[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 100 (Thursday, May 28, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2340-H2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 6172, USA FREEDOM REAUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2020

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I offer a motion on the 
bill (H.R. 6172) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The Clerk will designate 
the Senate amendments.
  Senate amendments:
     (1) In subsection (a)(2)(B) of section 602 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1872), as 
     added by section 301(b)(3), insert after ``section 103(i)'' 
     the following: , a proceeding in the Foreign Intelligence 
     Court of Review resulting from the petition of an amicus 
     curiae under section 103(i)(7), or a proceeding in which an 
     amicus curiae could have been appointed pursuant to section 
     103(i)(2)(A).
     (2) In section 302, strike subsections (a) and (b) and insert 
     the following:
       (a) Expansion of Appointment Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Section 103(i)(2) (50 U.S.C. 1803(i)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) shall appoint one or more individuals who have been 
     designated under paragraph (1), not less than one of whom 
     possesses privacy and civil liberties expertise, unless the 
     court finds that such a qualification is inappropriate, to 
     serve as amicus curiae to assist the court in the 
     consideration of any application or motion for an order or 
     review that, in the opinion of the court--
       ``(i) presents a novel or significant interpretation of the 
     law, unless the court issues a finding that such appointment 
     is not appropriate;
       ``(ii) presents significant concerns with respect to the 
     activities of a United States person that are protected by 
     the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
     unless the court issues a finding that such appointment is 
     not appropriate;
       ``(iii) presents or involves a sensitive investigative 
     matter, unless the court issues a finding that such 
     appointment is not appropriate;
       ``(iv) presents a request for approval of a new program, a 
     new technology, or a new use of existing technology, unless 
     the court issues a finding that such appointment is not 
     appropriate;
       ``(v) presents a request for reauthorization of 
     programmatic surveillance, unless the court issues a finding 
     that such appointment is not appropriate; or
       ``(vi) otherwise presents novel or significant civil 
     liberties issues, unless the court issues a finding that such 
     appointment is not appropriate; and''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``an individual or 
     organization'' each place the term appears and inserting 
     ``one or more individuals or organizations''.
       (2) Definition of sensitive investigative matter.--
     Subsection (i) of section 103 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `sensitive 
     investigative matter' means--
       ``(A) an investigative matter involving the activities of--
       ``(i) a domestic public official or political candidate, or 
     an individual serving on the staff of such an official or 
     candidate;
       ``(ii) a domestic religious or political organization, or a 
     known or suspected United States person prominent in such an 
     organization; or
       ``(iii) the domestic news media; or
       ``(B) any other investigative matter involving a domestic 
     entity or a known or suspected United States person that, in 
     the judgment of the applicable court established under 
     subsection (a) or (b), is as sensitive as an investigative 
     matter described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Authority to Seek Review.--Subsection (i) of section 
     103 (50 U.S.C. 1803), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``; authority'' 
     after ``Duties'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and adjusting the 
     margins accordingly;
       (C) in the matter preceding clause (i), as so designated, 
     by striking ``the amicus curiae shall'' and inserting the 
     following: ``the amicus curiae--
       ``(A) shall'';
       (D) in subparagraph (A)(i), as so designated, by inserting 
     before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, including 
     legal arguments regarding any privacy or civil liberties 
     interest of any United States person that would be 
     significantly impacted by the application or motion''; and

[[Page H2341]]

