Victoria Spartz

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hamilton County Sheriff Deputy Jeff Larkin, who is retiring after 16 years of service with the Hamilton County, Indiana Sheriff's Department. Prior to his time with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Larkin served as a police officer with the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department. In 1982, he served as lead negotiator for a hostage situation at St. Jude Children's Hospital. After his heroic actions during this event, Deputy Larkin formed a new negotiation unit with the Memphis Police Department. Deputy Larkin's actions during the hostage situation also had a profound impact on the 1985 Tennessee vs. Garner court case, which stated ``Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.'' During his time with the Sheriff's Department, Deputy Larkin received a number of awards, including being named ``Reserve Deputy of the Year.'' Deputy Larkin has also been honored for his work with senior citizens in the community providing them with information on Senior Crime Prevention and Elder Fraud & Abuse. Outside of work, Deputy Larkin has been a steadfast Boy Scout Leader for Troop 132, for over 35 years. An avid sports lover, Deputy Larkin is also a referee for many local high school sports leagues. Deputy Larkin is a graduate of Ole Miss University. He has given back to his alma mater by teaching a criminal justice course as a guest lecturer. Deputy Larkin also serves on a criminal justice committee at the school. Deputy Larkin's professional contributions have had a lasting impact wherever he has worked. Deputy Larkin plans to continue working with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office in a civilian capacity after his retirement. My fellow Hoosiers and I appreciate his commitment and dedication to our community.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lieutenant Kurt Delong of Westfield, Indiana who for his 25 years of service as a reserve officer to the Hamilton County Indiana Sheriff's Department, where he has served with distinction. Lieutenant Delong had a very strong religious upbringing, while stating numerous times to his colleagues that he is a ``Missionary disguised as a police officer.'' During his time with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, Lieutenant Delong has obtained numerous awards, including being named ``Reserve Deputy of the Year,'' ``Sergeant of the Year,'' and ``Lieutenant of the Year.'' Additionally, he was named a Pistol Expert, and ``Life Saving Award'' recipient. Lieutenant Delong also served as a trainer for Hamilton County Sheriff's Office new Reserve Deputies, and he was a Board Member for the Community Foundation's ``Christmas Express Volunteer and Shop for Kids'' drive. Lieutenant Delong, in his 25 years of service, provided a strong foundation for safety, training, and growth for the citizens of Hamilton County. Outside of his law enforcement duties, Lieutenant Delong operates a small landscaping business. Lieutenant Delong is an avid fan of both high school and college wrestling, and he loves boating and travelling. While Lieutenant Delong will be retiring as a reserve officer on March 28, 2025, he will continue to serve the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office in a civilian capacity. My fellow Hoosiers and I appreciate Kurt's dedication and contribution to our community.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bronice Odell Bradley of Carmel, Indiana who will turn 100 years old on April 9, 2025. At 18 years old, Mr. Bradley enlisted in the U.S. Army and was assigned to Company A 394th Infantry, which was a tank division under General George Patton. He endured subzero weather at the Battle of the Bulge. While operating a machine gun on his tank, he was struck by shrapnel and later hospitalized for 13 months. Private First Class Bradley was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army on December 7, 1945. After retiring from the military, Mr. Bradley and his wife bought a small distribution business, which they operated for 44 years. My fellow Hoosiers and I wish Mr. Bradley a happy birthday and send him our deepest appreciation for his service to our country during his long and productive life.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9775 to honor the life of fallen Elwood Police Officer Noah Jacob Shahnavaz by naming the Elwood, Indiana, Post Office after him. Officer Shahnavaz was a dedicated public servant, a courageous protector of his community, and a beloved member of the Elwood Police Department. Born in 1998, he served our country with distinction as a sergeant in the U.S. Army, deploying to the Middle East during the global war on terrorism. His leadership and professionalism earned him the respect of his fellow soldiers. After his military service, Officer Shahnavaz returned home to Indiana, joining the Elwood Police Department in 2021. His calm demeanor, work ethic, and deep sense of duty quickly made him a respected member of the force. Tragically, on July 31, 2022, Noah's life was cut short during a routine traffic stop. He was ambushed and fatally shot by an individual with a violent criminal history. He was just 24 years old. Today, we honor his legacy and ensure that his ultimate sacrifice is never forgotten by naming the Elwood Post Office in his memory. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the members of the Indiana delegation sponsoring this bill on a bipartisan basis, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this important legislation.