[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 10, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4079-H4084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF TITLE VII OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 9238) 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 other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 9238
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF TITLE VII OF THE
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
(a) Extension of Repeal Date of Title VII.--Section 403(b)
of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261), as
most recently amended by Public Law 119-87, is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) (50 U.S.C. 1881 note), by striking
``June 12, 2026'' and inserting ``July 2, 2026''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) (18 U.S.C. 2511 note) in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``June 12, 2026'' and
inserting ``July 2, 2026''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the earlier of the date of the enactment
of this Act or June 11, 2026.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
[[Page H4080]]
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 9238.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, FISA section 702 will expire on Friday. This bill
extends the program until July 2.
The 702 program is critically important to our national security.
More than 60 percent of our intelligence presented to the President, to
the Commander in Chief, every single day is derived from 702.
With the World Cup about to begin this week, we cannot be left
without this critical tool every day. The 702 program helps keep us
safe here at home and advance our interests abroad.
This temporary extension will ensure that there is no disruption to
the program while we find a path forward on reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when we first met on the majority's confusion and
disarray over FISA at 1:30 in the morning on April 17, we pointed out
that the majority's language departed so sharply from the requirements
of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution that, for the very first
time, it would have authorized the government to use 702 to
specifically and deliberately target and spy on the communications of
American citizens.
That midnight maneuver quickly collapsed as support melted away all
across the body. On unanimous consent, we agreed to a 1-week extension
to give the House leadership a chance to discuss and negotiate
necessary reforms with their own Members who had been ignored and
bypassed in the process, as well as with us.
Speaker Johnson never once invited us to the table. He never got in
touch with us.
One week later, congressional Republicans again failed to pass their
own bill. I stood in this spot, and we agreed to a one-time 45-day
extension as a gesture of legislative good faith to give the leadership
a chance to meet with their own members who had been bypassed and with
the Democratic side of the aisle, which had been completely bypassed,
and to engage in good-faith negotiations for serious FISA legislation.
That means legislation that meets both the requirements of the
Constitution for the privacy rights of the people and the needs of our
foreign policy and national security. Again, we never heard from the
Speaker. We never heard from his staff. They never came to talk to us.
Now, we are here to consider a bill drafted, it looks like, at 4:33
p.m., about 1 hour ago, just to kick the can down the road one more
time.
For months, we have offered to work in good faith with our friends
across the aisle, our colleagues in the Senate, and intelligence
community to reauthorize 702 in a manner that preserves the necessary
authority while protecting essential constitutional values and the
privacy rights of the people.
Despite this, again, Speaker Johnson has never once invited Democrats
to the table.
I know Speaker Johnson. We served together on the Committee on the
Judiciary. We used to speak and interact freely, but he has completely
vanished in this process.
We have an incredible shrinking Constitution under Donald Trump, and
now we have an incredibly shrinking Speaker under Donald Trump.
Look, our touchstone has been a fundamental principle at the core of
the Fourth Amendment. A judge must come between the Federal Government
and the private communications of American citizens. That is the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The FBI has abused this powerful
surveillance authority for decades.
The FISA court has recently raised serious questions today about how
section 702 is operating. Instead of implementing the modest self-
administered guardrails Congress required as part of our 2024
reauthorization, the FBI appears to have been actively circumventing
and violating those guardrails.
We cannot trust Kash Patel not to violate FISA when he readily admits
he queried some government databases to dig up dirt on journalists who
dared to report about him and the government services he has made
available to his girlfriend.
Believe it or not, the administration's invitation to trust Kash
Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, which the majority of this body was not
interested in, has now gotten even less enticing. Today, President
Trump just appointed Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National
Intelligence, making it even more obvious that he intends to use FISA
to investigate, harass, and persecute his political opponents.
Director Pulte has no national security experience, zero, zilch,
none. He is famous in America for only three things:
One, he vowed to engage in fisticuffs with Treasury Secretary Scott
Bessent when he was at Donald Trump, Jr.'s club in Georgetown, the
Executive Branch.
Two, he brought Palantir into the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
where he was director, to help him scour through American's personal
financial data, looking for dirt on Trump's designated political
enemies.
Finally, he then used this AI-enabled technology to create personal
mortgage dossiers on Adam Schiff, Leticia James, and Lisa Cook, who he
then referred to the Department of Justice for felony criminal
prosecutions. He engaged in criminal referrals. All three of these
attempted prosecutions, fortunately, collapsed either at the Department
of Justice or in Federal court because they were so flimsy.
That is what he spends his time doing, trying to dig up dirt through
this AI-enabled technology on American citizens, including elected
officials.
