Representative Himes and colleagues debate FISA Section 702 reauthorization, citing 56 reforms that cut U.S. person queries by 94% yet sparking concerns over FBI Director Kash Patel's involvement before voting to extend authority through 2029. Simultaneously, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell maintains interest rates at 3.5% to 3.45% amid $120 oil prices and tariffs, while defending institutional independence against political attacks and confirming his continued service pending the conclusion of the Lisa Cook investigation. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Reauthorizing FISA 70200:15:02
Hackers and spies living abroad.
No U.S. citizen anywhere in the world can be targeted under Section 702.
I want to be very clear on this point.
Section 702 is not a backdoor surveillance tool that allows the government to collect and review an American's emails or other electronic communications.
The only U.S. person data collected is if the terrorist, spy, or hacker targeted under 702 is talking to an American or about an American.
In that case, only the communications held in the foreign targets' accounts are collected.
For the government to collect that American's communications, current law already requires the government to get a warrant under different FISA authorities.
Section 702 is one of our country's most important foreign intelligence authorities.
In 2025, 100 percent of the President's intelligence priorities reported on the by the NSA were supported by Section 702, and more than one quarter of all NSA reporting contained 702 information.
90 percent of synthetic drug disruptions enabled by the CIA were supported by Section 702, and 63 percent of the intelligence products in the President's daily brief contain Section 702 information.
Reauthorizing FISA 702 is essential.
In 2024, Congress reauthorized Section 702 through legislation known as RISA.
This legislation included 56 reform measures that restricted FBI U.S. person queries, implemented greater FBI accountability for any noncompliance, mandated greater transparency across the IC and FISC, and included key reforms to address abuses related to traditional FISA, like we all witnessed in the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
RISA reforms resulted in a 94 percent drop in the number of FBI U.S. person queries from 2022 to 2025, 119,300 down to 7,400.
At the same time, the FBI's compliance rate increased to 99 percent, equivalent to other IC agencies.
Despite the efforts of FBI Director Patel to implement the reforms and accountability, rebuilding trust will not happen quickly.
For that reason, working with Chairman Jordan and House leadership, I've met with all unique groups across the Republican conference over the past several months to identify additional key reforms and to develop a consensus product.
The reality is that no reauthorization effort would be likely to be perfect in everyone's eyes, but this bill makes measurable reforms to strengthen accountability and safeguards while maintaining the criticality of the foreign intelligence tool.
Specifically, the bill before us clarifies that no U.S. person can be a target of 702 collection and any targeting of a U.S. person requires a warrant, establishes criminal penalties for intentional abuse of FISA 702 queries and any false statements to the FISC, mandates new procedures to allow members to observe FISC hearings, requires FBI attorney review all FBI U.S. person queries, orders an independent audit by the Government Accountability Office on 702 targeting procedures,
and establishes an outside review and authentication process of all FBI U.S. person queries by mandating the ODNI Civil Liberty Protection Officer review FBI query justifications.
With these important reforms, the bill includes a three-year reauthorization for FISA 702.
Bottom line is that the importance of this tool to U.S. national security cannot be overstated, and for that reason, it's essential for Congress to reauthorize this authority.
On a 24-7 basis, we face the threat of cyber attacks from our adversaries.
We have U.S. military personnel and citizens being targeted overseas.
We have foreign terrorist organizations recruiting Americans and plotting attacks on the homeland.
FISA 702 is a vital national security authority that enables the intelligence community and military to mitigate and defeat these threats.
In fact, the 702 tool had existed prior to 2001.
We may have been able to prevent September 11th from happening.
I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on S-1318, and Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Reserves, gentlemen from Connecticut, Mr. Himes, is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in support of S-1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act.
I do so with some reluctance because the process that brought us here has been indefensible.
Two weeks ago, when we walked off the floor after legislation to reauthorize 702 failed, Democrats made clear there was an open door to negotiate a bipartisan package of real reforms, perhaps one that would even pass on suspension in this chamber.
I've been discussing this issue for months now with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, and it's clear to me that there is a path to a bill that could do more than squeak through and only by attaching unrelated legislation that may not pass the Senate.
But we are where we are, and I'm going to support this legislation because in my decade on the House Intelligence Committee, I've seen countless, countless instances where the intelligence obtained through Section 702 quite literally saved lives.
Section 702 is the single most important foreign intelligence collection authority we have, and every day, every day, it is used by apolitical professionals throughout the IC and apolitical professionals at the FBI to keep Americans safe here and abroad.
There is no way to replace the value that Section 702 provides, and the loss of this authority would be devastating.
So, given the binary choice between reauthorization and expiration, the responsible choice is reauthorization.
As President Biden's Intelligence Advisory Board put it, quote, if Congress fails to reauthorize Section 702, history may judge the lapse of Section 702 authorities as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time.
As I said at the outset, we should be considering a much broader array of reforms than those in this package.
For example, two weeks ago, I proposed an amendment to the base bill and the Rules Committee that would have created a judicial process for U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI in the 702 database.
I want to be clear that we have seen no evidence.
Let me say that again.
We have seen no evidence that this administration is misusing Section 702.
But nonetheless, we must remain hyper-vigilant given the other abuses that we have seen from this administration.
My amendment to rules would have required a federal court approval before the FBI could access the results of a query it conducted involving a U.S. person.
I regret that my amendment, as well as a range of other ideas from members on both sides of the aisle, were not considered as part of this process.
But as I said, we now have a binary choice.
And the reality is that two years ago, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with the support of more than 70% of the Democratic caucus, passed the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.
That bill, two years ago, contained over 50 major reforms, the bulk of which were intended to address the long-standing and unacceptable issues of compliance at the FBI.
Since enactment, the evidence shows that those reforms have been highly successful, with far fewer U.S. person queries conducted and with a compliance rate at the FBI of 99%.
It's easy to dismiss those numbers, given the political leadership of the FBI and the DOJ.
I don't trust Director Patel any more than my Democratic colleagues do.
On January 6th, five years ago, I was in this chamber when it was attacked by the shock troops sent here to stop the peaceful of transfer of power.
I sat there for half an hour as police officers with guns drawn tried to defend our democracy.
So I take a backseat to no one in my concern about the abuses of this administration.
But the data we have on FISA is based on oversight of the professional and apolitical staff, not Kash Patel, The professional and apolitical staff who are there at the Department of Justice Office of Intelligence, largely the same group of public servants who performed this work under President Biden.
And their findings are validated not just by the Attorney General or Tulsi Gabbard or Kash Patel, but by independent oversight, the DOJ's Inspector General, the staff of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on an annual basis, and the intelligence and judiciary committees of both chambers.
We are not trusting this administration.
We are verifying in all three branches of government.
And if we saw the slightest hint that these authorities were being abused, I wouldn't be standing here today to support this bill.
The legislation now before the House contains several reform proposals.
These proposals are modest and well short of what I'd like, but they are meaningful.
Most importantly, the legislation requires that all U.S. person queries of the 702 database by FBI be reviewed by ODNI's Civil Liberty and Privacy Officer and that any improper queries be referred from there to the IG of the intelligence community.
This adds yet another layer of oversight of FBI on top of internal oversight, DOJ oversight, which I may not trust, court oversight, which I do trust, and congressional oversight, which yes, I do trust since I'm involved in that.
The legislation also adds new criminal penalties for FBI employees who intentionally improperly use Section 702.
Finally, the legislation requires that only an FBI attorney can approve a U.S. person query, building on a reform we made in 2024 which required pre-approval from either an FBI lawyer or an FBI supervisor.
Now a lawyer is likely to be compliance focused rather than operations focused the way a supervisor would be.
And we'll be especially careful and cautious before approving a proposed U.S. person query.
These are modest reforms, but they are not nothing.
And when viewed in combination with the 50-plus reforms of 2024, Congress will have built a substantial oversight structure around 702 to prevent abuse.
