    [Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
    [House]
    [Pages H103-H112]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 139, RAPID DNA ACT OF 2017

      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 682 and ask for its immediate
    consideration.
      The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 682

           Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
         in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 139) to
         implement the use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform
         decisions about pretrial release or detention and their
         conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other
         crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA analysis
         backlogs, and for other purposes. All points of order against
         consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the
         nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
         Committee Print 115-53 shall be considered as adopted. The
         bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
         order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
         The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
         bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
         final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
         of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by
         the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
         Committee on Intelligence and 20 minutes equally divided and
         controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
         Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed
         in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
         resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
         report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
         point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
         separately debatable for the time specified in the report
         equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
         opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
         of the question; and (3) one motion to commit with or without
         instructions.

      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
    1 hour.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
    I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
    Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
    During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
    purpose of debate only.

                                 General Leave

      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
    Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
    to include extraneous material on House Resolution 682, currently under
    consideration.

    [[Page H104]]

      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
    gentleman from Georgia?
      There was no objection.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
    this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
    consideration of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act.
      The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally
    divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the House
    Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 20 minutes equally
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the
    Judiciary Committee.
      The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.
      Additionally, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by Mr.
    Amash, representing ideas from Members of both sides of the aisle.
      Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from numerous
    members, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes and Ranking
    Member Schiff. We also heard from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
    Nadler, Congressman Farenthold, Congressman Amash, Congresswoman
    Lofgren, and also Congressman Poe.
      In addition to the vigorous debate on this legislation before the
    Rules Committee, both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence
    Committee held markups on legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
      Today we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of
    legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen
    protections of Americans' privacy.
      Mr. Speaker, I publicly thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Nunes
    for their important work on this legislation. As a result of their
    efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the
    privacy rights of individual Americans without hindering the
    intelligence community's ability to gain valuable intelligence about
    the schemes and identities of our enemies.
      Our government's most fundamental responsibilities are to defend the
    American people from harm and to protect their liberties. The value
    that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are
    enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution.
      To provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the
    intelligence community work tirelessly to defeat the efforts of our
    foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign
    states, or nuclear proliferators.
      Our Constitution tasks each branch of government--legislative,
    executive, and judicial--with constantly working to protect the liberty
    of every American.
      With the bill provided for by this rule, the Chamber will be
    considering legislation that will help us better achieve both. The FISA
    Amendments Reauthorization Act will extend the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act, or FISA, Title VII for 6 years while increasing
    oversight of its implementation at every level and providing more
    robust privacy protections for Americans.
      Section 702 of FISA has proven to be an invaluable tool for
    collecting foreign intelligence and providing insight into the plans
    and intentions of our enemies. It is one of the National Security
    Administration's most important operational authorities.
      It permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign
    persons located outside the United States, with the compelled
    assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire
    foreign intelligence information.
      Mr. Speaker, this program's importance to national security cannot be
    overstated. While many of the examples of its successes are classified
    in nature, I can tell you here today that it has helped protect the
    homeland and the American people.
      One declassified example that I can share with Members concerns the
    story of Hajji Iman, who rose through the ranks of ISIS, eventually
    becoming the terrorist organization's second in command.
      For more than 2 years, the intelligence community searched for Iman.
    During that period, the NSA used their section 702 programs to target
    his communications and his close associates. Their resourcefulness,
    together with these 702 resources, eventually led them to him.
      Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was a terrorist. He was a murderer. Mr.
    Speaker, Mr. Iman was killed by U.S. special forces on March 24, 2016,
    during an attempt to apprehend him.
      We may not see every victory that the 702 program delivers on behalf
    of innocent Americans, but these initiatives help protect Americans
    every day.
      Let us pause to note, however, that with the broad authority granted
    by a program like 702 to collect foreign intelligence information to
    fight our foreign enemies, it must come with expansive safeguards
    against abuse of that authority and expansive oversight of its use.
      To ensure that the authorities under section 702 do not come into
    conflict with the liberty and privacy interests of the American people,
    the FISA Amendments Act expands substantially on the already extensive
    safeguard.
      Mr. Speaker, as I have said, each branch of government is responsible
    for protecting the liberties of the American people. In the executive
    branch, there are extensive internal controls that require agency heads
    and the Attorney General to review and approve of actions under 702.
    Additionally, the inspector general for the intelligence community and
    the Department of Justice are tasked with comprehensive review of this
    program's implementation.

      Mandatory internal procedures known as targeting and minimization
    procedures also govern the collection, use, and dissemination of
    information, and they are in place at each agency that uses FISA
    section 702.
      The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act expands upon the internal
    protections by requiring each agency to also adopt querying procedures
    to control how each agency searches its database for 702-acquired
    communications.
      This brings me to the judicial branch. Under current law, the
    targeting and minimization procedures must be approved annually by the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, of FISC, which is made up of a
    rotating group of Article III judges.
      The FISC, with the aid of amicus curiae briefs and technical experts,
    engages in exhaustive review and consideration of section 702's
    implementation for compliance with the Constitution and the law.
      This legislation will enhance the FISC's considerations of privacy
    issues by providing the FISC with the authority to compensate amicus
    briefs and technical experts.
      Finally, there is Congress, where we come to. The Committee on the
    Judiciary and the Committee on Intelligence have conducted multiple
    oversight hearings and meetings in both classified and unclassified
    settings. Numerous insights came from those hearings, and the
    legislation that will be considered under today's rule reflects them
    well. The bill makes a number of improvements that will enhance the
    congressional oversight in coming years.
      But, Mr. Speaker, it is time to remember one more group that remains
    critical to protecting Americans' liberties: American men and women
    themselves.
      This legislation will improve transparency and public oversight of
    FISA section 702 by requiring the Director of National Intelligence and
    the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review and publicly
    release the FISA section 702 minimization procedures every year.
      Mr. Speaker, the most important reform contained in this legislation
    constitutes the most substantial reform to the program since its
    inception.
      Under this legislation, the FBI will be required, when conducting a
    criminal investigation of a U.S. person, to obtain a warrant from the
    FISC prior to accessing the content of the communications that were
    acquired using 702.
      Section 702 information is collected for the purpose of foreign
    intelligence operations, and this critical new requirement forecloses
    the possibility that FBI agents investigating Americans for traditional
    crimes would be able to use 702 information in such domestic
    investigations.
      In addition to the numerous safeguards currently in place and added
    by this legislation, Americans are guaranteed their right of privacy by
    the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    [[Page H105]]

