This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8035) to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20, 2027, and for other purposes., committees such as Committee on Rules, members such as Austin Scott.
Issued
April 16, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
2
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
3
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextPROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8035, EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF
TITLE VII OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1175 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1175
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8035) to
amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the
authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intel-ligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20, 2027, and for
other purposes. 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 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1175, providing for consideration of H.R. 8035, to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on H.R. 8035, which would extend FISA 702. Currently, it faces expiration on April 20, 2026.
Let me be clear at the outset. We cannot allow section 702 to lapse, not at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities, accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our intelligence posture. Allowing this authority to expire would leave the United States blind to threats that move at the speed of modern conflict.
since been reauthorized three times, with broad bipartisan support each of those times. Each time, Congress recognized the same truth we face today. This authority is indispensable to protect the homeland from the threats that we face. This extension should be no different.
intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas—I repeat, foreign nationals located overseas who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information.
target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers of oversight.
I am not saying the 2008 legislation was perfect. It required modifications and reforms. To account for the needed reforms, Congress passed RISAA, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in 2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades. This law mandated 56 different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI personnel with access to 702 data, from 10,000 to only 3 percent in the Bureau.
Additionally, to address concerns of FBI's compliance on U.S. person queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report detailing any noncompliant query and what accountability measures were imposed on each FBI personnel that were determined to have conducted a noncompliant query. This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S. persons being reviewed by National Security Division and the FBI's Office of Internal Auditing.
These reforms were not symbolic. They were structural, enforceable, and designed to ensure that section 702 remains both effective and accountable. A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when comparing 2021 FBI inquiries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025 inquiries, which numbered 7,413.
that this body feels like more reforms are needed before section 702 can be extended again.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will self-execute an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-25.
The changes being made include: changing the reauthorization period from 18 months to 5 years; enhancing criminal penalties on individuals who unlawfully use or disclose 702 information on a U.S. person or conduct unauthorized queries; ensuring Members of Congress and certain staff may have access to proceedings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; ensuring only FBI attorneys can authorize U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI; implementing probable cause requirements for U.S. person targeting; requiring a GAO audit of targeting procedures; and requiring ODNI review of FBI queries of U.S. persons.
The legislative process has worked here, Mr. Speaker. It is time for the House to move this legislation.
investing heavily in cyber operations, covert influence, terrorism networks, and advanced weapons systems. They are moving faster, hiding deeper, and coordinating across borders with unprecedented sophistication. FISA section 702 is one of the few tools that allows us to detect and disrupt these threats before they reach our shores.
operate in a timely manner to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2330
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place? A 5-year reauthorization—5 years—and Republicans threw it together on the back of a napkin in the back room in the middle of the night.
liberties and safeguards. Some Members support them, and some oppose them. Just about everyone agrees that this is serious stuff, the kind of debate that Congress ought to have in the open. Instead, Republican leadership just jammed us.
Does anybody actually know what the hell is in this thing? It is 11:30 at night. The bill was changed just minutes ago—just minutes ago—and they had to post a corrected version already. That is how sloppy all of this is.
Let me be crystal clear to my colleagues across the aisle. This is too damn important to do it this way, way too important—no hearings, no markups, no real process, no transparency, no time to read it, no time to vet it. Yet, we are told that there are major reforms in this bill. There is no real explanation, no real accountability, and basically no time for anybody to figure out what the hell is going on.
Now, we are all supposed to act like this is normal. Give me a break. We will have to live with this for 5 years. The American people have to live with this for 5 years. Democrats and, quite frankly, a whole lot of Republicans, too, have barely had enough time to read the text, let alone understand any of its implications.
I bumped into a handful of Republicans on the way up here. They asked me: What is going on? What changes have been made? What is in this bill? Your own Members don't know what the hell you are doing.
This mess did not come out of nowhere. Republicans knew for months that the April 20 FISA deadline was coming. They knew they had a vote problem before the Easter recess. Instead of staying here and doing their jobs, or spending the district work period trying to work it out, they kicked the can down the road and made this mess even worse.
Now, everybody can see the chaos. It is out in the open. They barely got a rule out of the Rules Committee. Three Republican Members in the Rules Committee had to skip the vote just so the rule could be reported out. That is how divided this Republican Conference is.
Donald Trump had to jump in and tell Republicans to “unify” just to drag this thing forward. That is how pathetic this has all gotten.
debate this rule—36 hours—with a bill dumped on the House and the American public in the middle of the night as the deadline looms.
I have to tell you that this is not leadership. This is not legislating. This is not governing. This is not a functioning majority. This is a disaster. This is incompetence. This is incompetence.
we are still left with the same question: What the hell is going on here?
