[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 68 (Thursday, April 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2833-S2837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  REFORMING INTELLIGENCE AND SECURING AMERICA ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 7888, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 365, H.R. 7888, a bill to 
     reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                          Mayorkas Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate set a very 
important precedent that impeachment should be reserved only for high 
crimes and misdemeanors and not for settling policy disagreements.
  That is what is the impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas was from 
the start: a policy dispute, frankly, to help Donald Trump on the 
campaign trail. It did not meet the high standard required by the 
Constitution to remove someone from office. I am very glad the Senate 
worked its will to set these charges aside. The prudence and cool 
judgment the Senate showed yesterday is what the Framers would have 
wanted. They didn't want impeachment to be used for every policy 
dispute--when you don't agree with a Cabinet minister or Cabinet 
secretary, you impeach them. That would have created chaos in the 
executive branch and here in the Senate, because the House could just 
throw over impeachment after impeachment; and if you have to have a 
whole big trial on every one of them, the Senate could be ground to a 
halt.
  So let me repeat what I said yesterday. We felt it was very important 
to set a precedent that impeachment should never--never be used to 
settle policy disagreements. We are supposed to have debates on the 
issues, not impeachments on the issues.
  Let me repeat that; it is such an important concept, and I am so glad 
we stood firm yesterday: We are supposed to have debates on the issues, 
not impeachments on the issues. We are not supposed to say that 
whenever you disagree with someone on policy, that that is a high crime 
and misdemeanor. Can you imagine the kind of chaos and damage that 
would create? As I said, the House could paralyze the Senate with 
frivolous trials, particularly when one party had the House and the 
other had the Senate. It would degrade Government, and it, frankly, 
degrades impeachment which is reserved--rarely--for high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
  To show how unprecedented what the House did was, no Cabinet 
Secretary has been impeached for over--since--I think it was 1867. And 
even in that case, he resigned before the trial. It was never intended 
to happen. But, unfortunately, the hard, radical right in the House is 
just so intent on paralyzing government, creating chaos in government, 
even destroying government, that they don't care. But we in

[[Page S2834]]

the Senate on our side of the aisle did care. My guess is a lot of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared too.

  If my colleagues on the other side want to talk about immigration, 
Democrats welcome that debate--welcome it. We should debate border 
bills, like the ones Republicans blocked here on the floor. That is how 
you fix the border--with bipartisan legislation. Impeachment would have 
accomplished nothing.


                               H.R. 7888

  Now, Madam President, on FISA, today, the Senate will vote on cloture 
on the motion to proceed to the FISA reauthorization bill sent by the 
House earlier this week. This is a very important procedural vote. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides to show strong support for moving 
forward on this bill.
  Now, we obviously don't have a lot of time left before FISA 
authorities expire--in fact, less than 2 days--but we will try as hard 
as we can to get FISA reauthorization done today. If not, Members 
should expect we will have votes tomorrow.


                 National Security Supplemental Funding

  Madam President, on the supplemental and on Ukraine, today, the House 
will keep working on national security supplemental funding. Yesterday, 
the House released legislative text, and I will continue to monitor 
closely what our House colleagues do in the coming days. I hope that 
President Biden will soon have on his desk long-awaited funding to 
support our friends in Ukraine and Israel and the Indo-Pacific and aid 
for innocent civilians in need of humanitarian aid in Gaza and around 
the world.
  Senator Booker has told us stories about the starvation in Darfur and 
how much worse it would become if we don't get the aid. So the time for 
House inaction has long been over.
  This afternoon, it will be my honor to meet with Ukrainian Prime 
Minister Denys Shmyhal, who is here to push for more funding for 
Ukraine. I will tell the Prime Minister the same thing I told President 
Zelenskyy when I was in Ukraine about a month ago: America will not 
abandon you. Your cause is our cause, and we are working day and night 
to finally deliver to you the aid you need to defeat Vladimir Putin's 
evil forces.
  The one word to describe what the House needs right now is urgency--
urgency. I remember, during my visit to Ukraine, standing in front of 
the cemetery in Lviv dedicated to the war dead. Not long before our 
visit, that grave site was a parking lot in the middle of Lviv, but it 
was converted to a cemetery after the city ran out of space to bury 
casualties. And even as we stood there--even as we observed a moment of 
silence--a few yards away, I could see workers digging even more holes 
in the ground to prepare for more casualties they knew would come. 
Worst of all, many of these brave soldiers died because they didn't 
have the supplies and ammunition they needed.
  I wish I could say the Ukraine war effort has not suffered due to 
American inaction, but that would not be true. As the Wall Street 
Journal noted yesterday, ``Ukraine's Chances of Pushing Russia Out Look 
Increasingly Grim.'' And why did they say that? Well, it is because the 
House has continued to drag its feet in sending funding for ammo and 
air defenses and other basic supplies. I hope that changes, at last, in 
the coming days.


