Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consternation my colleague across the aisle has when he says that he hasn't found any arguments persuasive. Let me tell you something: He would never find any of these arguments persuasive because he wants to pack the Court. His very argument is that if you pass a constitutional amendment, you can never change the Constitution. It is absolutely one of the most specious arguments I have heard because if you amend the Constitution, guess what. Does that mean that that amendment itself, that you have brought in, can never be amended again? No, because the system is clear, the system that he has been arguing against this entire time. The system, the Constitution itself, allows us to say to the American people: We would like to amend the Constitution. We are going to give it to you. We think this should be done. Mr. Speaker, that is really what we are talking about here. We are talking about this failure to appreciate the position that they sit in. They say that this whole thing, quite frankly, has been about Donald Trump. That is what their whole argument against this has been. Oh, they passed this immunity clause. Where did that come from? Well, maybe stare decisis. That is what they argue. That is where the Court is. Take a peek at that. Yes, go back and read it. You will enjoy it. Here is the deal. They sit right now upset over a few decisions that this Supreme Court has made. They cannot accept that you have probably three conservatives, three liberals, and three in the middle. That is where the Court sits today. An amendment freezing this at nine, first of all, doesn't mean that you can never amend it again, but it also doesn't mean that these are going to be the same nine in perpetuity for eternity. They want to set aside a tradition that has been in place for over 150 years. They make this argument regarding the circuits. Guess what. Those circuits have changed and changed, but oddly enough, we have kept it at nine. Instead, they want to negate and have ignored what their personnel have said for the last few years, ever since Donald J. Trump was reelected, ever since you put some new people on the Court, even though, as we take a look, they are winning cases against this administration. Yet, they say that we have to take and expand this so we can get to 13. That is what they want. Why do they want it? It is because they want to make it progressive. They want to turn the Court around. They want to change its ideological principles or what they perceive to be ideological principles. That is what they want. They want to pack the Court. That is what packing is. It is where you put a number there. That is why Stephen Breyer said and that is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, no, don't do that. Justice Breyer said that if you do that and it is 13 next time, does it become 21 after that, or 50, or where does it end, because it becomes a political arms race at the Supreme Court. We are saying not to get into a political arms race. Let's make it permanently nine. Let's give it to the voters. That is a rational thing. It will never be persuasive to these folks, and that is too bad because guess what. This has been comfortable. The Biden administration was comfortable with nine. This particular provision was proposed in the 116th Congress, in the 118th Congress, and now again in the 119th Congress. It didn't matter whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. What it meant was let's make sure the Supreme Court is protected from those who want to change it ideologically. That is where they are. That is why everyone should be supporting this particular amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I get a kick out of their arguing about following the constitutional tradition and talking about using the constitutional system. That is exactly what we are doing. We are using the constitutional system. This is not the first time this has been offered. This has been used multiple times. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a charming and quaint argument to say that President Trump has packed the Court. Here are some patterns that you need to know just from the last term alone: 50 percent of the cases decided were decided unanimously. That doesn't sound like a packed Court, and only 5 of 57 cases, just 8 percent, were decided 6-3 with six Republican appointees on one side and three Democrats on the other. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal Justice in the majority, 90 percent. The three liberal Justices voted together in fewer than one-quarter of the nine unanimous cases. That doesn't sound like packing. That sounds like a lot of thoughtful folks on the United States Supreme Court rendering decisions they believe in and they believe comprise constitutional opinion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J. Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking, which is kind of what the scholars have said is the definition of Court packing. When you want to increase the number of people on the Supreme Court so you can effectuate your ideological bent, yes, that is Court packing. This isn't new, this position that we are taking today. This was introduced in the 116th, which was under Donald Trump. It was introduced in the 118th, which was under Joe Biden. By the way, it was Joe Biden's own special commission that said it would be wrong to actually increase the number of people on the Supreme Court. Now, we have introduced this in the 119th. I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court. I also think we need representation in the Ninth Circuit--it would be nice if you could help us along there--the circuit, a court that actually goes from the equator to the Arctic Circle. You can't even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges. You can't get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random. Anyway, back to the point here, my colleagues on the other side tell us that the Supreme Court has changed before. They are right. However, there is an important piece of history that they leave out. For much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary. As the country expanded and Congress created new judicial circuits, Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities, but that changed in 1869. Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices, and for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices, regardless of the number of circuits. There is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today, and that is Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1937, after winning reelection, was furious that the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional. That was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive. Instead of changing laws to comply with the Constitution, he proposed changing the Court. His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices, and who would appoint those Justices? The President of the United States would. Who was the President? Franklin Roosevelt. Everyone understood what was happening. It wasn't about building a better courthouse. It wasn't about adding circuits. It wasn't about helping manage expanding judicial caseload. It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes. Here is what happened: The plan faced fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own party. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back. The Senate ultimately rejected the plan, and this is what they said--this is from the records today: ``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.'' Not holding firm at nine, but because you wanted--not you, but the Democratic Party at that time--not even the Democratic Party, excuse me, let's be very clear, one individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. ``It is a proposal without precedent and without justification,'' they said. ``It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.'' ``It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and establishes the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.'' ``It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.'' Do you know what ``it'' was, the measure that they were so offended by? It was an attempt to pack the Court. Next time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's job is to tell the American people the truth about the law, even when that truth is unpopular, even when a President doesn't like it, and even when Congress doesn't like it. That only works if the Court is independent. Alexander Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 78. He explained that the courts must be insulated from the political branches or they cannot do their job of protecting the rights of the people. Disagreeing with the Supreme Court is not just legitimate. It is American. We amend the Constitution, or we pass new laws. We elect Presidents who appoint different judges. That is how you change outcomes you don't like. That is the process the Founders gave us. But there is a world of difference between changing the law and changing the rules of the game because you don't like the last call. Packing the Court is not simply a policy disagreement. It is an attempt to change the structure of one of the three branches of government in order to guarantee the outcome you want. That is not reform. That is revolution. Here is the question every American should ask: If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? What stops them from doing the same thing? As Justice Breyer said, this will start an ``arms race.'' Once you go down that road, the Court stops being an independent check on government power. It becomes another political institution controlled by whoever happens to hold the majority. We have already seen what this kind of rhetoric looks like. In 2020, Senator Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court and told Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: `` . . . you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price.'' That was a threat, a threat that goes well beyond any normal policy disagreement. Mr. Speaker, 2 years later, an armed man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh's home. Thankfully, law enforcement intervened before anyone was hurt. Words have consequences, and when political leaders convince people that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, some people take that rhetoric seriously. Some on the left aren't even hiding where this leads. The Democratic Socialists of America now openly call for abolishing the Senate and replacing the Presidency and the Supreme Court. I am not making that up. That is in their platform. Seeking to expand the Court is an admission that your arguments have not been good enough to persuade voters or your fellow legislators. We rely on a political process, including robust one-on-one debates, to convince voters that ours are the superior plans. When you can no longer convince enough voters that you have the best ideas, you have two choices: You can go back to voters with a better argument, or you can try to change the system so their vote doesn't matter as much. That is why the amendment before us is so important. It fixes the number of Justices at nine permanently. That is not because nine is a magic number. It is because a fixed Court cannot be expanded by whoever happens to win the next election. It makes the rule the same regardless of who is in power. To my friends on the other side of the aisle: We don't have to like every decision the Supreme Court makes. Heaven knows there are plenty of decisions I have disagreed with. That is not the point. The point is whether we are willing to live under a Constitution that limits our power even when we are the ones holding it. If we want to change the law, we can change the law, but we should not change the Supreme Court simply because we don't like the people sitting on it. Constitutional government requires accepting outcomes we don't like and fighting for change the right way: through elections, through legislation, and through the amendment process this very body is using today. Let's keep the Supreme Court independent. Let's keep it at nine Justices, and let's keep the Constitution bigger than whoever happens to be in power. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 1.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Constitution Day coming up, commemorating the day our Constitution was signed in Philadelphia. The Constitution was debated, written, and signed at a fragile moment in our Nation's history. Yet, through the wisdom of our Founders and their unwavering determination to secure liberty for future generations, they produced a document that has stood the test of time. For nearly two-and-a-half centuries, the Constitution has safeguarded our freedoms, restrained the power of government, and served as an enduring example to people around the world who aspire to liberty and self-government. This year, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. That remarkable milestone was only possible because generations of Americans have preserved the principles our Founders enshrined in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly grateful for those who went before, framed this extraordinary document, and for the liberty it has secured for generations of Americans. I hope it endures another 250 years.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Alia Moses, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas. I first met Chief Judge Moses in May 2022 in my capacity as co-chair of the Congressional Border Security Caucus. The United States was seeing an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration across the southern border, and Members of the House were actively trying to understand the impacts on our Nation, including the impact on our Federal court system. A member of the caucus who was aware of Judge Moses and her caseload recommended we seek her input, inviting her to virtually participate in our monthly meeting. Since that first connection, she has become a good friend and has been a wealth of information. My staff and I have traveled to Del Rio, Texas, the division in which she sits, on multiple occasions, even bringing fellow Members of the House with us to meet her in person. It gives me joy to share her story with you today. Chief Judge Moses is a story of firsts and one that should inspire us all. The chief was the youngest of six children born to her dear parents, Amelia and Abdalla Moses, and raised in the small farming community of Quemado, Texas, a mere 35 miles from where she would ascend to chief judge. With the support of her parents and siblings, she graduated from Texas Woman's University and became the first in her family to attend law school, choosing the University of Texas. In 1990, only a few years out of law school and working as an assistant county attorney in Austin, Chief Judge Moses was tapped to establish the U.S. Attorney's Office in Del Rio, Texas, where she continued until she was appointed as a magistrate judge in 1997. On July 11, 2002, she was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas. On November 18, 2002, she took the oath of office, becoming the first female district judge for the Western District of Texas and the first district judge to reside in the Del Rio Division. Exactly 20 years later, on November 18, 2022, Judge Moses became the first female chief judge of the district. Her impressive legal career isn't the only enduring aspect of her life. She has served as a mentor and guidepost for those around her. During her time as district judge, she has placed a priority on lifting up the young lawyers working for her, saying: ``My ambition now is to have a legacy of helping others, who will then turn around and help the next generation . . . `' I could tell you her ambition is true, and she has made good on that ambition, aim, and goal. I have personally interacted with a handful of her law clerks who possess great admiration and gratitude for her. On her 20th anniversary of serving as a district judge, some of her former law clerks have offered heartfelt sentiments, including: I didn't understand the jackpot I was hitting until after I got to Judge Moses' court. . . . Her confidence and command of the courtroom are inspiring. I take something I have learned from her and use it every day in my professional career. Another said: It is like a mentorship for life. A member of my own staff had the privilege of interning with her for a few weeks after completing his first year of law school and continues to sing her praises. In my experience, her teaching and guidance aren't exclusive to those under her legal tutelage. In 2024, my staff organized a delegation of staffers from other Capitol Hill offices interested in learning more about the border and Federal court system. Among their many meetings, Chief Judge Moses welcomed them to her Del Rio courtroom. She provided them with the opportunity to attend court proceedings and to meet with the head of each of the court's components. We still hear from staff about the impact of that experience and how it better prepared them to serve their elected Representatives here in Washington, D.C. Some years ago, Chief Judge Moses reflected on influences in her life, saying: ``It is amazing how God puts these mentors in your life. I wonder if they realize what kind of impact they are having on you when they are your mentors.'' I am confident she has had