Devoted to 56164 to approve the legislation. The Current Authority expires january 19. The debate is just under an hour. Section 702 is one of the most, if not the most Critical National security tool used by our Intelligence Committee to overseas. Elligent some claim 702 packages all information. This assertion is simply false. 702 is a targeted program was roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. It given that the worldwide population is about 7. 5 billion, this program can hardly be described as a question. Improvise foreign adversaries who threaten the United States and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and homeland. As an example, the second in command in isis was located via section 02. He was later removed from the battle 702. He was later removed from battle. This demonstrates the necessity of this authority. Subject to oversight by all branches of government, section 702 is one of the most intelligenceerseen authority. While compliance incidents occur in our debt was appropriately, there has never been a known intentional abuse of this authority. Nevertheless, the program should protections. Rivacy after careful consideration of the best way to strengthen privacy perfect protections, the Community Support section which addresses concerns raised by the House Judiciary Committee are in the senate. The bills reforms include requiring specific section 702 procedures which must be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every year. Interest thate 702 can press a kate used to prosecute people. Of vitation sectiontation of sectio 702 procedures. Until the government develops new procedures and embrace the congressional intelligence and Judiciary Committees and improving transparency minimization procedures and acquiring additional reporting on how the Intelligence Committees using other fisa authorities. During discussion over the past several months, both the house and senate have made several concessions in order to reauthorize this Critical National authority. 139 includes a probable cause based in order for the fbi to get content of section 702 during ofminal investigation americans are related to National Security. This does not reflect the committees intent or lot access on under the Fourth Amendment. Fourth amendment as interpreted by numerous courts does not require the fbi to obtain a separate order to review lawfully acquired 702 information. Though not required by the comp constitution, it it provides fromional Protection Information protected by section 702. Information on critical critical on criminal prosecutions it would used by the handling and carefully controlled and monitored. Speaker, america faces an array of international threats, more complicated than anything we have endured in the past. Chairman of the house Intelligence Committee, i cannot emphasize enough that now back onhe time to draw key national authorities. I am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. When Congress Must reauthorize this program again in 2023, we hold those who debate these issues both inside and outside this chamber do so with intellectual honesty and integrity. The u. S. Rights acts, which has been offered as an amendment in substitute is an attempt to kill this compromise. In its place, it would resurrect sharing between National Security and Law Enforcement that the Law Enforcement failed to thwart the 911 plot. If we cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. There is no support whose members understand this amendment would render section 702 inoperable. Keep the, in order to u. S. Interest and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that our Intelligence Community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. Section 702 is critical in that regard. S 139 provides the Intelligence Community what is needed to protect key privacy enhancements. I think the speaker and i urge passage of s 139 and reserve the balance of my time. Judgment from california. Mr. Speaker. Member and a former member of the judiciary to bounce National Security and counterterrorism with privacy rights and Civil Liberties of americans. Amendment acta seeks to we authorize the program while making changes to protect privacy interests. Nonetheless, as i indicated before we took up the bill, in light of the significant concerns that have been raised and in light of the irresponsible and inherently contradictory messages coming out of the white house today, i would recommend we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address the privacy concerns that have been raised as far as to get a clear idea from the administration about the bill. I do this reluctantly. This is among one of the most important of all of our surveillance programs. I think the issues that have been raised will need more time to be resolved and i think we clear statement from the Administration Whether their support of this legislation or not. The president issued a statement the twitter suggesting the authority was used illegally by the Obama Administration to surveillance them. Of course, that is patently untrue. Nonetheless, it casts an additional cloud over the debate today in light of these circumstances. I think the better course would be for us to defer consideration and give us more time to address issue that have been raised by the Privacy Commission by my own caucus he and also by the administration by the inaccurate conflict and confusing statements on the morning of debate. With that, i reluctantly urge my colleagues to postpone consideration so we can take up this bill when it is more ripe for consideration. I reserve the balance of my time. The gentleman from utah. I would like to turn my time over to chairman