tv U.S. House of Representatives FISA Reauthorization Debate Intel CSPAN January 11, 2018 3:14pm-4:07pm EST
commercialization of that research to change people's lives. >> rick perry friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and with the free -span radio app. >> the house passed a bill today to re-authorize a foreign intelligence collection program but with some changes. it requires the f.b.i. to get a warrant to view the contents of americans' communications that get swept up in the surveillance process. the house approved what's known as section 702 that allows agencies to collect information on foreign targets abroad. here's the hour-long debate from this morning. d myself such consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 139. on january 19, the fisa amendments acts of 2008 will expire. this vital legislation includes section 702 which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence
information. section 702 is one of the most if not the most critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas. now, some claim 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. this assertion is simply false. 702 is a targeted program with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. given the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection. section 702 targets spies, terrorists, weapons proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten the united states and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and our homeland. was example, haji imman located via section 702 and
later removed from the battlefield. while the vast majority of examples remain classified, this is just one instance that demonstrates the necessity of this authority. subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government, section 702 is one of the government's most vigorously overseen foreign intelligence collection authorities. to date, while compliance incidents occur and are dealt with appropriately, there has never been a known intentional abuse of this authority. nevertheless, the program should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure the effectiveness of privacy protections. therefore, after careful consideration the best way to strengthen privacy protections without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee supports s. 139, a bipartisan bill that includes provisions and addresses concerns raised by the house judiciary committee and the senate. the bill's reforms include requiring specific section 702
quarry procedures, separate minimumization procedures which must be reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court every year. limiting the instance in which the government can use section 702 information to prosecute u.s. people, requiring the inspector general of the department of justice to conduct a review of the f.b.i.'s interpretation and implementation of f.b.i. ection 702 query procedures. temporarily codifying the end of the n.s.a. section 702 upstream abouts collection. until the government develops new procedures and briefs the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees. and finally, improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimumization procedures and acquiring additional reporting to congress on how the intelligence community is using other fisa authorities. during discussion over the past several months, both the house and senate have made several
concessions to achieve this compromised language in order to re-authorize this critical national security authority. accordingly, s. 139 now includes a probable cause base order requirement for the f.b.i. to access the content and section -- of section 702 communication during f.b.i. criminal investigations on americans unrelated to national security. this order requirement does not reflect the committee's belief or intent that the law access to lawfully required information constitutes a separate search under the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment, as interpreted by numerous federal courts, does not require the f.b.i. to obtain a separate order from the fisc to review lawfully required 702 information. though not required by the constitution, this compromise is meant to provide additional protections for u.s. person's information that is incidentally collected under section 702. along with the restrictions on
the use of section 702, information on criminal prosecutions, this should provide further assurances to the american public this vital national security tool is used strictly to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the united states and the handling u.s. f any incidental person's information is carefully controlled and monitored. mr. speaker, america faces an array of threats, more complicated than anything we have endured in the past. speaking as -- for the chairman of the house intelligence committee, i cannot emphasize enough that now is not the time to draw back on key national security authorities. i am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. when congress must re-authorize this program again in 2023, we hope those who debate these issues, both inside and outside this chamber, do so with
intellectual honesty and integrity. the u.s. rights act, which has been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute is an attempt to kill this compromise. in its place, the amendment would begin resurrecting the information sharing laws between national security and law enforcement that the 9/11 commission identified as a major factor in the failure to identify and thwart the 9/11 plot. if individuals in this body cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. . there is no support for this bill in the committee of jurisdiction whose members understand this amendment would render section 702 incomparable. therefore, in order to keep the u.s. interest and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. section 702 is critical in that regard. and s, 139 provides the intelligence community with the
authorities needed to protect the homeland while implementing key privacy enhancements. i thank the speaker. i urge passage of s 139. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> as the ranking member and former member of the judiciary committee, i have long advocated for surveillance authorities to balance the imperatives of national security and counterterrorism with the privacy rights and civil liberties of americans. mr. schiff: today the fisa amendment's re-authorization act seeks to re-authorize the program while making changes to privacy interests. none the less, mr. chairman, as i indicated before we took up the bill, in light of the significant concerns that have been raised by members of our caucus and in light of the
irresponsible and inherently contradictory messages coming out of the white house today, i would recommend that we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address the privacy questions that have been raised. as well as to get a clear statement from the administration about their position on the bill. i do this reluctantly. section 702 i think is among the most important of all of our surveillance programs. nonetheless, i think that the issues that have been raised will need more time to be resolved. and i think we need to get a clear statement from the administration of whether they are in support of this legislation or they are not. this morning, as my colleagues are aware, the president issued a statement via twitter suggesting that this authority was used illegally by the obama administration to surveil him. of course that is blatantly untrue, but nonetheless casts an over the debate
today. in light of these circumstances, i think the better course would be for us to defer consideration . give us more time to address the issues that have been raised by the privacy community, within my own caucus, but also within the administration about its inaccurate conflicting and confusing statements on the morning of debate. so with that i reluctantly urge my colleagues to postpone consideration so that we can take up this bill when it is more ripe for consideration. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: i'd like to turn my time over to chairman conaway from texas. the speaker pro tempore: is gentleman yielding the gentleman from texas to control the time? mr. stewart: yes.
