Without objection. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the rules committee. The rule provides for consideration of s. 139, the fisa amendments reauthorization act. The rule provides for one hour of debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by mr. Amash representing ideas from members of both side of the aisle. The rules Committee Received testimony from numerous members, including chairman nunes, Ranking Member, mr. Schiff. We also heard from Judiciary CommitteeRanking Member nadler, congressman farenthold, congressman amash, congresswoman lofgren and also congressman poe. In addition to the vigorous debate before the rules committee, both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee held markups on legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Today, we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our National Security and strengthen protections of americans privacy. Mr. Chairman, id like to publicly thank chairman goodlatte and chairman nunes for the important work on this legislation. As a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual americans without hindering the Intelligence Community ability and identities of our enemies. The value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, to provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the Intelligence Community try to defeat our foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign states or nuclear proliferators. Our constitution tasks each branch of government with constantly working to protect the liberty of every american. With a bill provided for by this rule, the chamber will be considering legislation that will help us better achieve both. The fisa amendments reauthorization act will extend the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, or fisa, title 70 for six years while increasing oversight of its implementation at every level and providing for more robust privacy protections for americans. Section 702 of fisa has proven to be an invaluable tool for collecting foreign intelligence and providing insight into the plans and intentions of our enemies. Its one of the National Security administrations most important operational authorities. It permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States with the compelled assistance with Electronic Communication Service providers to require foreign intelligence information. Mr. Speaker, this program is important to the National Security cannot be overstated. While many examples of successes are classified in nature, i can tell you here today its helped protect the homeland and american people. One declassified example that i can share with you concerns the story of haji who rose through the ranks of isis, eventually becoming the terrorist organizations second in command. For more than two years the Intelligence Community searched for amman. They used their section 702 resources which eventually led them to him. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was a terrorist. He was killed he was a murderer. Mr. Speaker, mr. Applean was killed by u. S. Special forces on march 24, 2016, during an attempt to apprehend here. We may not see every victory but these initiatives help protect americans every day. Let us pause to note, however, that with the Broad Authority granted by a program like 702 to collect foreign intelligence information to fight our foreign enemies, it must come expansive safeguards against abuse of that authority and the expansive oversight of its use. To ensure that the authorities under section 702 do not come into conflict with the liberty and privacy interest of the american people, the feesa amendments act the fisa amendments act expands on the already extensive safeguard. Mr. Speaker, as i said each branch of government is responsible for protecting the liberties of the american people. In the executive branch there are extensive and internal controls to review and approve actions under 702. The npor general for the intelligence the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community are tasked with a comprehensive review of this programs implementation. Mandatory internal procedures, known as targeting and minimumization procedures, also govern the collection use and dissemination of information are in place at each agency that uses fisa section 702. The fisa amendments reauthorization act expands upon the internal protections by requiring each agency to also adopt querying procedures to control how each Agency Searches its database for 702 acquired communications. This brings me to the Judicial Branch. The targeting procedures must e approved annually by the foreign Intelligence Security court. With the aid of amicus security briefs, they have reviews of section 702s implementation for compliance with the constitution and the law. His legislation will enhance fisk with the authority to compensate amicus briefs and technical experts. Finally, there is congress where we come to. The committees on judiciary and intelligence have conducted multiple oversight hearings and meeting in both classified and unclassified settings. Numerous insights came from those hearings and the legislation that will be considered under todays rule reflects them well. The bill makes a number of improvements that will enhance the congressional oversight in coming years. Mr. Speaker, its time to remember one more group that remains critical to protecting americans liberties, american men and women themselves. This legislation will improve transparency and public oversight of fisa 702, section 702 by requiring the director of National Intelligence and the attorney general to conduct declassification review and publicly release the fisa section 702 minimumization procedures every year. Mr. Speaker, the most important reform contained in this legislation constitutes the most substantial reform to the Program Since its inception. Under this legislation, the f. B. I. Will be required when conducting a criminal investigation of a u. S. Person to obtain a warrant from the fisc prior to accessing the content of the communications that were required using 702. 