Section 702 is not a dragnet.
It is not an authority that can be used to surveil Americans.
It does not contain any commercially acquired information, and it does not use artificial intelligence to analyze collected data.
And despite the fact that we've heard this word a lot today, it is not unconstitutional.
A federal court certifies this program every single year.
If this were deemed by the judiciary, the branch of government which determines constitutionality to be unconstitutional, we might have heard that from the courts at some point in the last 18 years in which they have been certifying this authority.
What it does have is an extremely robust set of oversight guardrails in all three branches of government, and this bill makes those guardrails marginally and modestly stronger.
And it is without question the most important foreign intelligence tool we have.
For those reasons, despite my frustration with the process that has led us here, I will vote yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.
General Reserves.
Thank you.
It's my privilege to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, for three minutes.
Gentlemen is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate Bill 1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act.
I want to thank Chairman Crawford for your leadership and steadfast support for reauthorization of FISA 702.
During the last reauthorization in 2024, I and many other members led the committee's task force on FISA reforms.
I think it's important to clarify what FISA 702 is and what it isn't.
FISA 702 cannot be used to target U.S. persons, period.
Under current federal law, it is illegal to target U.S. persons under this authority.
702 only allows for the collection on foreigners located overseas and who are reasonably believed to possess certain types of foreign intelligence information.
Throughout our reform process in 2024, we worked with our Judiciary Committee colleagues and spent over a year working to address unacceptable Section 702 abuses by the FBI with the goal of preserving constitutional liberties afforded to all U.S. persons and ensuring events like Crossfire Hurricane never happen again and holding the FBI accountable.
The last reauthorization, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, RISA, targeted 56 reforms and meaningful changes to the FBI.
It is the largest reform to the FBI in a generation.
The Department of Justice Inspector General's Office has confirmed today that the FBI has implemented all 56 of these requirements.
These requirements over the last two years have worked by everybody's account, holding the FBI accountable, increasing criminal penalties on agents and analysts, making the FBI more compliant with what they have to do, reforming the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and a number of other reforms that are working.
I strongly believe the unintended consequences of letting FISA 702 expire would result in risky national security and making the United States less safe for American families.
If we just look over the last year here, the strategic strike in Venezuela, the Israeli hostages that were recovered from the tunnels in Hamas, you look at taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities and the success we've had there, the taking out of drug cartel bosses in Mexico.
Going back to the first administration, what happened with Sulaimani and al-Baghdadi, all derived from FISA 702 and many other instances that we can't talk about here.
Prior to coming to Congress, I spent time as a federal prosecutor and the chief terrorism prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice.
I know firsthand how FISA can be used for proper prosecution of terrorists and non-U.S. citizens that want to harm America.
Putting people in jail that want to hurt America would not happen but for FISA and Section 702.
Today, FISA 702 delivers unique foreign intelligence that allows the U.S. government to better protect U.S. military forces abroad, disrupt malicious hackers targeting U.S. infrastructure like emergency medical services and transportation services, and thwart potential efforts by terrorist groups that may be plotting attacks on our homeland.
The bottom line is FISA is an indispensable national security tool.
We ought to support this bill to protect America and our citizens, and I urge its adoption.
Kevin Yields, gentlemen, gentlemen in reserve.
Kevin Markets are reserves, gentlemen from Connecticut is required to be here.
Eight minutes remaining.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, former Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Mr. Steny Hoyer.
Fourth Amendment Protections00:14:54
The former majority leader is recognized.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I was majority leader in 2008, Mr. Blunt, who was then in the leadership of the Republican Party, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, who co-chaired the Intel Committee in the United States Senate, and I worked together in a very difficult context.
And that context was the Bush administration had asked for information from the telecoms.
Telecoms had given them information, and there were really no firewalls as to what that information was.
And so the four of us worked with the Intelligence Committee of the House to come up with legislation which would solve the problem of making sure that we were secure as a country and that the privacy of our citizens were secure.
We think we accomplished that objective.
And in fact, the leadership in the Senate voted for it.
President Obama, then a member of the Senate, voted for it.
And Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Clyburn, and I voted for it, along with others.
The Republicans were overwhelmingly for it.
In September 2012, we did it again.
Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn voted for it.
We did it again in January of 2018.
And Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Ryan McCarthy, and Scalise all voted for it.
The point I want to make is this has been a bipartisan process with bipartisan presidential buy-in to the necessity to have this legislation adopted to keep Americans safe while also adopting significant reforms in 2008, some reforms thereafter, to provide for the privacy protections to the American people.
It is a balance, but it is a balance that I think we have achieved.
I think we ought to pass this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to do so.
Our FISA reauthorization bills are how Congress ensures that our nation is protected in the first instance against threats from terrorist groups and foreign adversaries.
Our intelligence services have the difficult task of catching threats before they materialize and of providing critical information to national security leaders.
As many here will remember, the attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred after our national security agencies failed to identify, track, and coordinate known threats.
25 years later, we have learned these lessons, and we continue to grapple with essential questions about how to balance the needs of our national security with protecting Americans' liberties.
That is an ongoing process, of course, and I know Democrats on the committee, led by Ranking Member Hines, were diligent in pushing for reforms to Section 702 that would make those protections stronger for Americans while still delivering the tools needed.
This bill does not include all of the reforms.
An additional 30 seconds.
But of course, none of the bills that we consider have all the things we'd like to have in them.
But in testimony from Mabel Hines, who headed up the DNI under the Obama administration, excuse me, under the Biden administration, she believes this is absolutely essential.
Other members of the Obama administration and the Biden administration believe this legislation is essential.
I believe this legislation is essential, and I urge my colleagues, having worked on this since 2008, to adopt this legislation and make America as safe as we possibly can.
I yield back.
Chairman Yields.
Thank you, sir.
I reserve.
Gentleman from Connecticut Reserves.
Gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I inquire to the time remaining.
Gentleman has eight minutes remaining.
Thank you.
I yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee and member of HIPSI, Mr. Hill from Arkansas.
Gentleman is recognized.
I thank the Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Himes, too, for their joint leadership in this important task that we have before us today.
Here on the eve of 25 years since September 11th, we come to this House floor to once again ensure that we have the tools in place to protect the homeland from foreign attacks.
Section 702 sets out these very specific boundaries and process where the United States government collects the electronic communications from foreign nationals outside the U.S.
It allows the U.S. to collect that intelligence on bad actors to prevent that reoccurrence of 9-11.
But there's a lot of misinformation about Section 702, Mr. Speaker.
First, it's used to surveil foreign nationals abroad.
It's not targeted at Americans.
Secondly, it's not warrantless surveillance.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of this program.
Warrant requirements are created under the Fourth Amendment.
They apply inside the United States.
This is not a program that operates within the boundaries of the United States.
It targets foreign nationals outside the United States.
This is so important, as demonstrated by Mr. Hoyer, that we have clear, active protections on how this program is used to target foreign nationals, but those protections to protect Americans' privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
This bill is that balance, as described by the gentleman from Connecticut and my colleague from Arkansas.
Mr. Speaker, let's put America's safety first.
Let's keep the homeland security paramount.
It's critical.
Let's support and pass S-1318.
I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.
I yield back.
General Yeats.
Gentlemen Reserves.
Gentlemen from Connecticut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to my good friend and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin.
The gentleman is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Himes.
Yes, it is foreign intelligence, which is why when it comes to U.S. persons, U.S. citizens, the Fourth Amendment has got to apply.
The gentleman from Maryland, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Hoyer, said the legislation is bipartisan.
I tell you what else was bipartisan.
In fact, unanimous.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Everybody got behind that.
We're assured that there's reporting, but it's self-reporting.
And the distinguished ranking member says that it's by non-political staff.
Yeah, the non-political staff left over after Kash Patel fired everybody at the FBI that they considered insufficiently loyal to MAGA and to Donald Trump and for those who worked on the January 6th case.