So if you thought our civil liberties were safe with Tulsi Gabbard as
the backstop, which was the last proposal, you will love the idea of
Bill Pulte being the guardian of our privacy and the protector of our
civil liberties.
Bill Pulte's appointment, which has been derided not just in our
party but by Senators Thune, Tillis, and Cassidy, just to name a few,
confirms our worst fears of the President's plans to abuse FISA section
702 for the purposes of domestic political surveillance, harassment,
intimidation, and persecution.
Indeed, we know the FBI is currently abusing FISA based on the FISC
opinion from March that remains inexplicably classified. Instead of
implementing in good faith the modest reforms we passed 2 years ago,
the FBI created a system to review Americans' data in violation of the
minimal, self-administered, self-policing guardrails we required.
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
the communications of American citizens, and we should be able to
explain these serious deficiencies to our constituents.
{time} 1750
Mr. Speaker, if we allow the President to turn FISA into an
instrument of domestic political control, we will be ignoring
everything we have already learned about the long history of abuse of
this program, which my friend Mr. Jordan has helped to bring to light:
past improper searches swept in Members of Congress and staff of both
parties, campaign activists and donors, and Black Lives Matter
activists.
President Trump certainly believes FISA provides the technology,
methodology, and opportunity to spy on political opponents. On April
10, 2024, he posted: ``Kill FISA, it was illegally used against me, and
many others. They spied on my campaign.''
``Kill FISA,'' he said. These allegations may or may not be true, but
the President is certainly right that this program has been badly
abused in the past.
The majority, yet, still shows no evidence of seeking to impose a
judicial warrant requirement for queries of U.S. citizens. They have
shown no interest in building a probable cause requirement into the
statute. We have seen no evidence that they want to impose any judicial
oversight at all, although that
[[Page H4081]]
was the Framers' major commitment, that they wanted to make sure that
there would be a judicial magistrate interposed between the government
and the rights of the people.
That is the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. We need to stand by
that, and we need a real process to make sure that we come up with real
legislation that honors it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I think that might be the first time that I
heard my friend and gentleman from Maryland agree with the President,
as he smiles.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the distinguished chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee and a good friend who is doing a great job.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, here is what we know: We are in an
elevated threat level with FIFA World Cup games beginning this week,
America's 250th birthday and related celebrations coming up this
summer, Iran and its proxies are targeting U.S. military personnel
daily, and the 25th commemoration of the September 11 terrorist attacks
will be coming up.
We know that FISA 702 is the most important foreign intelligence
authority to detect and mitigate national security threats.
This week, the World Cup kicks off, and 45 countries descend upon the
United States for World Cup games, which just so happens to be the week
that Democrats have actively chosen to disallow this critical national
security tool from being renewed and allow it to go dark.
Democrats have chosen to compromise national security and the safety
of Americans to play, essentially, political chicken with an essential
national security tool. This is unserious, very dangerous behavior on
the part of congressional Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the policy. Instead, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about
personalities. They are concerned about personalities. They are not
concerned about the policy.
I know, because they are really smart, that they understand that the
DNI has no 702 query authority. Either they know that to be true and,
yet, continue on this personality conflict issue, or they don't know
that the DNI doesn't have 702 query authority. In either case, it is
wrong.
We are not debating the underlying policy here. We are debating
personalities, and that is a real shame.
Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Mark Warner are all members of
the Gang of Eight. They have all been read into the threats, as I have.
They know the highest levels of national security threats, above every
other Member of Congress, and they are all willing to let this program
go dark and subject the American people to all manner of threats that
might materialize here in the absence of this program.
That is an abdication of their constitutional responsibilities. It is
shameful is what it is, for Gang of Eight members, who understand what
is at stake, who have been read in at the highest levels, who
understand the importance of 702, who know that 60 percent of the
Presidential daily brief is derived from 702, for them to say ``no''
because they don't like the individual in question who doesn't even
have 702 query authority. So let's go ahead and take this program
hostage to make a political point because they don't like President
Trump either.
That is what this has devolved into. It is an absolute shame. If this
authority lapses starting on Saturday, we move into uncharted
territory. It is unclear how providers will respond to statutory
expiration, especially the lapse in liability protection and how
uncertain this will impact foreign intelligence that is critical for
policy and security decisions.
Once this authorization expires, the clock starts ticking. The
implications get worse every single day.
While the 702 database would remain available to search, the data in
that database will become increasingly out of date with potential
provider noncompliance with orders, litigation by providers or outside
groups, and even reticence by agency personnel to continue implementing
an expired authority for fear of personal liability.