       (E) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(B) may seek leave to raise any novel or significant 
     privacy or civil liberties issue relevant to the application 
     or motion or other issue directly impacting the legality of 
     the proposed electronic surveillance with the court, 
     regardless of whether the court has requested assistance on 
     that issue.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (13), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Authority to seek review of decisions.--
       ``(A) FISA court decisions.--Following issuance of an order 
     under this Act by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Court, an amicus curiae appointed under paragraph (2) may 
     petition the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to 
     certify for review to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Court of Review a question of law pursuant to subsection (j). 
     If the court denies such petition, the court shall provide 
     for the record a written statement of the reasons for such 
     denial. Upon certification of any question of law pursuant to 
     this subparagraph, the Court of Review shall appoint the 
     amicus curiae to assist the Court of Review in its 
     consideration of the certified question, unless the Court of 
     Review issues a finding that such appointment is not 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) FISA court of review decisions.--An amicus curiae 
     appointed under paragraph (2) may petition the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review to certify for 
     review to the Supreme Court of the United States any question 
     of law pursuant to section 1254(2) of title 28, United States 
     Code.
       ``(C) Declassification of referrals.--For purposes of 
     section 602, a petition filed under subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of this paragraph and all of its content shall be considered 
     a decision, order, or opinion issued by the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Court of Review described in paragraph (2) of 
     section 602(a).''.
     (3) In section 302(c), redesignate paragraph (2) as paragraph 
     (3).
     (4) In section 302(c), strike paragraph (1) and insert the 
     following:
       (1) Application and materials.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     103(i)(6) (50 U.S.C. 1803(i)(6)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Right of amicus.--If a court established under 
     subsection (a) or (b) appoints an amicus curiae under 
     paragraph (2), the amicus curiae--

       ``(I) shall have access to, to the extent such information 
     is available to the Government--

       ``(aa) the application, certification, petition, motion, 
     and other information and supporting materials, including any 
     information described in section 901, submitted to the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in connection with 
     the matter in which the amicus curiae has been appointed, 
     including access to any relevant legal precedent (including 
     any such precedent that is cited by the Government, including 
     in such an application);
       ``(bb) an unredacted copy of each relevant decision made by 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in which the court 
     decides a question of law, without regard to whether the 
     decision is classified; and
       ``(cc) any other information or materials that the court 
     determines are relevant to the duties of the amicus curiae; 
     and

       ``(II) may make a submission to the court requesting access 
     to any other particular materials or information (or category 
     of materials or information) that the amicus curiae believes 
     to be relevant to the duties of the amicus curiae.

       ``(ii) Supporting documentation regarding accuracy.--The 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, upon the motion of 
     an amicus curiae appointed under paragraph (2) or upon its 
     own motion, may require the Government to make available the 
     supporting documentation described in section 902.''.
       (2) Clarification of access to certain information.--Such 
     section is further amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``may'' and inserting 
     ``shall''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Classified information.--An amicus curiae appointed 
     by the court shall have access to, to the extent such 
     information is available to the Government, unredacted copies 
     of each opinion, order, transcript, pleading, or other 
     document of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, 
     including, if the individual is eligible for access to 
     classified information, any classified documents, 
     information, and other materials or proceedings.''.
     (5) Redesignate section 207 as section 208.
     (6) Insert after section 206 the following:

     SEC. 207. DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION; CERTIFICATION 
                   REGARDING ACCURACY PROCEDURES.

       (a) Disclosure of Relevant Information.--
       (1) In general.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

             ``TITLE IX--DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION

     ``SEC. 901. DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION.

       ``The Attorney General or any other Federal officer making 
     an application for a court order under this Act shall provide 
     the court with--
       ``(1) all information in the possession of the Government 
     that is material to determining whether the application 
     satisfies the applicable requirements under this Act, 
     including any exculpatory information; and
       ``(2) all information in the possession of the Government 
     that might reasonably--
       ``(A) call into question the accuracy of the application or 
     the reasonableness of any assessment in the application 
     conducted by the department or agency on whose behalf the 
     application is made; or
       ``(B) otherwise raise doubts with respect to the findings 
     that are required to be made under the applicable provision 
     of this Act in order for the court order to be issued.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