702 information is collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence operations and this critical requirement closes the possibility that f. B. I. Investigating americans for traditional crimes will be able to use 702 information in such domestic investigations. In addition to the numerous safeguards currently in place and added by this legislation, americans are guaranteed their right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution. I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and the oath guides every action i take in this chamber. The fisa amendments reauthorization act ensures that the Fourth Amendment rights of americans are upheld and includes additional safeguards on top of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the importance of a fisa amendments reauthorization act in stopping terrorist attacks and protecting the american people, but this point bears repeating. This Program Allows the government to obtain the communication of foreigners outside the United States, including foreign terrorist threats. In support of the counterterrorism efforts worldwide. And allowed us to respond to threats to our country. Now, let me tell you a little bit what the 702 program is not. It is not a bulk collection of data. It cannot be used to target americans, and it cannot be used to target individuals located inside the United States. Mr. Speaker, the fisa amendments reauthorization act is an example of what congress can accomplish when we Work Together to find solutions to our nations weightiest challenges. Mr. Speaker, also, before i close my opening, will acknowledge that there is a lot of differences of opinion, as there should be upon this bill. But at the end of the day, progress has been made. Protections have been implemented, and the security of our country must be taken into account. That is why this bill needs to pass and amendments that were brought forward need to fail. We need to push this forward and begin the process in continuing to protect our private citizens personal responsibilities and liberties but also at the same time making sure our intelligence communities and those entrusted with the sacred duty of protecting this country have the tools they need to do that. Anything else would be less than what we should be here with that i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from florida is recognized. Mr. Hastings thank you very much, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. Collins, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, ill yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida is recognized. Mr. Hastings i stand here today with the rest of my democratic colleagues in utter amazement at the dizzying dysfunction exhibited by our friends across the aisle. For reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on the reauthorization of section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act because late last year the Republican Leadership chose to prioritize massive tax cuts for their wealthy donors over the safety of american citizens. Like so many important issues, House Republicans decided to punt on the reauthorization of 702 by simply extending it to january 19 of this year. Coincidently the same date the government will possibly shut down. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and the former vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, i do occupy a unique adVantage Point in the ongoing debate Vantage Point in the ongoing debate to protect the Fourth Amendment of the constitution while also ensuring that those in the Intelligence Community have the tools they need to keep our country safe from those who wish to do us grave harm. Putting the finer points of this debate aside for a moment, i can tell you with complete certainty that such a debate deserves to be lengthy and thor rogue, neither of which have happened here. I was concerned to learn, if not a bit dismayed, that the house intelligence subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction of the National Security agency, did not hold a single hearing on todays bill. In fact, the full committee did not even hold a single hearing on this important piece of legislation. Think about that. As the republicans approach the need to discuss the reauthorization of one of the more important tools to fight terrorism that simultaneously brings along legitimate and important Fourth Amendment concerns, the majority in all their wisdom thought it prudent to hold exactly zero hearings on such an important matter. That is a brazenly inept way to govern and to add insult to injury, im told that members of the committee were given about 36 hours to read the bill before having to vote it out of committee. Side note here the bill they were given 36 hours to review is not actually the bill we have before us today. Because the majority had to use a rules Committee Print to fix some of the most troublesome parts of the original bill in order to obtain my friend, the Ranking Member, adam schiffs support. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, that support did not come easily and important changes were made to the bill as it was presented to the committee in its original form. For example, mr. Schiff was able to ensure that the republicans unmasking language was removed from todays bill. The removal of such language ensures that one of the republicans most heinous political stunts is not codified into law. This was and is a significant improvement. Moreover, the republicans removed the controversial expansion of the definition of agent of foreign power which concerned privacy and technology groups. Todays bill also addresses what collection, outs the collection of communications that are not to or from a target, but rather communications that merely reference the target. The n. S. A. Itself shut down this collection method earlier this year. The legislation before us today will allow such collection to resume but only if the n. S. A. First devises a way of doing so that addresses privacy concerns. Obtain addresses privacy concerns, obtains permission from the Foreign Surveillance courts and congress doesnt object after a 30day review period this may seem to be a better option than what im sure many, if not most, republicans wanted. Which is the full scale reimplementation of abouts collection. But considering how much difficulty the majority has in simply keeping the lights on around this place, i think its fair to question their ability to provide meaningful oversight in just 30 days. Again, is simply evidence for the need to return back to regular order under which bills are fully and fairly considered. Regardless of where one comes down on this issue, i can assure you that there are members on both sides of the aisle that are sick and tired of being shut out of important policy discussions, excuse me, concerning subjects like those before us today. Mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida reserves his time. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. At this time i yield three minutes to mr. Sensenbrenner of wisconsin a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee and former chair of that committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Sensenbrenner i rise in opposition to s. 139, the fisa reauthorization act. I have stood on this floor debating the patriot act after 9 11. I fought for reforms in 2015 with the u. S. A. Freedom act. Now we are debating the latest need to balance privacy and security. Since Congress Last reauthorized section 702, we have learned a great deal about the operation of this program. The revelations have highlighted the risk that it poses to privacy and Civil Liberties. This Program Needs to be reformed. But mr. Speaker, this is not the bill to do it. Rather than providing meaningful meaning the fisa reform, the fisa reauthorization act would reauthorize section 02. However as we are aware the program routinely sweeps up millions of americans emails. The warrant requirement in this bill requires only to fully predicated official investigations. And not to the hundreds of thousands of searches the f. B. I. Runs every day. Just to run down or check out a tip. The loopholes are too great to ensure proper protection. This mornings Washington Post article says in part, f. B. I. Officials told aides of the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, last week, that under the proposed bill, they anticipate rarely if ever needing permission from the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to review query results, according one of the aides. This was not denied by the Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. Schiff. Were going to hear an awful lot about warrants on the floor and how this fixes the problem. But here the f. B. I. Has said in no Uncertain Terms to one of our congressional aides that theyre never going to have to use this warrant requirement, which was drafted by the Justice Department that has opposed warrants all along. If ever we have seen the fox not only watching the henhouse but inside the henhouse, this is it. Isnt even a fig leaf, big, small, or otherwise. It is simply a way to divert attention of this congress away from what is really going on. Furthermore, the bill would provide a path for the n. S. A. To restart the practice of about collection, which has been described by the Ranking Member. The proposal grants some committees 30 days to review any effort to under about collection back on. Giving Congress Little or no say on this matter. We all know we cant do anything in 30 days around here. And yet the bill restricts us from doing that. Finding a bipartisan and balanced solution is very possible. I know because ive done it twice. The patriot act and the freedom act. May i have an additional 30 seconds . Mr. Collins i give the gentleman 30 more seconds. Mr. Sensenbrenner the house Judiciary Committee committee passed the bipartisan liberty act with bipartisan votes this bill fails to do necessary reforms. The program should be authorized if done in the right way. This bill is the wrong way. It is time for congress to put the f for foreign back into fisa. Theres no f for foreign in this bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from georgia reserves his time. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Hastings thank you, mr. Speaker. Im pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, my friend, ms. Lofgren from the judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. Ms. Lofgren thank you very much. I agree with mr. Sensenbrenner for the reasons he outlined that this bill should not become law. However, i am also speaking in favor of the amash amendment that has been put in order that would fix the problems he has so eloquently outlined. Before 702 was enacted into law, the n. S. A. And f. B. I. Would need to get a probable cause warrant to collect this information. We made a major change that allows this information to be collected when a foreigner is communicating with an american and when you go to the about collection, which the underlying bill would codify, even when that doesnt occur, when theres merely discussion of foreigner, thats not what i think our constitution requires. And we did not outsource to the Judicial Branch or the executive branch the decision on what the constitution requires us to do. Now, we have learned that there is a vast amount of information being collected. We cant go into the details of that in an open session. We have been told by admiral rogers the scope of this. D that the data page that is socalled incidentally collected because of the architecture of the internet could be searched for americans without a warrant is not consistent with the protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. The amash amendment, which is basically the u. S. A. Rights act, ends these back door searches by requiring a warrant. It ends reverse targeting. It bans the abouts collection. And prohibits the collection of domestic communication. Prevents the misuse of information on americans. And is something that we should support. Now, in a letter to the senate in october, a coalition of groups said this. The u. S. A. Rights act which is essentially the amash amendment, is markedly superior to all current elect slative proposals