      I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and the oath
    guides every action I take in this Chamber. The FISA Amendments
    Reauthorization Act ensures that the Fourth Amendment rights of
    Americans are upheld and includes additional safeguards on top of
    constitutionally guaranteed rights.
      Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the importance of the FISA Amendments
    Reauthorization Act in stopping terrorist attacks and protecting the
    American people, but this point bears repeating: this program allows
    the government to obtain the communication of foreigners outside the
    United States, including foreign terrorist threats, in support of the
    counterterrorism efforts worldwide. It has allowed us to respond to
    threats to our country.
      Now let me tell you a little bit about what the 702 program is not.
    It is not a bulk collection of data. It cannot be used to target
    Americans and it cannot be used to target individuals located inside
    the United States.
      Mr. Speaker, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act is an example of
    what Congress can accomplish when we work together to find solutions to
    our Nation's weightiest challenges.
      Mr. Speaker, before I close my opening, I also will acknowledge that
    there is a lot of difference of opinion, as there should be, on this
    bill. But at the end of the day, progress has been made, protections
    have been implemented, and the security of our country must be taken
    into account. That is why this bill needs to pass and any amendments
    that were brought forward need to fail.
      We need to push this forward and begin the process in continuing to
    protect our private citizens' personal responsibilities and liberties,
    but also, at the same time, making sure that our intelligence
    communities and those entrusted with the sacred duty of protecting this
    country have the tools they need to do that. Anything else would be
    less than what we should be here.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my
    friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
      Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with the rest of my Democratic
    colleagues in utter amazement at the dizzying dysfunction exhibited by
    our friends across the aisle. For reasons beyond understanding, we have
    to vote on the reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act because late last year the Republican
    leadership chose to prioritize massive tax cuts for their wealthy
    donors over the safety of American citizens.

                                  {time}  1500

      Like so many other important issues, House Republicans decided to
    punt on the reauthorization of 702 by simply extending it to January 19
    of this year, coincidentally, the same date the government will
    possibly shut down.
      Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and the former vice chairman of the
    House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I do occupy a unique
    vantage point in the ongoing debate between the need to steadfastly
    protect the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution while also ensuring
    that those in the intelligence community have the tools they need to
    keep our country safe from those who wish to do us grave harm.
      Putting the finer points on this debate aside for a moment, I can
    tell you with complete certainty that such a debate deserves to be
    lengthy and thorough, neither of which have happened here.
      I was concerned to learn, if not a bit dismayed, that the House
    Intelligence subcommittee which has oversight jurisdiction of the
    National Security Agency did not hold a single hearing on today's bill.
    In fact, the full committee did not even hold a single hearing on this
    important piece of legislation.
      Think about that. As the Republicans approached the need to discuss
    the reauthorization of one of the more important tools to fight
    terrorism that, simultaneously, brings along legitimate and important
    Fourth Amendment concerns, the majority, in all their wisdom, thought
    it prudent to hold exactly zero hearings on such an important matter.
    That is a brazenly inept way to govern.
      To add insult to injury, I am told that members of the committee were
    given about 36 hours to read the bill before having to vote it out of
    committee.
      A side note here: the bill they were given 36 hours to review is not
    actually the bill we have before us today because the majority had to
    use a Rules Committee print to fix some of the most troublesome parts
    of the original bill in order to obtain my friend Ranking Member Adam
    Schiff's support. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, that support did not
    come easily, and important changes were made to the bill as it was
    presented to the committee in its original form.
      For example, Mr. Schiff was able to ensure the Republicans' unmasking
    language was removed from today's bill. The removal of such language
    ensures that one of the Republicans' most heinous political stunts is
    not codified into law. This was and is a significant improvement.
      Moreover, the Republicans removed the controversial expansion of the
    definition of ``agent of foreign power,'' which concerned privacy and
    technology groups.
      Today's bill also addresses what is known as ``abouts'' collection.
    This is the collection of communications that are not to or from a
    target but, rather, communications that merely reference the target.
    The NSA, itself, shut down this collection method earlier this year.
      The legislation before us today will allow such collection to resume,
    but only if the NSA first devises a way of doing so that addresses
    privacy concerns, obtains permission from the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Court, and Congress does not object after a 30-day review
    period.
      Now, this may seem to be a better option than what I am sure many, if
    not most, Republicans wanted, which is the full-scale reimplementation
    of ``abouts'' collection, but considering how much difficulty the
    majority has in simply keeping the lights on around this place, I think
    it is fair to question their ability to provide meaningful oversight in
    just 30 days. Again, this is simply evidence for the need to return
    back to regular order under which bills are fully and fairly
    considered.
      Regardless of where one comes down on this issue, I can assure you
    that there are Members on both sides of the aisle that are sick and
    tired of being shut out of important policy discussions concerning
    subjects like those before us today.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a fellow member of the
    Judiciary Committee and former chair of that committee.
      Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 139,
    which is the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act.
      I have stood on this floor debating the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. I
    fought for reforms in 2015 with the USA Freedom Act. And now here we
    are debating the latest need to balance privacy and security.
      Since Congress last reauthorized section 702, we have learned a great
    deal about the operation of this program. These revelations have
    highlighted the risks that it poses to privacy and civil liberties.
    This program needs to be reformed, but, Mr. Speaker, this is not the
    bill to do it.
      Rather than provide meaningful reforms, the FISA Amendments
    Reauthorization Act would reauthorize section 702. However, as we are
    all well aware, the program routinely sweeps up millions of innocent
    Americans' emails.
      The warrant requirement in this bill applies to only fully
    predicated, official investigations and not to the hundreds of
    thousands of searches the FBI runs every day just to run down a lead or
    check out a tip. The loopholes are too great to ensure proper
    protections.
      In this morning's Washington Post, on page A4, an article says, in
    part, FBI officials told aides of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
    Nadler), last week ``that under the proposed bill, they anticipate
    rarely, if ever, needing permission from the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Court to review query results, according to one of the
    aides.'' And this was not denied by

    [[Page H106]]

    the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from
    California (Mr. Schiff).
      We are going to hear an awful lot about warrants on the floor and how
    this fixes the problem, but here the FBI has said in no uncertain terms
    to one of our congressional aides that they are never going to have
    to use this warrant requirement, which was drafted by the Justice
    Department that has opposed warrants all along. If ever we have seen
    the fox not only watching the henhouse but inside the henhouse, this is
    it. It isn't even a fig leaf being small or otherwise. It is simply a
    way to divert the attention of this Congress away from what is really
    going on.