Mr. Speaker, this process is embarrassing. This majority is incompetent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American citizens to know we have had an honest debate over the balance between security and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Sometimes that debate takes a little longer than we wish it would. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would read this document, the United States Constitution, just as we as Republicans read it and take it seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chair of the Rules Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time, and I thank him for the yeoman's work that he does as a member of the Rules Committee, a member of the Agriculture Committee, and a member of the Intelligence Committee. He knows what he is talking about here tonight because of the work that he has done over the years, particularly on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in this country can deny that we are living in a very dangerous world. We are dealing with terrorism and narcoterrorism constantly.
I want to compliment all the segments of our Conference. Many people don't realize the range of ideas and talents that we have in the Republican Conference. It does sometimes take us a while to consider all the ideas that Members have, but we have some very strong people in our Conference whose reason for being here is to protect the American people. It takes a while sometimes for the Conference parts to come together to do what we are elected to do: use the agencies of the Federal Government to protect the American people.
This is not incompetence. It is responsible legislating, Mr. Speaker. FISA 702 expires on Monday night, April 20, at 12:01. We must pass a reauthorization of that so it can go to the Senate, be passed by the Senate, and signed by the President before it expires.
We are doing our job, Mr. Speaker, as the people's House. I commend my colleague from Georgia for the work that he and all of my colleagues who came together have done to come up with a very good bill that we are going to pass later tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for the rule and to vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, this process stinks. She thanks all of her colleagues for coming together to try to work out this deal. As far as I can tell, it is a handful of people in a back room somewhere who put this together. Some of this is handwritten. This was not the result of everybody participating in an open and transparent process. This is a backroom deal.
It is 11:40, and people are going to see this for the very first time. Some of us, myself included, were hoping that we would have a serious warrant requirement in section 702. I talked to a lot of my very conservative Republican colleagues, and they agree with me that that was something that they thought was important.
us has nothing to do with section 702. It is already the law that if the FBI has probable cause, they can go to court and seek a warrant.
What we are trying to solve is a different problem. Section 702 takes in a massive amount of U.S. person information, and nothing in this bill stops the government from searching it or requires them to go to a judge.
{time} 2340
That is a question.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield for an answer.
has been resolved, please know it hasn't. If you vote for it, you are a cheap date because it doesn't solve the problem that we have had many discussions about.
We found this out in the 50 minutes that we had to read the text. Again, we just got this bill. Who knows what else we will find in a day or a week when experts have a chance to analyze it? Again, this is an important matter.
The privacy of American citizens is an important matter. The national security of our country is an important matter, and you are just piecing this together in a couple of minutes and saying: Take it. Trust us. We just pieced this together in a back room, just take it.
Well, we are not. This is a lousy process. This reflects the incompetence of the leadership of this House. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman was going to answer my question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, please forgive me because I didn't even have 15 minutes to read it. I had to drive down from Maryland's beautiful Eighth District, so I have had about 90 seconds to review this product that we were supposed to have been working on for the last several months.
because already the machinery of propaganda and disinformation has set in, and people are talking about a magic warrant requirement which has appeared in here, which is complete and utter nonsense.
Committee that this is an appalling Kafkaesque process leading to an absurd Orwellian result. This is much worse than what was being offered before of the clean 2-year reauthorization. The substance of this proposal is utterly appalling.
They say you shouldn't look to see how the sausage gets made. This isn't even sausage. This is scrapple. It is scrapple with dogfood mixed inside of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to try to read through it to understand what they are doing.
Let's start with this: Originally, they proposed an 18-month clean reauthorization, and the Democrats and some members of the Freedom Caucus were very skeptical of the enterprise. They said: 18 months? That is not like any short-term extension we know around here. Usually, we talk about 72 hours or 1 week or 2 weeks. Eighteen months? That is a huge, massive expansion.
House. None of us were invited, so we don't know who was there or what was spoken, but they went from 18 months to 5 years. They went from a clean 2-year reauthorization to a 5-year dirty deal. The saving grace of it is supposed to be a so-called warrant requirement—which I will investigate in a second—which doesn't kick in for another 2 years.
on this process, this fake warrant requirement, so the Trump administration can do whatever they want even without this mythical, inscrutable warrant requirement, and then we get 5 more years of this.
we could rely on was the goodwill of the handful of members of the Freedom Caucus who were standing up for the Constitution and the civil liberties and civil rights of the people.
of the legislation, a 5-year authorization with the fraudulent warrant requirement not kicking in for 2 years.
page 3. Let's start with this in trying to understand the gobbledygook here. “The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not ingest unminimized information acquired under this section into its analytic repositories unless the targeted person is relevant to an existing, open, predicated full national security investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the subject of such predicated, full national security investigation is a United States person, for purposes of this paragraph, the investigation must be supported by probable cause.”
saying that the Constitution governs and the Fourth Amendment is still alive, right?
years as a constitutional law professor? Well, the operative part of it is the last eight words there: “the investigation must be supported by probable cause.”
does it say it has to be supported by a search warrant or probable cause determined by a judge, by a court. That is not in there.