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. James Martin, a Hoosier hero of the Vietnam War who has dedicated so much to our country and to Indiana. Drafted into the U.S. Army on St. Patrick's Day of 1965, Mr. Martin took on multiple roles in the Army, including mailman, fireman, battery clerk, and supply clerk. In Vietnam, he was a critical element to the 2nd Howitzer Battalion, 17th Artillery, within the notorious 1st Cavalry Division. Mr. Martin's unit was vital to the war effort, often serving as a lifeline to fellow soldiers and the South Vietnamese Army via cover and support. He and his fellow men were known as ``Shining Star'' by those they saved in combat. After returning home in 1967, Mr. Martin continued to serve in a different way--working in finance with Northwestern National Bank, which later became Wells Fargo, and eventually shifting to computer work in the final 20 years of his career. Since moving to Noblesville in 1998, Mr. Martin has been actively involved in Memorial Day and Veterans Day services, contributing his time and passion to honoring fellow veterans. We are forever thankful to the service of Mr. Martin, and so many others who answered the call and sacrifice so much for our Nation. From me and on behalf of the people of Indiana's 5th District, I thank Mr. Martin.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hoosier Hero, Mr. Mark Plecker, of Noblesville, Indiana, who has led a life of dedicated service to our nation and his community. A graduate of Noblesville High School, Mr. Plecker joined the U.S. Air Force in May 1964, and deployed as an air traffic controller during the Vietnam War, stationed in both Vietnam and Thailand from 1966 to 1967. His role was crucial in ensuring the safety of countless missions, as he managed the complex and high-stress task of his mission objectives. After his honorable discharge in 1968, Mr. Plecker returned home to Indiana and dedicated himself to his community through a career in plumbing. At 80 years old, Mr. Plecker is still working in his field-- truly showing the gumption and work ethic of the generations preceding us. This year, Mr. Plecker has the privilege of joining the Indy Honor Flight to Washington, D.C., where he will visit the Vietnam Memorial and Arlington Cemetery--his first trip to our Nation's Capital. He will be accompanied by his daughter, Kris Noe, making this a very special family moment as well. Mr. Plecker's life is a testament to service, both in uniform and in the years since. His dedication to his country and community reflects the true spirit of a veteran, and I am honored to recognize his service here today. From myself and on behalf of Indiana's Fifth Congressional District, I thank Mr. Plecker for his service.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jules D. Goudy, a native Hoosier, and a World War II veteran whose unique contribution as a bugler brought both service and music to the war effort. Born in 1925, Mr. Goudy enlisted in the U.S. Army on October 4, 1943, in Indianapolis, Indiana, ready to serve his country in a time of great need. Assigned as a bugler in the 343rd Regiment, Mr. Goudy played a key role in maintaining the morale of his fellow soldiers. The sound of his bugle not only communicated critical orders but also brought comfort and unity to troops during some of the war's darkest moments. Music has always had the power to inspire and heal, and Mr. Goudy's service as a bugler did just that. In times of uncertainty and hardship, his bugle calls served as a reminder of home, resilience, and the camaraderie that bound these men together. Whether signaling the start of a new day or honoring the fallen, his music was a source of strength and hope. Mr. Goudy's enlistment during World War II reflected his dedication to both his nation and his fellow soldiers. A high school graduate, Mr. Goudy left his civilian life behind to serve for the duration of the war and beyond, ensuring that his service did not end until victory was secured. On behalf of the people of Indiana's 5th District, I thank Mr. Jules D. Goudy for his service to our Nation, for the music he brought to the battlefield, and for the lasting impact he had on his fellow soldiers. His dedication will forever be remembered.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I have a very simple amendment. Actually, what it does is it just says that if we, Congress, do not authorize funds specifically for the U.N., which should be part of our process, then this agency shouldn't be funded and projects the U.N. is doing shouldn't be funded. I probably couldn't defund the whole U.N., but I will take much smaller steps and say that Congress needs to do its job. If it is not authorized, that is a process that Congress should follow, and it shouldn't be funded. I know that is not a problem if the Appropriations Committee or the authorization committee didn't do its job; but if they didn't do their job, then they should start doing their job. I think the process is broken, and we need to start dealing with corrupt agencies at the U.N. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, I think my colleague is not representing the amendment very correctly. This amendment does not defund the full U.N., which we probably should, considering what happened. It just defunds programs that we did not explicitly authorize. Congress should be doing its job. Let's talk about UNICEF. UNICEF does not want to admit its shortcomings in its humanitarian support to children who allege that they were raped and sexually abused by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. This is the same U.N. agency that U.N. employees were alleged to have participated in the Hamas attack and where just recently one U.S. agency's staff whistleblower alleged large sums are being lost to corruption in Iraq as donors fail to track spending on $1.5 billion in aid projects. Roughly a half billion was funded by taxpayers of the United States. The employees actually said it is not just this culture of bribery fueled by the U.N. It is also this culture of funds being spent on the U.N.'s large overhead and not really even getting to the