      Furthermore, the bill would provide a path for the NSA to restart the
    practice of ``abouts'' collection, which has been described by the
    ranking member. The proposal grants some committees 30 days to review
    any effort to turn ``abouts'' collection back on, giving Congress
    little or no say on this matter. We all know that we can't do anything
    in 30 days around here, and yet the bill restricts us from doing that.
      Finding a bipartisan and balanced solution is very possible. I know
    because I have done it twice with the PATRIOT Act and the Freedom Act.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The time of the
    gentleman has expired.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds
    to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
      Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The House Judiciary Committee passed the USA
    Liberty Act with bipartisan votes. This bill fails to do these
    necessary reforms. The program should be reauthorized if done in the
    right way. This bill is the wrong way. It is time for Congress to put
    the F for ``foreign'' back into FISA. There is no F for ``foreign'' in
    this bill.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
    gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my friend from the Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
      Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner for the
    reasons he has outlined that this bill should not become law. However,
    I am also speaking in favor of the Amash amendment that has been put in
    order that would fix the problems that he has so eloquently outlined.
      Before 702 was enacted into law, the NSA and the FBI would need to
    get a probable cause warrant to collect this information. We made a
    major change that allows this information to be collected when a
    foreigner is communicating with an American, and when you go to the
    ``abouts'' collection, which the underlying bill would codify, even
    when that doesn't occur, when there is merely discussion of a
    foreigner. That is not what I think our Constitution requires. And we
    did not outsource to the judicial branch or the executive branch the
    decision on what the Constitution requires us to do.
      Now, we have learned that there is a vast amount of information being
    collected--we can't go into the details of that in an open session,
    just that we have been told by Admiral Rogers the scope of this--and
    that the database that is so-called incidentally collected because of
    the architecture of the internet could be searched for Americans
    without a warrant is not consistent with the protections outlined in
    the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
      The Amash amendment, which is basically the USA RIGHTS Act, ends
    these backdoor searches by requiring a warrant. It ends reverse
    targeting. It bans the ``abouts'' collection and prohibits the
    collection of domestic communications, prevents the misuse of
    information on Americans, and is something that we should support.
      Now, in a letter to the Senate in October, a coalition of groups said
    this:

           The USA RIGHTS Act, which is essentially the Amash
         amendment, is markedly superior to all current legislative
         proposals to reauthorize section 702.

      Who said that?
      The American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks, the NAACP, but
    also the Project On Government Oversight, and Color of Change. This is
    a broad, left-right coalition that has come together, even though there
    are many things we disagree on, because we agree on one thing: When we
    took an oath to defend the Constitution on our first day of this
    session, we didn't take that oath to defend the Constitution when it is
    convenient or when we feel like it. No. We took that oath to defend the
    Constitution every day, in every way, and with every bill. And without
    the Amash amendment, this bill falls short.
      Just a note on where we are in the timing. It is true that this has
    been delayed, I would say unconscionably delayed, for this proceeding.
    But we have more time than has been suggested.
      Under the existing act, it provides that, if there is an existing
    order from the FISA court, that order remains in effect even if the
    underlying bill lapses. We have an order that extends into late April.
    So we have a deadline, but it is not this week and it is not next week.
    We owe it to our constituents and we owe it to our obligation to the
    Constitution to get this right.
      When Jim Sensenbrenner, who is someone whom nobody is going to
    question his conservative credentials, and when Judge Poe, Zoe Lofgren,
    and Jerry Nadler come to the same agreement on the Constitution, I
    would hope that our colleagues would listen. Vote for the Amash
    amendment, and, if it does not pass, vote against the bill.

                                  {time}  1515

      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
    may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, there are a couple of
    things to clarify here.
      This is an urgent matter. Although the gentlewoman spoke of this in
    the sense that the existing orders would stay in place, she fails to
    mention, and others have failed to talk about, that any new orders or
    even currently existing orders are being enforced by the intelligence
    community, which is set under that sort of pale of direction that they
    want.
      So I guess if you are satisfied protecting the country with existing
    orders and existing threats that lasted yesterday, but I will guarantee
    you somebody else woke up this morning wanting to do us harm. I want
    the intelligence community to be able to address that in a way that is
    prudent and proper, which is what I feel like is happening here.
      The other issue here is, and I want to make this very clear, there
    are strong opinions, and I respect the gentlewoman from California
    immensely, I have relayed and have had similar concerns that she has
    had over the process and I have voted with her several times to move
    forward, but we have moved forward, and there are, I believe,
    protections in this bill.
      So when we also talk about, as we go forward, and there is going to
    be a lot of passionate rhetoric, who is looking out for whom and
    reminding us of our oaths, I took the oath here, just as the
    gentlewoman did, when we started this new session, but I also took
    another oath in the United States Air Force and also served in Iraq and
    also serve in that time since currently in the military, and we have
    that oath as well.
      I will not take a backseat to anyone who can consciously disagree
    about where we are. This is a good bill. This is something that I would
    love to see in different ways changed, but this is the arc of where we
    are now in protecting our country.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
    Cheney).
      Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of reauthorizing FISA 702.
      It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle talk about unconscionable delaying tactics or talking
    about the need for regular order. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that
    just today on this floor, we have watched, once again, our colleagues
    on the other side of the aisle playing games. We have had this
    particular debate now delayed by the games that their Members have been
    playing over the course of the last several hours with motion after
    motion to adjourn. That is, Mr. Speaker, what I believe is
    unconscionable.
      This is a bill that is a bipartisan bill. The ranking member of the
    Intelligence Committee as well as the chairman of the Intelligence
    Committee worked very hard to come to agreement on this bill.
      I would argue, if anything, Mr. Speaker, the bill goes too far in
    terms of beginning the process that we cannot begin of putting walls
    up.

    [[Page H107]]

      All of us lived through 9/11, and we know, Mr. Speaker, that one of
    the things that we saw that day was what can happen when we make it
    much more difficult for our law enforcement and our intelligence
    agencies to connect the dots, much more difficult for them to stop
    terrorist attacks against this Nation.
      Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that goes directly towards those issues.
    This is one of the most important pieces of policy and of authority
    that the National Security Agency has. I think it is very important for
    people who are listening to this debate to recognize that this
    authority is an authority that allows surveillance of foreign nationals
    on foreign territory, not in the United States.
      I would urge my colleagues, particularly when we have got a bill that
    is a bipartisan product, that is a product that has been worked on and
    agreed to in a bipartisan manner, that it is unconscionable for them to
    delay, unconscionable for them to hold the Nation's security hostage.
      We are seeing it, Mr. Speaker, not just with respect to this
    particular piece of legislation, but we are seeing it, Mr. Speaker,
    with respect to the entire negotiations underway today over the budget
    for the Nation.
      We have seen a situation where, as they did today, they are trying to
    accuse us of holding DACA hostage, of holding DACA individuals hostage.
    That is not what is happening, Mr. Speaker.
      The Democrats in this House, Mr. Speaker, are, in fact, holding our
    national security hostage, and they are doing it with respect to the
    funds that our military needs as well.
      We are a nation today that is facing grave and growing threats. We
    are a nation that is putting tremendous demands on our intelligence
    service, on our intelligence professionals, and on our men and women in
    uniform. I think that every Member of this body who decides to play
    games, rather than do what is right and what is necessary and what our
    constitutional obligation and our oath requires, ought to think as they
    are doing that: What does it mean to the mothers and fathers across
    this Nation who have children who are deployed for the defense of the
    Nation, the mothers and fathers across this Nation who know that we are
    sending their children into harm's way?
      The Democrats in this body, Mr. Speaker, consistently continue to
    hold up the funding that our military needs and, in this case in
    particular, to hold up the reauthorization of this crucial piece of
    policy.
      So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of
    this bill.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I am amused by my friend from the Rules Committee's
    assertion that today, because of protests with reference to DACA,
    members of my party were protesting that concern.
      I am also amused that they are in the majority, and she accuses us of
    delaying, when, in fact, this measure was scheduled 2 or 3 months ago
    and could have been brought to the floor, but, no, they were busy about
    tax cuts, and so they didn't get around to allowing for this important
    matter to be brought to the floor.

      Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California
    (Ms. Lofgren) to respond to the gentleman from Georgia.
      Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond.
      The NSA will not go dark, and I think it is important that we
    understand that.
      We are collecting the content of phone calls, emails, text messages,
    videos, pictures of Americans, putting it in a database and querying
    it, searching it without a probable cause warrant. That is the state
    today, and that will continue until reform is done. It will not go
    dark. I thought it was important to make that clear.
      Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I know he wanted to yield to my
    colleague from the Judiciary Committee, to have the chance to clarify
    that.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
    may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California attempting
    to clarify.
      Again, I stand by my statement. The simple fact is, it is the
    statement it will not go dark, but the issue is we go further here in
    the collection happening, but how we use that and how we deal with that
    in a national security context, there is an interesting issue here, and
    there is an issue that could keep us from doing what we need to do.
      Again, this is the debate that we can have, this is the debate that
    we need to have on this floor, but there is a difference of opinion
    here. In this instance, I think with the pervasive efforts put in
    place, I believe that this program is one worth keeping.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
    (Mr. Fitzpatrick), a former FBI special agent.
      Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
    reauthorizing section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
    which is due to expire.
      As a 14-year FBI special agent, including significant time as a
    counterterrorism agent, I am an eyewitness to the importance of this
    program and the deliberate and lawful manner in which it is used.
      The fact is, section 702 is a critical tool that the intelligence
    community uses properly to target non-U.S. persons located outside of
    the United States to acquire information that is vital to our Nation's
    security.
      Equally as important, this crucial program has operated under strict
    rules and has been carefully overseen by all three branches of our
    government to protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.
      As we have seen, both in our country and abroad, proper surveillance
    and law enforcement is vital to protect us against terror attacks,
    especially lone attacker scenarios. As terror groups like ISIS continue
    to lose territory in Iraq and Syria, our intelligence community has
    warned that we will see more of these one-off attacks as opposed to
    more traditional conspiracies.
      At a hearing of the Homeland Security Committee, I asked FBI Director
    Chris Wray about this program as part of our national security posture.
    He said, despite the high volume of threats, there are few dots that
    can actually be connected in regard to these ``more loosely organized
    situations.'' Information already lawfully obtained by the FBI is
    crucial in, as he said, understanding ``which threats are real and
    which ones are more aspirational.''
      Section 702 allows the national security professionals to query
    information to determine whether a tip from State or local law
    enforcement or others is credible, and it begins the process of
    marshalling resources to head off potential threats.
      Allowing section 702 to expire would leave America vulnerable at a
    time when we need this protection the most. As Director Wray clearly
    stated: ``If 702 is walked back, we will be . . . starting to rebuild
    the wall that existed before 9/11.''
      Mr. Speaker, with today's terror landscape, we cannot go backwards
    when proven, legal means exist to keep Americans safe.
      I urge my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to support this
    vital national security measure. The safety and security of the
    families we represent depend on the passage of this measure. Let us get
    this done for them.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
    Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Judiciary
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    and a good friend of mine.
      Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Florida
    for his astute assessment and analysis in his earlier remarks today,
    particularly sharing with us his experience on the Intelligence
    Committee, and I thank him for mentioning the fact that I serve as the
    ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
    Investigations Subcommittee.
      In that capacity, that committee certainly encounters not only our
    Nation's law enforcement but many of the issues dealing with terrorism,
    including the work on homeland security.
      With that in mind, I want to simply say to my colleagues and,
    certainly, to my good friend, who served and dedicated his life to the
    FBI for 14 years, none of us over the past couple of

    [[Page H108]]

    months will take a backseat to championing the FBI, thanking the FBI,
    recognizing the FBI for the very valiant work that it does.
      Being on the Judiciary Committee for the number of years that I have
    served, I have worked with almost every FBI Director, and agents,
    particularly the SACs in my particular jurisdiction, and have been
    engaged in discussions on the resources and needs of that organization.
    Mr. Speaker, again, we thank them for their service.
      I would offer to say that the position I take today is to protect the
    FBI and to protect the American people.
      Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record, interestingly enough, an
    article written by Sheila Jackson Lee, ``Protecting America, protecting
    Americans,'' dated October 16, 2007.

                       [From the POLITICO, Oct. 16, 2007]

                    Protecting America, Protecting Americans

                          (By Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee)

           Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville observed
         that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial
         conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that
         best rewards and encourages those traits that are
         indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation,
         resourcefulness and courage.
           The United States would do well to heed de Tocqueville and
         recognize that the best way to win the war on terror is to
         remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its
         democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of
         international villains will defeat the United States in the
         pursuit of its vital interests.
           A major challenge facing the Congress today is to ensure
         that in waging its war on terror, the administration does not
         succeed in winning passage of legislation that will weaken
         the nation's commitment to its democratic traditions.
           This is why the upcoming debate over congressional approval
         authorizing the administration to conduct terrorist
         surveillance on U.S. soil is a matter of utmost importance. I
         offer some thoughts on the principles that should inform that
         debate.
           In the waning hours before the August recess, the House
         acceded to the Bush administration's request and approved the
         woefully misnamed ``Protect America Act,'' which gives the
         federal government enlarged powers to conduct electronic
         surveillance of American citizens under the guise of
         conducting surveillance of foreign terrorists.
           Fortunately, the authority conferred by the PAA expires
         next February.
           It is therefore incumbent on the Congress to act
         expeditiously to amend the PAA so that it achieves the only
         legitimate goals of a terrorist surveillance program, which
         is to ensure that Americans are secure in their persons,
         papers and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are
         made insecure.
           The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the
         rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to
         authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is
         the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
           Enacted by Congress in 1978, the exclusivity of FISA was
         undisputed. Any legislation authorizing terrorist
         surveillance programs which the administration seeks to
         conduct must explicitly affirm that FISA is the sole basis of
         lawful authority for conducting foreign surveillance
         gathering on U.S. soil.
           That FISA remains the exclusive source of authority does
         not mean that the law cannot be adapted to modern
         circumstances or revised to accommodate new technologies. One
         widely acknowledged reform is to amend FISA to make clear
         that foreign-to-foreign communications are not subject to
         FISA, even though modern technology enables that
         communication to be routed through the United States.
           Additionally, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
         is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring
         compliance with the law.
           Legislation must ensure that the FISC is empowered to act
         as an Article III court should act, which means the court
         should operate neither as a rubber stamp nor a bottleneck.
         The function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise
         of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the
         guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.
           Congress should reject any proposal that grants amnesty to
         any telecommunications company or other entity or individual
         that helps federal intelligence agencies spy illegally on
         innocent Americans.
           Amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging
         telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than
         contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.
           The only permissible path to legalization of conduct in
         this area is full compliance with the requirements of the
         Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
           Finally, authorization to conduct foreign surveillance
         gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The
         threats to America's security and the liberties of its people
         will change over time and require constant vigilance by the
         people's representatives in Congress.
           In short, it makes much more sense to enact legislation
         that protects Americans, rather than one that protects
         America, as the administration's proposal claims to do. At
         bottom, America is its people connected to each other, and to
         past and future generations, as in Abraham Lincoln's
         unforgettable phrase, by ``the mystic chords of memory
         stretching from every heart and hearthstone.''
           America, in other words, is Americans coming together in a
         community of shared values, ideals and principles. It is
         those shared values that hold us together. It is our
         commitment to those values that the terrorists wish to break
         because that is the only way they can win.
           Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is
         for this country to redouble its commitment to the values
         that every American will risk his or her life to defend. It
         is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished
         values that America will remain forever the home of the free,
         the land of the brave and the country we love.

      Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, that article suggests that we have the
    responsibility to protect America and Americans. I would make the point
    to my good friend, who mentioned that men and women or families sending
    their young people over to battlegrounds, they are absolutely right,
    and those young people who are going over to battlegrounds are going
    over on the basis of freedom. Their parents sacrificed, these loved
    ones sacrificed their young people because they believe so much in the
    freedom of this Nation.
      Well, I will tell you that section 702 and the underlying bill, there
    is no freedom in this particular bill, and that is why we need to
    address the question in a thoughtful manner. I don't mind if we extend
    this to have a longer debate so that we can work through some of our
    concerns.
      Let me be clear that S. 139 fails to address the core concern of
    Members of Congress and the American public. The government's use of
    section 702 information against United States citizens in
    investigations that have nothing to do with national security, that is
    the crux of our advocacy for both the Amash amendment, joined by myself
    and Zoe Lofgren and Ted Poe and many others--it is not to undermine the
    security of this Nation. It is to give substance to those families who
    sacrifice and send their young men and women to faraway places.
      The warrant requirement contained in the bill is riddled with
    loopholes and applies only to fully predicated official FBI
    investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands of searches that the
    FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.
      S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with section 702 by codifying
    the so-called bulk collection, a type of surveillance that was shut
    down after it twice failed to meet the Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
      S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy and
    civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.
      Let me read briefly what the Amash amendment really says. It is not
    something that would stop security, surveillance, and work in its
    tracks. What it does is, ``Except as provided in subparagraph C or D,
    no officer, agent, or employee of the United States may conduct a query
    of information acquired under subsection A in an effort to find
    communications of or about a particular person if there is reason to
    believe such person is a United States person,'' protecting the First
    Amendment freedom of speech and all of that, but matched with the
    important amendment of the Fourth Amendment, which, of course, is
    unreasonable search and seizures.

                                  {time}  1530

      An application by the Attorney General to a judge of the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Court that describes the determination of the
    Attorney General is probable cause to believe that such communications
    provide evidence of a crime, such person is a foreign power or an agent
    of a foreign power. This is a minimal standard.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
    gentlewoman from Texas.
      Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a minimal standard of which
    every American should expect and is owed. It is a minimal standard upon
    which we stand the Constitution.
      We are missing what our role is here. It is not to rush through a
    FISA bill that has been delayed by my Republican friends. More
    importantly, it is to

    [[Page H109]]

