and available meals. I talked with Tribal leaders and law enforcement about how we must work together to solve the many issues facing Native American communities from the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis to the need for greater economic development to the need for protection of sacred sites from desecration. We gathered healthcare providers from across New Mexico for a Congressional Hispanic Caucus on the road event to talk about Latino access to rural healthcare.

That event was standing room only because our constituents want us to address healthcare access and continue Democrats' work to bring down the cost of prescription drugs and healthcare costs, the work we began last year with the Inflation Reduction Act.

These are really important things. Our constituents want us to work on really important things that make a difference in their lives every day.

So what are we doing today? Three of these bills don't really address anything. We have more resolutions that just express things but don't have any solutions. We are spending another valuable week on nonbinding resolutions and bills that Republicans have already failed to pass.

This is the third time we will vote on a resolution complaining about an immigration system that has been broken for years, and it is Congress' fault that we have not fixed it.

Republicans want to just talk about blame, but do they offer any solutions? That is not how governing works. It is not about coming down here and passing press releases on the floor of the House. If you want to engage in a problem and offer solutions, you engage in bipartisan negotiations to pass a law that fixes the problem. Instead, Republicans do the opposite. They block bipartisan immigration deals and complain that nothing is happening.

Well, something is happening. Republicans are making the problem worse. Six months ago, the President sent Congress a supplemental border security request. That request would have bolstered border security and slowed the flow of refugees by addressing the root cause of migration.

For 6 months, Republicans, who control this House, have refused to take up the President's supplemental border security funding request.

In the Senate, a bipartisan group led by a Republican Senator and Democrats worked for 4 months. They worked hard on a bipartisan border security deal. Before we could even discuss the merits of it in this House to say what we liked or didn't like, Trump told them to kill the bill.

Following Trump's orders, as always, House Republican leadership declared it dead on arrival in the House. Why? They want to preserve immigration as a political weapon, not something that Americans are asking us to fix.

Americans would like to see comprehensive immigration reform. How about if we do something like taking up the bipartisan Dream and Promise Act or the bipartisan Farm Work Modernization Act, which passed with bipartisan support out of this Congress because we need more agrarian workers to help pick the food we need to place on our tables.

What is especially shameful is that instead of offering solutions, Republicans are creating a dangerous environment in America. Rhetoric from the twice impeached and four times-indicted former President Trump that suggest immigrants are poisoning the blood of America is dangerous and disgraceful.

Trump's language echoes, almost verbatim, the propaganda and hate used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. America is not Nazi Germany. We will push back against such a scary road to tyranny and bigotry.

Trump forgets but America remembers that immigrants are vitally important to the economic vibrancy and future of our Nation. While securing the border is an important policy objective, there is no reason to demonize our parents, grandparents, coworkers, friends, and neighbors in the process.

This rule also makes in order H. Res. 1117, yet another nonbinding resolution, a press release. It has been just 1 week since seven World Central Kitchen volunteers were killed in Gaza, killed while trying to bring food to starving Gazans, who are on the brink of famine. More than 200 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the last 6 months.

Over 13,000 children and 9,000 women have died in the war. So far, 27 kids have died of malnutrition. Do you know how horrible it is to die of starvation? Twenty-seven children. Famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans.

There are still over 130 Israeli hostages who, without a cease-fire, cannot go home to their grieving families, their worried families. Tens of thousands of Israelis are marching in the streets to bring the hostages home.

This resolution that we are hearing today fails to acknowledge the sad reality I have just discussed. It also fails to support President Biden's efforts to bring lasting peace to this region, which should be our goal. President Biden is right: A cease-fire is needed to bring over 130 Israeli hostages home and to prevent the deaths of innocent Gazans. Too many people have died already.

President Biden's calls to Netanyahu for a cease-fire, to bring the hostages home, and to reverse the humanitarian crisis should be welcomed by everyone with a caring heart. If you care for the hostages and their worried families, a cease-fire is needed. If you care for the women and children who are dying and starving, a cease-fire is needed. If you care for a future where peace can come to this region, a cease- fire is needed.

Next, the House will consider H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. The bill reauthorizes FISA for 5 years and implements minor changes to the program. The Republicans have waited until the last minute to bring this reauthorization to the floor.

I will say, they tried once before back in February. We had a hearing in the Rules Committee on Valentine's Day. It was great. We saw amazing bipartisan agreement from the Judiciary Committee, but we never did get to hear from the Intelligence Committee.

Instead, Republicans waited until the last minute. It expires in 9 days. That is not a way to govern. This is an important bill that needs conversation and debate. Members need to hear from the two committees with jurisdiction over FISA to determine how they will vote and the important balance between protecting constitutional rights of citizens and protecting our national security.