conway of texas. The gentleman is building to the gentleman to texas to control time. Yes i would like to yield him five minutes. Recognized fors five minutes. I am not unappreciative of my collect from californias comments, we are at a place where we need to move forward. If we succumb to the emotions of what is going around us and dont stick to the facts, we do that to our detriment. I personally believe that plays into the emotions of what is going on rather than the facts of what is going on. If we could continue to push forward. The fisa amendment reauthorization act is a bipartisan bill that preserves the Operational Flexibility of section 702 while it institutes key reforms to further protect privacy. One of the major issues discussed over the past year has been the nsas communication collection. But we willitle, stick with the phrase about communication. The collection takes place in nsas upstream. It allows nsa to collect communications that may reference a section 702 target email address. Despite what some of my colleagues might push, it does not collect names of target just selections. Some of my colleagues suggest that about communication is inherently on violated. Nsa has been able to conduct such collections with the approval of the fisa court. Is atype of collection issue today because it was in subject to a compliance incident in 2016. And decided toed decease communications. That thiske to note type of Self Reporting of compliance incidences is expected of the intelligence trips thatnd oversight mechanisms are in place and that they work. Other legislation, including amendments would seek to permanently and abouts communication collection. This is shortsighted in a dangerous proposition that will identification. S 139 strikes the right balance. If nsa wants to create establish they would be to first go back to court and convince the court it satisfied its concerns. After initial approval that nsa has made necessary technical changes, and as they would brief Judiciary Committees on how they plan to reinstitute this type of collection. ,arring congressional action nsa can start abouts comedicish and collection 30 days after those briefings. Some opponents to s 139 claim 30 days is not enough. To the folks who claim it is not stoppingheres Nothing Congress from enacting after that window. Shoulds security not be compromise while obtained valuable for an intelligence information that the fisa court has deemed consistent with the Fourth Amendment just because congress cant ask legislation in 30 days. Ys. This compromise of the bill this compromise is the right answer and i hope my colleagues will support s 139 and i yield back my time. Ime. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary madam secretary. The secretary mr. Speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has pass s. 875 an act to require the comptroller general of the United States to conduct a study and submit a report on filing requirement under the Programs Service fund in which the concurrence of the house is requested. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california. Mr. Schiff mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from utah. Mr. Stewart mr. Speaker, id like to make mr. Schiff aware we have no further speakers. Im prepared to close. Programs in which the concurrence of the house is requested. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california. Mr. Schiff mr. Speaker, once again i would reluctantly urge that we withdraw consideration bill on o the floor today. I certainly bill on the floor today. I certainly have been working as hard as anyone to try to agree to a compromise that would move forward this very important surveillance authority, but would strike the right balance between our security interests and our privacy interests. But i do think we need more time to work on this bill. I think that was only underscored this morning with the contradictory statements coming out of the administration. An issue of this magnitude and seriousness deserves serious consideration. I think we need more time to discuss this with our members. And would urge my colleagues not to bring this to a vote today. To give us more time to work on it. With that, mr. Speaker, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from utah. Mr. Stewart mr. Speaker, im prepared to close. Some my colleagues believe congress should go above and beyond the Fourth Amendment and Institute Additional safeguards how the government handles any u. S. Personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. While the varying committees may have different ideas how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and National Security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction. Under s. 139 if the bill conducts a u. S. Person query into its database during a criminal investigation not related to National Security, and conducts a section 702 communication, the f. B. I. Must obtain an order from the fisa court prior to assessing the content of the communication. The committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the Fourth Amendment, but it is adding more protections as a matter of policy to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authoritys being used to investigate u. S. People. Proponents of the u. S. Rights act amendment will say that sks 139 does not go s. 139 does not go far enough and craft add great compromise that allows the Intelligence Community to do its job. Unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our National Security. Per the office of the director of National Intelligence under u. S. Rights act amendment, the f. B. I. Would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9 11 hydrogeners. Hijackers. This is unethical to the 9 11 Commission Report and anyone who thinks about voting for the u. S. Rights act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting. Unlike the u. S. Rights act amendment, s. 139 is able to balance National Security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission Reporting. I echo the white house Statement Last night strongly opposing the u. S. Rights act amendment and i urge all my colleagues in the house to support s. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of s. 139. The fisa amendments reauthorization act. As a former United States attorney, i know firsthand the enormous value that programs like section 702 provide in protecting our country. The threats have been thwarted through our intelligence and loirment communities having tools like section 702. Chairman goodlatte, along with members of the Judiciary Committee, worked diligently on legislation to implement meaningful reforms while ensuring the Law Enforcement and against committees still had the necessary tools available. This bill includes many other reforms from the u. S. A. Liberty act, enhances section 702 protections and maintains Law Enforcements abilities. I would ask all members to join me in voting yes on this legislation. To implement real remorms while ensuring that we still provide the tools necessary to keep american citizens safe. And in conclusion, as a u. S. Attorney, i have used this, my office used this section. We followed the law to the letter. There are no complaints. And i want the American People to realize something. Mr. Marino we in Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement throughout the u. S. , we have to be right and on spot every second of every day. A only takes a terrorist moment to get lucky and set off a bomb to kill americans. With that i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler i rise in strong opposition to the fisa amendments and reauthorization act of 2017. Which reauthorizes section 702 fisa for six years without enacting adequate Protection Force our privacy. Supporters of this measure want to convince us a new incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. It does not. Our right to privacy does not begin when the department of justice fisa for six years with criminal case against us. Nor has a fully does it begin w prosecutors interyou are our emails and Text Messages into evidence against us in court. The constitution guarantees far more than this. Our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for information it might find useful. S. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. We therefore cannot, we must not support this bill. Make no mistake, s. 139 is not a compromise. The Judiciary Committee, the technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders were shut out of this conversation long ago. S. 139 does not include a meaningful warrant requirement. The rule in this bill does not apply to most searches of the section 702 database. It does not apply to a query for any information that, quote, could mitigate a threat, unquote, an exception that threatens to swallow the entire rule. As a result, s. 139 allows the f. B. I. Unfettered access to this information for purely domestic, nonterrorism cases without a warrant. And what does it mean in the era of Jeff Sessions and donald trump . It Means Nothing for them troling the database for evidence that you use marijuana or fail to pay your taxes or may be in the country unlawfully or possess a firearm that you should not have. None of these cases have anything to do with the purpose of section 702, and all of them should require a warrant based on individualized suspicion and probable cause. I agree with chairman goodlatte that section 702 should be reauthorized. I understand its importance to the intelligence agencies but none of us should support this bill which pretends it reforms while codifying some of the worst practices of the Intelligence Community in domestic crimes. When we came to congress each of us took an oath to protect the constitution of the United States. I ask that each of our colleagues honor that oath today and we Work Together to defeat this bill and bring the right set of reforms to the floor without delay. I thank the speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from pennsylvania. Mr. Marino i now recognize my good friend, the gentleman from texas, judge poe, for if he goes over a little bit thats ok. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is. Cognized for a minute plus mr. Poe i am a former prosecutor, former judge. I despies terrorists. We ought to go after them and get them. 702 was written to go after terrorists, but its being used to go after americans. Normally when when i was a judge, id sign a warrant before they could the government could go into your house, they had to have a warrant to go into the house and to seize something based on probable cause. Under fisa, as its used against americans forget the terrorists. Used against americans, government has already seized your house of communications, all of it, and they look around and sometimes, sometimes they go back to a secret judge in a secret court and get a secret warrant, fisa judge, and they come in and seize something and prosecute based on irrelevant about terrorism. Thats why this bill violates the Fourth Amendment. Get a warrant before you go into the house of communications and effects of papers and papers of americans or stay out of that house. These documents have been seized, communications have been seized by government. They are kept forever. Keep government out without a warrant. You stay out because government, as we learned from the british, cannot be trusted. Get a warrant, stay out of the house of communications. Vote against this bill. Lets redraft it and protect americans and thats just the way it is. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler i now am pleased to yield 1 1 2 minutes to the gentlelady from california. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1 2 minutes. Ms. Lofgren mr. Speaker, like the Ranking Member, i oppose the bill. It does not meet the standards for adhering the constitution. Its a confusing debate because what are we talking about . We are all against terrorism and weve authorized the collection of data of terrorists communicating with each other. 702, if they communicate with somebody here, we can collect that too. But because of the architecture of the internet, we are collecting vast amounts we cant impinto the numbers here in open session vast amounts of data. Its not metadata. Its content. Its the content of your phone calls, content of your emails, content of your Text Messages, video messages, and under 702 you can search that for americans, for crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. We should change that. As judge poe has said, you need a warrant to go after americans for a nonterrorism crime. You know, theres a reason why a leftright coalition, the naacp and freedom works, color of change and gun owners of america have come together on this same point of view. We should stand up for the privacy rights of americans and reject this bill and have a warrant requirement for searching for the information of americans that is in this vast database. And just one further point. The very weak predicate criminal information trigger for a warrant which is at the end of the investigation would apply only to the f. B. I. So if you are the a. T. F. , you would never have to get a warrant. If you were the d. E. A. , you would never have to get a warrant. This bill is inadequate, ought to be defeated, and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore does the gentleman from virginia seek to control the time of the gentleman from pennsylvania . Mr. Goodlatte i ask unanimous consent to do so. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from virginia. Mr. Goodlatte thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte as you all know, the Judiciary Committee worked diligently for a year on legislation that does two things. One, protect americans Civil Liberties by requiring a court order to access section 702 data during domestic criminal investigations, and, two, reauthorize the 702 program which is our nations most indispensible National Security tool. We achieved this by passing the u. S. A. Liberty act in the House Judiciary Committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote which is no easy task. However, we were able to responsely balance Civil Liberties with national responsibly balance Civil Liberties with National Security. It is not perfect and the process getting here was not ideal, but the bill requires for the first time a warrant to access 702 collected communications on u. S. Persons in criminal investigations. Moreover, in routine criminal cases, when the f. B. I. Accesses u. S. Persons communications that were incidentally collected without first obtaining a warrant, the f. B. I. Will not be permitted to use those communications in a criminal prosecution. This will prevent a National Security tool from advancing runofthemill criminal prosecutions. These are meaningful reforms. The bill that was presented to us before christmas with its optional warrant construct was not real reform. The bill we are debating today, however, contains meaningful reforms. I would have preferred to include additional reforms but i cannot stress to my colleagues enough that our choice cannot be between a perfect reform bill and expiration of this program. The 702 program is far too important for that. With this bill we can have meaningful reform and reauthorization. In its current form, this bill will pass the senate. I also want to caution everyone that we cannot go too far in seeking to alter this program. There is an amendment that will be offered sponsored by mr. Amash and ms. Lofgren that would prevent the f. B. I. From ever querying its 702 database using a u. S. Person term. Imagine the f. B. I. Getting a tip from a flinet instructor by expressing great interest in learning how to take off and fly a plane but has no interest in learning how to land the plane. This could be innocent behavior but we want Law Enforcement to at least be able to perform a search to see if they already have in their possession any communications between the student and a foreign actor involved in organizing terrorist plots. The Judiciary Committee passed a bill would have allowed a search and allowed Law Enforcement to view the metadata without a warrant while requiring a warrant to review the content of the communications. The amashlofgren amendment, which was rejected in the Judiciary Committee, goes too far and would prevent such a search from even being done. It would thus kill this Critical Program by preventing the f. B. I. From even looking at its own databases without a warrant. Rendering it ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks and stifling its ability to gather necessary intelligence. It must not be adopted. I will vote to support this bill. I will oppose the amashlofgren amendment, and i urge my colleagues to join me vote for reform and reauthorization. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler mr. Speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the Judiciary Committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. I now yield i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. Cicilline. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. Mr. Cicilline mr. Speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. Supporters of this bill have called it reform. This is not reform. Its a massive expansion of the governments ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. If you need proof, look at the bills section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some Law Enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. Instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. There is no one more important responsibility that we have than keeping the American People safe, but we have to do it in a way thats consistent with our values and our constitution. This bill undermines our values of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. I urge my colleagues to oppose s. 139 and to support the amashlofgren amendment which allows intelligence agencies to do their jobs without undermining our values as americans. We can do both things, mr. Speaker. Keep the American People safe and honor and respect our constitution which protects the privacy of all american citizens. I urge defeat of this bill and support the amendment. With that i thank the gentleman for yielding. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, at this time im pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. Chabot, a member of the Judiciary Committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Chabot thank you, mr. Speaker. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for your leadership in ensuring that a number of important reforms to section 702 of the foreign intelligence act were included in this legislation. I rise in support of this modified version of s. 139. While this does not go as far as towards reform as the u. S. A. Liberty act did, which was passed out of the Judiciary Committee in november, the reforms that are included help to provide a more adequate balance between protecting our Civil Liberties and providing the Intelligence Community and Important National an Important National tool for another six years before its expiration this friday. Fisa section 702 is a critical tool used by the Intelligence Community to protect american citizens from foreign threats and has been successfully used numerous times to prevent terrorist plots. Since we last reauthorized this, much has changed, not only in who our foreign threats are but also in the methods that they use against this. The bottom line is we need to protect the safety of the American People. We need to make sure constitutional protections are in place, and this is a proper balance. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler thank you, mr. Speaker. I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. Jackson lee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Ms. Jackson lee let me repeat the refrain of those of us who are members of the Judiciary Committee who have gone through this process since 9 11. And that is that we support the integrity and the importance of 702 as a National Security tool and we want it reauthorized but we want it right. Our job and our task is also the protectors of the Fourth Amendment. And that is the protection of the American People against unreasonable search and seizure. No matter how much my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, we know that the f. B. I. Can have the tools that it needs, but in the instance of this underlying bill, similar to the bill that was passed in 2007 by the Bush Administration which the Judiciary Committee came back and amended it and made it a bill that provides the tools that was needed by those who are on the front lines in the United States military and the f. B. I. But ultimately it was changed to deny those rights. In this instance, the warrant that my friends are talking about is revised onlyly to fully predicated only to fully predicated cases, not to searching of documents that has information about americans. I ask my colleagues to postpone this. Let us Work Together on behalf of the American People and who are we if we cannot uphold the constitution . It is not protected in this bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the crime subcommittee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. Sensenbrenner mr. Speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill and i will speak later on some of the other parts. Iant to talk about the about stuff that is reauthorized in this bill after the n. S. A. Itself stopped doing it earlier last year. What about collectio means is that, for example, if you have two jihadists that e in pakistan and are communicating with each other, that they didnt like something th mr. Nadler said against jihadists, the f. B. I. Can pick up the name nadler and go into all of his emails, all of his texts, all of the informatio thathey have on him and be ableo see what mr. Nadler is had said about jihadists and much, much more and thats why this bill opens the door to something that the n. S. A. Has csed itself. We have heard reports that congress has had a chance to review it. Th give us 30 days to do t we cant get anything done 30 days. Vote no on the bill. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from new york i recognized. Mr. Nadler i now yield5 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. Lou. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Lieu thank you, mr. Speaker. Having served oactive duty in the United States military when it comes to Foreign Terrorists on foreign soil, we nd to track them down and bill them. Thats why i support the fisa act as applied to foreigners. But unfortunately this act has now been used to apply to americans. And if youre going to do that, you need to follow the constitution. You need to put in a warrant requirement. Fortunately the new fisa bill does not do that. Thats why i support the u. S. A. Rights amendment. At the end of the day this is not about terrorists or terrorism. Its about can you use information against americans in a domestic court. Thats what this issue is about. Dont let the Intelligence Agency scare you. Vote no on the nunes bill, yes on the u. S. A. Rights amendment. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman information against mericans in a domestic mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, may i inquire how much time remains on each side . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from virginia has two minutes. The gentleman from yields. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. New york has 2s 1 4 minutes. Mr. Goodlatte i reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. Is entleman from new york recognized. Mr. Is recognized. Mr. Nadler thank you, mr. Speaker. I now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Johnson thank you, mr. Speaker. Our times are this, the president the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is abusing his authority, hes stacking the courts with incompetent and ideological judges. He is usurping the powers of the justice department, the f. B. I. Hes turning them into political animals. And at the time that hes doing this, were considering this legislation which leaves the door wide open for the abuse of Fourth Amendment rights of americans. This is a bad bill for a particularly bad time. Im asking my colleagues to vote no. We can do better than this. Im asking my colleagues to vote in favor of the u. S. A. Rights amendment. If that amendment is not passed, then i ask my members to vote no on this overall bill. Recant afford to let this happen. With that i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the entlemans time has expired. Mr. Goodlatte a i yield myself one minute to say in response to those who advocate for the amashlofgren amendment. That this amendment will very, very seriously damage our National Security because 702, a program for which there is no evidence of abuse, used to gather information about nonUnited States citizens outside the United States in a targeted fashion, they have to go to the court and get approval for the selectors to gather information on a quarterly basis. They gather information, incidental to that sometimes there is information about United States citizens. Guess what . The information does not come with little labors attached saying this is a United States citizen communicating here or the communication involves somebody in the United States. I will not yield. And therefore it is absolutely vitally important that we not impair the most important intelligence electronic intelligence gathering mechanism that the United States has to keep us safe and oppose the amash amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler thank you. I now yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from washington, ms. Jayapal. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Miss ms. Jayapal i rise in strong opposition to this bill that does nothing to stop the inconstitutional collection of Americans International communications without first obtaining a warrant and codifies the practice of indiscriminately sweeping up massive amounts of communications. What makes us different from those who would harm us is our commitment to our constitutional values. Were innocent until proven guilty. Our government must object tape a warrant and show probable cause there is a legitimate reason to listen in on our conversations. This bill will further expose people to warrantless prosecutions or detention and deportation in case that is have absolutely no connection whatsoever to National Security. I hope we reject this bill unless we approve the lofgrenamash amendment. The speaker pro tempore the gentleladys time has expired. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, i have only one speaker remaining. I therefore reserve. Stoip the gentleman resves. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler mr. Saker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. Pelosi, california. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Pelosi thank you, very much, mr. Speaker. How proud i am of the house of representatives that we have come together on the floor of the house and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge that we all face. The balance that we have to protect the American People, thats the oath we take, to protect and defend, and as we defend the constitution, defend the privacy, and the Civil Liberties of the American People. Itsdy. Many years ago its difficult. Many years ago, over 20, i went on to the Intelligence Committee for the purpose of protecting Civil Liberties and privacy. Also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Two really importantverarching issues. So i come to the oor today as one who has worked on this issue for a verlong time. And i want to thank our men and women in the Intelligence Community for the work that they do. Were so proud of what they do. In those days, when i went thest 25 years ago first on committee, it was about force protection. To try to have enough intelligence the committee, it was about force protection. To try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would the committee, it was about force protection. To try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would have the intelligence to protect our forces. It was about force protection. In the 90s it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well. But we live in a dangerous world. And