Enough is enough. Let's just get past the personalities, if we can,
recognize the need to take care of the people in this country, and to
secure our country. That is one of the things that we are supposed to
do in this institution, is to protect the American people. Let's do
that, take the personality potshots offline because if we want to do
that, we have plenty of material to work with. Yet, let's just focus on
the policy here, get this done, and move forward.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what personality potshots the distinguished
gentleman is referring to. Of course, that is against the rules of the
House, and if you think you have an objection, you should go ahead and
object based on personalities. I haven't heard a single one mentioned.
In any event, when section 702 of FISA sunsets on June 12, if that is
the will of the majority, the government surveillance activities will
continue unchanged. Everything that has already been authorized and
certified is already in motion, and current FISA authorizations will
continue unaffected, at least through March 17, 2027.
In any event, I know that the gentleman said that we are approaching
the 250th anniversary of the country. Yes, that is something we have
known about for 250 years, and the majority has known for many months
about this deadline and can't seem to get it together.
We don't have the opportunity to help them because they will not
reach out to us and talk to us about it. I restate our commitment to
try to help them get through this, but we are not going to continue to
kick the can down the road with them indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie), the very distinguished gentleman and a great champion of the
Constitution and civil liberties.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this clean
reauthorization of an unconstitutional program that is being used to
spy on Americans without warrants. This would be the third temporary,
clean extension of this unconstitutional program, and I find myself on
the unfortunate opposition to the chairman of the committee of
jurisdiction, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
I want to read some of his quotes from last year. This is an article
in The Washington Post that he so eloquently wrote: ``One year from
now, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will have a chance to
reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and better protect
Americans from warrantless government surveillance. This will be one of
the most important debates we will have this Congress, and it is vital
that we begin working now to protect Americans' constitutional
rights.''
He goes on to say: ``Our fidelity must always be to the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment is one of the foundations of American civil
liberties. It is part of what makes our country great and makes us the
envy of the world. We must continue to protect and enhance it. Passing
a warrant requirement for section 702 will do just that.''
He goes on to tweet later or earlier than that: ``The same people who
spied on President Trump's campaign are now fighting against a warrant
requirement in the new FISA bill.'' ``Makes you wonder.''
I find myself disagreeing with the chairman in this debate but
agreeing vehemently with him last year and the year before when he
pointed out that this program is unconstitutional and there is only one
way to fix it: require warrants, judicial warrants.
We saw the President's administration tweet this week that we
shouldn't trust these liberal judges in Washington, DC, to hamstring
the Secretary of Defense. Well, that is not what we are talking about.
Number one, we are not talking about a constraint on the Secretary of
Defense or Secretary of War. We are talking about a constraint on the
FBI to spy on Americans.
We are not talking about liberal judges since 8 of the 11 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court judges were appointed by Republicans.
{time} 2500
By the way, most of them aren't even in DC.
[[Page H4082]]
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for your trenchant remarks, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the gentleman from
Kentucky, that is not the question today. The question today is: Can we
go another 3 weeks, 21 days, and try to figure out what makes sense on
protecting the privacy rights of Americans?
That is a simple question. I don't think 3 weeks is too much to ask.
For goodness sakes, this program has been around forever. We did 56
reforms to it just 2 years ago.
I think the question is probably just: Can we go another 3 weeks and
figure it out and maybe have those discussions that the ranking member
was talking about? I know he and I have talked about what makes sense.
That is the question in front of us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Austin Scott), who serves on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want the American
citizens to know that, as was said earlier, April 17, with hundreds of
people on the floor of the House of Representatives, we did, by UC,
adopt a 1-week extension. That was true.
We then did a 45-day extension, and now we are asking, yes, for 21-
day extension. And sometimes things take longer than we would like for
them to.
I want to defend my friend Tulsi Gabbard, who was attacked by the
gentleman from Maryland. Tulsi was the vice chair of the Democratic
National Committee. She was the vice chair. She was elected unanimously
to that position as the vice chair of the Democratic National
Committee. She maintained friendships, because everybody knew she was a
serious Member of Congress, up to and until she became an appointee of
President Trump as DNI, and then, all of a sudden, everything I have
heard from Democrats about her has been bad.
She was elected unanimously to the vice chair position of the DNC.
She is a good woman. She cares about this country, and you should show
her a little more respect than you do.
I want the American citizens, if you are watching this, to know, it
is very simple. There is a lot going on in the world. Say what you want
to about it with Iran. The bottom line is, the risks are elevated. The
risks are elevated. Some of us think the President did the right thing.
I realize some of you think he did the wrong thing, but the risks are
elevated.
