[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6985-H6988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      JUDICIAL REDRESS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1428) to extend Privacy Act remedies to citizens of 
certified states, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1428

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Judicial Redress Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PRIVACY ACT REMEDIES TO CITIZENS OF 
                   DESIGNATED COUNTRIES.

       (a) Civil Action; Civil Remedies.--With respect to covered 
     records, a covered person may bring a civil action against an 
     agency and obtain civil remedies, in the same manner, to the 
     same extent, and subject to the same limitations, including 
     exemptions and exceptions, as an individual may bring and 
     obtain with respect to records under--
       (1) section 552a(g)(1)(D) of title 5, United States Code, 
     but only with respect to disclosures intentionally or 
     willfully made in violation of section 552a(b) of such title; 
     and
       (2) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 552a(g)(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code, but such an action may only be 
     brought against a designated Federal agency or component.
       (b) Exclusive Remedies.--The remedies set forth in 
     subsection (a) are the exclusive remedies available to a 
     covered person under this section.
       (c) Application of the Privacy Act With Respect to a 
     Covered Person.--For purposes of a civil action described in 
     subsection (a), a covered person shall have the same rights, 
     and be subject to the same limitations, including exemptions 
     and exceptions, as an individual has and is subject to under 
     section 552a of title 5, United States Code, when pursuing 
     the civil remedies described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Designation of Covered Country.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, designate a 
     foreign country or regional economic integration 
     organization, or member country of such organization, as a 
     ``covered country'' for purposes of this section if--
       (A) the country or regional economic integration 
     organization, or member country of such organization, has 
     entered into an agreement with the United States that 
     provides for appropriate privacy protections for information 
     shared for the purpose of preventing, investigating, 
     detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses; or
       (B) the Attorney General has determined that the country or 
     regional economic integration organization, or member country 
     of such organization, has effectively shared information with 
     the United States for the purpose of preventing, 
     investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses 
     and has appropriate privacy protections for such shared 
     information.
       (2) Removal of designation.--The Attorney General may, with 
     the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, revoke 
     the designation of a foreign country or regional economic 
     integration organization, or member country of such 
     organization, as a ``covered country'' if the Attorney 
     General determines that such designated ``covered country''--
       (A) is not complying with the agreement described under 
     paragraph (1)(A);
       (B) no longer meets the requirements for designation under 
     paragraph (1)(B); or
       (C) impedes the transfer of information (for purposes of 
     reporting or preventing unlawful activity) to the United 
     States by a private entity or person.
       (e) Designation of Designated Federal Agency or 
     Component.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall determine 
     whether an agency or component thereof is a ``designated 
     Federal agency or component'' for purposes of this section. 
     The Attorney General shall not designate any agency or 
     component thereof other than the Department of Justice or a 
     component of the Department of Justice without the 
     concurrence of the head of the relevant agency, or of the 
     agency to which the component belongs.
       (2) Requirements for designation.--The Attorney General may 
     determine that an agency or component of an agency is a 
     ``designated Federal agency or component'' for purposes of 
     this section, if--
       (A) the Attorney General determines that information 
     exchanged by such agency with a covered country is within the 
     scope of an agreement referred to in subsection (d)(1)(A); or
       (B) with respect to a country or regional economic 
     integration organization, or member country of such 
     organization, that has been designated as a ``covered 
     country'' under subsection (d)(1)(B), the Attorney General 
     determines that designating such agency or component thereof 
     is in the law enforcement interests of the United States.
       (f) Federal Register Requirement; Nonreviewable 
     Determination.--The Attorney General shall publish each 
     determination made under subsections (d) and (e). Such 
     determination shall not be subject to judicial or 
     administrative review.
       (g) Jurisdiction.--The United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over 
     any claim arising under this section.
       (h) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code.