And then we're told, well, the courts still can get involved at some point.
Well, the courts are telling us right now that the FBI has been secretly breaking the law.
Last month, the Fisk Court found many of the government's 702 searches violated federal law.
We should be paying close attention to that as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Gentleman Reserves, gentlemen from Arkansas is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chair of the CIA Subcommittee on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for two minutes.
Gentleman is recognized.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, of all the debates that we've had on this House floor, I have yet to be so perplexed as I am with this one.
There is so much conflation going on between Title I traditional FISA and Title VII 702.
So much conflation over the collection of evidence versus the querying of already lawfully collected data.
And everybody in this chamber has been talking past each other for years on this issue.
The Fourth Amendment applies to the collection of evidence.
That has been the case from the very founding of our country.
And this so-called warrant requirement, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking for is a double warrant requirement.
A warrant requirement is on the collection of evidence.
They are seeking to attach a warrant requirement to the querying of already lawfully collected data.
That is a secondary warrant requirement.
First time in American history that we'd ever be doing such a thing.
That would shut down the law enforcement system.
You'd have to expand the federal judiciary by a factor of 100 to keep up with that work, and it would put us on pre-9-11 footing.
We cannot do that.
And by the way, after we passed RISA, 56 reforms, by the way, the two-year report card is in zero abuses.
Even though that is the case, we still went further in this bill before the House today and reaffirmed that the Fourth Amendment protections will always apply to 702 queries, in addition to all the other affords.
I cannot for the life of me understand what is left to object to this tool, because I can promise you that if we were having this debate a week after 9-11, there wouldn't be a single soul on this floor voting against this bill.
Let's not drop our guard just because we're several decades past, because we never, ever want to see that happen again.
I yield back.
Chairman Yields?
Reserve.
Gentlemen of Reserves, gentlemen from Connecticut.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to take just a minute here to address the question of the Fourth Amendment.
Every member in this chamber swears an oath to support the Constitution.
And it's important in this debate to remember that all of us care profoundly about the Fourth Amendment.
And I think it's wrong to suggest that the opposite is the case.
But I want to draw an analogy for people who may be watching.
In the law enforcement context, which is more familiar to most Americans than 702 is, a probable cause Fourth Amendment warrant is required.
You have to get from the judge a Fourth Amendment warrant to take, for example, a wiretap on somebody that you suspect of selling fentanyl.
So let's just imagine under my example that Bill Smith is suspected of selling fentanyl and the law enforcement goes in front of a judge and gets a warrant to wiretap Bill Smith.
Now if Bill Smith, as the police listen, is talking to his brother Joe Smith and Joe Smith says, I will help you sell that fentanyl, the police don't need another warrant on Joe Smith.
That has been incidentally collected and no court has ever held that Joe Smith's admission in incidental collection requires a Fourth Amendment for that to be used as evidence in court, which is the argument that the opponents of U.S. person queries are making.
So I'm not here to say that this is uncontroversial.
We have to be obsessed with the protection of Americans' data.
But let's not suggest that this is unconstitutional because it has had annual reviews by a federal court.
And you might have thought that in 18 years, if a federal court had thought that this was unconstitutional, they might not have certified.
And let us not say that this authority should be subject to a radically different standard than a typical law enforcement warrant would be.
Lastly, I want to make this point.
One of the reasons that we are hesitant to rush into a warrant is because many U.S. person queries are not done because we believe that an individual is complicit in a crime.
If we hear ISIS talking about Jim Himes, unlikely that I'm complicit in terrorism, quite likely that I may be a victim.
And the FBI and Jim Himes would like to know that if that is the case.
I reserve.
Gentlemen of Reserves.
Gentlemen.
I want to inquire as the balance of time.
Gentleman has five minutes remaining.
Thank you.
I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chair of the Oversight Committee on the House Permit Select Committee on Intelligence, Dr. Jackson.
For one minute.
The gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a unique and critical tool that enables our intelligence community to gather vital intelligence, protect our national security, and safeguard Americans from terrorist attacks.
No other foreign intelligence authority or any other means of collection can replace the speed and agility of Section 702.
If this authority expires, we will substantially degrade U.S. national security and our intelligence officers' ability to identify foreign threats in real time.
Last Congress, House Republicans delivered critical reforms, as we referred to, in Section 702, 56, in fact, and this bill builds on that progress by strengthening privacy protections for Americans while ensuring the tool precisely targets foreign persons and only foreign persons who possess a threat to the United States.
As President Trump, Chairman Dan Kane, Director Ratcliffe, and many other national security leaders, including Ranking Member Him, have stated, this three-year extension is essential to protect our homeland, our warfighters, and U.S. personnel stationed abroad, especially in today's volatile global threat environment.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill.
If we do not, we will get something from our colleagues in the Senate that will be far, far inferior.
And those that truly care about national security in this body on both sides of the aisle who may be contemplating a no vote will regret such a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for this bill.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Reserve.
General Reserves.
Mr. Regan Mag inquires to the balance of time.
Gentleman has one minute remaining.
I reserve.
Gentlemen of Reserves.
I'm pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Tinney, for one minute.
Gentlelady is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Chairman Crawford, for yielding.
I rise in support of S-1318, the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act.
This legislation will extend FISA Section 702 for another three years.
This law is an essential national security tool.
And if you don't need any more evidence, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, both of us who hail from New York, understand that FISA Section 702 is a vital tool that allows the U.S. to gather intelligence on dangerous foreign adversaries.
After speaking with our military leaders, President Trump recently commented, quote, not one said, even tacitly, that they can do without FISA Section 702.
President Trump also said about FISA Section 702 is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous success on the battlefield as we pursue this war in the Middle East.
I urge all colleagues to support our military, protect our national security, and vote yes on this critically important section.
Passing the Balanced Bill00:04:46
I yield back.
Gentlelady yields.
Reserve.
General Reserves.
Reserve.
Gentlemen from Connecticut Reserves.
I have no further speakers.
I'm prepared to close, but I'll reserve.
Reserve prepared to close.
I close Reserve.
The Chairman is recognized.
Okay.
Mr. Speaker, thank you and a thank you to the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee whose friendship and partnership I value.
This program is controversial for all the right reasons.
And what we're doing here is what we've been doing for almost 20 years, which is finding the balance between an authority that keeps not just us but the world safe and protecting the civil liberties of Americans whose information is incidentally collected, just as it is collected when there is a traditional police wiretap.
I wish we'd had a more fulsome process.
I wish I had been able to work with Ranking Member Raskin to have a more robust package of safeguards, particularly in the context of an administration that has demonstrated day in and day out their lawlessness.
But we are where we are, and it is a binary choice.
And allowing this authority to expire, which I think we are close to, is not an option.
So let's acknowledge to each other that this is not an unconstitutional authority, but that we have work to do to continue to protect the civil liberties of Americans and move forward passing this bill with an eye to what we can do in the coming years to make sure this is a better balanced authority.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Yields.
Gentlemen from Arkansas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the ranking member, my friend from Connecticut, for his comments.
FISA 702 is a critical foreign intelligence tool.
There's no other authority that can replicate the value, speed, and agility of this authority.
Two years ago, Congress enacted 56 reform measures focused on Section 702, U.S. person queries, and other FISA transparency and accountability measures.
These measures have forced meaningful change at the FBI.
The bill before us continues the 2024 reforms and includes additional privacy and civil liberty protections and transparency measures.
Before closing, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Jordan for working with me on this effort over the last several months.
The members of the House Intelligence Committee, many of whom have spoken today on behalf of this bill, for their oversight on Section 702 and other foreign intelligence authorities.
I want to thank the fantastic staff in the Office of House of Legislative Council, especially Philip Baer, Toby Dorsey, and Tony Shasha.
And I want to thank the Hipsey Majority staff, including Griffin Decker, Ryan Brightenbach, Jonas Schumet, Laura Kasuli, and Mandy Bowers.