    do right by the American people. We are not doing right by the American
    people.
      I remember fighting against reverse targeting, a major issue in our
    work on the Freedom Act and the PATRIOT Act. Now, today--in 2017, going
    into 2018--in 2018, it is important to remember that 9/11 was to not
    turn terror on Americans; it was to protect us from terrorism and to
    withstand that with the upholding of the Constitution.
      Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.
      Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in
    opposition to the rule for S. 139, the ``FISA Amendments
    Reauthorization Act of 2017,'' and the underlying bill.
      S. 139 reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act, which is scheduled to expire on January 19, 2018.
      Although Section 702 is a critical national security tool set to
    expire on January 19, 2018, events of the recent past strongly suggest
    that Section 702 should not be reauthorized without necessary and
    significant reforms that are not included in the legislation before us.
      So as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
    Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose the rule and
    underlying bill for several compelling reasons:
      1. S. 139 fails to address the core concern of Members of Congress
    and the American public--the government's use of Section 702
    information against United States citizens in investigations that have
    nothing to do with national security.
      2. The warrant ``requirement'' contained in the bill is riddled with
    loopholes and applies only to fully predicated, official FBI
    investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands searches the FBI runs
    every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.
      3. S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with Section 702 by codifying
    so-called ``about collection,'' a type of surveillance that was shut
    down after it twice failed to meet Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
      4. S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy,
    and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum, from the ACLU
    to FreedomWorks.
      Mr. Speaker, the bill before us comes from the Intelligence
    Committee, where it was passed on a strict party-line vote.
      This stands in stark contrast to H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, I
    the bipartisan bill reported by the Judiciary Committee after multiple
    hearings, an open markup process, and a bipartisan vote of approval.
      The USA Liberty Act enjoys much broader support, contains meaningful
    reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and is far
    superior to the bill before us.
      FISA was enacted in 1978 to provide the Executive Branch with a
    statutory framework for gathering ``foreign intelligence information''
    from U.S. persons.
      FISA authorizes special court orders for four purposes:
      1. electronic surveillance;
      2. physical searches;
      3. the installation and use of pen registers and trap and trace
    devices; and
      4. demands for the production of physical items.
      Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering, and not for the
    collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activities to which
    a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were
    conducted as part of a criminal investigation.
      Most commonly, authorization for a wiretap or physical search under
    FISA is obtained by application to the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Court (``FISC'' or the ``FISA court'').
      Section 702 is part of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a successor to
    the Bush Administration's unlawful warrantless wiretapping program that
    ended in January 2007.
      The FAA adds a new Title VII to FISA that grants the government the
    authority to monitor electronic communications of non-U.S. persons
    abroad.
      Section 702 authorizes the Attorney General and the Director of
    National Intelligence ``to acquire foreign intelligence information''
    from ``persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United
    States.''
      Although the FAA prohibits the intentional targeting of persons in
    the United States, the FAA had been in place for only a few months when
    the New York Times reported that the NSA had ``overcollected'' domestic
    communications, a practice described as significant and systematic,
    even if unintentional.
      Subsequently, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence
    stated that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of
    people located in the United States whose communications may have been
    reviewed under the authority of the FAA.''
      Section 702 provides that the government ``may not intentionally
    target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United
    States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular,
    known person reasonably believed to be in the United States.''
      Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    was enacted to protect the liberty and security of Americans, not to
    diminish their constitutional rights.
      That is why Section 702 should not be reauthorized with reforms to
    prevent the government from using information against its political
    opponents or members of religious, ethnic, or other groups.
      One way to do that is without interfering with the national security
    objectives of 702 surveillance is simply to require the FBI to obtain a
    warrant before reading communications by Americans, when it finds those
    communications by targeting that American and searching its 702
    databases.
      Enforcing the warrant requirement would prevent the misuse of Section
    702 to conduct ``backdoor searches'' where government agencies,
    including individual FBI agents, may search the communications
    collected under section 702 for communications by an individual
    American, read those communications and disseminate them within the
    government, all without any external oversight, much less a judicial
    warrant, simply by claiming a ``foreign intelligence'' purpose.
      Mr. Speaker, all Americans want to find a common-ground where common-
    sense rules and regulations relating to fighting terrorism at home and
    abroad can exist while still protecting the cherished privacy and civil
    liberties which Americans hold close to our collective hearts.
      Mr. Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007,
    that as Alexis DeTocqueville, the most astute student of American
    democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies
    invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the
    governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that
    are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a
    love of justice.
      The best way to keep America safe and strong is to remain true to the
    valued embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
      The bill before us does not strike the proper balance between our
    cherished liberties and smart security.
      We can do better; we should reject this rule and the underlying bill
    and bring to the floor for debate and vote H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty
    Act.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
    may consume.
      Just real briefly, I think one of the issues here is this discussion
    of riddled with loopholes and riddled with anybody. It is just a
    reminder that agencies not already defined in this cannot just do
    random searches of this database. This is something that we have just--
    again, let's just push back on the facts of the case.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
    gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).
      Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to say
    ``pause,'' take a step back, reject the rule, and give ourselves a
    chance to, frankly, do it better.
      FISA reauthorization is inarguably one of the most consequential
    votes we will take in this Congress because the constitutional stakes
    are so high. Civil liberties are the core of our Bill of Rights, and we
    are asked to take action that affects them in the name of keeping us
    safe. I get that.
      But it is critical that we get it right. I think we can do better. To
    make decisions of this magnitude, we should have the most robust
    process possible, full and open debate, and input from the
    stakeholders, thoughtful deliberations by the Members. The process for
    this bill thus far has decidedly not been that, has not been great. It
    was written and rewritten in secret and with minimal debate or
    stakeholders' input.
      But--this is a big but--I am actually optimistic because I have seen
    a change in the last few days and I think we have an opportunity here.
    The administration is suddenly engaged, and we are seeing vibrant
    debate from stakeholders in the technology sector, civil liberties
    advocates. Members have had very serious discussions, including here on
    the floor today, but in the Halls, offering amendments to rules,
    unfortunately, which are not being allowed--save one.
      We are being asked to shut all that down, that opportunity, and push
    through an extension that will run for 6 years. Frankly, stop and
    think: 6 years in the world of technology is an eternity.

    [[Page H110]]

      So, for all these reasons, I ask my fellow Members to join me in
    opposing this rule and, instead, allow the House an opportunity to work
    its will, to take a little more time, and to do it better because we
    really do need to wrestle with privacy, with what privacy means in a
    world where our entire personal lives are stored somewhere online as
    ones and zeros. Frankly, that is happening at an even faster pace than
    it is now.
      We need to debate how the Fourth Amendment protects us against search
    and seizures applying to our digital records. We are all being rendered
    into nothing but a massive storehouse of ones and zeros.
      The tensions or balance between civil liberties and national security
    is a debate as old as this country, but they are not mutually
    exclusive. They are hard--they are darn hard--but they are not mutually
    exclusive and they are not impossible.
      I know well how many threats we face around the world and I don't
    take them lightly. The fact that we have not faced another major
    terrorist attack since 9/11 is a testament to the skill and the hard
    work of the intelligence community, and I tip my hat to them. I am
    absolutely committed to giving them the tools they need to keep us
    safe, consistent with our constitutional rights.
      But we live in an era of the most powerful spying tools the world has
    ever known. Twenty-five years ago conversations were ephemeral. They
    were conducted in person or over the phone. But now they occur over
    email or chat and they are archived forever. Our medical, financial,
    and legal records are all online; so are our photos. Our cell phones
    track us everywhere we go.
      The data available on us is unprecedented, and the fundamental
    principle of the Bill of Rights is that we have the right to keep our
    data private. We need new safeguards to ensure that.
      So, by rejecting this rule, we have a chance to do it better. In so
    doing, both keep us safe and protect our constitutional rights.
      For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the
    rule.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much
    time is remaining on both sides, and then also inquire of my good
    friend from Florida if he has any more speakers.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 9 minutes
    remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Does the gentleman from Florida have any more
    speakers?
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise that I have no further
    speakers and I am prepared to close.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
    time.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, the United States House of Representatives is known as
    the people's House, yet the people's representatives continuously are
    shut out of policy discussion after discussion. They are shut out of
    writing bill after bill, and they are shut out of offering any
    meaningful amendments.
      Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, if the people's representatives are shut
    out, then the people are shut out. If you look around at how the
    majority is running this place, through a historically closed process,
    the result is not at all pretty.
      I have some advice for my Republican friends. If, like this side of
    the aisle, you spent more time working on policies that help the
    American people instead of the wealthy and rich corporations who are, I
    might add, doing just fine, you would likely not only see more
    legislative successes, but you would be able to spend more time on
    important issues like this critically important issue, the extension of
    section 702.
      Mr. Speaker, as is clearly evident, Democrats remain ready to work in
    a bipartisan manner to accomplish all that remains left to do for the
    American people. We are ready to fund the government and provide for
    smart investments for the future of our country.