people. I have been on the ground a lot. I will be honest with you, our allies around the world are laughing that we are giving money to corrupt organizations controlled by Russia and China and may work most of the time against American interests. It doesn't really help the people. I have been in war zones, including Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa. You haven't seen them. You come to fancy hotels with fancy cars with executives showing up for pictures with congressional delegations, and people are suffering and dying. Americans are paying large money in the borrowed debt of our grandchildren to make some very wealthy and corrupt. I think this is embarrassing for us. We don't take our jobs seriously. The Congress should start looking at these agencies and looking at the corruption within these agencies. I think this is something we have to take way more seriously. We should not give blank checks to corrupt organizations like the U.N. We need to do our jobs. I truly believe we should really send a message that Americans are not stupid, that we are not going to be taken advantage of, that Congress is not stupid, that we actually will start looking at these programs, authorizing them, and seeing what is really happening on the ground if we really want to achieve results. Our adversaries and our allies are going to be laughing at us, I will be honest with you. Most of our allies are saying we are not going to be giving money to these corrupt organizations like the U.N. I think Congress needs to act seriously. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, I think our national interest is to make sure that taxpayers' funds are really achieving goals in our best interest. Unfortunately, organizations like the U.N. being corrupt actually sabotage, diminish, and work against our national interests around the world and make a lot of people who are not our friends very wealthy. We have now a serious situation in our country, serious debt, and inflation that has become a national security issue. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to become stronger, start challenging the corruption, and not to be afraid to challenge the status quo. It is the right thing to do. That is why people elect us here. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Roy Springfield of Anderson, Indiana, who served in the U.S. Army for 3 years as a member of the elite Special Forces. Roy enlisted in the Army in 1961, where he completed his tour of duty in Vietnam and Laos. While evacuating a Special Forces base in Laos under intense enemy attack, Sergeant Springfield managed to grab an American flag and keep it from falling into enemy hands. He has retained and treasured this flag for more than six decades. After his time in the Army, Roy went on to serve his community for 27 years as a police officer with the Anderson Police Department. In 1973, he also started the Police Athletic League in Anderson for disadvantaged youth. In recognition of his brave service to our Nation, it was my honor to present Sergeant Roy Springfield with a National Defense Service Medal and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal on January 26, 2024. I am extremely grateful for Roy's bravery and am humbled to express our appreciation on behalf of the American people in Indiana's Fifth Congressional District.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I have held a very principled position on Ukraine and, unfortunately, this position is not very shared with a lot of people in Congress. It is unfortunate. We have the false choice of either saying that Ukraine doesn't matter to America or support Ukraine with no questions asked, with blank checks. Both of these positions are not good in our national interests, and both of these positions are not good in the interests of the people of Ukraine. Unfortunately, this monopoly of a narrative is prevailing in our government, in our society, and in Congress. My amendment is actually very simple. I know we are doing this amendment just for show, and no one is going to pass anything on the floor. We still will go with blank checks and slush funds. Unfortunately, this strategy failed the American people. President Biden failed the American people on the border and on national security. Congress failed the American people on the border and on national security. President Biden and President Zelenskyy failed the Ukrainian people. They were not ready before the war started. They didn't have a good strategy when the war started; slow-walked the aid and really didn't fight and deter Putin to go further. Now, we have a very significant war in Europe. I said, unfortunately, this supplemental doesn't just have lethal aid, it has other parts, and they will go further. Unfortunately, nobody is going to take in our amendment. We have presentations and circuses, but the decision is already made. My amendment is actually very simple. It just says we shouldn't have blank checks and let President Biden have Presidential drawdowns increase from $100 million to $8 billion, including loans from $4- to $8 billion, so we are generally giving a true blank check to President Biden of $16 billion. Congress forgot that we should do our jobs. We shouldn't create these loopholes for Presidents--it doesn't matter who the President is--to be able to do what they want to do. This is our job to oversee these funds. It is a very simple amendment. This emergency that we created now goes to the point where Congress is giving billions of dollars and not doing its job. We have the power of the purse for a reason. All this amendment does, it eliminates forced action that increases--and it is a true blank check because when we say the Presidential drawdown goes from $100 million to $8 billion almost, or from $200 million to $400 million, from $25 to $50 million, we really don't even know what he is going