             ``TITLE IX--DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION

``Sec. 901. Disclosure of relevant information.''.
       (b) Certification Regarding Accuracy Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Title IX of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978, as added by subsection (a), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 902. CERTIFICATION REGARDING ACCURACY PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `accuracy 
     procedures' means specific procedures, adopted by the 
     Attorney General, to ensure that an application for a court 
     order under this Act, including any application for renewal 
     of an existing order, is accurate and complete, including 
     procedures that ensure, at a minimum, that--
       ``(1) the application reflects all information that might 
     reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information 
     or the reasonableness of any assessment in the application, 
     or otherwise raises doubts about the requested findings;
       ``(2) the application reflects all material information 
     that might reasonably call into question the reliability and 
     reporting of any information from a confidential human source 
     that is used in the application;
       ``(3) a complete file documenting each factual assertion in 
     an application is maintained;
       ``(4) the applicant coordinates with the appropriate 
     elements of the intelligence community (as defined in section 
     3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003)), 
     concerning any prior or existing relationship with the target 
     of any surveillance, search, or other means of investigation, 
     and discloses any such relationship in the application;
       ``(5) before any application targeting a United States 
     person is made, the applicant Federal officer shall document 
     that the officer has collected and reviewed for accuracy and 
     completeness supporting documentation for each factual 
     assertion in the application; and
       ``(6) the applicant Federal agency establish compliance and 
     auditing mechanisms on an annual basis to assess the efficacy 
     of the accuracy procedures that have been adopted and report 
     such findings to the Attorney General.
       ``(b) Statement and Certification of Accuracy Procedures.--
     Any Federal officer making an application for a court order 
     under this Act shall include with the application--
       ``(1) a description of the accuracy procedures employed by 
     the officer or the officer's designee; and
       ``(2) a certification that the officer or the officer's 
     designee has collected and reviewed for accuracy and 
     completeness--
       ``(A) supporting documentation for each factual assertion 
     contained in the application;
       ``(B) all information that might reasonably call into 
     question the accuracy of the information or the 
     reasonableness of any assessment in the application, or 
     otherwise raises doubts about the requested findings; and
       ``(C) all material information that might reasonably call 
     into question the reliability and reporting of any 
     information from any confidential human source that is used 
     in the application.
       ``(c) Necessary Finding for Court Orders.--A judge may not 
     enter an order under this Act unless the judge finds, in 
     addition to any other findings required under this Act, that 
     the accuracy procedures described in the application for the 
     order, as required under subsection (b)(1), are actually 
     accuracy procedures as defined in this section.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by 
     subsection (a), is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 901 the following:
``Sec. 902. Certification regarding accuracy procedures.''.
     (7) In section 208, as so redesignated, strike [section 501 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1861)] and insert: the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (if 
     applicable)
     (8) At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 409. ANNUAL REPORTING ON ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       Section 603 (50 U.S.C. 1873) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Annual Report by DOJ Inspector General on Accuracy 
     and Completeness of Applications.--
       ``(1) Definition of appropriate committees of congress.--In 
     this subsection, the term `appropriate committees of 
     Congress' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(2) Report.--In April of each year, the Inspector General 
     of the Department of Justice shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress and make public, subject to a 
     declassification review, a report setting forth, with respect 
     to the preceding calendar year, the following:

[[Page H2342]]