force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligen community does. Again, i thank the men and won in the Intelligence Community for their patriotism and courage. The issue that relates to fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. But as we protect and defend the American People and the constitution and their rights, e have to have that balance. Benjamin franklisaid if we dont fight for secuty and freedom, we wont have either. I want to particularly thank our Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee. He has made us all proud going across the countr honoring our constitution. Talking about undermining our election system. Talking about protecting the American People in ways that is consistent with our constitution. I thank you, mr. Schiff. I support you today in your suort of the bill that came your committee. Is it perfect . I never voted for a perfect bill in this house. I also want to thank your commi that relate to our constitution. And the members of the Judiciary Committee. On intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. With a the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom i respect, its not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the American People. In fact, when i was supporting the Judiciary Committee bil the outside groups were complaning. They wanted the zo lofgren endment. They didnt want that bill. They were complaining abt it. Today they are saying thats what they want. Issue, one ying the of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. Pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what im hearing from folks about. Pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our democratic caucus, which seeks to secure the highest possible otections for american Civil Liberties. At the same time, it ensures that the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement can continue to keep americans safe. This amenent would go a step further from the modified bill thas on the floor under consideration to ensure Law Enforcement secures a warrant bere asessing americans information. Accessing americans information. T me repeat that. The amendment will go a step further than the modified bill under consideration to ensure Law Enforcement secures a warrant before accessing americans informatn. Under this amendmt the court order would be requid to access americans data in conneio with any nonNational Security crimil investigation by the f. B. I. This amendment moves pdicate, thats the operational word, removes predicate standards and expands the univee of investigations that would requi a warrant. A vote for this andmenti hope it would be bipartisan, especiay fr those objecting to the bill on the floor, is a vote for privacy protections and Civil Liberties. We would have preferred to have this in the original bill thats coming to the floor. Couldnt get that in committ. Hopefully we can get it on the floor. Voting against the motion to recommit is a vote tt means fewer protections, less oversightandore ri tn erans rights will be violated. In the course of th i mentioned that this issue about the warrantnd the rest. I want to take the opportunity toommend the speaker for ridding told you about the judiciaryill. At the offset of all this th first intelligence bill, we all opposed. Supported the judiciary bipartisan bill. That was there. Being criticized by some outside groups for supporting that rather than e lofgren amendment. But changes were maden the intellgence bill to this effect. We asked the speaker to take out the masking provisionswhich had no placein this bill. The chairman of the intelligee committee, mr. Nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. It made it a complete nonstarter. Thank you, mr. Speaker, for removing it. By theay, somedy should tell the president because he thinks its still in thebill. With that being said i personally directed to fix the rocess. Ng p it isnt fixed in the bill, mr. President. That would be a secontweet of the day. Confusing matters even worse. Unfortunately. Becau the administration, although theyrobablely would lie an extenson of the stus quo, understands we haveo do more than that. The otr provision that was in the bill was an expansion of agentsf forei governments. Agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. Weaid that doesnt fly. That haso be closed. The speaker did that. And then on the out language, hink mt people who understand that issue its a compcated sue. Understand that its really not a factor in is discussion. People dont want it mentioned. But e facts that it had to be addressed. And it is t being used. Its unconstitutional. An until it can be proven to be costitutional,e cant they cant be used. When it isused, they have to go to the fisa court and get permissionnd come to congress foratification of that. There a manyrotections ther so it is its hard. I know. Its hard. I had a hard time when wa speaker and we passed a billo addrs the gss violations of chinee, Vice President cheane cheney. Chiee, Vice President cheaney we put in many protections where there were none. Then renewed and improvethem when we renewed the bill subsequently in its reauthorization. We putn so this isnt about the other side of thaisle you dont care about pracy if you support this bill. It isnt abouthat. Its about where you strikehe balance. When y wgh the equities. And we have to come down in favor of honoring the constitution and our Civil Liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. I believe that mr. Nadler understands that full well and i commend him for that ep understanding of the vital natiol Security Issues and the invaluable worthat your comttee has done to stre a balance between securitand privacynd has made a