to do. He can do whatever he wants with that. That is a big problem because these emergencies are dangerous, but also the problem we have right now in the case of these emergencies, we actually don't have the ability even to ask the questions, and Congress hasn't been asking the questions. That is why we have such a major catastrophe around the world, whether it is in the Middle East or Ukraine, and that is why China, Russia, and Iran are moving, and we are doing a lot of presentations with blank checks and slush funds and no policies. I urge my colleagues to think maybe for a change and give this amendment consideration, which I have very low expectations for. I also would consider, as I said, to supporting lethal aid with border security, but unfortunately that didn't happen. It is sad for me to see that we still don't take this war as serious as it should be because generally only $13.7 billion actually goes to security assistance directly to Ukraine from the $60 billion plus another $8 billion slush fund, so we are talking almost $70 billion, plus another $8 billion of loans, whoever they go to. We are talking about almost 80, so I have a problem with that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I would highlight that we are increasing a blank check from $100 million to $8 billion, and we don't even know if it is spent for Ukraine or not. It is just a blank check of $16 billion to President Biden, a purely blank check. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment because we need to stop slush funds and blank checks. We will never win against aggressors if Congress does not do its job. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I guess under the current version of the bill, Americans should feel better that Congress will be authorizing to spy on them only for 2 years, not for 5, but I really want to bring up some other issues that are the essence of this bill that the bill is not addressing. We have been talking about warrants, which is extremely important. This is a search, so government is able to search without a warrant. That is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional. On top of it, when we are talking about lawfully collected information, in reality, it could be very unlawful information there. We do not know. It is never addressed. We know for a fact that government unlawfully collected information in 2016. We know the government acknowledged that they have a lot of data there. They don't know how much it could be. They call it all incidental. There is nothing in this bill addressing actually if this is for lawfully collected information. There is no auditing, no checking, and they want us to trust. If we pass with a warrant, at least we will have a warrant to potentially search unlawfully collected information, but if this bill passes as it is, Congress will be authorizing the government to conduct unconstitutional searches of unlawfully collected information for 2 years. It almost sounds ironic for us, an institution that should be protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are paying attention to what we will be voting for, and I hope Congress will wake up to start protecting the American people, not playing circuses here.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you I have significant concerns about why it does not address some material potential violations of Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. It really has to do a lot with upstream collection, and I will explain what it is. Upstream collection is where the government and the State can go in the backbone and collect data about all Americans, whatever they want, and then they have to go through minimization procedures. Supposedly, this minimization procedure is supposed to limit the data that they incidentally collect about Americans. Well, the challenge is no one ever audits and checks what they are doing. Mr. Speaker, if you remember what happened in 2016, where pretty much these minimization procedures didn't allow to collect about information. It means that if you have the name of some potential terrorist in the body of your email, they can collect your data but NSA still did it. They collected the data. Mr. Speaker, what happened? We don't know what happened; but we also know in 2022 that a new technique was authorized where, according to the review of the oversight board, if used in a widespread way and not minimized, it can be extraordinarily intrusive. This is a very new sensitive technique, but no one ever checked this. We know these agencies, how they felt so many times collecting data on Americans. We are turning into a police state. This is a material flaw with this bill, and I want to raise significant concerns that it has to be addressed or we are just putting lipstick on a pig.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 44 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 724. Mr. McHENRY Mr. Speaker, due to an unforseen circumstance, I was unable to cast my vote for H.R. 2365. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 724.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 705 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 706. personal explanation