that same effect on many generations of law clerks and those who have had the opportunity to learn from her. I know she has had that impact on my own chief of staff, who speaks of her example, guidance, devotion, and friendship often. Chief Judge Moses is an inspiration to all young women dreaming of what they can achieve. While I have only known her for a small portion of her 24 years on the bench, her dedication, her patriotism, and her love for the law and the Constitution are evident to me. Our great Nation is blessed by her service, and my family, my staff, and I are blessed by her friendship. This month, Chief Judge Moses will be honored by having her official portrait hung in the United States Federal Courthouse in San Antonio, Texas. This tribute is well deserved. It further cements her place in history and her example for all those following in her footsteps. I say this only once and only for Chief Judge Moses: Hook `em Horns. I congratulate her on this immense honor.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. I remember that well, and I thank you for allowing me to speak a little bit about our friend. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Congressman Bill Posey, who represented Florida's 15th and Eighth Districts for more than 16 years and devoted his career to serving the people he loved. Bill's public service began in the 1970s on the Rockledge City Council, and he went on to serve in both the Florida House and the Florida State Senate. He earned a reputation as champion of fiscal responsibility, government accountability, and policies that strengthened working families. He never viewed public office as a platform for himself. He saw it as a responsibility to serve others with integrity and purpose. Bill's commitment to his district was unmatched. He loved his district. He loved the Space Coast. He understood its history, industries, and people. No one fought harder for America's leadership in space exploration. Drawing on his own experience working on the Apollo program at Kennedy Space Center, he became one of Congress' strongest advocates for NASA, domestic manufacturing, and the aerospace workforce that defines Florida's Space Coast. He showed how a Member can fiercely defend a district's core industries without falling into subsidies and cronyism, staying true to his principles of limited government and free market strength. Bill was also a national leader in advancing transparency. He pushed Congress to read the bills it votes on and was instrumental in securing the rule that requires legislation be publicly available for 72 hours before a vote. Wouldn't it be nice to go back to that? Sure would be nice to go back to that standard that Bill worked so hard to set up. He worked to reform and strengthen trust in the institution and reminded all of us that accountability begins right here at home in Congress. I had the privilege of serving with Bill in the House Freedom Caucus, where we fought side by side for limited government, fiscal discipline, and the belief that Washington works best when it works within the Constitution. Bill lived those principles every day. Getting back to what we were talking about, he invited me to come down to his district. I was the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and he said: I need you to come on down to my district. We went, and it was basically a day-and-a-half of real education for me in campaigning because there was not a free moment to sit down. I will tell you this: I couldn't understand why he thought I needed to be down there, because he was so well loved. It was amazing. Bill Posey approached public service with humility, steadiness, and a deep love for the people he represented. He will be missed. I miss him. I wish to express my condolences to his wonderful wife, Katie. What a gracious host she was for me when I was down there. She made sure I had everything I needed and more. I will say this: Bill leaves behind a legacy of principled leadership, tireless advocacy, love of family, love of country, love of God, and an example of how to be a Member of Congress.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has taken the lead on investigating a staggering amount of fraud. The common theme we have seen in this fraud has been bad actors taking advantage of emergency funds from the government. Agencies disburse money from these taxpayer-funded accounts to help those in need when an emergency, such as the COVID pandemic, cause major disruptions in the day-to-day lives of Americans. Emergency relief funds are meant to help families stay afloat in a crisis. Instead, a lack of planning by and failures of oversight of Federal agencies have turned these emergency funds into a jackpot for fraudsters. For example, a central point of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's oversight hearing dealt with his ties to the criminals in the Feeding Our Future scheme. That scheme involved more than $250 million in taxpayer money being stolen by the Feeding Our Future organization, which defrauded USDA's COVID programs. What became glaringly evident in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic was that government agencies were not properly equipped to deal with emergency relief funds. Even those in government, such as Minnesota's Attorney General Ellison, have failed to investigate and even potentially aided fraudsters abusing these funds. It was one of the largest COVID-era fraud schemes in the country, and it happened right under the nose of Minnesota's top law enforcement officer. That is why we need to make sure emergency relief funds are protected from fraud. In total, the Government Accountability Office estimates that a staggering 19 different pandemic relief programs were defrauded from 2020 to 2024 to the tune of $300 billion. What is even more disturbing is that