[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)
____________________