Next, this rule makes in order H.R. 529, the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act. While this bill is a bipartisan bill, which I will point out received unanimous support in committee and will probably receive almost near-unanimous support on this floor, this is the kind of bill that usually doesn't go through Rules. It is the type of bill that would normally pass under suspension.

Why wasn't it put under suspension? Is it because House Republicans needed something that could finally pass the Rules Committee, come to the floor, and maybe make it into law? The last bill to pass the Rules Committee and become law was almost a year ago. It is almost a year ago since we did the people's business on this floor where we actually got a bill, sent it out of Rules, sent it to the Senate, and it made it onto the President's desk.

Republicans have presided over the most ineffective sessions of Congress in history. Despite the pressing challenges facing our Nation, they have repeatedly chosen to prioritize silly censures, sham impeachments, and do-nothing messaging bills.

That is no way to run the House. That is no way to run the people's House and address the people's business.

Meanwhile, Democrats have kept our focus on delivering for the American people and implementing the incredible laws we passed last Congress when Democrats controlled this House, which was, by the way, the most successful and most productive in recent memory. We have carried the vote to make sure the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year. Democrats carried bills to fund the government, keep it running, and protect against draconian spending cuts.

Democrats always stand ready to work across the aisle to tackle important issues. This includes coming together to work on a bipartisan solution, a comprehensive solution to fix the border, to secure the border, to lower costs. We hope that our colleagues will work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have a resolution on the floor to stand and say that we believe that the Biden administration is failing to carry out its duty to secure the border of the United States is because it is true. The American people need to know and see that, and see us speaking with one voice.

The reason that we have a resolution on the floor saying we should stand with Israel is because the administration walked away from Israel, abandoned them in a vote in the Security Council vote by abstaining.

That is the truth. That is why these resolutions matter. That is why they are here on the floor.

We are going to have a lot of debate here about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On this, I think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement. There are a lot of bipartisan concerns about the size and scope of government. I think it is important to remember James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson on May 13, 1798: ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged . . . against danger real or pretended from abroad.''

The Founders knew what they were doing. The Founders intentionally built into the United States Constitution protections for us, protections for the people.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us doesn't do what is necessary to answer the question, to secure the people's rights. There are amendments that are in order that might get the legislation there.

Remember, section 702 allows the NSA to surveil non-U.S. individuals and organizations abroad if a significant purpose is to acquire foreign intelligence information, which it defines as information related to the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs.

Remember, there are some 230,000 targets that the government has, the blob, the intelligence community, that they are targeting over there, overseas, targeting externally. However, here is the problem: They are collecting information here in the United States on those individuals. We don't know who they are.

I asked the Judiciary Committee chairman and staff: Do you all know who they are? Have you gone into a SCIF and seen who they are targeting? The answer is no, we don't know who they are targeting.

Then, information is collected in communication to those individuals, which necessarily brings American citizens into the mix. The question is, what do we do about it? Remember this: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, in a report released last year, stated: ``Ordinary Americans may be in contact with section 702 targets for business or personal reasons even if the Americans have no connection to, or reason to suspect, any wrongdoing by their foreign contacts.'' That is an important issue. That is at the heart of the debate.

What we have right now before us is a rule to bring forward reauthorization of legislation passed so that we can go try to protect our country, supposedly looking outward, but it has ensnared American citizens in their information. That is why we are here. The question is whether we are going to have the ability to amend it to ensure that American citizens can be protected.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words for our colleague, Mr. Cole. Those of us on the committee will miss working with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). Obviously, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, he is not going very far. He will be down the hall in the Appropriations Committee. I guess we won't get ahead of things. It has not been formalized yet, but it seems like that is the direction it is going. It has been an honor to work on the Committee with Tom Cole.

Again, without getting ahead of things, I think there are able folks on the Rules Committee, and Dr. Burgess from Texas very likely might move into that role, and I will look forward to working with him in the Rules Committee.

Hageman).

I would point out that on this issue one of the concerns that we have is ensuring an adequate and fair hearing on the issue of the warrant amendment.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) raised the issue as did the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), the importance of warrant protections for American citizens.

It cannot be overstated the extent to which, at our founding and throughout our history, it has been critical to place that constitutional barrier between the authority of government being used in the name of defense and in the name of security in a way that tramples on the rights and the security of the American people.

That is what is at issue.

That is the conundrum we face.

For all of us that wish to protect our country, we know first and foremost we must protect our civil liberties or there is no country to protect.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the concerns that we are looking at here, I think boil down to questions that people assert when they say, ``lawfully collected information.'' Therefore, you don't need a warrant to search the 702 data for United States citizens' information.

I think that is really at the crux of the debate going on. The rule that we have before us, which takes a product to respond to and make reforms and changes in response to some of the concerns raised, but then takes the critical and core component of warrant requirement and puts it off as an amendment subject to debate when there has been now some public pressure put on opposing the amendment.