was just the fraud in COVID-related programs. In addition to COVID-related fraud, the Government Accountability Office also estimates that the government may lose as much as $521 billion. That is not waste. That is not error. That is a heist of historic proportions. These numbers are practically unfathomable. Yet, here they are staring at us as a reality. We, quite literally, cannot afford as a country to be losing that amount of money per year to fraudsters. Our national dealt is nearing $39 trillion. That is why I joined my Democratic colleague (Mr. Subramanyam), and we introduced the TRUE Accountability Act together. That passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform unanimously. The TRUE Accountability Act is simple. It tells Federal agencies to plan ahead, protect taxpayer dollars, and stop treating fraud as an afterthought or a cost just built into the system as a feature, because it is time to bring some accountability to our government so that we stop losing untold amounts of hard-earned taxpayer money. This act forces government agencies to be better prepared for an emergency, requires them to make internal plans that incorporate data- driven frameworks such as the GAO's A Framework for Managing Improper Payments in Emergency Assistance Programs, and A Framework for Managing Fraud Risk in 20 Federal Programs. These plans will include policies and procedures to assess risks of improper payments, fraud, and related mitigation strategies, as well as to identify a senior official responsible and accountable for implementing the plan. These internal plans will go a long way in combating any potential fraud that might occur when emergency relief funds are disbursed. We must not be caught off guard the next time an emergency hits. In an emergency, people's lives are already upended. They don't need to also be worrying about fraudsters looting the Federal Treasury. We need to be ready to act in an efficient manner that protects taxpayer dollars. This is a commonsense, bipartisan effort that both sides of the aisle can easily agree on, and it must be passed to safeguard the hard-earned money of American taxpayers. Fraudsters learned from the COVID-era. With this bill, next time we will be ready for them, not the other way around.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am grateful, indeed, for the opportunity to address one of the most consequential issues facing our great Republic: the Federal Government's warrantless surveillance of the American people. For years, Americans have watched headline after headline exposing the intelligence community's abuse of its authority, and I thought I would share just a few of those. Most recently, John Brennan admitted that there is a legion of deep state operatives in DOJ and CIA who are resisting Trump's orders. Why is that important? It is because they are the ones who violate the warrant requirement, as well. House approves reauthorization of FISA 702, warrantless spy powers, and yet when you go and read it, we have problems still. We still have problems. Why do we know that? Because the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, has issued a report. It is classified. Former DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard wanted to declassify that secret but critical court document but was denied. Actually, in my opinion, that needs to be released before we ever take a vote on FISA again. I will just leave it there on those headlines and get back to this. President Trump has an agenda. He won the popular vote in a landslide. In my home State, he got 160,000 votes more than the Democrat. How did he do it? Because the people wanted him to get his agenda through, but it is being sidestepped and avoided. Who are the people that are causing the problem, according to John Brennan? It is the same people that spied on President Trump's campaign previously. They abused FISA. The abuses are not hypothetical. They are not ancient. They didn't just happen in 2016. They are ongoing. That is what Tulsi Gabbard and the FISC court have discovered, and we need to discover that, as well. Section 702 has been used to search the communications of protesters across the political spectrum, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, Members of Congress, congressional staff, journalists, and ordinary Americans who did nothing wrong. Now, it has come to my attention that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has this opinion that is sitting there. It details significant government compliance failures under section 702. We need that to be declassified. The American people, this great Republic, need to know what their government is doing. The opinion must be declassified in order for us to know what we are doing in Congress to take a vote on this. Without transparency, the American people and their elected Representatives cannot have a meaningful, fact-driven debate about the future of this powerful authority. Reports indicate the opinion will show persistent, systemic violations of the law, including U.S. person queries that directly violate the oversight requirements Congress established in the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, just from a couple of years ago. One filtering tool tied to these violations has been shut down, but similar tools remain in use. This is exactly why I have consistently pushed for a warrant requirement for U.S. person queries. The Fourth Amendment is not ambiguous. It says, ``no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause''--not sometimes, not when it is convenient, not unless the intelligence community thinks it takes too long. We keep hearing the same tired argument: Getting a warrant is too hard. Getting a warrant takes too long. That is simply false. The work we have done in my bill, H.R. 7816, the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, ensures