We have got the World Cup that is about to happen. Thousands and
thousands of people are coming into this country, some of which
actually want to do us harm. Do you know who is going to be making sure
that we keep the ones out of this country that want to do us harm? It
is going to be Customs and Border Protection checking statuses when
they come in through the border. I am glad that we got that funded.
I want to leave you with this. If you are watching this, we, as the
Republicans in the House, are also disappointed that we have not gotten
to a resolution after the 1-week extension, after the 45-day extension.
We are simply asking for another 21-day extension to make sure that
this authority does not expire.
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that we abide by commonsense and the
rule that we first do no harm by taking down a valuable national
security tool that the United States of America needs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPEAKER. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say, we gave the majority an extra week. We supported that
unanimous consent. Everybody Member of this body supported that. They
never consulted us. They never talked to us, despite all kinds of
promises to do so.
I had GOP colleagues telling me, on the Judiciary Committee, they
were never consulted. Nobody ever talked to them about it.
Then we gave them 45 days. They said they just needed 45 days, and
they would definitely talk to us. We would be able to meet. After 1\1/
2\ months, we heard nothing from them.
We have been begging them to sit down, because I believe there is a
robust, bipartisan majority in this House to support the needed reforms
and making sure that we interpose the voice of a judge before the
personal communications of American citizens are invaded by the
Government.
I think that we have got a vast majority on that side, but nobody
from leadership seems to be talking to anybody who is concerned about
this.
Now they say: Oh, well, just give us another week.
No, we are not interested in that. We have given you lots of time.
You are not consulting us. You are not negotiating in good faith. So
maybe the threat that we are not going to support you will finally get
you guys serious about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, Republicans called us up at the last minute
to do yet another short-term extension of FISA.
This is just a sham. It has been months now, and we have done
multiple short-term extensions. I voted against the last one because I
knew that there was not actually going to be a reform proposal put on
the table because, suddenly, even the bipartisan members, including my
good friend, the Chairman, who has been with us for these reforms in
the past, suddenly have decided that they are just going to bow down to
what Donald Trump wants. Donald Trump doesn't want any reforms.
We know what the American people want. They want a warrant
requirement. That is a bipartisan position. If you put a warrant
requirement on the floor right now, it would pass. Maybe the President
would have to veto it, but it would pass. People would see that the
Congress of the United States is standing up for the privacy rights of
Americans that are guaranteed in our Constitution.
This is not about national security versus constitutional rights.
This is about how we do both together.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Mr. JAYAPAL. This is about how we do both, and we can do that. What
Americans have said over and over again is: No more secret searches of
Americans' private communications. They want their basic right to
privacy respected, and there is a path to get there.
The Chairman has been on our side. We got so close just a couple of
years ago. We could have gotten it done. We didn't get it done then,
but we can get it done now. It requires saying no to Donald Trump. It
requires saying, no, you can't put Bill Pulte in as the ODNI because
this guy is not to be trusted with any of our information.
Vote ``no'' on this extension. Let's get a real reform package
passed.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a degree of sadness because I
was present at the birth of this legislation. For 30 years, I was
either a Member of the Committee, ranking member on the committee, or
the Gang of Eight, for 30 years. I bring extensive intelligence
experience to this discussion.
Following 9/11, it was with great care that we worked in a bipartisan
fashion to put together the legislation to advance what we are talking
about today, this FISA initiative.
In that legislation, we established the Office of the DNI, the
Director of National Intelligence. It had certain standards. The
Director of National Intelligence, to be appointed by the President,
with the advice of the Senate, the individual nominated shall have
extensive national security experience. He shall serve as the head of
the intelligence community, act as the principal adviser to the
President, under the National Security Council, Homeland Security, and
the rest.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I have lists, from the legislation, of the
criteria establishing the position.
[[Page H4083]]
What do we have from the President? Somebody who has no judgment on
intelligence matters. What an insult to our brave intelligence
community, who serve us so well to protect the American people, to put
somebody in there.
If we are expected to vote for FISA, and Patel is at FBI and--what is
his name?--Pulte as DNI--Pulte and Patel equals ``no'' on this FISA
legislation. It can be done if there is an intention to do it right.
{time} 1810
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Maryland for yielding. I rise very sadly tonight in opposition to this
legislation.
I have spent hundreds of hours negotiating this, including with the
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, my friends on the Republican
side, reauthorization after reauthorization. I have the scars to show
for how much work has been done.