And I want to thank the members who dedicated countless hours to the process of hammering this out, who attended the meetings, whose input we heard and whose input we value.
I thank them, and I urge a yes vote on S 1318.
Yield back the balance of time.
Jeremy Yields, all time for debate has expired pursuant to House Resolution 1224.
The previous question is ordered on the bill as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
Those in favor say no.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no?
The ayes have it.
Third reading.
An act to direct the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a program to identify American Jewish service members buried in United States military cemeteries overseas under markers that incorrectly represent their religion and heritage and for other purposes.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
Those in favor say aye.
Those opposed, no.
Any opinion of the chair?
The ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yays and nays.
The yeas and nays are requested.
Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
Pursuant to close 9 of Rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of S1318 will be followed by a five-minute vote on adoption of Senate concurrent resolution 33.
This is a 15-minute vote.
And here on the House floor, members beginning their second vote series of the day, a vote here on passage of a bill to extend the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
As things now stand, FISA authority is set to expire Thursday at midnight.
The House bill would look to extend that for another three years until 2029.
Economic Outlook and Risks00:03:45
While we're in this vote, we'll show today's announcement from the chair of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, on interest rates and the economic outlook.
Good afternoon.
My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefits, benefit of the American people.
The U.S. economy has been expanding at a solid pace.
While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months.
Inflation has moved up and is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices.
Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged.
We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment and 2% inflation goals.
Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook, and we will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate.
I'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments.
Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace.
Consumer spending has been resilient, and business-fixed investment has continued to expand at a brisk pace.
In contrast, activity in the housing sector has remained weak.
In the labor market, the unemployment rate was 4.3% in March and has changed little in recent months.
Job gains have remained low.
A good part of the slowing in the pace of the job growth over the past year reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation, though labor demand has clearly softened as well.
Other indicators, including job openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal wage growth, generally show little change in recent months.
Inflation has moved up recently and is elevated relative to our 2% longer-run goal.
Estimates based on the Consumer Price Index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12 months ending in March, boosted by the significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East.
Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in March.
This relatively high rate largely reflects the effects of tariffs on prices in the goods sector.
Near-term measures of inflation expectations have risen this year, likely because of the substantial rise in oil prices.
Most measures of longer-term expectations remain consistent with our 2% inflation goal.
Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people.
At today's meeting, the committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3.5% to 3.45%.
The economic outlook remains highly uncertain, and the conflict in the Middle East has added to this uncertainty.
In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation.
Beyond that, the scope and duration of potential effects on the economy remain unclear, as does the future course of the conflict itself.
We will continue to monitor the risks to both sides of our dual mandate.
We are well positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments to our policy rate based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.
Monetary policy is not on a preset course, and we will make our decisions on a meeting-by-meeting basis.
Serving the American People00:06:08
This is my last press conference as chair, and I will close with a few thoughts.
First, I want to congratulate Kevin Walsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning.
This is an important step forward, and I wish him well as that process continues.
The Federal Reserve exists for one fundamental purpose, to foster the economic conditions in which American families and businesses can thrive.
Stable prices, a strong job market, and a financial system they can depend on.
Every decision we make, whether about interest rates or regulatory and supervisory matters or other issues, is made in service of that purpose.
Our decisions reflect the collective judgment of the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, colleagues who demonstrate analytical rigor, principled judgment, and a genuine commitment to the public interest.
Our collaborative and deliberative process has long reflected a shared commitment to finding common ground in service to our mission.
This institution is resilient, capable, and staffed by professionals of extraordinary talent and exceptional dedication.
It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many great public servants at the Board of Governors and around the Federal Reserve System.
The Fed's work is only as effective as the public's understanding of it, and you, the press, are essential to keeping the public informed about what we do and why.
The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting.
I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation.
She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation.
Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there's a criminal referral from the Fed's Inspector General.
And, absent such a referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal, to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas.
I've said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that.
I'm encouraged by recent developments, and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully.
My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve.
After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined.
I plan to keep a low profile as a governor.
There is only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board.
When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair.
Once sworn in as board chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well.
As I regularly point out from this podium, our success in delivering our goals matters for all Americans.
I'm confident that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Appreciate the common words about the press.
Often doesn't come from the podium in different places, but I appreciate that.
Can you talk about what has gone into your decision to remain on the board?
What kind of criteria are you weighing, and how long might you stay?
Thank you.
Sure.
So, you know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed, which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors.
And I want to note here, this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials.
I've never suggested that such verbal criticism is a problem, and neither has anyone else here.
But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions.
I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors.
It is so important for our economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way, free of political influence.
It's part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have.
It's just one of the many reasons why the U.S. economy is the envy of the world.
That piece of institutional architecture separates successful countries from unsuccessful countries.
It is extremely important, not for the people who work at the Fed at any given time, but for the people that we serve, that the Fed remain able to conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled into politics trying to help or hurt any particular politician or political party.
It's critical for the people that we serve.
In terms of when I would leave, I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so.
Was that all your questions or was that?
Well, I just have a follow-up, which is what would you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board, you're actually taking a political action, denying President Trump the majority of the board, which as president he would have if you left?
I don't see that at all.
As I mentioned, I'm literally staying because of the actions that have been taken.
I had long planned to be retiring.
And the things that have happened really in the last three months have, I think, left me no choice but to stay until I see them through at least that long.
You know, in addition, I don't see how this will interfere.
My intention is not to interfere.
You know, I was a governor for almost six years, and the tradition is at the Fed that governors who understand how difficult the role of chair is, and as a soon-to-be former chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong-minded people.
You work with the chair.
You try to be heard, but also collaborate with the chair and try to support the chair when you can.
When you can't, you can't.
Inflation Outlook and Caution00:06:38
And I think that's the attitude that people generally take, and that's the attitude that I'll take.
Nick.
Chair Powell, if I could ask about the inflation outlook.
In March, you described the standard practice of looking through energy shocks as conditional on inflation expectations staying anchored.
Since that meeting, there has been very little progress reopening key energy trade corridors.
Can you help us understand how the inflation outlook has changed in the intermediate period, beginning with the prospects for tariff pass-through resolving on the timeline that you had outlined in March before getting to the energy shock that is now on top?
So, you know, I would look at it this way.
For a long time, we've been working on the hypothesis, really, that tariffs would lead to a one-time price increase and that that would go away over time.
In other words, that there would be no further change, so measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more.
And it's time for that to happen.
We really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters.
So we'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen.
That's kind of critical part of the forecast.
We need to really see that.
With energy, it's so hard to say.
I mentioned in sort of the textbook, you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be short-lived and they tend to revert.
And monetary policy works with long and variable lags, so you wouldn't necessarily react right away.
I think that is all the more true, given that we're several years above 2 percent inflation and that we're already looking through the tariff shock.
So I think we're going to be very cautious about that.
But the question about looking through energy really is not in front of us right now.
It hasn't even peaked yet.
And I think we'd want to see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about reducing rates.
So if I could follow up, the statement today preserves language that has taken on some meaning as it was socialized when the committee was actively lowering rates.
Why is that easing bias still Ripe given how different the inflation outlook is now versus a meeting or two ago, and what more would have to happen for it to get evicted?
So, that was, as you will recall, we had a discussion about that at the last meeting, and we talked about it in the press conference after the March meeting.
We had the same today.
We had quite a vigorous discussion about that very issue and the guidance, and is it still appropriate, and that kind of thing.
And I would say that the number of people on the committee who either could support that language change changing to a more neutral stance so that a hike is as likely as a cut, that number has increased over the intermediate period.
And it's easy to see why.
I mean, it's a good question, right?
You see, inflation has moved up over the interim a bit.
Core inflation is 3.2 now, moving, albeit just a little bit, in the wrong direction.