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a lot of important discussions this Congress, but there is one important discussion that I truly believe we need to take very seriously. It is section 702 of the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I want to remind us that our main job as Representatives of the people is to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property. We will never have equal opportunities and will always want to have equal outcomes, but the equality of rights is the job of Congress and the legislature. We know very well that the constitutional rights of Americans have been violated. I am going to cite some excerpts from the report that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board just issued recently. That board was created to oversee due processes, and the issue in line was the reauthorization. It is actually run by Democrats, and the chair is appointed by President Biden. This is from the report: ``The board finds that section 702 poses significant privacy and civil liberties risks, most notably from U.S. person queries and batch queries. Significant privacy and civil liberties risks also include the scope of permissible targeting.'' It also talks about new types of procedures that have been recently authorized, in 2022, and we had challenges about collection that some thought Congress would put a stop to. However, it says that the new procedures that we just authorized were used in a widespread fashion. It could be extraordinarily intrusive. It also says the board finding a risk of overboard government collection of communications is very real and can cause harm with no individualized judicial review of targeting decisions. We had an almost 300 percent increase in surveillance since 2013, double in the last 5 years. This search is very concerning since there is no specific review of that. Also, it says that a lot of things that are collected could be political, religious, and social advocacy. There are significant concerns about this program overall. The changes that the FBI has done, they say, have not been sufficient to protect privacy and civil liberties. It is also actually confirmed by the internal audit of a recent report--the most recent was in May 2023 when the internal audits of the FBI was talking pretty much about over 90 percent of queries not having any evidence of justification for these queries. It is like the FBI is very good. They don't record and don't recall, so they want all the liability. It is a serious issue. We had some discussions, and I think the Judiciary Committee bill is somewhat bad. At least it requires a warrant for queries of a U.S. person. Still, both the bills that the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee are proposing lack some very serious consideration. There is no outside review of what data is collected, and this is something the board pretty much recognizes. As an agency, they collect information on Americans, but they cannot assess how much. At the least, there needs to be some sampling by a FISA court when they do certification to start figuring it out because, ultimately, there is a potential that our agencies have access to be able to collect without warrant and surveil many Americans. We don't know how many Americans they are surveilling and what the NSA is doing when they do filtering procedures. There is no ability for us to even know what is going in the review of that. The board brings these concerns, but also there are concerns with documentation. I think Congress should have for us--we do it in other areas, and in accounting, we do it, too--where, through evidence and documentation, we can have preventative controls in systems. When queries are run, there is evidence of review and evidence of approval and justification by the FBI as to why they are using this loophole in the law that potentially violates the rights of U.S. citizens and many Americans. I think the magnitude of this problem is significant, and the magnitude of violations could be very material. I think Congress needs to be much more serious in its consideration before we reauthorize the section. The other thing the board talks about is national security. It is an important section, but actually, the agency didn't prove that queries that they are doing actually give justification to what they are doing to provide them more expansion on that. I think we need to put up more guardrails, and I hope we will have more discussions on this issue and this bill if they are going to move forward in the way they are because I want to remind us that if we are not willing to stand up for the rights of Americans here, then I don't know why we are even in Congress. This Fourth Amendment right is a significant right, and it is a bipartisan issue. I hope we will take a more serious look at how we can improve this FISA reauthorization before it is reauthorized and have better legislation.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Chair, unfortunately, muscle memory is very strong in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, Wall Street and K street are very powerful in Washington, D.C. Fortunately, we have people on the Republican side that are willing to stand up for Main Street, willing to challenge their own leadership to deliver on issues of national security. This institution went through tougher times. We deliberated a lot of issues, but we used to be able to come together on issues of national security and our border security. Our destructive debt situation is destroying American lives. I hope the other side will join Republicans to win this battle for the American people. It shouldn't be a political issue, politicized. If this government cannot deliver maybe it is worth it to shut it down. What is it for then? If we cannot come together on this, then we are not worthwhile to represent the American people. So I hope that the other side stops being sheep and starts to actually not be afraid to challenge their own leadership and do something for this country because American people are sick and tired of us being worthless. We need to protect this country because if we don't save this Republic, no one else around the world will be able to defeat a lot of enemies, foreign and domestic. I will tell you one thing, there is nothing unreasonable or extreme to serve the people, to secure the border, and deal with our debt. I would appreciate it if the other side wakes up and supports Republicans.

Mrs. SPARTZ

Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.