      We are ready to pull the hundreds of thousands of DREAMers out of
    unnecessary limbo and provide them with the status they deserve. We are
    ready to go forward with comprehensive immigration. We are ready to
    provide the funding and authorization needed to give millions of low-
    income children the health insurance they need. We are ready to fix our
    roads and our bridges and our railways and air trafficking. We are here
    and waiting, but time is running out.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
    may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida, my cohort on the
    Rules Committee, but I will just also say I appreciate his advice. But
    also, as a reminder back to my friend from Florida, we have spent time
    talking about things that matter and things that were messed up.
      In fact, we spent a lot of time in this House and passed a healthcare
    bill because people in my district called me regularly over the
    holiday, as the new year approached, saying: We can't get insurance, or
    the insurance that I am provided, no doctor will accept.
      We have spent time on that. I believe that is real.
      We spent time in this body over the past few years working on a bill
    called Dodd-Frank that, in my district, decimated community banks and
    made lending harder and made businesses have more trouble trying to
    hire people to put them to meaningful work. Yes, we are spending time
    on things that were not well thought out.
      Tax reform was well thought out and is helping Americans in all
    districts, including my friend's, and I believe we will continue to
    hear more about that as the day progresses.
      But today, again, as many times, we are focused on a bill that has
    serious debate. It has the reality of some that can take and look at
    one thing and see a difference, and I agree with my friends on that.
    But that is why we are having this debate. That is why there will be an
    amendment on this bill that I oppose and that others will. Some will
    support it.
      But I tell you one that does not support it: the current
    administration does not support the amendment. The current
    administration supports the bill, and the relevant committees that have
    worked on this bill support the underlying bill.
      Number two, one of the issues that we have talked about today and one
    of the things we have to be very careful of is going back to something
    that was supported by both parties, and that is the recommendations of
    the 9/11 Commission report that said that we have to take seriously the
    foreign--I respect greatly my friend, former speaker on our side, who
    disagrees with this bill, but this is about foreign surveillance. This
    is the foreign part of this, and we have got to make sure that we have
    that capability.
      Really, this bill--if you continue, and especially looking at the
    amendment and where others want to go--would build walls that led to
    the very problems that we expressed before 9/11.
      Then there is this last case that continually comes up, and it was
    about the ``about collection,'' which is no longer being done and
    practiced. It has been said: Well, we are just codifying it, and they
    can bring it back willy-nilly.
      Let's remind ourselves of what actually has to happen. They have to
    actually decide that, one, they can, and they have to bring it to the
    FISC, the court. Oh, wait. Hold on here a second. Let's think about
    what just happened here. They have to bring it back to the very court
    that said: Oh, we have got a concern about this and why they have
    suspended it.
      But, Mr. Speaker, let's also talk about why this even occurred, to
    start with, with the court. It was because the agencies, the
    intelligence communities, self-reported an issue that they needed to
    look at. It was not hidden. It was self-reported to the court. This is
    the protections built into this legislation.
      Now, we can debate whether they go far enough or they are not enough
    or they are properly billed. This is sort of like a debate that needs
    to happen.
      But be careful where we go here, to let the American people be led to
    believe that things that are happening are not really happening. Do not
    let it be led to believe that there are not things in place set up by
    even friends who have spoken today, maybe even against this, that were
    put in place to

    [[Page H111]]

    protect the personal rights of our citizens.
      Let's never forget that the end result of this is keeping our Nation
    safe while balancing the privacy concerns of our own citizens, which is
    never outside of my thoughts and discussions.
      For years, the five years that I have been in this body and worked on
    the Judiciary Committee, we have pushed this envelope, pushing it for
    protection while, at the same time, balancing our national security
    needs. I will never say, for the most part, that there is a perfect
    bill ever to hit this floor. I would think that my friend would
    probably agree with me on that.
      So you have to find the balance and ask: What is the aim of the bill?
    What is it doing? And how did it go about.
      I believe this strikes that balance.
      You can have disagreement, but at the end of the day, my question to
    you is: Is your push to make something better willing to turn out the
    lights or go dark on watching those who wish to do us harm?
      Don't bank on the fact that the intelligence community will just
    continue on under what has been happening and not look at what could
    happen, even as we are in this Chamber debating this bill. I want them
    to be able to see clearly the threats to this country. I want them to
    use the processes in place to protect American citizens in this
    process, which they are doing, which, by the way, was highlighted by
    the fact of the self-report that led to the unbalanced collection being
    stopped.

                                  {time}  1545

      But I never would want to put the security of this country in doubt
    when they cannot look or they are on shaky legal ground of what they
    can and cannot do to protect us. This goes back to a time in our
    country's history where we have technology--it was just said recently--
    that is changing. I want them to have the ability to continue this
    process under the supervision of a plan that is put in place. Where
    those need to be adjusted, they can be adjusted.
      Are there other needs that need to be addressed? Yes, there are. The
    Intelligence Committee chairman and I have spoken on those already. The
    Judiciary Committee, also, is looking into these. But at this point in
    time, this bill is one that I believe strikes the balance that is
    critical for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to have
    the tools they need to do their jobs, for our civil liberties and right
    to privacy, fundamental to our identity as Americans. I believe the
    underlying bill strikes that proper balance.
      As we go forward, these are the debates, Mr. Speaker, we need to have
    in this Chamber. At the end of the day, it is about getting the bill
    and the process right so that we can achieve the aims that need to be
    achieved.
      As we move forward, I would say this is what happened, this is how we
    work, and, for now, I believe this is the proper way to go about it. I
    look forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill to protect
    our Nation, the American people, and also to preserve our civil
    liberties.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
    previous question on the resolution.
      The previous question was ordered.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
      The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
    the ayes appeared to have it.
      Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
      The yeas and nays were ordered.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
    minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 682 will be followed by 5-
    minute votes on:
      Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 681; and
      Adoption of House Resolution 681, if ordered.
      The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
    nays 181, not voting 17, as follows:

                                  [Roll No. 8]