       ``(A) A summary of all accuracy or completeness reviews of 
     applications submitted to the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Court by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(B) The total number of applications reviewed for 
     accuracy or completeness.
       ``(C) The total number of material errors or omissions 
     identified during such reviews.
       ``(D) The total number of nonmaterial errors or omissions 
     identified during such reviews.
       ``(E) The total number of instances in which facts 
     contained in an application were not supported by 
     documentation that existed in the applicable file being 
     reviewed at the time of the accuracy review.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Nadler moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill, 
     H.R. 6172, with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to 
     the Senate amendments, and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, bills like the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act touch 
deeply held beliefs on all sides.
  The bill we intended to consider last night strengthened privacy 
protections and made substantial improvements to the law. The bill, as 
amended by the Senate, is a good and important package of reforms.
  Now, you may disagree with that assessment, you may genuinely believe 
that the bill doesn't go far enough to reform the FISA system or 
perhaps that it goes too far with those reforms. If you disagree with 
me on the merits of the bill, I respect that disagreement.
  What I cannot accept, and what I suspect many Americans will not 
accept, is a transparent, inexplicable, totally unjustified flip-flop 
on this bill, a bill important both to the security and the privacy of 
the United States.
  Just a few weeks ago, 126 Republicans joined 152 Democrats in support 
of a nearly identical measure, different only in that the Senate has 
added one amendment, a good amendment with almost universal support. 
Virtually all of those 126 Republicans changed their position in the 
past 24 hours.
  Madam Speaker, the American people see through those excuses. Nobody 
believes that this sudden reversal has anything to do with complaints 
about proxy voting. Nobody believes that the flip-flop is about Michael 
Flynn or Roger Stone, or even President Trump, whose cases have nothing 
to do with the authorities we hope to reform.
  There have been no real policy demands to explain the sudden 
reversal, no demands for changes in the bill. If my Republican 
colleagues had asked for substantive changes to the bill, we would have 
heard them out and tried to address their concerns.
  But that is not what happened. The Republicans abandoned this 
bipartisan project for one reason, and one reason only: the President 
tweeted, on a whim, and told them to oppose this bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is just one more example of how the President and 
his enablers in this body have stood in the way of national security, 
of civil liberties, and of our responsibility as Members of Congress.
  I refuse to let our efforts to reform FISA die simply because 
Republicans are unwilling to stand up to the President's whims.
  This legislation ends the NSA's call detail records program; it 
applies the cutting edge of Fourth Amendment privacy protections to 
section 215; it forces the government to disclose years of secret FISA 
court opinions; it increases transparency across the board; it raises 
the stakes for any government attorney who would dare mislead the 
court; and it dramatically expands the role of the amicus to be an 
advocate for privacy and civil liberties and to push back against 
claims that should have been rejected by the court long ago.
  It is our responsibility to continue our work, to pass this bill, to 
send it to the President's desk, and to ensure that these reforms are 
made law.
  None of us should rest until we have done that work.
  I would be very interested to hear what changed in the bill between 
yesterday morning and yesterday evening that caused the Republicans to 
withdraw their support from a bill they had agreed to, from provisions 
they said were improvements to national security, from provisions they 
said were improvements to civil liberties of American citizens, and 
suddenly all oppose it. What changed, other than the President's tweet?
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send 
the bill to conference where we can do the job we were sent here to do.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, everything has changed. The main change is it is worse 
than we thought.
  Since March 10, when this body last dealt with the FISA legislation, 
all kinds of things have changed.
  We have learned from the declassified transcripts how bad the 
situation was in the prior administration when they went after the 
Trump campaign.
  We have learned about the concerted effort to frame General Flynn, a 
three-star general, 30 years serving our country, and everything they 
did.
  We learned about January 4, when the FBI agents said: We should no 
longer pursue going after General Flynn. But what happened? Jim Comey 
told Peter Strzok: No, no, no. Go tell those agents we are going to 
continue to go after this guy.
  We learned the very next day, January 5, Jim Comey met with the 
President, President Obama, and talked about General Flynn.
  We learned on January 6 what happened that day. We learned that then-
FBI Director Comey goes to Trump Tower and meets with then-President-
elect Trump and talks to him about the dossier that they already know 
is false, that they know is Russian disinformation, they know is paid 
for by the Clinton campaign.
  Then what did we learn just 2 weeks later? January 20, 2017, what did 
they do? They sneak two agents into the White House, two FBI agents, to 
set up General Flynn.
  What else have we learned since we dealt with this issue on March 10?
  We have learned about the unmasking of Michael Flynn, 39 people 
unmasking General Flynn's name, six people in Treasury. What are six 
Treasury officials doing unmasking the guy who is going to be the 
National Security Director in the incoming administration?

                              {time}  1330

  Finally, and probably most importantly, we have the report from 
Inspector General Horowitz; not the report he did on the Carter Page 
FISA--we already got that; we know how scathing that was. We know all 
the wrongdoings that took place there--but the investigation he is just 
starting on FISA in general.
  He has looked at 29 cases involving American citizens--29 cases--and 
found in every single one of those cases multiple problems when they 
were surveilled; again, American citizens. In 4 of those 29 cases they 
couldn't even find the Woods file. They couldn't even find the file 
that you have to keep that has the basic evidence that you are then 
going to take to the FISA court. They couldn't even find it.
  So he does something that you hardly ever see. He does what is called 
a management alert, basically pulling the fire alarm saying this is so 
bad, I am going to tell you what is going on now; and I have just 
gotten started on looking at the overall FISA.
  So that is what has changed since March 10 when this body dealt with 
this issue.
  And when the President of the United States, a pretty important 
person in this debate, when he says, you know what? I think we should 
hit the pause button. We should wait here a little bit until we get to 
the bottom of everything that took place; what Mr. Horowitz is looking 
at; what Mr. Barr is looking at; what U.S. Attorney John Durham is 
looking at. Maybe we should just kind of hit the pause button and 
figure all this out. That is all he said, and that is all we have 
advocated. That is why we took the position we did at the conference 
yesterday, and I appreciate the fact that Leader McCarthy and our 
conference took that position.
  So let's wait and get all the facts. Let's wait until we actually 
hold people accountable before we renew this program which, as the 
President said yesterday, does allow some warrantless