five minutes, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from utah. while i'm not unappreciative of my colleague from california's comments, do i think we're at a place where we do need to move forward f we succumb to the emotions of what's going on around us and don't stick to the facts, stick to the -- what we're trying to get done, we do that to our detriment. i have great respect for my colleagues and his opinions. i believe that plays into the emotions what's going on rather than the facts of what's going on f we can just continue to push forward. going on if t -- we can just continue to push forward. let me say it preserves the operational flexibility of section 702 while instituting key reforms to further protect u.s. personal privacy. one of the major issues discussed over the past year has een the n.s.a.'s communication collection. a tortured title, but nevertheless we'll stick with the phrase abouts communication. abouts communications collection takes place at n.s.a.'s up stream collection and due to how the internet communications work allows n.s.a. to collect the
communication that is may reference a section 702 target email address. despite what some of my colleagues may push in their propaganda, abouts collection does not collect names of targets just selectors. some of my colleagues also suggest that abouts communication is inherently in violation of the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. while the fisa court has raised concerns about abouts communications, collections in the past, n.s.a. has been able to conduct such collection with the approval of the fisa court. this type of collection is at issue today because it was the subject to a compliance incident in 2016. n.s.a. self-reported a problem to the fisa court and decided to cease abouts communication collection until a fix could be implemented and demonstrated to the court. i would like to note that this type of self-reporting of compliance incidences is expected of the intelligence community elmeant and proves
oversight -- elements and proves oversight mechanisms are in place and works. would seek to permanently end abouts communication collection. this is shortsighted and a dangerous proposition that will limit the n.s.a.'s ability to identify threat networks in the future. rather than ending would seek ty end abouts communication collection. abouts communication collection, s. 139 strikes i believe that right balance. if n.s.a. wants to re-establish abouts collection, n.s.a. would first need to go back to court, convince the judge it was satisfied the court's concerns. after achieving judicial approval that n.s.a. has made the necessary technical changes, n.s.a. would then brief congressional intelligence and judicial committees how they plan to reinstitute this type of collection. barring correctional action, n.s.a. can start abouts communication collection 30 days after those briefings. some of our opponents to section s. 139 claim 30 days is not enough. to the folks who claim that 30 days is not enough, there is
nothing stopping congress from acting after that 30-day window. however, n.s.a. should not be penalized and america's security should not be compromised and prevented while obtaining valuable foreign intelligence information that the fisa court has deemed consistent with the fourth amendment just because congress can't pass legislation in 30 days. this compromise of the bill that's on the floor today i believe is the right answer. i hope my colleagues will support s. 139. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam secretary. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has pass s. 875 an act to require the comptroller general of the united states to conduct a study and submit a report on filing requirement under the programs service fund
in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i'd like to make mr. schiff aware we have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. programs in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, once again i would reluctantly urge that we withdraw consideration bill on o the floor today. i certainly -- bill on the floor today. i certainly have been working as hard as anyone to try to agree to a compromise that would move forward this very important surveillance authority, but would strike the right balance between our security interests and our privacy interests. but i do think we need more time to work on this bill. i think that was only underscored this morning with the contradictory statements coming out of the administration . an issue of this magnitude and
seriousness deserves serious consideration. i think we need more time to discuss this with our members. and would urge my colleagues not to bring this to a vote today. to give us more time to work on it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. some my colleagues believe congress should go above and beyond the fourth amendment and institute additional safeguards how the government handles any u.s. personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. while the varying committees may have different ideas how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and national security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction. under s. 139 if the bill conducts a u.s. person query into its database during a criminal investigation not related to national security, and conducts a section 702
communication, the f.b.i. must obtain an order from the fisa court prior to assessing the content of the communication. the committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the fourth amendment, but it is adding more protections as a matter of policy to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authority's being used to investigate u.s. people. proponents of the u.s. rights act amendment will say that sks 139 does not go -- s. 139 does not go far enough and craft add great compromise that allows the intelligence community to do its job. unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our national security. per the office of the director of national intelligence under u.s. rights act amendment, the f.b.i. would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9/11 hydrogeners. -- hijackers. this is unethical to the 9/11 commission report and anyone who thinks about voting for the u.s.