                                 Micron

  Now, Madam President, on the good news front--my front--today is the 
dawn of a new day in Syracuse and in all of Upstate New York. I am 
proud to announce that Micron is expected to receive $6.1 billion from 
my Chips and Science law to support its chip megafab project in Central 
New York and its expansion in Idaho.
  This multibillion-dollar award is one of the largest single, direct 
Federal investments in Upstate New York's history. It is a landmark 
announcement for Syracuse and all of Upstate New York and for the 
Nation. It will create 50,000 new, good-paying jobs in New York alone 
and propel Micron to reach its goal of investing over $100 billion to 
make advanced memory chips here in the United States.
  We have had other chip fab announcements--they are all good; I 
welcome all of them--but this one is the first for memory chips, and 
memory chips are becoming more and more important because they are the 
basic chip used in AI, and AI is expanding all over the place.
  So I am glad about this announcement. We are rebuilding Upstate New 
York with good-paying middle-class jobs one microchip at a time.
  Micron is the leading manufacturer of memory chips, which are 
critical to everything from cell phones to cars to AI. And this major 
chips investment is making possible the largest and one of the most 
advanced memory chip projects in the United States and even in the 
world, and it is critical to our national security and competitiveness. 
With this investment and the hundreds of billions of other 
transformational chips investments by Intel, TSMC, Samsung, 
GlobalFoundries, and more, we are bringing manufacturing back to 
America. We are shoring up our supply chains to prevent shortages and 
high prices, and we are strengthening our national security.

  I worked really hard to write and pass the Chips and Science Act into 
law, with the goal of bringing advanced manufacturing to the United 
States as my guiding light--and not just communities in New York but 
communities everywhere: Arizona, Idaho, Texas, Ohio. These are the 
places where the story of American innovation will be written this 
century.
  And speaking about my own home State--and I am wearing my orange tie 
today for Syracuse--I had communities like Syracuse and other Upstate 
New York communities in mind when I wrote Chips and Science, and I made 
sure they would be the ones celebrating these types of investments, not 
far off places in countries like China. We want these chips made in 
Syracuse, not in Shanghai.
  I am proud that this $6 billion investment delivers on my promise to 
Micron and makes the promise of the Chips and Science Act a reality. It 
is not just a once-in-a-generation investment; it is a once-in-a-
lifetime investment. It was a long, hard-fought battle to get Chips and 
Science done. It took us 4 years, as we had to persuade the House of 
Representatives how important it was, but this announcement proves that 
the hard work and persistence is paying off. We still have a long way 
to go, but we are one step closer to securing America's future as a 
leader in the global semiconductor industry.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                 National Security Supplemental Funding

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would like to begin by addressing 
the urgent national security supplemental that is still pending over in 
the House of Representatives.
  Opponents of this urgent investment in American strength have taken 
to clothing their objections in the false mantle of realism, and, at 
first glance, this would appear to be a rhetorically savvy move. After 
all, who would admit to being unrealistic? Who would willingly say that 
their policies and their world view don't reflect the world as it is? 
But, as our Nation faces the most dangerous moment in a generation, it 
is worth examining this claim in a bit more detail.
  The concept of realism has an academic meaning that refers to a 
specific set of assumptions about how states interact. The realist 
school of thought, at its core, contends that states act alone in a 
perpetual competition, constantly assessing the balance of power with 
their adversaries and seeking to maximize their own security and 
relative influence.
  As the ancient Athenians put it, ``the strong do what they can, and 
the weak suffer what they must.''
  In a sense, as some of the most vocal opponents of the supplemental 
like to point out, realists don't have time for morality tales or sappy 
appeals to universal values. The world is an uncaring place, and so-
called realists are concerned with cold, hard national interests. Well, 
as luck would have it, so am I.
  None of the tenets of academic realism actually preclude our 
colleagues