to reauthorize section 702. Who said that . The American Civil Liberties union and freedom works. The naacp. But also the project and government oversight project on government oversight and color of change. S that broad, leftright coalition, thats come together even though there are many things we disagree on, because we agree on one thing. When we took an oath to defend the constitution on our first day of this session, we didnt take that oath to defend the constitution when its convenient, when we feel like it. No. We took that oath to defend the constitution every day. In every way. With every bill. And without the amash amendment, this bill falls short. Just a note on where we are in the timing. Its true that this has been delayed, i would say unconscionably delayed, for this proceeding. But if we have more time than has been suggested, under the existing act, it provides, if there is an existing order from the fisa court, that order remains in effect even if the underlying bill lapses. We have an order that extends into late april. So we have a deadline but its not this week and its not next week. We owe it to our constituents, we owe it to our obligation to the constitution, to get this right. When jim sensenbrenner, who is someone who is nobodys going to question his conservative credentials. When judge poe, and zoe lofgren and jerry nadler come to the same agreement on the constitution, i would hope that our colleagues would listen. Vote for the amash amendment and if it does not pass, vote against the bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from florida reserves his time they feel gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. Before i yield. A couple of things to clarify, this is an urgent matter. Though the gentlelady spoke of this in the sense that the existing orders would stay in place she fails to mention and others fail to talk about that any new orders or currently existing orders being enforced by the intention community which is set under that pale of direction that they wont. I guess if youre satisfied protecting the orders, i guarantee you someone else woke up this morning wanting to do us harm, i want the Intelligence Community to be able to address that in a way thats prudent and proper which i feel like is happening here. I will not yield to the gentlelady. The other issue here, i want to make this very clear. There are strong opinions. I respect the gentlelady from california immensely, though i still will not yield. I have had similar concerns that she has had off the process. And i have voted with her several times to move forward, but we have moved forward and there are, i believe, protections in this bill. So when we also talk about as we go forward and theres going to be a lot of passionate rhetoric about who is looking out for who and reminding us of our ocean, i took the oath here just as the gentlelady did when we started this new session, but i took another oath in the United States air force and served in iraq and also served in that time currently in the military. And when we have that oath as well, i will not take a back seat to anyone who can consciously disagree about where we are. This is a good bill. This is something i would love to see in different ways changed. But this is the art of where we are now and protecting our country. I yield three minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Cheney i rise in support reauthorizing fisa 702. It is interesting to hear my colleagues talk about unconscionable delay in tactics or the need for regular order. Just today on this floor, we have watched once again our colleagues on the other side of the aisle playing games. We have had this particular debate delayed by the games that their members have been playing over the course of the last several hours with motion after motion to adjourn. And that is, mr. Speaker, i believe is unconscionable. This is a bipartisan bill. The Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee worked very hard to come to an agreement. The bill goes too far in terms of beginning the process that we cannot begin of putting walls up. All of us lived through 9 11. And we know, mr. Speaker, that one of the things that we saw that day was what can happen when we make it much more difficult for our Law Enforcement and our intelligence agencies to connect the dots. Much more difficult to stop terrorist attacks against this nation. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that goes directly towards those issues and one of the most important pieces of policy and of authority that the National Security agency has. And i think its very important for people listening to this debate to recognize that this authority is an authority that allows surveillance of foreign nationals on foreign territory not in the United States. And i would urge my colleagues particularly when weve got a bill that is bipartisan product, thats a product that has been worked on and agreed to in a bipartisan manner, that it is unconscionable for them to delay, unconscionable to hold the nations security hostage. And we are seeing it not just with respect to this particular piece of legislation. We are seeing it with respect to the entire negotiations under way today over the budget for the nation. We have seen a situation where as they did today accused us of holding daca hostage and daca individuals hostage. The democrats in this house, mr. Speaker, are holding our National Security hostage and doing it with respect to the funds that our military feeds as well. We are a nation today that is facing grave and growing threats and facing demands on our Intelligence Service and professionals and men and women in uniform. I think every member of this body who decides to play games rather than do what is right and what is necessary and what our constitutional obligation and our oath requires ought to think as they are doing that, what does it mean to the mothers and fathers across this nation who have children who are deployed for the nation who know we are sending their children into harms way and the democrats in this body consistently continue to hold up the funding that our military needs and in this case particular to hold up the reauthorization of this crucial piece of policy. Mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of the reauthorization of this bill. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from georgia reserves. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Hastings thank you very much, mr. Speaker. Friends by my assertion that today with protests with reference to daca that members of my party were concern. Im also amused that there in the majority and she accuses us of delaying, when in fact this measure was scheduled two or three months ago and could have been brought to the floor, but, no, you were busy about tax cuts and didnt get around to allowing for this important matter to be brought to the floor. Mr. Speaker, to respond to my good friend from georgia, i mrs. Love conds to green. Ms. Lofgren i wanted to respond, the n. S. A. Will not go dark. We are collecting the content of phone calls, emails, text messages, videos of americans utting it in a data base and searching it without a probable cause warrant. Thats the state today. And that will continue until reform is done. It will not go dark and i thought it was important to make that clear. I thank the gentleman, i know you want to yield to my colleague from the Judiciary Committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. The gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins i stand by my statement. It the statement is we will not go dark. But having how we deal with that, there is an interesting issue and there is an issue. And this is a debate we could have and need to have on the floor but there is a difference of opinion here and in this instance with the pervasive efforts put in place, i believe this program is worth keeping. I yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Fitzpatrick, a former f. B. I. Special agent. Mr. Fitzpatrick i rise in strong support of reauthorizing section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act which is due to expire. As a 14year f. B. I. Special agent and counterterrorism agent, im an eyewitness to the importance of this program and deliberate and lawful manner in which its used. The fact is, section 702 is a critical tool that the Intelligence Community uses properly to target nonu. S. Persons located outside of the United States to acquire information that is vital to our nations security. This Crucial Program has operated under strict rules and carefully overseen by all three branches of our government to protect the privacy and Civil Liberties of all americans. As we have seen both in our country and abroad, proper surveillance and Law Enforcement is vital to protect us against terror attacks especially lone attacker scenarios. As isis continues to lose territory, our Intelligence Community has warned we will see more of these attacks than traditional conspiracies. Y about this wra program. He said despite the high volume of threats there are few dots thash connected in regard to these more loosely situations. Information already lawfully obtained by the f. B. I. Is crucial and as you said understanding, quote, which threats are real and which ones are more as pierational. 702 allows intelligence first to determine whether a a kit from state or local Law Enforcement is credible and can head off potential threats. Allowing section 702 to expire would leave america vulnerable at a time when we need this protection the most. As director wray stated, if section 702 is walked back, we will be starting to rebuild the wall that existed before 9 11. Mr. Speaker, with todays temporary landscape, we cannot go backwards when legal means exist to keep americans safe. I urge my colleagues to support this vital National Security measure. The safety and security of the families we represent depend on the passage of this measure. Let us get this done for them. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Hastings i yield four the s to the zwirked , ms. Woman from texas jackson lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Jackson lee let me thank the the gentleman from florida. Particularly sharing with us his experience on the Intelligence Committee and thank him for mentioning i serve as the Ranking Member on the crime, terrorism Homeland Security and investigations. In that capacity, that committee encounters not only our nations Law Enforcement but issues dealing with terrorism, including the work on Homeland Security. With that in mind, i want to simply say to my colleagues and certainly to my good friend who served and dedicated his life to the f. B. I. For 14 years, none of us who owe the past couple of months will take a back seat to channing the f. B. I. And recognizing the f. B. I. For the very value ant work that it does. Being on the Judiciary Committee, i have worked with almost every f. B. I. Director and agents, particularly in my particular jurisdiction, and have been engaged in discussions on the resources and needs of that organization. Again, we thank them for their service. I would offer to say that the position i take now today is to protect the f. B. I. And to protect the american people. With that in mind, i would like to submit into the record an article written by Sheila Jackson lee protecting americans dated october 16, 2007. I ask unanimous consent. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Ms. Jackson lee that article suggests that we have the responsibility to protect america and americans. And i would make the point to my good friend who mentioned that men and women or families sending their young people over to battle grounds are absolutely right. And those young people that are going over to battle grounds are going over on the basis of freedom. Their parents sacrificed the fact these loved ones sacrificed their loved ones because they believed in the freedom of this nation. Section 702, there is no freedom in this particular bill. And that is why we need to address the question in a thoughtful manner. I dont mind if we extend this to have a longer debate so we can work through some of our concerns. Let me be clear. S. 139 fails to address the core concern of congress. The governments use of section 702 against United States citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with National Security. That is the crux of our advocacy for the amash amendment joined by myself and many others, it is not to undermine the security of this nation. It is to give substance to those families who sacrifice and send their young men and women to far away places. It is riddled with loopholes and applies to predicated official f. B. I. Investigations not to the hundreds of thousands of searches that the f. B. I. Runs every day to run down a lead. 139 exascerbates problems by codifying the socalled about collection, a type of surveillance that will shut down after it twice failed to meet the 4th amendment scrutiny. It is opposed by technology companies, privacy and civil liberty groups across the political spectrum. Let me read briefly what the amash amendment says. It is not something that would stop security, surveillance and work in its tracks. What it does is that except as provided in subparagraph c or d, no officer, agent or employee may conduct a queery of information acquired under subsection a to obtain information about a person if there is reason to believe that the person is a United States person. Protecting the first of freedom of speech and all of that, but matched with the important amendment of the 4th amendment, which, of course, is unreasonable search and seizures. An application by the attorney general to judge to a judge that describe the determination of the attorney general that the probable cause to believe that such communications provide evidence of a crime, such person is a agent of a foreign power. This is a minimal standard. We are missing what our role is here. It is not to rush through a fisa bill thats been delayed by my republican friends. More importantly, it is to do right by the american people. We are not doing right by the american people. I remember fighting against reverse targeting, a major issue in our work on the freedom act and the patriot act. Now today, in 2017, going into 201, in 2018, it is important to remember that 9 11 was to not turn terror on americans, it was to protect us from terrorism and to withstand that with the upholding of the constitution. I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expire the gentleman from georgia. Mr. Collins thank you, mr. Speaker. I think one of the issues here is this discussion of riddled with loopholes and riddled with anybody. Ts a reminder that agencies cannot doran dom searches. Lets push back on the facts of the case. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from florida. Mr. Hastings im pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from washington, my good friend, mr. Heck. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Heck i rise today to ask my colleagues to pause, take a step back, reject the rule and give us a chance to do it better. Fisa reauthorization is inarguably one of the most important votes well take in this congress because the stake are so high. Civil liberties are the core of our civil rights. We are asked to take action that affects them in the name of keeping us safe, i get that. But its critical we get it right. I think we can do better. To make decisions of this magnitude, we should have the most robust process possible. Full and open debate. Input from the stake holders, thoughtful deliberations by the members and the process for this bill thus far has decidedly not been that, not been great. It was written and we written rewritten in secret and with minimal debate or stake holder im stake holder input. Im optimistic because ive seen it change in the last few day. I think we have an opportunity here. The administration is suddenly engaged, were seeing vie grant vibrant debate from the members of the technology sector, members have had serious discussions here on the floor today, in the halls, offering amendments which are not being allowed save one. We are being asked to shut that all down, that opportunity, and push through an extension that will run for six years. Frankly, stop and think. Six years in the world of technology is an eternity. For all these reasons i ask my fellow members to join me in opposing this rule and instead allow the house an opportunity to work its will, to take a little more time and do it better. Because we really do need to wrestle with privacy, what privacy means in a world where our entire personal lives are stored somewhere online as ones and zeros. Frankly thats happening at an even faster pace than it is now. We need to debate the Fourth Amendment how the Fourth Amendment protects us against searches and seizures applying to digital records. Were all being rendered into nothing but a mass i storehouse of ones and zeros. The tensions were balanced between Civil Liberties and National Security is a debate as old as this country but theyre not mutually exclusiveful theyre hard, theyre darn hard, but theyre not mutually exclusive and theyre not impossible. I know well how many threats we face around the world. I dont take them lightly. The fact that we have not faced another major terrorist attack since 9 11 is a testament to the skill and hard work of the Intelligence Community. I tip my hat to them. I am absolutely committed to giving them the tools they need to keep us safe, consistent with our constitutional rights. But we live in an era of the most powerful spying tools the world has ever known. 25 years ago, conversations were ephemeral. They were conducted in person or over the phone. But now, now, they occur over email or chat. They are archived forever. Our medical, financial, legal records are all online. So are our photos. Our cell phones track us everywhere we go. The Data Available on us is unprecedent and the fundamental prince nofle bill of rights is that we have the right to keep our data private. We need new safeguards to ensure that so by rejecting this rule, we have a chance to do it better. And in so doing, both keep us safe and protect our constitutional rights. For these reasons, mr. Speaker, i urge my colleagues to reject this is just over an hour