rights act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting. unlike the u.s. rights act amendment, s. 139 is able to balance national security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9/11 commission reporting. i echo the white house statement last night strongly opposing the u.s. rights act amendment and i urge all my colleagues in the house to support s. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 139. the fisa amendments re-authorization act. as a former united states attorney, i know firsthand the enormous value that programs like section 702 provide in protecting our country. the threats have been thwarted through our intelligence and loirment communities having tools like section 702. chairman goodlatte, along with members of the judiciary committee, worked diligently on legislation to implement
meaningful reforms while ensuring the law enforcement and against committees still had the necessary tools available. this bill includes many other reforms from the u.s.a. liberty act, enhances section 702 protections and maintains law enforcement's abilities. i would ask all members to join me in voting yes on this legislation. to implement real remorms while ensuring that we still provide the tools necessary to keep american citizens safe. and in conclusion, as a u.s. attorney, i have used this, my office used this section. we followed the law to the letter. there are no complaints. and i want the american people to realize something. mr. marino: we in law enforcement, law enforcement throughout the u.s., we have to be right and on spot every second of every day. a only takes a terrorist
moment to get lucky and set off a bomb to kill americans. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in strong opposition to the fisa amendments and re-authorization act of 2017. which re-authorizes section 702 fisa for six years without enacting adequate protection force our privacy. supporters of this measure want to convince us a new incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. it does not. our right to privacy does not begin when the department of justice fisa for six years with criminal case against us. nor has a fully does it begin w prosecutors interyou are our emails and text messages into evidence against us in court. the constitution guarantees far more than this. our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for
information it might find useful. s. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. we therefore cannot, we must not support this bill. make no mistake, s. 139 is not a compromise. the judiciary committee, the technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders were shut out of this conversation long ago. s. 139 does not include a meaningful warrant requirement. the rule in this bill does not apply to most searches of the section 702 database. it does not apply to a query for any information that, quote, could mitigate a threat, unquote, an exception that threatens to swallow the entire rule. as a result, s. 139 allows the f.b.i. unfettered access to this information for purely domestic, nonterrorism cases without a warrant. . and what does it mean in the era of jeff sessions and donald
trump? it means nothing for them troling the database for evidence that you use marijuana or fail to pay your taxes or may be in the country unlawfully or possess a firearm that you should not have. none of these cases have anything to do with the purpose of section 702, and all of them should require a warrant based on individualized suspicion and probable cause. i agree with chairman goodlatte that section 702 should be re-authorized. i understand its importance to the intelligence agencies but none of us should support this bill which pretends it reforms while codifying some of the worst practices of the intelligence community in domestic crimes. when we came to congress each of us took an oath to protect the constitution of the united states. i ask that each of our colleagues honor that oath today and we work together to defeat this bill and bring the right set of reforms to the floor without delay.