[[Page H2343]]

searches of American citizens. So let's make sure we get it right. That 
is our position as Republicans.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman learned all this 
since noon yesterday when he testified in front of the Rules Committee 
in favor of this bill.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The information I had was, as the chairman has indicated, that the 
gentleman who just spoke appeared before the Rules Committee in support 
of this bill. And we can get the transcript. I don't have it right now, 
but perhaps somebody can get that transcript for me.
  For my entire career in public service, I have supported efforts to 
make America both strong and safe and a force for peace and 
reconciliation. In the course of those years, I have striven to draw an 
acceptable balance between our national security and the protection of 
our personal liberty and the right to privacy central to our unique 
extraordinary democracy; a government of laws, not men.
  Pursuant to that principle, as the majority leader, I scheduled the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for floor consideration over 2 
months ago.
  Previously, in 2008, Roy Blunt, then the minority whip, and myself, 
the majority leader; Senator Kit Bond, Senator from Missouri; and 
Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia, worked together, 
at a time of great controversy with respect to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, to forge a bill that would garner bipartisan support. 
It was a difficult bill, with the same kind of principle differences 
that Chairman Nadler spoke of earlier and I am going to speak about 
again.
  We passed that bill in a bipartisan fashion with, as we have today, 
people on the right and people on the left concerned about its content. 
So there was bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Speaker 
Pelosi and to-be President Obama, then in the Senate representing 
Illinois, voted for that bill. I have tried to continue to forge that 
balance through the years.
  The bill I brought to the floor a few months ago was a bipartisan 
effort to achieve that critical balance, and when it came to a vote, it 
received two-thirds of the votes from both Democrats and Republicans. 
This bill essentially had two-thirds of the votes on the Republican 
side and two-thirds of the votes on the Democratic side, so obviously, 
two-thirds of the votes of this House.
  As I observed yesterday, Americans must have been heartened by the 
fact that we could reach a bipartisan agreement on such a difficult 
bill. It was not a partisan bill. The leaders, all three top leaders, 
on both sides of the aisle supported, essentially, this bill.
  That bill, upon Senate consideration, was amended by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to strengthen the protections of 
privacy, which should have been heartening to those on the right and 
the left, and it was certainly heartening to me.
  And then, what did they do? They passed it, with 80 Senators, 48 
Republicans supporting this bill; 48 out of 53 supporting this bill. 
But this is not a partisan bill; and this bill is about that balance.
  Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff supported this bill and supported this 
balance. And two-thirds of us made a judgment that they had done a job 
worthy of support.
  So two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate, two-thirds of the 
Republicans in the Senate, two-thirds of the Republicans in this House, 
and two-thirds of the Democrats in this House have supported this bill. 
I believe that support was garnered because an assumption was made, a 
premise was adopted by the overwhelming majority of us, that it was a 
carefully crafted balance between security and individual liberties. It 
may not be perfect, but we have a responsibility to protect this 
country and our people.
  In consultation, therefore, with other leaders, I scheduled this bill 
for consideration yesterday. The night before, I got a call from my 
friend, the minority leader, that the President was urging Republicans 
in the House to change their votes to ``no.''

