[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.''

                          ____________________