[[Page S2835]]

from vigorously supporting the supplemental--quite the opposite. 
Consider the investments we are talking about making: rebuilding 
American hard power and growing our domestic industrial capacity to 
sustain it; in the process, helping to decimate the hard power of a 
major adversary at almost no risk to U.S. forces; deterring further 
challenges to a balance of power favorable to American interests; 
preserving and expanding our relative influence with other states; 
helping our friends and hurting our enemies; and successfully rallying 
these friends and allies to share the burden of balancing against 
competitors who seek to undermine the United States and the West.
  Academic realism doesn't conflict with our efforts in the 
supplemental, and neither does simple reality. Being realistic and 
rejecting fanciful idealism means recognizing that we are facing the 
greatest, most coordinated security challenges since the Cold War.
  In Europe, a neo-Soviet imperialist is threatening the stability of 
some of America's closest allies. Europe is the largest consumer of 
American products and the largest foreign direct investor in America. 
Instability in Europe is bad for business.
  In the Middle East, backward theocrats are orchestrating terrorist 
attacks on Americans as well as our friends and racing to produce a 
nuclear weapon. Their vassals are disrupting the freedom of 
navigation--the lifeblood of our economy--with near impunity.
  And in the Pacific, the People's Republic of China is pulling every 
lever to undermine America's power and dominate its hemisphere and 
beyond, from massive military expansion and predatory economic coercion 
to psychological manipulation, intellectual property theft, and the 
supply chain that pumps lethal poison across our borders.
  So it would be utterly unrealistic to pretend that America can afford 
to delay an urgent, comprehensive investment in the hard power required 
to meet all these threats. The mushy moralism here is pretending to 
care more about brave Ukrainian war dead than the Ukrainian people do 
themselves.
  The naive ideology is thinking that Russian revanchism is somehow 
connected to Christian values, in spite of clear evidence that Putin 
has corrupted the Russian Orthodox Church and is actively repressing 
Christians both at home and in conquered territories. The plain fantasy 
is saying that the challenges we face abroad will wait patiently while 
we attend to our own domestic affairs.
  Here is the diplomatic reality: Putin has said publicly there is no 
sense negotiating with an opponent who is running out of ammunition.
  Anyone who wants a negotiated end to this conflict should also want 
Ukraine to have as much negotiating leverage as possible.
  Here is the political reality: If you think the fall of Afghanistan 
was bad, the fall of a European capital like Kyiv to Russian troops 
will be unimaginably worse. And if stalled American assistance makes 
that outcome possible, there is no question where the blame will land--
on us.
  Neglecting threats doesn't make them go away; it just guarantees 
unpreparedness when they strike.
  I am reminded of the late Republican from Michigan, Arthur 
Vandenberg, a staunch anti-interventionist in the years leading up to 
the Second World War. As Senator Vandenberg wrote in his diary after 
the attack on Pearl Harbor, ``That day ended isolationism for any 
realist.''
  Needless to say, it shouldn't take an attack on the homeland for 
American leaders to uphold their responsibilities and provide for the 
common defense. The clear and present danger is just that: It is clear; 
it is present; and it will grow if we do not act.
  For those of us who see the world clearly, this isn't a question of 
realism versus idealism. Right now, what America should do also happens 
to be what we can do. We can grow a defense industrial base capable of 
sustaining both U.S. forces and our allies and partners. We can help 
degrade one adversary while strengthening deterrence against others. We 
can start investing seriously in rebuilding the hard power that a 
secure and prosperous nation requires--not only can we; we must.