  In the twinkling of a presidential tweet, without any substantive 
logic to justify their actions, I was told that the 126 Republicans who 
had voted for this bill when it was considered in the House would now 
change their votes and vote ``no.''
  Chairman Nadler has said this, and I want to share this because it is 
worth repeating. I believe when FISA passed the House in March, every 
Member, those who voted ``yes'' and those who voted ``no'' voted their 
principles and their conviction on what they believed was in the 
security interests of the United States. Every one of the 435 people--I 
don't think there were quite 435--that voted on that bill, in my view, 
voted on principle and out of conviction.
  I, of course, believed that the two-thirds of the Members who voted 
for the bill, on principle, and pursuant to conviction about making 
this country safe, were voting, not for party, but for principle.
  Therefore, I was surprised because I saw, not then nor now, any 
reason that either principle or conviction should be changed, 
particularly in light of the fact that 80 Senators--80 Senators--48 
Republican colleagues of yours, Madam Speaker, voted for this bill.
  Therefore, I assumed that we could bring Members back. We had a 
controversy where some didn't come back. We had a new rule you don't 
like. We could bring the Congress back and vote on a bipartisan bill 
for America.
  But, as a result of the President's antipathy toward Federal law 
enforcement and his personal sense of grievance, authorities that have 
expired will continue to be lapsed.
  The complicity of those who believe that the reauthorizing of these 
authorities was in the best interest of the United States, in 
preventing its passage last night and today, is, I think, both sad and 
irresponsible.
  Madam Speaker, I regret that we did not bring this bill to the floor 
for a vote.
  This is a result, in my view, Madam Speaker, of patently political 
and indefensible abandonment of principle and responsibility, both as a 
coequal branch of government and its policymaking branch as well.
  Madam Speaker, we need to send this bill to conference. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to send it to conference. And if you think this 
needs to be perfected in some way, as Mr. Nadler said, that is the 
place to do it now that we are not going to have it on the floor.
  Let me repeat. I would have had it on the floor. But we will not get 
an opportunity to vote on it, so I will wait to see the result of a 
conference with the Republican-led Senate on the bill that the 
President has threatened to veto.
  Two-thirds of us believed that this was a bill that was good for 
America. This is a serious issue with serious consequences, and I urge 
you to vote ``yes.'' Do not kill this bill.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to correct a couple of things that the majority leader 
said. You guys are the ones that let the FISA law lapse. There was a 
75-day extension sent over here. You guys got the majority. You let it 
lapse.
  We want to fix it. We want to correct it. We want to make sure it is 
not abused like it has obviously been abused. We didn't let it lapse, 
you guys did.
  And frankly, if you guys got the votes for this bill, you got the 
majority, you could pass it today. You don't have the votes because we 
need more work to be done on this to correct it.
  The leader also said something that was not accurate. He said the 
President had no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday.
  Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
  They spied on two American citizens associated with his campaign, and 
he has got no basis for the tweet he did yesterday?
  They used a dossier to go to the secret court to get a warrant to spy 
on one of those individuals; a dossier that they knew was false; a 
dossier they knew was paid for by the Clinton campaign; a dossier that 
Jim Comey said--not me--Jim Comey said was salacious and unverified; a 
dossier where the author had already told the Justice Department that 
he was desperate to stop

[[Page H2344]]

Trump from getting elected, and they used it to go spy on the Trump 
campaign.
  And the President has no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday?