[[Page H6986]]

       (2) Covered country.--The term ``covered country'' means a 
     country or regional economic integration organization, or 
     member country of such organization, designated in accordance 
     with subsection (d).
       (3) Covered person.--The term ``covered person'' means a 
     natural person (other than an individual) who is a citizen of 
     a covered country.
       (4) Covered record.--The term ``covered record'' has the 
     same meaning for a covered person as a record has for an 
     individual under section 552a of title 5, United States Code, 
     once the covered record is transferred--
       (A) by a public authority of, or private entity within, a 
     country or regional economic organization, or member country 
     of such organization, which at the time the record is 
     transferred is a covered country; and
       (B) to a designated Federal agency or component for 
     purposes of preventing, investigating, detecting, or 
     prosecuting criminal offenses.
       (5) Designated federal agency or component.--The term 
     ``designated Federal agency or component'' means a Federal 
     agency or component of an agency designated in accordance 
     with subsection (e).
       (6) Individual.--The term ``individual'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 552a(a)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (i) Preservation of Privileges.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to waive any applicable privilege or 
     require the disclosure of classified information. Upon an 
     agency's request, the district court shall review in camera 
     and ex parte any submission by the agency in connection with 
     this subsection.
       (j) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1428 currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ranking 
Member Conyers for introducing this important bipartisan legislation to 
extend privacy protections and help ensure that the flow of law 
enforcement information between the European Union and the United 
States continues unimpeded.
  In recent years, several broad and highly publicized leaks of 
classified U.S. intelligence information have eroded the global 
public's trust in the United States Government and our technology 
sector. As a result, both the Federal Government and U.S. businesses 
that operate overseas are facing growing challenges from proposals to 
limit the international flow of data.
  Our allies in Europe, in particular, are concerned that the European 
public will no longer support law enforcement cooperation with U.S. 
authorities if we do not enact legislation to restore their public's 
trust in U.S. privacy protections.
  Moreover, American businesses across all sectors face negative 
commercial consequences abroad as a result of the climate that has been 
created by the unauthorized disclosure of classified data.
  H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act, can go a long way toward 
restoring our allies' faith in U.S. data privacy protections and 
helping facilitate agreements such as the Data Privacy and Protection 
Agreement that enhance international cooperation.
  According to the Department of Justice, the Judicial Redress Act is 
critical to reestablishing a trusting relationship between the European 
Union and the United States, to ensuring continued strong law 
enforcement cooperation between the United States and Europe, and to 
preserving the ability of American companies to do business 
internationally.
  The Judicial Redress Act accomplishes this by granting citizens of 
designated foreign countries a limited number of civil remedies against 
the Federal Government, similar to those already provided U.S. citizens 
and lawful permanent residents under the Privacy Act.
  This legislation is narrowly tailored in that it only applies with 
respect to information obtained through international law enforcement 
channels. Any lawsuit brought pursuant to this bill is subject to the 
same terms and restrictions that apply to U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents under the Privacy Act.
  If this legislation is enacted, citizens of designated foreign 
governments will be able to sue the United States in Federal District 
Court with respect to intentional and willful public disclosures of law 
enforcement information by the Federal Government that injure those 
citizens.
  Additionally, for information that is not subject to an exemption 
under the Privacy Act, covered foreign citizens will be able to seek 
redress for failures by the Federal Government to grant access to 
records or to amend incorrect records. American citizens are already 
afforded these types of judicial redress rights in many foreign 
countries.
  Although these may be limited civil remedies against the United 
States Government, they will provide European citizens with the core 
benefits of the Privacy Act and, in doing so, will greatly help to 
restore the public trust necessary for the continued success of our law 
enforcement cooperation with Europe.
  The bill will also facilitate adoption of the Data Privacy and 
Protection Agreement and promote a healthy environment for U.S. 
companies that do business overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 1428, the 
     Judicial Redress Act of 2015. As you know, the Committee on 
     the Judiciary received an original referral and the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary referral when 
     the bill was introduced on March 18, 2015. I recognize and 
     appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the 
     House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and 
     accordingly, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     will forego action on the bill.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1428 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I 
     request your support for the appointment of conferees from 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any 
     House-Senate conference convened on this or related 
     legislation.
       Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, as well as in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our 
     understanding.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.
     Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1428, the ``Judicial Redress Act of 2015.'' As you 
     noted, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was 
     granted an additional referral on the bill.
       I am most appreciative of your decision to forego formal 
     action on H.R. 1428 so that it may proceed expeditiously to 
     the House floor. I acknowledge that although you waived 
     formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on the 
     Oversight and Government Reform is in no way waiving its 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those 
     provisions of the bill that fall within your Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment 
     of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate 
     conference involving this legislation.
       I will include a copy of our letters in the Committee's 
     report on H.R. 1428 and in the Congressional Record during 
     floor consideration of H.R. 1428.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us today is good for national 
security, good for privacy, and good for business. It is unquestionably 
the right thing to do for our Nation's closest allies.
  Under current law, United States citizens are entitled to access and 
request a correction to personal records