that is the case. H.R. 7816 includes targeted, practical exceptions for imminent threats, cybersecurity emergencies, and consent situations. It protects Americans and preserves the government's ability to act quickly when lives are on the line. Anyone claiming otherwise either hasn't taken the time to read the bill, has read some propaganda, has accepted the intelligence community's narrative, or simply does not want reform. As we in Congress keep negotiating what FISA and section 702 reform should look like, we seem to be forgetting that my bill is already the negotiated bill. We worked with a wide range of Members and stakeholders. We built a bipartisan coalition, and last Congress, we reached a 212-212 vote on my warrant requirement, one vote away from passing. It was sitting at 212-211 for a long time, and then someone came in and cast a ``no'' vote. This is fundamentally the same bill. The work has been done. The consensus exists. The excuses have run out. Meanwhile, the intelligence community continues to assure us that: This time, we will follow the rules; this time, we will respect the Constitution; and this time, we will stop violating Americans' privacy. Mr. Speaker, we have heard that promise for a decade and more. The latest FISA court opinion, the one they are trying to keep classified, proves those promises are empty. President Trump's administration took historic steps to increase transparency across government, and I appreciate former Director Gabbard's stated commitment to declassify this FISC opinion. The commitment must be honored. Declassification is essential to restoring trust, strengthening accountability, and ensuring every branch of government operates within constitutional limits. At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple principle: If you want to spy on Americans, you have to get a warrant. That is not radical. That is not partisan. That is the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin warned that those who trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. For too long, Washington has done exactly that: traded away constitutional privacy for the illusion of security. We are told that, without warrantless surveillance, America will be less safe. That is wrong. We can have both liberty and safety. It is the government's job to protect both, not force Americans to choose between them. We cannot allow a legacy going to our grandchildren where they will end up growing up in a country where mass surveillance is normal and constitutional protections are optional. Congress has a responsibility right now to stop that future from becoming a reality. Let me just add this: When we talk about CBDC, it is the last leg of the stool of surveillance. If CBDC were to become a reality, with the mass surveillance that is in FISA right now, guess what. It wouldn't be too long before we started looking like our main foe internationally, the Chinese. They surveil everything. Do you know what? The U.K. surveils everything, as well. They watch everything. What CBDC would do would allow them to shut down the entire banking system or your microbanking system and control you. It could be abused so quickly, so thoroughly, and so completely. I will tell you that I am grateful for the bipartisan Members who have joined me in this fight. We have a lot of them. We may not agree on much, but we do agree on this: The Constitution still matters. It is real. In just 13 years, we will be celebrating its 250th. If the government wants to search Americans' communications--which is what they want to do, and it is what they are doing--it must get a warrant. That is the requirement of the Constitution that I took an oath to protect and defend. Mr. Speaker, and my friend from Texas, Mr. Self, I thank you for this. I would say this: Be careful. There are some illusions out there. There are some false prophets coming forward to tell you that they are going to fix this problem, but they are offering a false doctrine. There should be no hope in that. We should put no faith in that.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding young men of Sigma Nu Fraternity at Arizona State University. I had the pleasure of spending time with this group last month and am encouraged by their honorable character, discipline in the classroom, and desire to do good. ASU Sigma Nus have a rich understanding of our Constitution and recognize the importance of civic engagement. They also desire to make a meaningful difference to those around them, routinely partnering with organizations like Childhelp and the Food Recovery Network to fight food waste and hunger. Sigma Nus are also leaders who serve in ASU's student government and in a variety of campus clubs. When young men surround themselves with peers who challenge them to grow and live with integrity, they are better prepared to serve their families, communities, and the Nation. The men I met at Sigma Nu were thoughtful, driven, and deeply committed to serving others. I have no doubt they will continue to make a just and positive impact on their campus, throughout Arizona, and across our country. Mr. Speaker, I thank them for their leadership, their example, and their commitment to these timeless values.