                              {time}  1345

  Are you kidding me? You guys let it lapse. We are trying to fix it 
because we know how bad it is.
  Finally, I would just reiterate 29 cases where American citizens were 
surveilled by the FBI, and every single one of those was a major 
problem when they went to the FISA court. As I said before, four of 
those cases, they couldn't even find the Woods File.
  We want to fix this, and we are willing to take as long as it takes.
  I agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. There are good 
things in the legislation. I said that yesterday at the Rules 
Committee. But what I also said at the Rules Committee is: Let's get it 
right.
  If the President is saying that we are not going to do this until we 
figure out everything that went wrong, I agree with him 100 percent. 
More importantly, the American people agree with that. They want this 
fixed. They don't want anything done on this until we get to the bottom 
of everything that took place in the Comey FBI.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wasserman Schultz). Members are reminded 
to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert). The judge is my good friend and fellow Judiciary 
Committee member.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, one of the advantages we have seen from 
having a typed speech is you don't forget things like I often do that 
are important points, but one of the weaknesses is you can't respond to 
the myriad of points that somebody just made explaining why we need 
massive reform to the FISA bill and the information that has come out.
  Now, I got here 15 years ago, and I was part of the reauthorization 
back in those days. We got lied to by the Justice Department about how 
this would be used. They came back in the private meetings: Oh, we 
don't go after Americans.
  We have seen from the information that has come out in recent weeks 
that they do exactly what they told us by behind closed doors they 
never did.
  This thing needs to be massively reformed.
  What happened in the last 24 hours? Something called a Rules 
Committee, and it wouldn't allow our reforms. It wouldn't allow this 
body to vote on important reforms.
  Go reread the Fourth Amendment. We are not supposed to authorize 
searches and seizures against Americans without the proper due process, 
without a probable cause, and without particularly describing the 
places to be searched and what to be seized. And the FISA court has 
violated that.
  Oh, some say, we just add an amicus in there and that will take care 
of it.
  The FISA judges did not even have the honor of their courts after 
finding out they were lied to repeatedly and fraud was committed 
against them to do something about it. That tells you we need massive 
reform.
  A vote to go to conference is a total abdication of this body's job 
to put out a good bill that does reform.
  Madam Speaker, I ask everybody, vote ``no'' to go to conference so 
that we can force this House to do its job.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, let me just say, first of all, of course, 
much of what the distinguished gentleman from Ohio said is fiction, as 
we all know.
  But, second of all, this bill as of yesterday noon was supported by 
Republicans and was supported by the gentleman from Ohio as making 
sufficient reforms, as making the reforms that we all recognize we need 
in the FISA system.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is testimony dated 5/27/2020. I am 
going to read you some passages from that testimony:
  ``Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this important 
legislation.''
  I will go down, skip a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps he will want to 
point those out.
  ``Fortunately,'' the gentleman said, ``this bill makes important 
structural reforms to the program to combat abuses.''
  He then said: ``Most importantly, this bill includes accountability 
measures.''
  He went on to say: ``It also includes reforms that strengthen 
Congress' oversight powers.''
  ``Finally,'' he said, ``I would like to thank Senators Lee and Leahy 
for their amendment to the House-passed bill which strengthens the 
amicus role in these proceedings by extending them to any sensitive 
investigative matter involving any U.S. persons. And I also fully 
support this inclusion as well of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment,'' 
which is not on the bill, ``to limit the FBI's ability to obtain 
internet browsing history of Americans.''
  I am trying to find a word of opposition to this bill, clearly, taken 
by the Rules Committee as support of the passage of this bill.
  My, my, my. As I have pointed out earlier, the consequences of a 
twinkling of a tweet from the President of the United States: Like 
that, changing the votes of 126 people, whom I believed voted on 
principle and on conviction for this bill for America.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, let me first point out, I already said 
that I supported the legislation. I said that, but I also said we could 
make it better. And the President, in light of what we have learned in 
the last 2 months--we need to make it better. I think we can do that.
  We should never forget the President of the United States plays a 
pretty important role. In fact, he has to sign the bills, last time I 
checked, so his position does have real impact.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great 
State of Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.

  Madam Speaker, as the majority leader well knows better than most of 
us in the room, for a bill to become law, the President of the United 
States must sign it, and he has made clear that he is not going to sign 
this product. So, it is a complete waste of everyone's time to send 
over a bill that has no chance to become law.
  Rather than make this bill better, rather than make this bill 
something that could become law, we are going to run out the clock on 
more broken process. Why are we going to do that? We are going to do 
that because the people who are working to preserve the broken status 
quo of warrantless spying on American citizens want to keep that status 
quo in place.
  So, rather than allow real reform, we have had a process that 
bypassed the Judiciary Committee. When Chairman Nadler realized he 
didn't have the votes to move his own product through the committee, he 
pulled the whole committee process. In a committee process, amendments 
would be able to be offered, and because they knew the amendments would 
be offered in accordance with the rules of the House and would be 
adopted if they were given a chance to vote, they had to pull it.
  So, they didn't run it through the committee. The people who are 
represented by all 435 of us in this body had no chance to have their 
voices heard in a regular process. Leadership jammed through this 
broken bill to try to put some window dressing of reform on it.
  Some of them are important; they are better than the status quo. But 
they are just modest reforms. That is why they had so much support from 
the people who want to preserve it. Then, when there was a real reform, 
you saw that drop off. Then, when there was the Lofgren-Davidson 
amendment that really would reform it and stop warrantless spying on 
Americans' internet browser data, when it was spying on Americans, they 
stopped it--not a single vote on an amendment in the people's House of 
the United States of America to preserve and protect the freedoms 
guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.
  Yes, we must make our Nation secure. But we must do it 
constitutionally in full compliance with the