That is the conundrum that you are seeing unfold, for the American people to understand why there is some hesitation here to proceed, when we are proceeding with reforms that don't get to the engine of the reform, reforms that might make some improvements but those improvements are in the periphery. They ignore the core problem, that fundamental issue as to whether or not you must have a warrant to look at the information of American citizens. That is it. That is at the core of it.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about things that are significant. Just the tip of the iceberg: Searches by the intel community and the FBI included 141 Black Lives Matter protesters; two Members of Congress; journalists; political commentators; victims who contacted the FBI, people who came to the FBI offices to perform repairs; individuals on online dating services.

Now we have in this bill a carve-out for Members of Congress. We get a heads-up: Hey guys, you have been queried.

Why do we get something that 330 million Americans don't get?

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, which I hope we will, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would protect access to reproductive and abortion healthcare for the millions of Americans who need it.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the far-right and MAGA Republicans will stop at nothing short of a full abortion ban. As of this month, over a dozen States have restricted access to that critical healthcare with some extreme States eliminating access entirely.

Just yesterday, an Arizona Supreme Court upheld a 160-year-old law, making it a felony to perform or induce an abortion at almost any time. This is inhumane.

Mr. Speaker, do you think Republicans will stop at 15 States, 20 States? On the contrary, they won't stop until every single woman in this country is deprived of her right to make her own healthcare decisions in conversation with her faith, her family, and her doctors without government interference.

Mr. Speaker, that is why House Democrats are fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who simply want access to needed care.

H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, will prevent States from trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and keep fundamental healthcare services available across the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize what we have in front of us, particularly with respect to the foreign intelligence surveillance issue. That is where we have, I think, the most debate.

The fact of the matter is, for the average American watching this, they are going to be confused as to what exactly we are doing because it is a complex issue.

I started this rule debate by quoting James Madison, who in 1798, I will repeat, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and said: ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.''

I think that is the question that is before us right now. It is the balance that a nation struggles with, if you are a republic like ours, a republic built on the back of liberty and our constitutional protections, that is trying to balance the need to stop evil abroad from attacking our people with protecting civil liberties at home.

What we have, for the average American to understand, is a big pot of collected information that is, in the words of the intel community, directed outward. That large pot of information is directed toward some 230,000 people, individuals and entities abroad. As I said earlier, we don't know who they are. We are not briefed on who they are. When we try to go into that kind of level of briefing, it is often cloaked in the intel world. They just say this is dangerous and important stuff. The Judiciary Committee chairman, for example, doesn't know who is on that list of 230,000 people.

From that list of 230,000, who we don't know, and which can expand or shrink at the whim of the intel community, we then take that information and communications with any of those individuals, if you are an American citizen, you can get swept up and viewed by the intel community. That is where the abuses took place.

I have heard some of my colleagues saying: You are asking for a secondary warrant when we say that the warrant amendment here is critically important. That misses the point that you have got an intelligence-driven apparatus to collect information abroad that then will sweep in communications by Americans citizens, or U.S. persons, into that database. Those communications can now be seen and can be viewed.

As I noted, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report released last year said: ``Ordinary Americans may be in contact with section 702 targets for business or personal reasons even if the Americans have no connection to, or reason to suspect, any wrongdoing by their foreign contacts. . . .''

That is the problem. That is why the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee with primary jurisdiction, put in place additional protections in the form of a required warrant if you are going to look at the information of those American citizens. That was the wisdom of the very broad, bipartisan 35-2 vote in the Judiciary Committee. That was removed.

The bill now put on the floor, the bill before us, now we are forced to proceed to a bill by virtue of a rule whereby we are not sure whether the issue at play, the warrant requirement, will be supported.

Now, that might be fine. You say we have an open process, but it wasn't really an open process. It was a structured rule. There were provisions that were sort of cooked up to achieve the result. That is what we are looking at.

In truth, there are amendments that have been part of the rule that are intel amendments which will expand FISA, which will expand the reach, and by all accounts, more likely than not, will pass.

Then there are the provisions that some support that would constrain the power, for example, the warrant requirement or the ``abouts'' language which would limit the use of the more generic ``abouts,'' so you have to target the specific individuals. Then there is the enhanced reporting, which happens to be my amendment. Those provisions are meant to constrain government.

The conundrum that you see, that you are going to see play out on the floor is: Do you support the rule to proceed, to move forward, under the hope that the warrant amendment will be passed? Because the sword of Damocles that is hanging over our heads is that this will expire and thus there will be pressure to pass a simple reauthorization for 5 years. That is the truth.

We will see what transpires. It is my considered judgment that we ought to try, as a body, to stand behind a warrant requirement to make sure we protect the American people.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source