And we know that there will be, you know, that there's headline inflation coming out of the Gulf, and we don't know how much that will be.
We just, we're going to need to see.
So, it makes all the sense in the world that people would look at that and we'd have a vigorous discussion about that.
You saw that three people dissented over the language.
I think all of those people agreed with the rate decision.
So, the majority of the committee did not want to do that, and I didn't think we needed to do it at this meeting.
It really was just a question of why do we need to do that now?
You know, we have so much to learn.
There's so much uncertainty about the path ahead.
There doesn't need to be any rush to make that decision now because what happens in the next 30, 60 days, even by the next meeting, could really change the picture around that language.
So, it's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March.
And that makes all the sense in the world, it seems to me.
Claire.
Claire Jones, Financial Times.
Just going back to this issue of the easing bias, we've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark.
Brent crude, if it stays around those levels six weeks from now, what would be your best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement?
Thank you.
I wouldn't want to guess.
Well, first of all, we're going to have new leadership in all likelihood by then, and new leadership is going to have a very important role to play in that.
So, I won't be standing here at this podium to answer your question.
So, I don't know.
As I mentioned, that's all I can really say: is that we had a great discussion about that today.
It's gotten to be a better question than the interim period.
We had the discussion, a majority are still on the page of not feeling the need to move to that level, and that's where I am.
I get it, though.
At a certain point, you would move, and that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting.
Thank you.
Just to follow up: the new leadership also seemed rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the dot plots.
What would your advice to him be on these communication tools?
So, I'm not going to give him any advice through you today here, but I think communications generally is, I think every incoming chair takes a look at communications, and it's a very healthy thing.
I mean, communications is very complex, and you can always be looking at new things.
And if that happens, feels like it's going to happen, that's a completely appropriate thing.
Neil.
Hi, Chair Powell, Neil, Ordinan with Axios.
Can you tell us if you've been in touch with incoming Chairman Warshaw?
To what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around something unusual?
And what can we expect when he takes that podium in a few weeks ago?
I haven't seen him since seeing him at a dinner in January where I congratulated him and had a nice chat with him.
Haven't seen him.
I don't know what a normal process is.
The last process was with Janet Yellen, with whom I had worked for six years.
And so it was, you know, we were sitting down the hall from each other, so it was a very different thing.
I think this is and will be a very normal, standard kind of a kind of a transition process.
So that's what I expect.
I have every reason to think it will be.
Transitioning Fed Leadership00:14:39
Quick follow-up: Is the Supreme Court ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when you may leave as a governor?
I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no, not really.
I mean, I'm thinking more of the other things I mentioned.
Chris.
Hi, thanks for taking our question.
I wanted to ask a question about your tenure, and Chris Rugaber at Associated Press.
During your tenure as chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment.
And the new framework the Fed adopted in 2020, some economists say, elevated the Fed's employment mandate.
Are you worried that the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market?
And should they be?
I don't know the answer to that.
I mean, so what we experienced in the teens, the mid-teens, was really low levels of unemployment for a long period of time and no reaction from inflation.
And we all very much took notice of that.
We also noticed that the biggest wage gains were going to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum.
And we had many, many reports of, I mean, it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium, and a lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum, including companies were setting up people who were confined and training them before they got out.
And it was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics.
So, of course, I think anybody would love to get back to that.
I don't think that anything that happened to create the global pandemic inflation was in any way related to overweighting the employment market.
I mean, it was a global shock that happened essentially, very, very similarly all over the world.
It had to do with closing, reopening, stimulus, and all that.
And I mean, you could look at a graph of 10 big economies on the page and not know which was the U.S. and which was Germany, France, and things like that.
So I don't think that that insight was in any way responsible for the high inflation that we experienced.
So, I mean, I think it's always been a balance.
You've got to be strong on both of our dual mandates.
And for example, now we don't feel that the labor market is at all a source of inflation, so we don't need to be worrying about that.
It's been a long time since we have had to worry about that.
Well, actually, during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight, and that's when we had To worry about it, but not now.
Just on the other issue, do you need more assurance from the Justice Department before stepping down?
Is that what you're waiting for?
Or what else?
I'm waiting for you.
For the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency.
And I'm waiting for that, and I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so.
Michael McKee.
Michael McKee from Blueberry Television and Radio.
I'd like to ask you if you could explain a little more or characterize a little more the discussion about the two-sided view and interest rates, because there were some members of the Open Market Committee who have been suggesting that we may need to raise interest rates even absent the war because inflation was not coming down fast enough.
Is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up or was this just a setup to sort of warn people that you're worried about the war impacts?
So nobody, the three dissenters and others who could have supported that and others who were voters and non-voters who preferred it, they all supported the right decision, right?
So people are not saying we need to hike now.
It's more a question of don't we kind of feel that we should be neutral and markets or markets, what are markets doing?
People argue that this is consistent with markets are doing.
And again, it's a very fair question, but these changes, it's a form of forward guidance, and you want to make them in a way that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back fairly quickly.
So I think we just, a group of us, including me, didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that, that markets are not confused about our reaction function.
We don't have a problem to solve on that.
But the other side of the argument is a good argument, too, as I mentioned.
It's a perfectly good argument to be having, good discussion to be having.
And it came out the way it came out.
Well, you've got three dissents in favor of two-sided warning.
You've got yourself staying on the board.
You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials.
And you've got a lot of critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow 2021 with inflation.
Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this?
Is that one reason that you want to stay on?
Not driving my thinking now.
I mean, monetary policy is going to get made by, you know, 19 people.
There's a lot of stability there.
I mean, if you think about it, every new Fed chair has the same situation, which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC, 11 of them vote during any year, and you have to, your job is to create consensus.
It's to talk to them, understand them, be inside their thinking, and be able to pull them together and get consensus and move.
And that's what every Fed chair has to do.
And I think Kevin Warsh is actually quite well.
He has the capabilities, skills to be very good at that, I would think.
So I think I'm not so worried about that process.
I think that'll work itself out.
Howard.
Thank you, Chair Howard Schneider with Reuters.
You mentioned that staying on as a governor, you intend to keep a low profile.
I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can, And particularly around the policy discussion, how you're able to have your intervention and not be a shadow chair, not have kind of an outsized influence over the process.
Yeah, you know, that's just something I would never do.
You know, the shadow chair thing.
I don't know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I'm going back to being a governor.
I respect the role of chair.
I was a chair, I was a governor for six years, and I know what that's like.
And I had a pretty front row seat with, particularly with Chair Yellen, to whom I was close when I worked with Chairman Bernanke for two years, but I was brand new at that time.
So I got a sense of what it was, and I had real sympathy for how hard it is to get that group to consensus.
And I always felt like I don't want to add to that unnecessarily.
And that means try to support the chairs where the chair, the direction the chair wants to go, and if you can.
If you can't, you can't.
And I think that's the way it's always worked there, because the chair only has one vote, plus the ability to develop consensus.
And if people won't be, you know, if they're not flexible at all, then how do you ever do that?
And so that's why the chair has, the authority the chair has really is to develop relationships with people and work with them and then and then put something forward that has consensus.
And I, you know, I propose I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process, really out of respect for the office of the chair.
And in your view as a soon-to-be governor, how do you see the risks of oil prices bleeding into core inflation in coming weeks?
Because that was, it seems like the commentary that was coming from particularly some of the Reserve Bank presidents, there were elevated concerns about the bleed into core.
And here we are with three dissents now.
What do you see as the prospect of a core inflation?
You know, those prospects are real.
Remember, though, they're real.
And the real thing is we're going to have to wait and see.
We're going to need to see.
And the good news is we think our policy stance is in a very good place for us to wait and see.
We're right kind of at the high end of neutral or perhaps mildly restrictive.
The labor market shows more and more signs of stability, whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving.
And so maybe a little bit of restriction or the high end of neutral is just the right place to be.
So we can wait here and see how things work out before we act.