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the memory and selfless service of Officer Gabriel Facio of the Apache Junction Police Department. His end of watch was June 8, 2025. On the morning of June 2, 2025, Officer Facio and his fellow officers bravely responded to a road rage incident where a suspect had brandished a weapon, threatening motorists and nearby residents. Officers attempted to subdue the suspect with nonlethal tools, but the suspect opened fire, striking Officer Facio in the face. He was rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Gabriel fought valiantly for 6 days, but on June 8, 2025, at just 46 years old, he succumbed to his injuries, surrounded by his family and his brothers and sisters in uniform. His legacy lives on through his wife and two children, who were his greatest joy. His name is now engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial right here in Washington, D.C., and his service was honored at the annual candlelight vigil. His life stands as a reminder of the courage and commitment that define our law enforcement officers. Officer Facio is the first Apache Junction police officer ever killed in the line of duty. His sacrifice will always be remembered. We pray for his family and for the Apache Junction Police Department. We thank Gabriel for his service to the people of Apache Junction and Arizona's Fifth District. May God welcome him home.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman thinks this is a silly effort, and he doesn't know if Merrick Garland or Associate Attorney General Gupta supports it. Did he care enough to call them? Did he ask? One wonders. He is saying, oh, they didn't call me. That is what he said, that they didn't call him. Here is the deal. In the pleadings in the case, the record shows that MCSO has implemented the key reforms required by the court orders, including policies, training, supervision, data collection analysis, and accountability systems related to bias-free policing and traffic enforcement. That is in the pleadings in the court. In that context, MCSO has achieved substantial compliance with the court's orders, which, by the way, is what Associate Attorney General Gupta said is the measure for ending a monitorship, substantial compliance. Let's talk about the bill. The reality is, this is not just for Maricopa County. There are monitors throughout this country. Let's just go through the bill a little bit. They didn't want to do that because they want to talk about all kinds of things tangential to this, because when you read the bill, you realize it is not about Maricopa County. It is about monitors. It is about monitors and making sure that they have guideposts and guidelines. Fees: They ``may not assess a fee in excess of such maximum rates as the administrator may establish.'' There is nothing about Maricopa County there. That is the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. They ``shall be authorized to employ the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.'' ``Such person may not be appointed to more than one such monitorship at a time,'' consistent with what was in the Garland memo, or ``appointed for a term greater than 5 years.'' They can't be. They also can't be ``reappointed after the expiration of such term pursuant to the same court order,'' if it is the same court order. A subsequent monitor ``who is appointed to a monitorship after the expiration of the term of a monitor who served pursuant to the same court order may not be employed by the same employer as the previous monitor.'' Why? Because Merrick Garland said you can't have a conflict of interest. You also cannot basically have someone without a term limit because that puts somebody there with a financial incentive to keep the monitorship going, regardless of compliance. Termination: ``In the case that a court, a party, or a monitor seeks to revise a monitorship imposed by a court order, the court shall conduct a hearing.'' ``The court may only revise a requirement of a monitorship with respect to which the subject of the monitorship has not attained substantial and sustained compliance.'' I just read to you that they have. The monitor found that in Arizona. This applies nationwide. ``On the date that is 6 years after the court order,'' the case gets transferred from one judge to another. Accounting: ``On an annual basis, a monitor shall submit to the Court imposing the monitorship an accounting,'' including ``information on the services provided.'' Why don't they want that? I wonder why they don't want that amongst all the monitors around the country? Why don't you want them to provide an accounting? Right now, we have places in this country where the monitor just simply gives a bill to the county and says: For services rendered, $200,000 this month. It does become retroactive. ``It is the sense of Congress that monitoring is a public service and monitorships should be structured to encourage the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.'' That is the simplicity of this bill. It gets at the heart of the nub of the Garland memo. This doesn't focus on one monitor. It doesn't focus on one location. It says every monitorship will be subject to this. It doesn't say monitorships are bad or unconstitutional. It says they have to be performing without conflict of interest and without incentives to make sure that they keep going because they want compliance. We need them to ensure compliance, not to make sure that they are lining their own pockets, that it doesn't become a grift, that you don't get $30 million over 10 years coming in as your fee when you are also monitoring multiple jurisdictions. That is what is at the heart of the Gupta memo, and that is what is at the heart of this bill. Contrary to what one of my colleagues says, that it is not unusual not to have a bill with a Senator sponsor, not every bill has a Senator sponsor. It is not required. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this bill gets to the very heart of making sure that a monitorship does not become abusive, overbearing, and negate what they are supposed to be doing, which is to make sure that there is compliance with a court order, to make sure we have a constitutional performance. That is what is said in Maricopa County, but it applies nationwide. Nothing in the bill limits this to one county. It applies nationwide. Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.