[[Page H6987]]

held by a Federal agency. If the agency denies access or fails to make 
a requested change or otherwise violates their privacy rights, then we 
may seek redress in Federal court.
  Under current law, these rights are conveyed only to United States 
citizens and not to the citizens of our closest allies, even though 
many European countries offer our citizens similar rights overseas, 
probably somewhat like the Europeans give our folks moneys when they 
record a song and play it over there, but we don't. We should have that 
same reciprocity and fairness.
  H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act, will extend these core privacy 
protections to the citizens of certain foreign countries, those 
designated by the Attorney General as trusted allies. This small change 
to our laws will afford immediate benefits both at home and abroad.
  This act will facilitate information-sharing partnerships with law 
enforcement agencies across the globe. We know from experience that 
open lines of communication with our allies yield intelligence and save 
lives.
  The act will enable the U.S. and the European Union to complete an 
umbrella agreement to govern information sharing across the Atlantic 
for law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes. This agreement, 
which would include significant protections for individual privacy, 
would not go into effect until we have made these changes.
  Earlier this year a coalition of companies, trade associations, and 
civil rights organizations wrote to the leadership of both parties to 
outline the economic cost of ``a significant erosion of global public 
trust in both the U.S. Government and the U.S. technology sector.'' 
Their fears appear to have been well founded.
  Earlier this month, citing concerns about insufficient privacy 
safeguards in the United States, the European Court of Justice 
effectively suspended the safe harbor agreement that allows companies 
to move digital information across the Atlantic.
  Although there is far more work to be done to restore the agreement, 
I hope that our allies will take this legislation as a sign of good 
faith and recognize that a basic right to privacy extends beyond our 
borders and we will work to restore the public trust necessary for the 
continued success of U.S. industry overseas.
  The Judicial Redress Act is supported by the White House, the 
Department of Justice, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. It 
has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, Information Technology 
Industry Council, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and IBM, among others.
  At base, this bill is a measure of basic fairness. Our friends abroad 
should have some course of redress with respect to information that 
they provided to the U.S. Government in the first place.
  We all benefit when the information we share is accurate. Our 
partners in trade and security should have the ability to seek recourse 
when it is not.
  I thank Representative Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this 
issue, for his leadership on many issues, including sentencing reform, 
for his extreme knowledge of the world, and for sharing it with me on 
occasion. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for those same talents and 
achievements.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and the chief sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, strong international relationships 
abroad are critical to the safety and advancement of the United States. 
That is why I was pleased to introduce the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 
with Ranking Member John Conyers and to speak in favor of it today.
  For many years, the United States and the European Union have worked 
together to secure data protection for their citizens under agreements 
known as safe harbor. Earlier this month, however, the European Court 
of Justice issued a landmark ruling invalidating the agreement because 
of privacy concerns.
  The European court's ruling illustrates how fragile trust between 
nations can be. It is easily lost and hard to rebuild. Moreover, this 
lack of trust has had huge economic and security consequences for the 
United States. Our businesses have struggled against public backlash 
and protectionist policies, and our government has faced increasingly 
difficult negotiations to share law enforcement and intelligence data.
  The Judicial Redress Act of 2015 is central to our efforts to rebuild 
strained relationships with our allies and to ensure privacy and 
security for both American and European Union citizens. The sudden 
termination of the safe harbor framework strikes a blow to U.S. 
businesses by complicating commercial data flows. If we fail to pass 
the Judicial Redress Act, we risk similar disruption to the sharing of 
law enforcement information.
  In many ways, the Judicial Redress Act is a privacy bill. It is 
backed and supported by many of our country's top privacy advocates. 
But make no mistake. The bill is crucial to U.S. law enforcement. At 
the heart of the Judicial Redress Act is the pressing need for the 
continued sharing of law enforcement data across the Atlantic.
  In our complex digital world, privacy and security are not competing 
values. They are weaved together inseparably, and today's policymakers 
must craft legal frameworks that support both.
  This bill provides our allies with limited remedies relative to the 
data they share with the United States, similar to those American 
citizens enjoy under the Privacy Act. It is a way to support our 
foreign allies and to ensure the continued sharing of law enforcement 
data.