i thank the speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i now recognize my good friend, the gentleman from texas, judge poe, for -- if he goes over a little bit that's ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is . cognized for a minute plus mr. poe: i am a former prosecutor, former judge. i despies terrorists. we ought to go after them and get them. 702 was written to go after terrorists, but it's being used to go after americans. normally when -- when i was a judge, i'd sign a warrant before they could -- the government could go into your house, they had to have a warrant to go into the house and to seize something based on probable cause. under fisa, as it's used against americans -- forget the terrorists. used against americans, government has already seized your house of communications, all of it, and they look around and sometimes, sometimes they
go back to a secret judge in a secret court and get a secret warrant, fisa judge, and they come in and seize something and prosecute based on irrelevant about terrorism. that's why this bill violates the fourth amendment. get a warrant before you go into the house of communications and effects of papers -- and papers of americans or stay out of that house. these documents have been seized, communications have been seized by government. they are kept forever. keep government out without a warrant. you stay out because government, as we learned from the british, cannot be trusted. get a warrant, stay out of the house of communications. vote against this bill. let's redraft it and protect americans and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, like the ranking member, i oppose the bill. it does not meet the standards for adhering the constitution. it's a confusing debate because what are we talking about? we are all against terrorism and we've authorized the collection of data of terrorists communicating with each other. 702, if they communicate with somebody here, we can collect that too. but because of the architecture of the internet, we are collecting vast amounts -- we can't impinto the numbers here in open session -- vast amounts of data. it's not metadata. it's content. it's the content of your phone calls, content of your emails, content of your text messages, video messages, and under 702 you can search that for americans, for crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. we should change that.
as judge poe has said, you need a warrant to go after americans for a nonterrorism crime. you know, there's a reason why a left-right coalition, the naacp and freedom works, color of change and gun owners of america have come together on this same point of view. we should stand up for the privacy rights of americans and reject this bill and have a warrant requirement for searching for the information of americans that is in this vast database. and just one further point. the very weak predicate criminal information trigger for a warrant which is at the end of the investigation would apply only to the f.b.i. so if you are the a.t.f., you would never have to get a warrant. if you were the d.e.a., you would never have to get a
warrant. this bill is inadequate, ought to be defeated, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia seek to control the time of the gentleman from pennsylvania? mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to do so. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: as you all know, the judiciary committee worked diligently for a year on legislation that does two things. one, protect americans' civil liberties by requiring a court order to access section 702 data during domestic criminal investigations, and, two, re-authorize the 702 program which is our nation's most indispensible national security tool. we achieved this by passing the u.s.a. liberty act in the house judiciary committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote which is no easy task. however, we were able to responsely balance civil liberties with national -- responsibly balance civil liberties with national security. it is not perfect and the process getting here was not
ideal, but the bill requires for the first time a warrant to access 702 collected communications on u.s. persons in criminal investigations. moreover, in routine criminal cases, when the f.b.i. accesses u.s. person's communications that were incidentally collected without first obtaining a warrant, the f.b.i. will not be permitted to use those communications in a criminal prosecution. this will prevent a national security tool from advancing run-of-the-mill criminal prosecutions. these are meaningful reforms. the bill that was presented to us before christmas with its optional warrant construct was not real reform. the bill we are debating today, however, contains meaningful reforms. i would have preferred to include additional reforms but i cannot stress to my colleagues enough that our choice cannot be between a perfect reform bill and expiration of this program. the 702 program is far too important for that. with this bill we can have meaningful reform and
re-authorization. in its current form, this bill will pass the senate. i also want to caution everyone that we cannot go too far in seeking to alter this program. there is an amendment that will be offered sponsored by mr. amash and ms. lofgren that would prevent the f.b.i. from ever querying its 702 database using a u.s. person term. imagine the f.b.i. getting a tip from a flinet instructor by expressing great interest in learning how to take off and fly a plane but has no interest in learning how to land the plane. this could be innocent behavior but we want law enforcement to at least be able to perform a search to see if they already have in their possession any communications between the student and a foreign actor involved in organizing terrorist plots. the judiciary committee passed a bill would have allowed a search and allowed law enforcement to view the metadata without a warrant while requiring a warrant to
review the content of the communications. the amash-lofgren amendment, which was rejected in the judiciary committee, goes too far and would prevent such a search from even being done. it would thus kill this critical program by preventing the f.b.i. from even looking at its own databases without a warrant. rendering it ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks and stifling its ability to gather necessary intelligence. it must not be adopted. i will vote to support this bill. i will oppose the amash-lofgren amendment, and i urge my colleagues to join me vote for reform and re-authorization. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the judiciary committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. i now yield -- i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute.
mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. supporters of this bill have called it reform. this is not reform. it's a massive expansion of the government's ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. if you need proof, look at the bill's section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some law enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. there is no one more important responsibility that we have than keeping the american people safe, but we have to do it in a way that's consistent with our values and our constitution. this bill undermines our values of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. i urge my colleagues to oppose s. 139 and to support the amash-lofgren amendment which allows intelligence agencies to
do their jobs without undermining our values as americans. we can do both things, mr. speaker. keep the american people safe and honor and respect our constitution which protects the privacy of all american citizens. i urge defeat of this bill and support the amendment. with that i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership in ensuring that a number of important reforms to section 702 of the foreign intelligence act were included in this legislation. i rise in support of this modified version of s. 139. while this does not go as far as -- towards reform as the u.s.a. liberty act did, which was passed out of the judiciary committee in november, the reforms that are included help to provide a more adequate balance between protecting our civil liberties and providing
the intelligence community and important national -- an important national tool for another six years before its expiration this friday. fisa section 702 is a critical tool used by the intelligence community to protect american citizens from foreign threats and has been successfully used numerous times to prevent terrorist plots. since we last re-authorized this, much has changed, not only in who our foreign threats are but also in the methods that they use against this. the bottom line is we need to protect the safety of the american people. we need to make sure constitutional protections are in place, and this is a proper balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me repeat the refrain of those of us who are members of the judiciary committee who have gone through this process since 9/11.
and that is that we support the integrity and the importance of 702 as a national security tool and we want it re-authorized but we want it right. our job and our task is also the protectors of the fourth amendment. and that is the protection of the american people against unreasonable search and seizure. no matter how much my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, we know that the f.b.i. can have the tools that it needs, but in the instance of this underlying bill, similar to the bill that was passed in 2007 by the bush administration which the judiciary committee came back and amended it and made it a bill that provides the tools that was needed by those who are on the front lines in the united states military and the f.b.i. but ultimately it was changed to deny those rights. in this instance, the warrant that my friends are talking about is revised onlyly to fully predicated -- only to fully predicated cases, not to
searching of documents that has information about americans. i ask my colleagues to postpone this. let us work together on behalf of the american people and who are we if we cannot uphold the constitution? it is not protected in this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the judiciary committee and chairman of the crime subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. . sensenbrenner: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill and i will speak later on some of the other parts. iant to talk about the about stuff that is re-authorized in this bill after the n.s.a. itself stopped doing it earlier last year. what about collectio means is that, for example, if you have two jihadists that e in pakistan and are communicating with each other, that they didn't like something th mr. nadler said against jihadists,
the f.b.i. can pick up the name nadler and go into all of his emails, all of his texts, all of the informatio thathey have on him and be ableo see what mr. nadler is -- had said about jihadists and much, much more and that's why this bill opens the door to something that the n.s.a. has csed itself. . we have heard reports that congress has had a chance to review it. th give us 30 days to do t we can't get anything done 30 days. vote no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york i recognized. mr. nadler: i now yield5 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. lou. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. speaker. having served oactive duty in the united states military when
it comes to foreign terrorists on foreign soil, we nd to track them down and bill them. that's why i support the fisa act as applied to foreigners. but unfortunately this act has now been used to apply to americans. and if you're going to do that, you need to follow the constitution. you need to put in a warrant requirement. fortunately the new fisa bill does not do that. that's why i support the u.s.a. rights amendment. at the end of the day this is not about terrorists or terrorism. it's about can you use information against americans in a domestic court. that's what this issue is about. don't let the intelligence agency scare you. vote no on the nunes bill, yes on the u.s.a. rights amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman information against mericans in a domestic mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes. the gentleman from yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. new york has 2-s 1/4 minutes.
