[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.''
____________________