And we'll see how much that, you know, how much does come through into core.
You see it already in airfares, of course, but you may see it in many other places.
You know, we just don't know yet.
And it's so unknowable because how long will the strait be closed?
You can develop any number of scenarios that you want, but we really won't know until we know.
So fortunately, we're in a good place to wait and let things develop.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
You started holding post-meeting press conferences for every meeting as opposed to the ones with just with SEPs.
Can you talk about why you see that as a net positive?
So we always said when we were doing quarterly press conferences, we always said we can move at any meeting, but we only ever moved at the quarterly SEP meetings where we had the press conference.
So if you think about it, during the pandemic, we were moving a lot at every meeting and sometimes between meetings.
And doing that without a press conference, I think would have been quite challenging.
It's become the industry norm.
It's the standard.
I don't know whether that has to remain that way.
I don't know.
I mean, it's just something people have become used to.
And I do think it's quite helpful to, you know, to, I mean, I try to deliver a message on behalf of the committee rather than 18 people, 18 other people going out and delivering their message.
And it's going to be all over the place because we do, thankfully, have widely disparate views.
Okay, thanks.
The other thing I wanted to ask about was the communications review from last year.
Could you describe the debate last year, what changes were considered, what you wanted, and what prevented action, any action on those changes?
So I'm not going to go into the real small specifics, but what we found very quickly was that making changes, making really large changes, for example, to the dot plot or the SEP, we couldn't come up with anything that had really broad support on the committee, and so we just moved on.
We didn't really do as much on that as we might have.
And I was never the world's biggest fan of the dot plot, but you can't beat something with nothing.
And we've looked at a bunch of things.
And it's something, like I said, I think every new chair is going to look at our suite of communications and think about what would be changes.
We are the only major central bank that doesn't publish a forecast.
And that's because we have a 19-person committee.
And you try to do that at the board, at the committee, that's hard.
It's hard if you do it at the staff.
So it works.
I think our communications are fine.
But looking at doing it in a different and better way is the most natural thing in the world.
Thank you.
Colby Smith of the New York Times.
If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes, are we right to assume that the hawkish outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause in rate cuts?
And to what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy really isn't just restrictive at all right now?
The economy is holding up relatively well despite this major energy shock.
The unemployment rate has ticked lower.
Inflation was moving sideways even before the war and is now moving higher.
So where is the committee at on that debate?
You know, where we're at is really we think our policy rate is in a good place.
If we need to hike, we will certainly signal that and we will certainly do it.
If we need to cut, then if it's appropriate to cut, then we'll signal the opposite.
I think because we feel like we're in a good place to move in either direction, nobody's calling for a hike right now.
So it really is going to depend on how things evolve.
That's really where it is.
As I mentioned, much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance, but ultimately we didn't.
And as it relates to the war, at what point do you think the risk to growth will be larger than the risk to inflation as this conflict drags on?
You know, you just have to find that out empirically.
You know, given the fact that we're a big exporter of energy and that our economy is far less energy intensive, oil intensive than it was during the 70s, the effects on the United States are really substantially less than those of Western Europe or Asia.
We're feeling much greater effects from these things.
The effects we're feeling in the current situation currently and in sort of what's priced in, which is a relatively quick outcome.
If this goes on for much longer and prices go much higher, then we'll feel that much more.
And of course, I'm talking about aggregate inflation numbers.
We know, we're very well aware that people are experiencing higher gas prices all over the country now, and that hurts.
And those hikes may continue to happen.
And other things are going to start to reflect airline fares I've mentioned and other products and services that are dependent upon petroleum and derivatives of petroleum.
People are going to start to feel that.
Edwards.
Neutral Rate and Inflation00:02:36
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Edward Lawrence with Fox Business.
So I guess I'll just ask you directly on this.
The markets don't see a rate cut at all this year, is what they're predicting.
Do you think that we are at the neutral rate?
Why or why not?
You know, the neutral rate is a, we cannot know it with certainty.
I think pretty close to the neutral rate.
Yeah, I always had it, you know, between 3 and 4%.
We're a little north of 3.5%.
So that's well in the range of what I would consider a reasonable, but at the higher end of the range of what I would consider reasonable neutral rate.
You know, I think the labor market is still probably cooling off just a little bit.
And I don't think there's much of a case for any case really for policy looking, you know.
On this vote, the yays are 235, the nays are 191.
The bill is passed.
Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 33, on which the yays and nays are ordered.
The clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 33.
Concurrent Resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
And this is the second and last vote in this round here in the House.
The measure would fund immigration and customs enforcement and customs and border protection.
The legislation would provide for the agency's operations for about the next three and a half years until the end of President Trump's term.
The Department of Homeland Security is still in a shutdown, now in its 75th day, over disputes dealing with the way the Trump administration has carried out immigration enforcement.
Following these votes, the House will debate the farm bill and amendments with a third round of votes scheduled for 9 p.m. Eastern Time tonight.
While we wait for the results of this vote, we'll show more from outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who announced earlier today interest rates would remain unchanged.
Now for five, six years.
Thank you so much, Chair Powell.
Fed Independence Under Pressure00:06:50
Selena Wayne with ABC News.
Are you confident that Kevin Morsch will stand up to political pressure from President Trump?
So he testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I'll take him at his word.
And when it comes to gas, right now it's over $4 a gallon.
Inflation just hit a two-year high.
Should Americans expect to be paying higher gas prices for the rest of this year?
And in your view, does that take a rate cut off of the table?
And secondly, by staying on as Fed governor, what message do you think you're sending to the president?
I don't know what gas prices are going to do for the rest of the year.
And it will depend on how long the straight remains closed and how quickly it can be reopened and that kind of thing.
But remember, when gas prices go up, that's disposable income coming out of people's pockets.
So they're going to spend less on other things.
So there will be a hit to GDP.
So it's a question whether spending goes down to offset the inflationary effects.
So the answer isn't obvious ex ante whether you should move your rate because of that.
We'll have to see how it evolves.
And the message it says President Trump by staying on.
I'll stand on what I said earlier.
Victoria.
Hi, Victoria Aguida with Politico.
During your tenure, Fed independence has come under pressure in a lot of different ways.
And I was just wondering, practically speaking, where do you see Fed independence as coming from?
Is it the law?
Is it political support from Congress?
Is it the actions of the Fed?
What sustains Fed independence?
Well, it's, to a significant extent, it is the law.
And, you know, we've had to go to court successfully so far to defend it.
But the law does create a setting in which the Fed can and is directed to make monetary policy without consideration of political factors.
And so part of it is the law.
But it goes beyond that, though.
There's a set of customs.
There's a boundary line between the Fed and the administration, between the Fed and the Treasury Department.
And we need to respect those, continue to respect those boundaries about what the Fed is responsible for and what the Treasury is responsible for and what the rest of the administration is responsible for.
So some of it is legal.
In fact, it's all legal at the end of the day, but it's more than just monetary policy.
We don't want to use our tools to, we haven't wanted to use our tools to achieve goals that are really clearly outside our mandate.
Every administration looks at our tools and thinks it would be good to repurpose those to serve other purposes, but that's dragging us into politics and into fiscal policy.
So we've resisted that.
Well, and maybe another way of asking it, too, is do you think that Fed independence is as strong now as when you became chair?
And if so, why?
Look, I think it's at risk.
I mean, I think these legal assaults, if you will, as I mentioned, the institution is being battered over these things.
We're having to resort to the courts to enforce our legal, but it's not so much independence.
It's really the ability to make monetary policy without political considerations.
That's what we're talking about.
And we've had to do that, and we've been successful so far, but that's not over.
None of that has concluded yet.
And it's really important.
It's not about people who work at the Fed or the institutions.
It's about the benefits of a central bank that makes decisions based on analysis and our best thinking rather than trying to help or hurt politicians.