mr. goodlatte: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. is entleman from new york recognized. mr. is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. our times are this, the president the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is abusing his authority, he's stacking the courts with incompetent and ideological judges. he is usurping the powers of the justice department, the f.b.i. he's turning them into political animals. and at the time that he's doing this, we're considering this legislation which leaves the door wide open for the abuse of fourth amendment rights of americans. this is a bad bill for a particularly bad time. i'm asking my colleagues to vote no. we can do better than this. i'm asking my colleagues to vote in favor of the u.s.a. rights amendment. if that amendment is not passed,
then i ask my members to vote no on this overall bill. recant afford to let this happen. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte a: i yield myself one minute to say in response to those who advocate for the amash-lofgren amendment. that this amendment will very, very seriously damage our national security because 702, a program for which there is no evidence of abuse, used to gather information about nonunited states citizens outside the united states in a targeted fashion, they have to go to the court and get approval for the selectors to gather information on a quarterly basis. they gather information, incidental to that sometimes there is information about united states citizens. guess what? the information does not come with little labors attached saying this is a united states
citizen communicating here or the communication involves somebody in the united states. i will not yield. and therefore it is absolutely vitally important that we not impair the most important intelligence -- electronic intelligence gathering mechanism that the united states has to keep us safe and oppose the amash amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. i now yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. miss -- ms. jayapal: i rise in strong opposition to this bill that does nothing to stop the inconstitutional collection of americans international communications without first obtaining a warrant and codifies the practice of indiscriminately sweeping up massive amounts of communications. what makes us different from those who would harm us is our commitment to our constitutional values. we're innocent until proven guilty. our government must object tape a warrant and show probable cause there is a legitimate
reason to listen in on our conversations. this bill will further expose people to warrantless prosecutions or detention and deportation in case that is have absolutely no connection whatsoever to national security. i hope we reject this bill unless we approve the lofgren-amash amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have only one speaker remaining. i therefore reserve. stoip the gentleman resves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. saker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi, california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, very much, mr. speaker. how proud i am of the house of representatives that we have come together on the floor of the house and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge
that we all face. the balance that we have to protect the american people, that's the oath we take, to protect and defend, and as we defend the constitution, defend the privacy, and the civil liberties of the american people. it'sdy. many years ago -- it's difficult. many years ago, over 20, i went on to the intelligence committee for the purpose of protecting civil liberties and privacy. also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. two really importantverarching issues. so i come to the oor today as one who has worked on this issue for a verlong time. and i want to thank our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do. we're so proud of what they do. in those days, when i went thest 25 years ago first on
committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence the committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would the committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would have -- the intelligence to protect our forces. it was about force protection. in the 90's it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well. but we live in a dangerous world. and force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligen community does. again, i thank the men and won in the intelligence community for their patriotism and courage. the issue that relates to fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. but as we protect and defend the american people and the constitution and their rights, e have to have that balance. benjamin franklisaid if we don't fight for secuty and freedom, we won't have either. i want to particularly thank our
ranking member on the intelligence committee. he has made us all proud going across the countr honoring our constitution. talking about undermining our election system. talking about protecting the american people in ways that is consistent with our constitution. i thank you, mr. schiff. i support you today in your suort of the bill that came your committee. is it perfect? i never voted for a perfect bill in this house. i also want to thank your commi that relate to our constitution. and the members of the judiciary committee. on intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. with a the respect in the
world for the magnificent members of the judiciary committee, all of whom i respect, it's not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the american people. in fact, when i was supporting the judiciary committee bil the outside groups were complaning. they wanted the zo lofgren endment. they didn't want that bill. they were complaining abt it. today they are saying that's what they want. issue, one ying the of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what i'm hearing from folks about. pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our democratic caucus, which seeks to secure the highest possible