                                   YEAS--233

         Abraham
         Aderholt
         Allen
         Amash
         Amodei
         Arrington
         Babin
         Bacon
         Banks (IN)
         Barletta
         Barr
         Barton
         Bergman
         Biggs
         Bilirakis
         Bishop (MI)
         Bishop (UT)
         Black
         Blackburn
         Blum
         Bost
         Brady (TX)
         Brat
         Bridenstine
         Brooks (AL)
         Brooks (IN)
         Buchanan
         Buck
         Bucshon
         Budd
         Burgess
         Byrne
         Calvert
         Carter (GA)
         Carter (TX)
         Chabot
         Cheney
         Coffman
         Cole
         Collins (GA)
         Collins (NY)
         Comer
         Comstock
         Conaway
         Cook
         Costello (PA)
         Cramer
         Crawford
         Culberson
         Curbelo (FL)
         Curtis
         Davidson
         Davis, Rodney
         Denham
         Dent
         DeSantis
         DesJarlais
         Diaz-Balart
         Donovan
         Duffy
         Duncan (SC)
         Duncan (TN)
         Dunn
         Emmer
         Estes (KS)
         Farenthold
         Faso
         Ferguson
         Fitzpatrick
         Fleischmann
         Flores
         Fortenberry
         Foxx
         Frelinghuysen
         Gaetz
         Gallagher
         Garrett
         Gianforte
         Gibbs
         Gohmert
         Goodlatte
         Gosar
         Gowdy
         Granger
         Graves (GA)
         Graves (LA)
         Graves (MO)
         Griffith
         Grothman
         Guthrie
         Handel
         Harper
         Harris
         Hartzler
         Hensarling
         Herrera Beutler
         Hice, Jody B.
         Higgins (LA)
         Hill
         Holding
         Hollingsworth
         Hudson
         Huizenga
         Hultgren
         Hunter
         Hurd
         Issa
         Jenkins (KS)
         Johnson (LA)
         Johnson (OH)
         Johnson, Sam
         Jordan
         Joyce (OH)
         Katko
         Kelly (MS)
         Kelly (PA)
         King (IA)
         King (NY)
         Kinzinger
         Knight
         Kustoff (TN)
         Labrador
         LaHood
         LaMalfa
         Lamborn
         Lance
         Latta
         Lewis (MN)
         LoBiondo
         Long
         Loudermilk
         Love
         Lucas
         Luetkemeyer
         MacArthur
         Marchant
         Marino
         Marshall
         Mast
         McCarthy
         McCaul
         McClintock
         McKinley
         McMorris Rodgers
         McSally
         Meadows
         Meehan
         Messer
         Mitchell
         Moolenaar
         Mooney (WV)
         Mullin
         Murphy (FL)
         Newhouse
         Noem
         Norman
         Nunes
         Olson
         Palazzo
         Palmer
         Paulsen
         Pearce
         Perry
         Pittenger
         Poliquin
         Posey
         Ratcliffe
         Reed
         Reichert
         Renacci
         Rice (SC)
         Roby
         Roe (TN)
         Rogers (AL)
         Rogers (KY)
         Rohrabacher
         Rokita
         Rooney, Francis
         Rooney, Thomas J.
         Ros-Lehtinen
         Roskam
         Ross
         Rothfus
         Rouzer
         Royce (CA)
         Russell
         Rutherford
         Sanford
         Schneider
         Schweikert
         Scott, Austin
         Sensenbrenner
         Sessions
         Shimkus
         Shuster
         Simpson
         Smith (MO)
         Smith (NE)
         Smith (NJ)
         Smith (TX)
         Smucker
         Stefanik
         Stewart
         Stivers
         Taylor
         Tenney
         Thompson (PA)
         Thornberry
         Tiberi
         Tipton
         Trott
         Upton
         Valadao
         Wagner
         Walberg
         Walden
         Walker
         Walorski
         Walters, Mimi
         Weber (TX)
         Webster (FL)
         Wenstrup
         Westerman
         Williams
         Wilson (SC)
         Wittman
         Womack
         Woodall
         Yoder
         Yoho
         Young (AK)
         Young (IA)
         Zeldin

                                   NAYS--181

         Aguilar
         Barragan
         Bass
         Beatty
         Bera
         Beyer
         Bishop (GA)
         Blumenauer
         Blunt Rochester
         Bonamici
         Boyle, Brendan F.
         Brady (PA)
         Brown (MD)
         Brownley (CA)
         Bustos
         Butterfield
         Capuano
         Cardenas
         Carson (IN)
         Cartwright
         Castor (FL)
         Castro (TX)
         Chu, Judy
         Clark (MA)
         Clarke (NY)
         Clay
         Cleaver
         Clyburn
         Cohen
         Connolly
         Cooper
         Correa
         Costa
         Courtney
         Crist
         Crowley
         Cuellar
         Davis (CA)
         Davis, Danny
         DeFazio
         DeGette
         Delaney
         DeLauro
         DelBene
         Demings
         Deutch
         Dingell
         Doggett
         Doyle, Michael F.
         Ellison
         Engel
         Eshoo
         Espaillat
         Esty (CT)
         Evans
         Foster
         Frankel (FL)
         Fudge
         Gallego
         Garamendi
         Gomez
         Gonzalez (TX)
         Gottheimer
         Green, Al
         Green, Gene
         Grijalva
         Gutierrez
         Hastings
         Heck
         Higgins (NY)
         Himes
         Hoyer
         Huffman
         Jackson Lee
         Jayapal
         Jeffries
         Johnson (GA)
         Johnson, E. B.
         Jones
         Kaptur
         Kelly (IL)
         Kennedy
         Khanna
         Kihuen
         Kildee
         Kilmer
         Krishnamoorthi
         Kuster (NH)
         Langevin
         Larsen (WA)
         Larson (CT)
         Lawrence
         Lawson (FL)
         Lee
         Levin
         Lewis (GA)
         Lieu, Ted
         Lipinski
         Loebsack
         Lofgren
         Lowenthal
         Lowey
         Lujan Grisham, M.
         Lujan, Ben Ray
         Lynch
         Maloney, Carolyn B.
         Maloney, Sean
         Massie
         Matsui
         McCollum
         McEachin
         McGovern
         Meeks
         Meng
         Moore
         Moulton
         Nadler
         Napolitano
         Neal
         Norcross
         O'Halleran
         O'Rourke
         Pallone
         Panetta
         Pascrell
         Payne
         Pelosi
         Perlmutter
         Peters
         Peterson
         Pingree
         Pocan
         Polis
         Price (NC)
         Quigley
         Raskin
         Rice (NY)
         Richmond
         Rosen
         Roybal-Allard
         Ruiz
         Ruppersberger
         Rush
         Ryan (OH)
         Sanchez
         Sarbanes
         Schakowsky
         Schiff
         Schrader
         Scott (VA)
         Scott, David
         Serrano
         Sewell (AL)
         Shea-Porter
         Sherman
         Sinema
         Sires
         Slaughter
         Smith (WA)
         Soto
         Speier
         Suozzi
         Swalwell (CA)
         Takano
         Thompson (CA)
         Thompson (MS)
         Titus
         Tonko
         Torres
         Tsongas
         Vargas
         Veasey
         Vela
         Velazquez
         Visclosky
         Walz
         Wasserman Schultz
         Waters, Maxine
         Watson Coleman
         Welch
         Yarmuth

                                 NOT VOTING--17

         Adams
         Carbajal
         Cicilline
         Cummings
         DeSaulnier
         Gabbard
         Hanabusa
         Jenkins (WV)
         Keating
         Kind
         McHenry
         McNerney
         Nolan
         Poe (TX)
         Scalise
         Turner
         Wilson (FL)

    [[Page H112]]

                                  {time}  1613

      Ms. SPEIER and Mr. GOTTHEIMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
    ``nay.''
      Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mrs. MURPHY of Florida, and Mr.
    BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
      So the resolution was agreed to.
      The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
      A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
      Stated against:
      Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 8 on H. Res. 682, the rule
    providing for consideration of S. 139, the FISA Amendments
    Reauthorization Act of 2017, I am not recorded due to my attendance at
    a briefing on airport security. Had I been present, I would have voted
    ``no.''

                              ____________________