                             Anti-Semitism

  Madam President, now on another matter, the past 6 months have shown 
an uncomfortably bright light on the moral rot festering on America's 
university and campuses.
  Just yesterday, the president of Columbia hedged when asked whether 
chants of ``from the river to the sea'' and ``long live the intifada'' 
are properly considered anti-Semitism. This comes after numerous 
incidents on her campus, including a student club president issuing an 
email that read:

       White Jewish people . . . today and always have been the 
     oppressors of all brown people.
       [And] when I say the Holocaust wasn't special, I mean that.

  Of course, the light of truth doesn't discriminate, and it has 
uncovered much more than an alarming taste for the world's oldest form 
of hate.
  Last month, a Federal judge found that an assistant professor at 
Harvard Medical School had committed plagiarism in a report submitted 
on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.
  If this weren't enough, Harvard's office for Equity, Diversity, 
Inclusion, and Belonging recently announced they will host racially 
segregated ``affinity celebrations'' during their 2024 commencement.
  These are the institutions that President Biden wants working 
Americans to underwrite? These are the degrees that President Biden 
wants taxpayers to subsidize?
  Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the President's initial 
attempt at student loan socialism was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, 
Washington Democrats continue to double down.
  Earlier this week, the Biden administration proposed yet another 
nearly $150 billion round of student loan transfers. That is on top of 
more than $150 billion they have already rolled out. At a most basic 
level, the proposal betrays a staggering disdain for working 
Americans--both those who have paid off their debt and those who opted 
not to take on the debt in the first place. It will transfer the loans 
of the highest earning members of Washington Democrats' base to working 
taxpayers. And it has already driven up tuition costs for future 
students.
  But the Biden administration has made it pretty clear that they don't 
care about future students. Just look at the way they are handling the 
current round of FAFSA applications. Last week, the Education 
Department admitted that its own data and processing errors had 
compromised up to 30 percent of the Federal financial aid applications.
  Just as prospective students and their families are facing enrollment 
deadlines, Washington Democrats apparently couldn't care less whether 
prospective students make informed decisions. Apparently, hefty tuition 
costs don't matter much if taxpayers will be the ones ultimately 
footing the bill. Well, I expect that working Americans across the 
country will have something to say about this in the fall.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the motion 
to proceed to H.R. 7888 be waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 7888

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have come back to the floor today to 
reprise some of the things I said yesterday but, hopefully, to add some 
more color on an issue that has literally popped up in the last few 
days.
  I start with the premise that we have a big, big question in front of 
us this afternoon and tomorrow: whether we are going to go ahead and 
continue maintaining the intelligence community and its most powerful 
tool, section 702. So I rise in support of the Reforming Intelligence 
and Securing America Act, H.R. 7888, which we will be voting for 
cloture on in a few short moments.
  As I shared with my colleagues yesterday, no other law is more 
important

[[Page S2836]]