[[Page H2345]]

Bill of Rights. No one is exempt, Article I, Article II, or Article 
III.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I listened to the distinguished gentleman a moment 
ago: We shouldn't pass any legislation that the President won't sign.
  The King of England used to have the royal prerogative, an absolute 
veto. The President of the United States does not.
  This House and the Senate should do its job and pass proper 
legislation, and let the President do his job. We had two-thirds of the 
votes in this House for this bill.
  Yes, the gentleman from Ohio mentions the Lofgren-Davidson amendment. 
I support that amendment. If we had gone forward, we could have gone 
with it. But the fact of the matter is, they have withdrawn their 
support because of the President's tweet, and for no other reason, we 
are where we are now.
  To preserve the ability to have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act and preserve national security as well as the improvements in the 
act embodied in this bill and in the Senate version of the bill that 
improves security while improving privacy protections against 
surveillance, we must approve this motion to go to conference.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said before. We have a choice. The 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as everybody agrees, is not in 
good shape. FISA is necessary to preserve the security of the United 
States. I think everyone agrees with that. But we need improvements to 
FISA to make sure that while we protect the security of the United 
States against foreign aggression and foreign subversion, such as the 
Russian attempt to subvert our elections 4 years ago, we also must 
improve FISA to provide greater protections against unwarranted 
surveillance and provide greater protections for American civil 
liberties and privacy.
  This bill does that. It may not do it as much as some people want, 
but it goes a heck of a lot further than what we have now. This bill 
must be passed if we are going to have the protections of civil 
liberties that we want.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a decent balance. I urge its adoption. To 
do that, we have to go to conference. I urge the adoption of the motion 
to go to conference, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 284, 
nays 122, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               YEAS--284

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Himes
     Holding
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--122

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Banks
     Barragan
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chu, Judy
     Clarke (NY)
     Cline
     Cloud
     Comer
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Engel
     Estes
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Garcia (IL)
     Gianforte
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Jayapal
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kim
     King (IA)
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McClintock
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Norman
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pocan
     Posey
     Pressley
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Roy
     Schweikert
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Takano
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Tlaib
     Van Drew
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Abraham
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Carter (TX)
     Costa
     Crawford
     Dunn
     Gibbs
     Granger
     Hern, Kevin
     Hollingsworth
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Mitchell
     Olson
     Rooney (FL)
     Sensenbrenner
     Steube
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Young

                              {time}  1510

  Mses. HERRERA BEUTLER, OCASIO-CORTEZ, Messrs. GUTHRIE, and KIM 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BALDERSON and CONAWAY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 28, 2020. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 115, a motion 
to disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to go to conference on 
H.R. 6172.

[[Page H2346]]

  

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 28, I was unavoidably 
detained on rollcall vote No. 115. Had I been present to vote, I would 
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 115.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Barragan (Gallego)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Bera (Aguilar)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Raskin)
     Brownley (CA) (Kuster (NH))
     Cardenas (Sanchez)
     Chu, Judy (Takano)
     Cisneros (Houlahan)
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Crist (Murphy (FL))
     Davis (CA) (Wild)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Eshoo (Thompson (CA))
     Foster (Beyer)
     Frankel (Kuster (NH))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gonzalez (TX) (Cuellar)
     Grijalva (Clay)
     Harder (CA) (Haaland)
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Heck (Kilmer)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Huffman (Kildee)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Sherman)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Krishnamoorthi (Brown (MD))
     Lawrence (Kildee)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Levin (CA) (Kildee)
     Levin (MI) (Raskin)
     Lewis (Kildee)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Meng)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Rose (NY))
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McNerney (Raskin)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Peters (Rice (NY))
     Pingree (Kuster (NH))
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Roybal-Allard (Sanchez)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Schneider (Houlahan)
     Schrader (O'Halleran)
     Schrier (Kilmer)
     Serrano (Meng)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Suozzi (Panetta)
     Tlaib (Dingell)
     Tonko (Meng)
     Trahan (McGovern)
     Vargas (Keating)
     Veasey (Beyer)
     Vela (Gallego)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________