Who is going to figure out whether it is supported by probable cause? We are not talking about evidence of a crime. We are talking about a predicated, national security investigation. If you flip the page, you find out that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly establish procedures and standards for officers and employees of the United States Government to determine the existence of probable cause. Well, there goes the requirement, the constitutional requirement of an independent magistrate issuing a warrant. The FBI will be the judge of its own warrant. In other words, we are right back to the problem that got us here in the first place. Mr. Speaker, look above there. We are told, “Pursuant to subsection (b), no officer or employee of the United States Government may intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United States person pursuant to an authorization issued under subsection (a). Pursuant to other provisions of this Act and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government may seek a warrant or other appropriate order supported by a probable cause showing to target for collection the communications of a United States person if there exists probable cause that the United States person . . . is a foreign power,” et cetera, et cetera. May.
requirement for a warrant, right, that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause and there must be a warrant for a search unless there is a specific exception to it. But this simply says they may seek a warrant. They don't have to. They may seek a warrant.
In other words, this provision, too, is meaningless. It just returns us to exactly where we were.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. It takes us right back to the status quo.
Acting Attorney General, and the Director of DNI, shall establish the procedures for determining if there is probable cause. I thought that James Madison and George Mason had taken care of that. I thought the Constitution established the meaning of probable cause.
Now, it is being delegated to the Acting Attorney General. It doesn't even say the acting but whoever the Attorney General might be. Perhaps acting is imported through this language. Who knows?
out what our Fourth Amendment rights are and then they get to decide for themselves without going to a court? At the very least, even if we are not going to have an actual warrant, there must be an independent judge, a magistrate, involved in defining whether or not there is probable cause to search American citizens. That is the bottom line here.
Constitution applies in peacetime. It applies in wartime. It applies to American citizens in America. It applies to American citizens abroad.
Mr. Speaker, we are very willing to sit down to try to figure out some way we can deal with this thorny area of the law, but sneaky meetings at the White House behind everybody's back and then votes at 2:30 in the morning are not going to do it for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the American people.
{time} 2350
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Raskin is a very good courtroom lawyer, and I mean that. If I needed a defense lawyer, the gentleman would be one of the first I would hire. I don't need a defense lawyer, thankfully.
I do want to point out a couple of things that did not get mentioned. It is on page 5: “Any information concerning a United States person acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against that United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal proceeding if such information was acquired in violation of subsection (o) of such section.”
targeting—
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield? Because that is already in the law.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. No, it is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. It is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. It is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. You can debate that on your time.
Mr. Speaker, there are significant changes here.
query against a United States person by the FBI—and this is a new accountability measure—must be reported to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Any query that the FBI does on a United States person must be reported with a justification for the query, not to the Justice Department but to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this about 702. First of all, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is designed to protect Americans in this country from terrorists. That is what it is designed for.
a crime. It is an intelligence tool and not a criminal tool. The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. We are talking about terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued discussion on the rule. I thank my colleague, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Rick Crawford, for the work that he has done on it. Many people on our side have worked diligently to accommodate people and to make sure that we are doing the things that we need to do to protect Americans and to protect their civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is all so damned frustrating because, basically, what the gentleman has done is kind of restated current law. The big reform that he is bragging about is that the administration has to report something to the administration. I mean, give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
on the argument that he just advanced from page 5. He quoted the section saying that any information concerning a United States person acquired under 702 may not be used in evidence against that person in any criminal proceeding if such information was acquired in violation of subsection (o).
If you go to subsection (o), it says: “Pursuant to subsection (b), no officer or employee of the United States Government may intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United States person. . . . ”
That is precisely the law today. This is a restatement of what is already the law.
FISA is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is all about the surveillance of people abroad. It is not about surveilling the people here.
This is all about the collection of incidental data. I thought that everybody understood that that was the premise of our whole legislative discussion here, that this is about the collection of incidental data affecting hundreds of thousands of American citizens. That is what we are talking about.
law is today, which is that if they set out to go after American citizens here, of course, the exclusionary rule operates at that point. It would be prohibited. The question is, what happens if they incidentally collected. Under this new language, nothing happens unless somebody permissively decides that they want to adopt a rule over at the Department of Justice making it a problem.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is the intelligence tool that has been reauthorized in a bipartisan manner under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is an intelligence tool that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know must be reauthorized to protect the citizens of the United States of America.
above the 56 protections that we adopted, again, in a bipartisan manner, in the RISAA legislation just a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this rule. I look forward to the passage of the legislation. People on our side have worked in good faith to make sure that we do anything and everything that we can to protect the United States citizens without violating their constitutional rights. That is why the additional provisions have been added in here.