to the work of the intelligence community than section 702 of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Section 702--I enumerated all of 
the ways it has been used, whether that is thwarting terrorist attacks, 
dealing with weapons of proliferation, stopping foreign cyberattacks, 
dealing with fentanyl trafficking; but the key point to remember is 
that 60 percent of the intelligence that is provided in the President's 
daily brief--not only under this President but former Presidents as 
well--comes from products of 702.
  It is hard to overstate either the importance of this law or, 
frankly, the gravity of allowing it to sunset. Yet we are 36 hours away 
from that happening.
  Now, I understand that some of my colleagues would like to amend the 
House-passed bill and continue the process of debate and negotiation. 
Listen, there are things I would like to change in the House bill as 
well, but the reality is that we are out of time. The choice before 
us--and as we think about amendments, this is the case--is pass this 
bill or allow 702 to sunset.
  I have to tell you, as we follow all of the ups and downs of the 
House, if anyone thinks that amending this bill and returning it to the 
House will somehow yield a better agreement that has eluded us, 
literally, for the last 5 or 6 years on this very contentious issue, I 
don't think that is a realistic assumption. But what it will do if we 
send it back to a House that is entwined with leadership issues and the 
whole question of whether the national security provisions will be 
voted on and dealt with this weekend--what it will do if we were to 
amend and send it back to the House: It will invite a sunset, an 
unspeakable outcome that the President's own Intelligence Advisory 
Board has said will be remembered as one of the worst intelligence 
failures of our time.
  We all know, as we assemble here today, Israel is at war with Hamas, 
we potentially have not only a regional but, potentially, a global 
conflict with Iran, our allies in Ukraine endure repeated Russian 
military bombardments. I just came from a broadly bipartisan biotech 
roundtable where expert after expert pointed out what China was doing 
and how much we have got to do to keep up and catch up. The idea that 
we would, in effect, almost go out of the intelligence business at this 
moment in time is extraordinarily dangerous.
  So I know we will have the overall bill discussions and we will have 
discussions about why something that sounds, on its surface--a warrant 
provision, which I have said yesterday and I will repeat for 
colleagues--over half the times an American is queried in the 702 
database, they are a victim of a crime--not someone that you would show 
probable cause has done something wrong but, oftentimes, the victim of 
a cyber crime.
  Or if not, the question I raised yesterday, we arrest a terrorist in 
Paris, we have got a different Presiding Officer, and that terrorist 
has a 213 area code number in their pocket--we don't know whether that 
is a real phone number. We don't know if it goes to an American, goes 
to a foreign person. But the warrant requirement would require, before 
you could even query--and I get my friend the Senator from Illinois, 
Dick Durbin. He has a slightly different variation on this--you would 
be allowed to query that phone number. Remember, this comes off of a 
known terrorist. But you wouldn't be able to look at the results unless 
you could show probable cause.
  They will say that we can have an expediency requirement, but the 
idea that we would potentially put this into a FISA proceeding that 
could take days or weeks, I think, is very dangerous.
  But I would like, again, to use the remainder of my time to discuss 
one provision of the bill--a technical amendment that was added in the 
House to the definition of an ``electronic communication service 
provider''--that has drawn considerable scrutiny and has been the focus 
of many of my colleagues' appropriate questions. It is important that 
the Members have a complete understanding of this provision that is 
grounded in fact and not distorted by, frankly--with some of the 
outside groups--what are, frankly, absurd distortions being raised by 
some of its opponents.

  The amendment does not, as some have suggested, allow the government 
to spy on Americans at coffee shops or bars or restaurants or 
residences or hotels, libraries, recreational facilities, and a whole 
litany of other similar establishments. It would absolutely not, as 
some critics have maintained, allow the U.S. Government to somehow 
compel, for example, a janitor working in an office building in 
northern Virginia to spy for the intelligence community or for your 
housekeeper to somehow access your laptop at home. Nor would it ever 
allow, as some have absurdly claimed, States to use 702 to target women 
in terms of their healthcare choices.
  If Members have questions about this amendment, I urge them to take 
time to go through some of the classified information down in Senate 
Security. And the Department of Justice will be on hand later today to 
walk folks through why this technical amendment was added.
  But let me talk about--my business for 25 years was in the telecom 
sector. I know a little bit about what is trying to be accomplished 
here. The law that was set up in 2008 was one world of 
telecommunications and telecommunications networks. The world we live 
in today, in 2024, is dramatically different. I said yesterday, in 
2008, a cloud was something you had to worry about that might rain, not 
a network of computer operations. As technology has evolved, so must 
we.
  The truth is, this amendment does not change the scope of 702; it 
simply accounts for new technological advances since the law was first 
written in 2008. It is not the first time we have had to amend certain 
laws to account for new technologies, nor will it be the last.
  As a reminder one more time, section 702 authorizes the intelligence 
community to collect critical foreign intelligence about foreign 
targets located outside the United States. Some of the ways we do that 
is with compelled assistance of United States--American--electronic 
communications service providers, or ECSPs.
  Now, why has this suddenly now become such an issue? Well, one of 
these communication providers--remember I talked about clouds, data 
centers, how these networks come together and how network traffic is 
intertangled at these data centers? One of these entities that 
controlled one of those new enterprises that didn't exist in 2008 said: 
Well, hold it. You can't compel us to work with the American Government 
because we don't technically fit the definition of an electronic 
communication service provider. And the fact was, the company that 
raised that claim won in court. So what happened was, the FISA Court 
said to Congress: You guys need to close this loophole; you need to 
close this and change this definition. So that is where a lot of this 
debate has come from.
  Yesterday, as White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan 
explained in a statement he released, the amendment is ``directly 
responsive to encouragement from a federal appellate court to update 
the definition of the private-sector companies with which the U.S. 
Government can work, under supervision of federal judges and with 
extensive oversight by four congressional committees, to obtain the 
communications of non-Americans abroad.''
  The National Security Advisor urged Members to ``reject 
mischaracterizations'' of the amendment. He also reiterated that 
``nothing in this amendment changes the fundamentals of Section 702, 
which can be used to target for collection only the communications of 
non-Americans located outside the United States.''
  Now, one, I think the amendment could have been drafted better.
  I have a letter here from the Attorney General which shares the view 
and memorializing DOJ's narrow interpretation of this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2024.
     Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell: As I testified 
     yesterday, I urge