Here we are on the verge of a great deal. The Senate has a bill that
reauthorizes FISA and puts in stronger safeguards than the bill that we
passed here in the House. We are all ready to go, and we move on, and
then the President of the United States decides that Bill Pulte, a man
who has never held a security clearance, a man who I am not sure 2 days
ago could have told you what the initials DNI stand for, a man who has
distinguished himself in the role he currently has as an attack dog to
go after the political enemies, that gets thrown in, and we are asked
for yet more indulgence at that moment in time.
There is a simple way out of this conundrum. The President can follow
the law and allow the Principal Deputy DNI, a Senate-confirmed
appointee of the President, to assume the role of acting DNI until a
suitable nominee can be confirmed by the Senate. That is all that needs
to happen, and none of us needs to swallow what has just happened.
This is a funny moment because I have lots of Republican friends, and
in person they have told me what a catastrophic appointment this is. We
are not going to hear that on the floor or in public, but we all know
that this is the path. It did not need to be this way. There is still
time, though very little, to choose a new and responsible path
consistent with our obligations to national security.
When this vote fails, and it will, I hope that the President sees the
writing on the wall and puts national security first.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time we have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes
remaining.
The gentleman from Ohio has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I think we are ready to close if the ranking
member can wind up his remarks. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, flippantly says: What is another 3 weeks after we have
kicked the can down the road this far?
Where is the passionate, stalwart defender of American civil
liberties and right to privacy we have come to admire and esteem? The
Fourth Amendment protects the rights of all Americans. It does not have
a ``unless it is just for another 3 weeks'' exception.
Congress must act to protect the rights of Americans. We agreed to 1
week. We agreed to 45 days. Enough of this disorganization and chaos.
If there is a serious proposal on the table, we are all ears. We will
sit down, and we will work on this. We want to reauthorize section 702,
and we want to make it safe for the constitutional rights and liberties
of the people.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that section 702 explicitly allows any
current authorizations to continue until their expiration dates, even
if the statute sunsets. Therefore, there is no reason we cannot protect
both the Fourth Amendment rights of the people and the authorities that
keep us safe.
If Speaker Johnson will just allow us to do so, I believe that the
Judiciary and Intelligence Committees can come together and get this
done.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a robust, bipartisan majority.
I think it is ridiculous that we even need to say it, but I do believe
there is a robust bipartisan majority that will stand with the
Constitution, that will make sure we are interposing the proper
independent judicial magistrate between the government and searches of
the private rights and the persons and things protected by the Fourth
Amendment.
We need to protect the rights of the people and the Constitution. We
can do that. We need to protect our national security with section 702.
We can do that. We can harmonize them. All it takes is old-fashioned
legislative deliberation and compromise.
I am certain we can do it, but we haven't had any effort by the GOP
leadership to look to this body, both Republicans and Democrats. Where
do they look? They look to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But we are an Article I for a reason. We are the legislating branch,
not the President. We have got the power to declare war. The President
has forgotten that. We have got the power to appropriate. We have got
the power to tax, and we have got the power to pass this legislation on
section 702.
We don't have to wait on hand and foot for the White House to tell us
what to do. Let's just sit down. Let's hammer out a great legislative
compromise that will take us not for another 7 days or 42 days or 45
days. How about we do it for the next 5 years? If we build a search
warrant requirement into it, I bet we could do it for the next 10
years.
Let's live up to our constitutional responsibilities and legislate
together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
would just remind my friend from Maryland, the ranking member, of a
couple things. I said initially, in light of the 56 reforms we did a
couple years ago to this legislation, I was willing to go for a short-
term reauthorization, 18 months. Remember, that was the original
package. I was willing to go for that, particularly at a time when we,
like it or not, are in a conflict, military operation, in Iran. I
thought that made sense, in light of the reforms we have done.
Second, he said that I had said earlier what is another 3 weeks.
Well, he just talked about hammering it out. I didn't say what is
another 3 weeks. I said: We can take 3 weeks to continue to hammer it
out and figure it out. That is all we are asking.
While we are hammering it out and figuring it out, we maybe want not
to let the program go completely dark, not because--because the guys on
the Intel Committee, even Mr. Himes, understands how important this is.
Finally, I would say this. When he says: ``Where is my friend from a
few years ago?'' if I remember right, we could have had the warrant
requirement maybe 2 years ago because I remember what the vote was. It
was 212-212. All it would have taken was one more ``no'' vote then to
vote ``yes,'' and, shazam, we pass it.
You can criticize all you want, but those are the facts.
Now, the question again is real simple: Can we go another 3 weeks--I
think we can--and hammer out a deal, which I am willing to do with the
gentleman from Maryland and the folks on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 9238.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H4084]]
____________________