otections for american civil liberties. at the same time, it ensures that the intelligence community and law enforcement can continue to keep americans safe. this amenent would go a step further from the modified bill thas on the floor under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant bere asessing americans' information. accessing americans' information. t me repeat that. the amendment will go a step further than the modified bill under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing americans' informatn. under this amendmt the court order would be requid to access americans' data in conneio with any nonnational security crimil investigation by the f.b.i. this amendment moves pdicate, that's the operational word, removes predicate standards and expands the univee of
investigations that would requi a warrant. a vote for this andmenti hope it would be bipartisan, especiay fr those objecting to the bill on the floor, is a vote for privacy protections and civil liberties. we would have preferred to have this in the original bill that's coming to the floor. couldn't get that in committ. hopefully we can get it on the floor. voting against the motion to recommit is a vote tt means fewer protections, less oversightandore ri tn erans' rights will be violated. in the course of th i mentioned that this issue about the warrantnd the rest. i want to take the opportunity toommend the speaker for ridding -- told you about the judiciaryill. at the offset of all this th first intelligence bill, we all opposed. supported the judiciary bipartisan bill. that was there. being criticized by some outside groups for supporting that rather than e lofgren
amendment. but changes were maden the intellgence bill to this effect. we asked the speaker to take out the masking provisionswhich had no placein this bill. the chairman of the intelligee committee, mr. nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. it made it a complete nonstarter. thank you, mr. speaker, for removing it. by theay, somedy should tell the president because he thinks it's still in thebill. with that being said i personally directed to fix the rocess.ng p it isn't fixed in the bill, mr. president. that would be a secontweet of the day. confusing matters even worse. unfortunately. becau the administration, although theyrobablely would lie an extenson of the stus quo, understands we haveo do more than that. the otr provision that was in
the bill was an expansion of agentsf forei governments. agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. weaid that doesn't fly. that haso be closed. the speaker did that. and then on the out language, hink mt people who understand that issue -- it's a compcated sue. understand that it's really not a factor in is discussion. people don't want it mentioned. but e facts that it had to be addressed. and it is t being used. it's unconstitutional. an until it can be proven to be costitutional,e can't -- they can't be used. when it isused, they have to go to the fisa court and get permissionnd come to congress foratification of that. there a manyrotections ther so it is -- it's hard. i know. it's hard. i had a hard time when wa speaker and we passed a billo
addrs the gss violations of chinee, vice president cheane-- cheney. chiee, vice president cheaney we put in many protections where there were none. then renewed and improvethem when we renewed the bill subsequently in its re-authorization. we putn so this isn't about the other side of thaisle you don't care about pracy if you support this bill. it isn't abouthat. it's about where you strikehe balance. when y wgh the equities. and we have to come down in favor of honoring the constitution and our civil liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. .
i believe that mr. nadler understands that full well and i commend him for that ep understanding of the vital natiol security issues and the invaluable worthat your comttee has done to stre a balance between securitand privacynd has made a difference. but the choice we have today to pass something -- defea this bill. ok. do that if you want to do th won't go dment that anyplace. you cano that. and we will be left withn extension of the status quoof the current law. one whoarticipat in writing it iderstd its merits. i undetand chans in technology, of tactics, of the terrorists who are out there d we have to impro the bill. i don't consider it a reform bl. it's not thatast.
t's some improvements in h , keep ect, otect e american people safe as well as protect their sifrl liberties. -- civil liberties. since this legislation was designed to dress concerns related to the use of formation collected under fisa, section 702,n important foreign intelligence collection authority, we ha to keep that emphasis oan importt foreig ielligence authority. so my colleagues, to that end, this modification requir a court oer based on probable caus for f.b.i. criminal inveigators to ew americans' communications in the database and mandates an inspector general study of 702 data. even we go forward, it e on, contains refined language about
collectn, requires the exutive branch to require explicit approval from the fisa courfor collecti. it further subjects collection to the 30-day congressional review process. i know seenbrenner id nobody can do anything 3 days, but ihink we can. and the bill strengthens the privacy and civil liberties oversit board. that'something i was strumental in establiing when i w on e intelligence committee. i know it importance but i als knoit h to be stngthened and it s to be respected as a watchdo so, i mean, t list goes on. reqring public reporting on the use of 702 data. just saying to the inteigence communy, don't tr to minimize any violations tt ay have occurred. want the fas, we the truth. and that's why i am excited it expanded histblower protections briefings t