[[Page S2837]]

     the Senate to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) before it expires on 
     Friday. Section 702 is indispensable to our work to protect 
     the American people from cyber, nation state, terrorist, and 
     other threats.
       Section 25 of H.R. 7888 includes language modifying the 
     definition of ``electronic communication service provider'' 
     (ECSP). As I testified yesterday, this is a technical 
     amendment to address the changes in internet technology in 
     the 15 years since Section 702 was passed. It is narrowly 
     tailored and is in response to the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Court's identification of a need for a 
     legislative fix.
       The attached April 17, 2024, letter from Assistant Attorney 
     General Carlos Felipe Uriarte, including the Department of 
     Justice's representations regarding the ECSP provision, 
     reflects my views and my strong support for the passage of 
     H.R. 7888.
           Sincerely,
                                               Merrick B. Garland,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mark Warner,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Warner: We are grateful that the Senate is 
     continuing to work on a bipartisan basis to extend Title VII 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 
     including Section 702, for an additional two years. Section 
     702 provides critical and unique foreign intelligence at a 
     speed and reliability that the Intelligence Community cannot 
     replicate with any other authority. The Intelligence 
     Community relies on Section 702 in almost every aspect of its 
     work, and the authority is essential to our national 
     security.
       We urge the Senate to pass H.R. 7888 by Friday, April 19. 
     Doing so will prevent the lapse of this critical national 
     security tool and will impose the most comprehensive set of 
     reforms in the history of the Section 702 program.
       As you are aware, Section 25 of H.R. 7888 includes 
     technical language modifying the definition of ``electronic 
     communication service provider'' (ECSP) to address unforeseen 
     changes in electronic communications technology. As Attorney 
     General Merrick Garland testified, this change ``is a 
     technical change. It's a consequence of internet technology 
     changing in the 15 years since FISA 702 was passed. It's 
     narrowly tailored. It is actually a response to a suggestion 
     from the FISA court to make--to seek this kind of legislative 
     fix. It does not in any way change who can be a target of 
     Section 702.'' This definition has not been updated since 
     2008 when Congress first enacted Section 702. The technical 
     modification is intended to fill a critical intelligence 
     gap--which was the subject of litigation before the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)--regarding the types 
     of communications services used by non-U.S. persons outside 
     the United States.
       To address concerns some have raised about this amendment 
     to the ECSP definition, the Department of Justice 
     (Department) provides the following representations:
       1. This technical change to the definition of ECSP does not 
     affect the overall structure of Section 702 or the 
     protections imposed on all aspects of the 702 program, 
     including the court-imposed legal procedures. The targeting 
     procedures under Section 702 strictly prohibit targeting 
     persons or entities inside the United States or Americans 
     anywhere in the world. The procedures further prohibit 
     ``reverse targeting,'' which is collecting on foreigners 
     outside the United States for the purpose of obtaining the 
     communications of a person inside the United States or of a 
     U.S. person. Accordingly, it would be unlawful under Section 
     702 to use the modified definition of ECSP to target any 
     entity inside the United States including, for example, any 
     business, home, or place of worship. It would also be 
     unlawful to compel any service provider to target the 
     communications of any person inside the United States, 
     regardless of whether such a person is in contact with a non-
     U.S. person outside the United States. Some critics have 
     falsely suggested that the amended definition of ECSP could 
     be used to conduct surveillance at churches or media 
     companies in the United States--this activity would be 
     legally barred under the rules governing targeting under 
     Section 702 and the prohibition against targeting anyone 
     inside the United States.
       2. Further, the Department commits to applying this 
     definition of ECSP exclusively to cover the type of service 
     provider at issue in the litigation before the FISC--that is, 
     technology companies that provide the service the FISC 
     concluded fell outside the current definition. The number of 
     technology companies providing this service is extremely 
     small, and we will identify these technology companies to 
     Congress in a classified appendix. To protect sensitive 
     sources and methods, the ECSP provision in H.R. 7888 was 
     drafted to avoid unnecessarily alerting foreign adversaries 
     to sensitive collection techniques.
       3. As you are aware, the government provides Congress with 
     a copy of all Section 702 directives issued to U.S. 
     electronic communication service providers. To facilitate 
     appropriate oversight and transparency of the government's 
     commitment to apply any updated definition of ECSP only for 
     the limited purposes described above, the Department will 
     also report to Congress every six months regarding any 
     applications of the updated definition. This additional 
     reporting will allow Congress to ensure the government 
     adheres to our commitment regarding the narrow application of 
     this definition.
       Congress plays a critical role in the ongoing oversight of 
     the government's use of Section 702. We look forward to 
     continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize this critical 
     national security tool to protect our national security while 
     safeguarding privacy and civil liberties.
           Sincerely,
                                             Carlos Felipe Uriate,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.
  Mr. WARNER. In that letter, the Attorney General said:

       [I]t would be unlawful under Section 702 to use the 
     modified definition of ECSP to target any entity inside the 
     United States including, for example, any business, home, or 
     place of worship.

  Continuing:

       It would also be unlawful to compel any service provider to 
     target the communications of any person inside the United 
     States--

  And here we even go because 702 can't even be used to target 
foreigners inside the United States. So, clearly, this provision would 
not allow any communication provider to target a person inside the 
United States, whether or not that person is in contact with a non-U.S. 
person outside the United States.
  Any of these tools are used to target foreigners outside the 
boundaries of the United States. Let me be clear. The Department of 
Justice has documented, in writing, that it would be unlawful to use 
the ECSP definition to target any business, home, or place of worship 
or to compel any provider to target communications of U.S. persons 
inside the United States.
  The letter goes on to state:

       [T]he Department commits to applying this definition of 
     ECSP exclusively to cover the type of service provider at 
     issue in the litigation before the FISC--

  That is the court that reviews these proceedings--

       that is, technology companies that provide the service the 
     FISC concluded fell outside the current definition.

  I also continue to quote from the Attorney General. This was needed:

       To facilitate appropriate oversight and transparency of the 
     government's commitment to apply any updated definition of 
     ECSP only for the limited purposes described above, the 
     Department will also report to Congress every six months 
     regarding any applications of the updated definition.

  So, despite arguments that you may have heard, Congress is going to 
continue to have complete oversight of any use of this provision, and 
any interpretation of the revised definition of ECSP must still be 
approved by the FISA Court, an article III court comprised of 
independent Federal judges. And the opinions of that court will be 
available to Congress.
  In addition, the legislation we are considering today reauthorizes--
again, we have to remember, what we are dealing with today in 
reauthorizing section 702 is only for a mere 2 years. If Members have a 
concern with how this law is implemented by the DOJ or interpreted by 
the court, we will have the opportunity in just 24 months to address it 
further.
  I will also make clear that I am committed to working with any of my 
colleagues who still have a concern with this provision to see if we 
can improve the definition of the ECSP before the next sunset, 
including through any legislative vehicle between now and then.
  One thing we cannot do, however, is blind ourselves to the many 
national security threats facing our country now. I think we will blind 
ourselves if we amend this bill and send it back to the House, 
expecting us not to go dark by Friday night, not knowing what the House 
may even look like after the furious debate about the supplemental is 
concluded.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass H.R. 7888 
without amendment and ensure that these vital authorities are 
reauthorized.

                          ____________________