There's a bright line between central banks who do one and do the other, and successful countries have uniformly, successful advanced economy countries have a really strong set of protections around their central bank just for that reason.
So that's what it's all about.
I think I am confident, as I said in my remarks, that the Fed will continue to make its decision based on analysis, rigorous analysis, and not on political considerations.
But we've had to fight for it.
And I'd like to think we can get out of that era and go back to respecting what the law says and what custom has been, which is to let the Fed do our thing.
It's an institution full of human beings who work super hard to get things right for the benefit of the public.
We're all human, don't expect for perfection, but do expect us to make decisions without political considerations and the very best analysis we can bring.
Katerina.
Katerina Saraiva, Bloomberg News.
How would you characterize what you've heard from your colleagues on your decision to stay?
Do you have their support?
And then have you heard concern from your colleagues about continued legal attacks from the executive branch?
Is this something that others have talked to you about?
So I think that I didn't want to report on what my colleagues think.
They could speak for themselves.
But yeah, there are widespread concerns that these things may continue.
That's all I'll say.
And that would be a problem.
And then I just also wanted to ask about Governor Waller's speech on the reserve banks.
Do you have any thoughts on centralizing some of those functions in the way he described?
And then are you concerned that something like that could potentially be a slippery slope to consolidate reserve bank functions even more in such a way where the central bank ultimately loses some of that important regional information?
So we try to be good stewards of the public's money and efficient.
And Chris in particular, Chris Waller, is particularly passionate about that.
Of course, so are the presidents.
And it's a question of how do you accomplish it.
We, of course, and Chris said this in his speech, we want 12 strong independent central banks with their own staffs and their own monetary policy views and all that.
But there are things that are done in all 12, which could well be done at one much more efficiently and with cost savings.
Why Fed Independence Matters00:13:27
And so there's a back and forth going on on that.
But everybody's on the same page.
The other thing he touched on was the idea of removing reserve bank presidents from office over different views on monetary policy.
And I would just agree with him so strongly that that would be the beginning of the end of the Fed's ability to make monetary policy independently.
If every administration could come in and do that, you're just another cabinet agency at that point.
So that's not something that I would support.
Chris said the same thing.
Christine.
Thanks, Chair Powell.
Christine Romans, NBC News.
I want to ask about legacy.
When the history books are written, how do you think your stewardship at the Fed will be remembered for the past eight years?
You know, I'm going to just say that that's for someone else to say.
I'll give you a mulligan on that.
All right.
I'm going to ask you about misbehaving inflation then.
You talked about those four big shocks, supply shocks over the past five years, and inflation is still misbehaving.
What's your message to American families who feel like inflation has not been under control for them really since the COVID reopening?
You know, we're committed to bringing inflation back down to 2 percent and sustainably.
That's our goal, and we'll stick at it until that happens.
We keep getting, these events keep happening, which keep driving up costs.
And, you know, the best thing we can do is to use our tools to guide inflation back down to 2 percent.
I think trying to get there really quickly could be very costly in terms of job loss and things like that, but we try to get there over time in a way that does the least damage possible.
And our commitment to that is never-ending and unshakable.
How would you describe the economy outside of the misbehaving inflation?
I mean, it's still awfully resilient given all of the blows.
I don't know that you can be awfully resilient.
So it's actually quite resilient, I would say, because it's a positive thing if I can have that amendment.
Yeah, growth is really solid across our economy.
Some of that is that consumer spending is hanging in pretty well.
The most recent data are good.
And some of it is just the apparently insatiable demand for data centers all over the United States.
So a lot of business investment going into building data centers and every reason to think that that continues.
So you've got an economy that's growing at 2% or better.
PDFP, which is private domestic final purchases, which is really a better signal of momentum in the economy, is actually higher than that.
So that's a positive thing.
If you look at the unemployment rates, 4.3%.
So that's a low rate.
That's pretty close to mainstream estimates of the natural rate.
We've been there for a long time.
So it doesn't feel like a good labor market to some who don't have jobs because quits are really low, hires are really low, and there's effectively no new net job creation.
So that's, you know, in a sense, the labor market is in balance, but it's an unusual and uncomfortable kind of a balance where people who don't have jobs will have a hard time breaking in unless somebody quits their job.
So that's pretty good.
You know, inflation is the thing we need to work on, and it's partly tariffs, which we think that that inflation should subside over the course of this year because it's kind of a one-time increase.
It shouldn't be repeated.
And that should start happening pretty soon.
The energy inflation that we're getting should go through fairly quickly.
And we'll just have to see how that works out.
In the meantime, we think our policy stance is in a good place for us to hold and wait developments.
Jennifer.
Thank you, Chair Panel.
Jennifer Schoenberger with Yahoo Finance.
At the risk of beating the dead horse here, clearly three members objected to keeping that easing bias in the statement.
And you said that the majority still didn't need, still didn't need to move to new language at this point.
So does the majority of the committee still have a bias towards cuts at this point, or has the bias on the committee shifted away from cuts towards holding or hikes if that was needed?
So I think that the center is moving toward a more neutral place.
And that's sort of what markets are saying too.
I just think there's a lot of signaling going on when you change guidance like that.
And so we just, I guess a majority of us didn't feel like we needed to send a signal on that right now.
But maybe it'll come to that.
And the reason is because we're kind of waiting to see what happens with events in the Middle East and what are the implications of those events for the U.S. economy.
So there's a group who feels like we don't need to be in a hurry to do that.
We get it.
And of course, we will move to a hiking bias if we want to hike and we'll move to a neutral bias before that.
But there was a difference over whether to do it at this meeting at a meeting at which all but one of us agreed that the rate decision was correct, which was not to move.
And you just said moments ago that you believe Fed independence is at risk.
Is it safe to say that you want to stay on as a governor to serve as a check and balance on that?
I want to stay until I will stay until I feel it's appropriate for me to leave.
And yes, that is really what is driving this.
I'm not looking to be a high-profile dissident or anything like that.
I'm more looking at the other aspects of this and wanting to see that things have calmed down and we're returning to a traditional model of working with the people that you have and bringing them to consensus and respecting that consensus.
That's what I'm hoping to see.
Matt.
Egan.
Thanks, Chair Powell.
Matt, Egan with CNN.
You've made many tough decisions in your time at the Fed.
And as your time as chair comes to a close and you think about your tenure and perhaps your legacy, are there any decisions that stand out as ones that you're particularly proud of?
And are there any that with the benefit of hindsight you would take a mulligan on?
Yeah, it's hard.
I wouldn't want to single out individual things at this point.
I'll just say all of us together have consistently tried to do what we think is best for the American people based on our tools and our objectives that Congress has given us.
It's been very challenging because we've been in a situation of supply shock, supply shocks really for six years.
And that's just a very different situation than for a very long time.
What the Fed and other central banks were doing all the time was demand management.
And there was always the inflation mandate, but inflation was low for 25 years.
So this is a very different world and a much more challenging one where you have to balance the two objectives.
And by the way, central banks that have an inflation mandate have to do exactly the same thing because they're balancing economic activity.
So that's been challenging.
And we've tried to do our very best through these really challenging times.
And I'm really proud of the work that I've done, that my colleagues and I have done during these years.
To follow up on some of the discussion around Fed independence, can you explain to the public why this notion of Fed independence, which might sound kind of wonky to some, is so critical?
I mean, what are the consequences if either the Supreme Court rules against Lisa Cook or the Fed in the future decides to make decisions more around the political calendar instead of the economic data?
So every major advanced economy in the world has made the same decision the United States has made, and that is that they want to take the making of monetary policy, the setting of interest rates to support the economy to achieve maximum employment and price stability.
They want to take that out of the direct control of elected politicians.
And the reason is elected politicians are always running for election, and they'll always want low rates, and that will lead to inflation over time.
So after literally centuries of experience with that, the whole world moved to the different model.
And it's worked great.
I mean, this is the era in which inflation was under control for 40 years.