Mr. Speaker, again, I will go back to this provision that I read to you, where if any information is obtained against a United States person, none of that information can be used to prosecute a United States person unless a warrant has been obtained first.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been properly designed to protect the United States and its citizens from people who want to destroy us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many other people on his side want to restate current law.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that at midnight we are debating this. This is intentional. Again, this bill was kind of pieced together in a back room somewhere here in the Capitol Building with a handful of people. Here we are, and no one knows what the hell is in it.
points that, quite frankly, are a restatement of current law that don't address any of the issues that many of us had with this legislation that we were trying to work out in a bipartisan way. We have been debating some of these issues for years.
with us, this is good faith? We just got the text of this minutes ago. We were told to be on the floor at 11:30, and let's begin this debate with major changes in the text.
That is good faith? Boy, you and I have a different idea of what good faith is. I think good faith was some of the conversations that were ongoing leading up to this moment. You tossed that out the window like it doesn't matter.
Again, this process stinks. This is not the way you should be bringing important legislation to the floor.
Let me just say to my friends on the Freedom Caucus: I don't know. You know, I disagree with you on most things, but every once in a while, we find areas of agreement, oftentimes on issues of privacy protection and protecting and upholding civil liberties.
{time} 0000
I appreciate when we can come together on that. I thought that that is what we were doing. That is what we were trying to get to. I am looking for some of my Freedom Caucus friends to defend this, so maybe there is something here that I don't see, but they are not here defending this.
section 702. There is no warrant requirement that you need to go get a warrant from a judge in section 702. That is what we were asking for. That is what we were fighting for. That is not in this. Don't try to sell a bill of goods that somehow this legislation does something it does not. It fails in that regard. It fails in that regard.
have these debates and say whatever you want to say, but you should be ashamed of this process.
Again, this is not a sense of Congress resolution. This is an important matter. It is important not just for our national security, it is important for the privacy of American citizens to make sure that information gathered on them is not misused.
so they are not even paying attention to any of the things that we are saying here today because, again, it is midnight when you are bringing this up.
I would just close by saying this is a lousy way to run a Congress. My friends on the other side of the aisle who are trying to defend the indefensible, quite frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. People should vote against this rule, certainly. This is not the way we should bring legislation to the floor, and they should vote against the underlying bill.
Republicans are running this place, you come out with something like this. Again, the gall and the incompetence is stunning. Again, shame on my Republican friends.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool that is designed to protect the citizens of the United States of America.
There are additional constitutional protections in here. The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, and predicated full national security investigation. That is currently the law. That is currently the law.
narcoterrorism. The FBI is currently prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. It is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been very effective for our intelligence community, our Department of Defense, and the others that are here to protect the United States of America.
read this. I want to read it to you again, though. Page 5, “United States Persons,” line 10: “Any information concerning a United States person acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against that United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal proceeding if such
Mr. Speaker, this week the House can advance H.R. 8035 and extend FISA 702 under this rule.
bipartisan support. When reforms were previously needed, Congress delivered them with RISAA, 56 reforms in a bipartisan manner.
Letting section 702 expire would be a setback. It would be irresponsible. It would put Americans at risk. It would provide an immediate advantage to our adversaries who seek to harm the United States. This authority is vital, and it is time the House finishes this work.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike the first section after the resolving clause and
insert the following:
“That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8035) to amend
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of
title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 through October 20, 2027, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 119-25 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 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; and (2) one motion to
recommit.”.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5- minute votes on:
Adoption of the amendment, if ordered; and
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
Roll No. 122
YEAS—211
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NAYS—210
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING—10
Bishop
Carter (GA)
Ivey
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Rogers (AL)
Salazar
Schneider
Zinke
{time} 0113
Mrs. FOUSHEE changed her vote from “yea” to “nay.”
Mr. COMER changed his vote from “nay” to “yea.”
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
Roll No. 123
YEAS—200
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perez
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NAYS—220
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Harris (MD)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
LaHood
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Rose
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Self
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (OH)
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING—11
Bishop
Crenshaw
Higgins (LA)
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Meuser
Salazar
Schneider
Valadao
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 0122
Mr. VAN DREW changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.”
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
Roll No. 124
AYES—197
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Bilirakis
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gottheimer
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perez
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NOES—228
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Biggs (SC)
Bishop
Boebert
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crane
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gosar
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norman
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Rose
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Self
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spartz
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING—6
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Salazar
Schneider
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 0207
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.