  Specifically, the bill will give citizens of covered countries the 
ability to correct flawed information in their record and access U.S. 
courts if the U.S. Government unlawfully discloses their personal 
information.
  As United States citizens, we already enjoy similar protections in 
Europe. Granting these rights to our closest allies and their citizens 
will be a positive step forward in restoring our international 
reputation and rebuilding trust.
  In fact, our European colleagues have noted that the passage of the 
Judicial Redress Act is critical to negotiating a new agreement, 
central to their willingness to continue sharing law enforcement data 
with the United States and necessary to improving relations between 
nations.
  If we fail to pass this bill, we will undermine several important 
international agreements, further harm our businesses operating in 
Europe, and severely limit sharing of law enforcement information.
  The Judicial Redress Act currently enjoys broad support and has been 
endorsed by the Department of Justice as well as the Chamber of 
Commerce and numerous U.S. businesses.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives John Conyers, 
Randy Forbes, and Glenn Thompson, for cosponsoring this legislation, as 
well as Senators Orrin Hatch and Christopher Murphy for their work on 
companion legislation in the Senate.
  The Judicial Redress Act amounts to a small courtesy that will pay 
huge diplomatic and economic dividends. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this important bill and my colleagues in the Senate to take it up 
without delay.
  Let's put the President's infamous pen to good use by signing this 
legislation.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I will perfunctorily reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, to 
come over here and discuss H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act. Echoing 
a lot that has been said already, this is a great starting point for, 
really, a broader conversation about privacy rights and a conversation 
that is sorely needed.
  I supported this bill when it passed the Committee on the Judiciary 
unanimously, and I am proud to support it today. The bill extends the 
same rights afforded to Americans under the 1974 Privacy Act to 
citizens of certain allied nations. Importantly, only citizens

[[Page H6988]]

of countries who extend similar rights to Americans for redress for 
privacy violations are eligible.
  As everyone here is aware, revelations about U.S. surveillance 
operations created serious trust issues, and both the government and 
tech sectors experienced a decline in that global trust. Advances in 
technology and innovation have made it possible and necessary for law 
enforcement to exchange information, but it should not be done at the 
expense of privacy rights.
  In order to restore global trust and ensure continued competitiveness 
for our thriving tech industry, we must work to restore consumers' 
faith that their data is secure in U.S. tech companies and their 
privacy rights are protected.

                              {time}  1615

  The United States tech industry employed an estimated 6.5 million 
people in 2014 and made up a large 7.1 percent of the U.S. GDP, which 
is going to do nothing but grow.
  The free flow of transnational data is critical for the continued 
success of this industry that contributes in such a major way to our 
economy. We have to show our allies that they can be confident sharing 
data across the oceans and the various barriers.
  The Judicial Redress Act is a step toward regaining trust and 
rebuilding cooperation with our allies, ensuring that U.S. businesses 
can continue to grow and thrive internationally. H.R. 1428 is 
particularly important because the U.S. and the EU have negotiated the 
Data Protection and Privacy Agreement for the last 2 years.
  During the negotiations over the agreement, the EU Parliament and EU 
Commission made clear that the Safe Harbor Agreement would not be 
finalized absent U.S. enactment of a law to enable EU citizens to sue 
the U.S. Government for major privacy violations. With the European 
Court of Justice Ruling on the Safe Harbor Agreement, it is more 
important than ever that we create solutions that work for today's 
ever-changing tech industry, from the small companies to the household 
names. It is also critical that we work with our allies to create a 
clear standard for governing the privacy of personal information to 
ensure strong and cooperative exchanges between law enforcement.
  Laws and agreements written before many of today's innovations even 
existed are due for an update, and this bill is an important first step 
that I am proud to support. I am thankful that the chairman has brought 
it forward for this body to put its stamp on and send to the Senate so 
that it will be taken up and then sent to the President so that we will 
continue to move forward in the protection of privacy rights for all 
Americans and our companies.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being part of this bill, and 
thank you for your efforts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I again reiterate, this bill is a good 
bill. It is a very important bill that will help promote law 
enforcement cooperation around the globe and will help U.S. companies 
that do business overseas to be able to better obtain the respect and 
trust of foreign governments and foreign citizens, so I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1428.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________