difference. But the choice we have today to pass something defea this bill. Ok. Do that if you want to do th wont go dment that anyplace. You cano that. And we will be left withn extension of the status quoof the current law. One whoarticipat in writing it iderstd its merits. I undetand chans in technology, of tactics, of the terrorists who are out there d we have to impro the bill. I dont consider it a reform bl. Its not thatast. Ts some improvements in h , keep ect, otect e American People safe as well as protect their sifrl liberties. Civil liberties. Since this legislation was designed to dress concerns related to the use of formation collected under fisa, section 702,n important foreign intelligence collection authority, we ha to keep that emphasis oan importt foreig ielligence authority. So my colleagues, to that end, this modification requir a court oer based on probable caus for f. B. I. Criminal inveigators to ew Americans Communications in the database and mandates an Inspector General study of 702 data. Even we go forward, it e on, contains refined language about collectn, requires the exutive branch to require explicit approval from the fisa courfor collecti. It further subjects collection to the 30day congressional review process. I know seenbrenner id nobody can do anything 3 days, but ihink we can. And the bill strengthens the privacy and Civil Liberties oversit board. Thatsomething i was strumental in establiing when i w on e Intelligence Committee. I know it importance but i als knoit h to be stngthened and it s to be respected as a watchdo so, i mean, t list goes on. Reqring public reporting on the use of 702 data. Just saying to the inteigence communy, dont tr to minimize any violations tt ay have occurred. Want the fas, we the truth. And thats why i am excited it expanded histblower protections briefings to the oversight commiee which have required. Unlikehe original house intellience bill, which i oppose, this bill ds not include language that would have likely expanded the universe of fisa targets were as i mentiodefore rguments sebody tell the resident and excusme gives me great ide in our caucus if cou you have ard the beautiful debate between mr. Er and excuse me mr. Schiff on this subject. We are not that far apart. I tnk that the motion to recommit addresses most of the current conrns we have been getting from the outside goups and communities o are dedicated hose organize purpose is to pct the civil liberes of the amerin people. But again, with Great Respect for everyones opinions and whatev they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intellce community for tork that theyo, weant to be sure we rengthen their hand in terms of protecting the National Security of o country which is ourirst responsibilit keep the ameican people s and as we do so to hor our th of office to the constitio, to honorthe principles of the cotitution. Ourounders knew fll the challenge between security and they he lived in a world wn they were under attack the war of812 came vsoon after the establishment of our country. So this isot a foreign idea to them and it question griefs us the responsibility begriefs to us t responsibility to protect, fend, otect our civil liberts. Respefuof deba on this issue, i melfilbe voting to supporty ranking memr on the Intelligence Committee, mr. Schiff, r Ranking Member, and members who will followheir consous on this. Fro m wantoto kw expience, weighin the equities, thats the path will take. H that yield back th balance of my time. The speakepro tempore the gentlady yields. Renid. Tleman from vginia mr. Gotte mr. Spker, has all time expireon the other side . The speaker pro tempore i has. Mr. Golatte mr. Speaker, this time to se our side of deba, i am pased t yield to mr. Ing of iowa, member of the judicia. The speakepro temporhe gtleman is recognized. Mr. King i thank the chairn of the judiciary. I thank the minority ader for her remarks and support of 702 rise isupport of the 702 reuthoration. s critical to r National Security. You would e the color drawin out of the fes of security ersonnel, the entire National Secu community if we lost the abiland went dark on 70. We got to followhrgh in thi congrs. We got to provide the flexibility for th to use th tools hat we have available t. And we set up procedures that apprthis annually under the fisa cs. We got a probable cause requirement for any criminal investigation that protects u. S. Persons. We dont need to be protting anything but u. S. Persons when it comes to this. The genelady spoke of Civil Liberties a stand in defense of the Civil Liberties a well and in defense of the national curity. We have an g. Report thats written intos bill i remd people that cocerned about ts focus ese civ liberties th ooe and facebook and verizon and at t, they hold more date awehan t u. S. Gernment has. That ishere the real infoaon i meanwhile, i will oppose the amash amendment and suprt the reauthorizati 702. Persons deserve tha protection for naonal ohio secretary of state versus randolph institute. Here the argument in its entirety tonight on 9 00 eastern cspan. Org,nline at or listen with the free cspan app. You can listen to the schedule of or arguments for the court. You will see all current justices and a list. With Supreme Court video on demand, you can watch all of the oral arguments we have aired. Recess is for the weekend. On cspan2, remarks by george w. Bush Homeland Security pfizer frances townsend. A towner senators hold hall meeting on the republican tax bill, and a look at trends in u. S. Manufacturing. On cspan3, treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin will talk about tax reform and the debt ceiling. Coming up in one hour, usa today reporter alan gomez