Then we had the pandemic inflation everywhere in the world.
And now we have inflation that had gone pretty much all the way back to target, really close to all the way back to target, and now is being buffeted by the energy shock and the U.S. buffeted by the tariff shock as well.
But what I would say to the general public is, that's the backstory, is that don't think about an institution being independent.
Think about it this way, that you want people to make monetary policy and set interest rates to benefit the general public and to try to achieve economic goals, which are maximum employment and price stability, and focus only on that and ignore political considerations completely.
Ignore them.
This isn't bipartisan.
This is nonpartisan.
So we want to just work directly for the American people doing these things.
We don't think, oh, I want to do this because the President says it's a good idea or because there's an election coming up and I want to speed up or slow down the economy.
I mean, think about that.
If that's what we were doing, we'd have no credibility.
Markets would lose faith in us, and our ability to control inflation and have any respect would be gone.
And let me say, whatever people say, the markets believe that we will produce 2% inflation.
If you look at longer-run expectations, markets believe that there's no sense in which our credibility in the markets has weakened.
It's just not the case.
People do get it, that this is our commitment and that we will achieve it, and it's priced in.
If you disagree with that, then you can go ahead and bet against the markets.
But the markets are pricing in Fed credibility.
Okay, we'll go to Richard for the last time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Powell.
Richard Escobito with CBS News.
We talked a lot about gasoline prices and even you mentioned airline ticket prices, both of which are up dramatically because of the war in Iran.
And so I wonder, are you seeing that way down consumer spending in other parts of the economy?
And if so, how worried are you that that will be a drag on growth?
You don't see it in spending yet.
You really don't.
I mean, as one of your colleagues said, the economy has been resilient.
It really has.
Not just this time, but it's been remarkably resilient for some years now.
The U.S. economy has just powered through shock after shock, and consumers are still spending.
And that's what the banks will tell you, credit card companies will tell you, the retail sales numbers that we got most recently.
People are still spending.
And, you know, how long can that go on in a world where if gas prices were to go up a bunch more, that's taking otherwise spendable money out of people's pockets.
But right now, we don't actually see much slowdown yet, and certainly none from this.
But you think logically you will because people have a certain amount of money to spend.
If they're spending 25% more on gas or something like that, then that's going to come out of other spending.
But again, we don't see it yet.
One last thing.
You mentioned those economies in Southeast Asia that are particularly dependent on petroleum.
They make a lot of the stuff that American consumers buy.
So was there any discussion today about whether or not those costs getting passed along to consumers is a real concern and whether or not that might push up inflation?
So all of those things are in the models that we use to calculate inflation.
So they're just parts.
You can ask about anything like that, and they have a place, the staff has a place where they're looking at that and pricing in what will happen with higher prices and that kind of thing.
So it's there.
The effects are not that big yet.
We're a huge economy.
The import sector is only 10% of the economy.
So we're not like a European country where 50% of the external of GEP is in the external sector.
We're also, as I mentioned, we're an oil exporter, so we're not feeling the same kind of pain, and we're not likely to feel the same kind of pain that economies in Western Europe and certainly in Asia are feeling.
Anyway, thank you very much, everyone.
I won't see you next time.
And the vote continues on the Senate passed measure to fund ICE and border protection, noting on the count that Independent Kevin Kiley of California is the present vote there on your screen, and Ohio Republican Warren Davidson the no vote on this GOP budget resolution.
While the rest of the votes come in, we'll show today's announcement from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch on the Second Amendment.
ATF Regulatory Reform00:07:09
He appeared with the Deputy Director of the ATF, Robert Sicada, who was confirmed as director by the Senate as the announcement was underway.
He'll be taking over from retiring director Daniel Driscoll.
While it would appear that we have impeccable timing, it's actually not true.
When we tried to predict what the Senate was going to do a couple weeks ago, we anticipated that Rob would be confirmed a couple days ago, which would have allowed us to actually have a commission signed and to swear Rob in today, which we're not able to do because, like I said, his vote was just, he was literally just confirmed two minutes ago.
So once again, I don't know what's happening in Washington, which is fine.
A little bit about Rob, in case you don't know.
He began his law enforcement career with the New York City Police Department in 1992, starting in the Housing Bureau in Harlem.
He moved around.
He was promoted to detective in the Organized Crime Bureau's gang division.
Later continued his public service with the City of Plantation Police Department in Broward County, Florida, serving in patrol operations on the SWAT team.
And then in 2005, so over 20 years ago, Rob joined ATF as a special agent in the Baltimore Field Division, where he was assigned to the Regional Area Gang Enforcement Task Force combating transnational organized crime.
He later served as a special agent in the Tampa Field Division, investigating violent crimes involving firearms and explosives and continuing working his way up through the ATF ranks over the two decades.
Eventually, he was promoted to SES at ATF and he was a special agent in charge of the Baltimore Field Division, where he oversaw operations across Maryland and Delaware.
Subsequently, he was a special agent in charge in Miami, where he oversaw 21 offices throughout southern Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
After that, Rob returned to ATF headquarters as a deputy assistant director for field operations.
He was then promoted again to executive assistant director of operations.
And then just over one year ago today, on April 10th, 2025, Rob was named the Deputy Director of ATF, a role that he has served in through today.
And right now, he's in that middle spot where he is the confirmed director of ATF, but commission not signed.
So I think still technically deputy director, but we're fine.
So look, so from patrol officer to federal agent to special agent in charge, Rob has committed his entire life to serving the public and protecting communities nationwide.
I know this personally.
He's a dedicated father to Robbie and Gianna, a husband to Leah.
He loves the fish, and he loves Florida.
So congratulations, Rob.
It's great.
I also want to take a moment to thank Secretary Dan Driscoll, who has been serving for over a year as the acting director of the ATF.
And he's also the Secretary of the Army, as most of you all know.
And that job is a full-time job.
But I can tell you from my role as the Deputy Attorney General, and I know I speak for Rob as well, that Dan was a committed supporter and leader at the ATF.
He has done everything within his power to do his job over the past year at the ATF and supported its mission, supported the 1811s that work keeping us safe every day.
And so a really big thanks to Secretary Driscoll for everything that he did over the past year.
And we're now happily able to tell him that within the next couple days, he'll be able to go back to just being the Secretary of the Army.
It is fitting, in my mind, that the first action Rob is going to take today in his new role is to sign the most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history of ATF.
I want to thank President Donald Trump for putting us on this path on January 20th of last year.
His leadership made this moment possible.
His executive order directing a full review of ATF regulations set the tone clear, direct, and focused on the Constitution.
And I want to thank him for his leadership.
It's been over a year, but we're ready to get it rolling.
I also want to thank ATF General Counsel Rob Leiter, who's here with us today as well.
He has poured his heart and soul into this rewrite, but also his brains.
I mean, he's a brilliant attorney.
He knows the Second Amendment better than probably most people in this country.
And he has worked tirelessly for over a year getting us to where we are today.
And so thank you, Rob, very much for your commitment to the rule of law and commitment to what we're doing today.
So what are we doing?
We're repealing rules that went beyond what the law allows.
We are cutting unnecessary red tape, and we are replacing confusion with clear, straightforward language so that everyday Americans don't need a law degree just to understand their rights.
And this did not happen in a vacuum.
We listened to industry leaders, many of whom are in this room behind me, to legal experts, and most importantly, to law-abiding gun owners across this country, people who follow the rules but have been forced to navigate a system that often didn't make sense.
The package that we're putting forward today and over the coming days reflects all of those voices.
It includes 34 proposed rules, more than ATF has issued in the last 15 years combined.
It reflects months of work since the beginning of this administration, and I want to be candid right now about why this is necessary.
For too long, regulations were written without any real understanding of how firearms businesses operate, how lawful gun owners actually handle their firearms, or what truly improves public safety.
Nothing we are doing today weakens law enforcement.