Perhaps that it goes too far with those reforms. If you disagree with me on the merits of the bill i respect that disagreement. I cannot accept and what i accept Many Americans will not accept is a transparent, inexplicable, totally unjustified flipflop on this bill. A bill important both to the security and the privacy of the United States. Just a few weeks ago, 126 republicans joined 152 democrats in support of a nearly identical measure. Differed only in that the senate added one amendment, a good amendment with almost universal support. Virtually all of those 126 republicans change their position in the past 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the American People see through those excuses. Nobody believes that the sudden reversal has anything to do with complaints about proxy voting. Nobody believes that the flipflop is about Michael Flynn or roger stone or even President Trump whose cases have nothing to do with the authorities we hope to reform. There have been no real policy demands to explain the sudden reversal no demands for changes in the bill. If my republican colleagues did ask for substantial changes, substantive changes to the bill we would have heard them out and tried to address their concern. But thats not what happened. The republicans abandoned this bipartisan project for one reason and one reason only, the president tweeted on a whim and told them to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is just one more example of how the president and his enablers in this body have stood in the way of National Security, of Civil Liberties, and of our responsibilities as members of congress. I refuse to let our efforts to reform fisa die simply because republicans are unwilling to stand up to the president s whims. This legislation ends the n. S. A. Call detail records program. It applies the cutting edge of Fourth Amendment privacy protections to section 215. It forces the government to disclose years secret fisa court opinions. It increases transparency across the board. It raises the stakes for any government attorney who would dare mislead the court. And it dramatically expands the role of the amicus to be an advocate for privacy and Civil Liberties and push back against claims that should have been rejected by the court long ago. It is our responsibility to continue our work, to pass this bill, to send it to the president s desk and to ensure that these reforms are made law. None of us should rest until we have done that work. I would be very interested to ear what changed in the bill between yesterday morning and yesterday evening that caused the republicans to withdraw their support from a bill they agreed to, from provisions they said were i prufmente were improvements to National Security from provisions they said were improvements to the Civil Liberties of american citizens and suddenly all oppose it. What changed, other than the president s tweet . What changed other than the president s tweet . I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send the bill to conference where we can do the job we were sent here to do. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan madam speaker, everything has change. The main change is its worse than we thought. On march 10 when this body last dealt with fisa administration all kinds of things have changed. Weve learned from this the declassified transcript house bad the situation was in the Prior Administration when they went after the trump campaign. We learned about the concerted effort to frame general flynn, a threestar general, 30 years serving our country and everything we learned about october 4 when the f. B. I. Agents said we should no longer pursue going after general flynn. But what happened, jim comey told peter strzok, were going to continue to go after this guy. We learned jim comey met with president obama, talked about general flynn. We learned on october 6 what happened that day, excuse me, january 6. F. B. I. Ed that then director comey goes to trump tower and meets with thenpresident elect trump to talk about the dossier they know is false, that they know is fugs disinformation paid for by the clinton campaign. What did we learn two weeks late her january 20, 2017, what did they do . What did they do . Meet two agents in the white house to set up general flynn. What else have we learned since we dealt with this issue on march 10 . We learned about the unmasking of Michael Flynn. 39 people unmasking general flynns name. Six people in treasury. What are six treasury officials doing unmasking the guy who is going on the National Security director in the Incoming Administration . Finally, probably most importantly, finally and most importantly, we have the report from Inspector General horowitz, not the report he did on the carter page fie sacramento we already did that, we know how scathing that was, also wrongdoings that took place there but the report the report the investigation hes just starting on fisa in general. Hes looked at 29 cases involving american citizens, 29 cases, and found in every single one of those cases, multiple problems. When they were surveiled, again, american citizens. In four of those cases they couldnt find the file that you have to keep that has the basic evidence that youre going to take to the fisa court, they couldnt find it. So he does something you hardly ever see. He does a management alert. Basically pulling the fire alarm saying, this is so bad im going to tell you whats going on now and ive just gotten started on looking at the overall fisa. So thats whats changed since march 10 when this body dealt with this issue. And when the president of the United States, pretty important person in this debate, when he says, you know what, i think we should hit the pause button and wait here a little bit until we get to the bottom of everything that took place, what mr. Horowitz is looking at, what mr. Barr is looking at, what u. S. Attorney john durham is looking at, maybe we should just kind of hit the pause button and figure all this out. Thats all he said. Thats all weve advocated. Thats why we took the position we did as a conference yesterday. I appreciate the fact that leader mccarthy and our conference took that position. So lets wait and get all the facts. Lets wait until we actually hold people accountable before we renew this program, which, as the president said yesterday, does allow some warrantless searches of american citizens. So lets make sure we get it right. Thats our position as republicans. With that, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york is recognized. Mr. Nadler im glad the gentleman learned all this since noon yesterday when he testified in front of the rules committee in favor of this bill. I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished majority leader, mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman for yielding. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Hoyer thank you, madam chair. The information i had was, as the chairman has indicated, that the gentleman who just spoke appeared before the rules committee in support of this bill. We can get the transcript, i dont have it right now. But perhaps somebody can get hat transcript for me. For my entire career in public service, i have supported efforts to make america both strong and safe and a force for peace and reconciliation. In the course of those years, i have striven to draw an acceptable balance between our National Security and the protection of our personal liberty. And the right to privacy central to our unique extraordinary democracy. A government of laws, not men. Pursuant to that principle, as the majority leader, i scheduled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for Floor Consideration over two months ago. Previously, in 2018, roy blunt, then the my 2008, roy blunt, then the minority whip, and myself, the majority leader, senator kit vaughn, senator from new jersey, and senator rockefeller, senator from west virginia, worked together at a time of great controversy with respect to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to forge a bill that would garner bipartisan support. It was a difficult bill, with the same kind of principled differences that chairman nadler spoke of early and im going to speak about again. We passed that bill in a bipartisan fashion. With us we have today people on the right and people on the left concerned about its content. So there was bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Speaker pelosi and to had beenen tobe president obama, then in the senate, representative of illinois, voted for that bill. I have tried to continue to forge that balance through the years. The bill i brought to the floor a few months ago was a bipartisan effort to achieve that critical balance. And when it came to a vote, it received 2 3 of the votes from oth democrats and republicans. This bill, essentially. Had 2 3 of the votes on the republican side and 2 3 of the votes on the democratic side. So obviously, 2 3 of the votes of this house. And as i observed yesterday, americans must have been heartened by the fact that we could reach a bipartisan agreement on such a difficult bill. It was not a partisan bill. The leaders, all three top leaders on both sides of the aisle, supported essentially this bill. That bill, upon senate consideration, was amended by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to strengthen the protections of privacy. Which should have been heartening to those on the right and the left and was certainly heartening to me. And then what did they do they passed it with 80 senators, 48 republicans, supporting this bill. 48 out of 53. Supporting this. This is not a partisan bill. And this bill is about that balance. And mr. Nunes and mr. Schiff supported this bill. And supported this balance. And 2 3 of us made a judgment that they had done a job worthy of support. So 2 3 of the democrats in the senate, 2 3 of the republicans in the senate, 2 3 of the republicans in this house and 2 3 of the democrats in this ouse have supported this bill. I believe that support was garnered because an assumption was made, a premise was adopted by the overwhelming majority of us that it was a carefully crafted balance between security and individual liberties. It may not be perfect. But we have a responsibility to protect this country and our eople. In consultation, therefore, with other leaders, i scheduled this bill for consideration yesterday. The night before i got a call from my friend, the minority leader, that the president was urging republicans in the house. O change their votes to no in the twinkling of a president ial tweet, without any substantive logic to justify their actions, i was told that the 126 republicans who had voted for this bill when it was considered in the house would now change their votes and vote o. I believe, and chairman nadler has said this and i want to share this because its worth repeating, i believe when fisa passed the house in march, every member, those who voted yes and , voted their d no principles and their conviction on what they believed was in the security interests of the United States. Every one of the 435 people. I dont think there were quite 435, that voted in that bill, in my view, voted on principle. And out of conviction. I, of course, believed that the 2 3 of the members who voted for the bill on principle and pursuant to conviction about making this country safe were voting not for party but for principle. , refore i was surprised because i saw not then, nor now, any reason that either principle or conviction should be changed. Particularly in light of the fact that 80 senators, 80 senators, 48 republican colleagues of yours, madam peaker, voted for this bill. And therefore i assumed that we could bring members back. I dont want to get into controversy that some didnt come back, we have a new rule you dont like. We could bring the congress back and vote on a bipartisan bill. Or america but as a result of the president s antipathy toward federal Law Enforcement and his rsonal sense of grievance, authorities that have conspired will continue expired will continue to be lapsed. The complicity of those who believe that the reauthorization of these authorities was in the best , erest of the United States in preventing its passage last ght and today is, i think, oth sad and irresponsible. That we aker, i regret did not bring this vote to the loor for a vote. This is a result, in my view, madam speaker, of a patently political and indefensible abandonment of principle and responsibility, both as a coequal branch of government, and its policymaking branch as well. Madam speaker, we need to send this bill to conference. I urge my colleagues to vote to send it to conference. And if you think it needs to be perfected in some way, as mr. Nadler said, that is the place to do it. Now that we are not going to have it on the floor. Let me repeat. I would have had it on the floor. But we will not get an opportunity to vote on it. So ill wait to see the result of a conference, with a Republicanled Senate on a bill that the president has hreatened to veto. 2 3 of us believe that this was a bill that was good for america. This is a serious issue. With serious consequences. And i urge you to vote yes. Do not kill this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland yields back. The gentleman from new york reserves. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Mr. Jordan thank you, madam speaker. I just want to correct a couple of things that the majority leader said. You guys are the ones that let the fisa law lapse. There was a 75day extension sent over here. You guys got the majority. You let it lapse. We want to fix it. We want to correct it. We want to make sure its not abused like its obviously been abused. We didnt let it lapse. You guys did. And frankly, if you guys got the votes for this bill, you got the majority, you could pass it today. You dont have the votes because we need more work done on this to correct it. The leader also said something that was not accurate. He said the president had no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday. Are you kidding me . Are you kidding me . They spied on two american citizens associated with his campaign and hes got no basis for the tweet he did yesterday . They used a dossier to go to the secret court to get a warrant to spy on one of those individuals. A dossier that they knew was false, a dossier they knew was paid for by the clinton campaign, a dossier that jim comey said, not me, jim comey said was salacious and unverified. A dossier where the author had already told the Justice Department that he was desperate to stop trump from getting elected and they used it to go spy on the trump campaign. And the president has no basis for the tweet he issued yesterday . Are you kidding me . You guys let it lapse. Were trying to fix it because we know how bad it is and finally i would reiterate, 29 cases where american citizens were surveiled by the f. B. I. And every single one of those were major problems when they went to the fisa court and as i said before, four of those cases they couldnt even find the woods file. We want to fix this and were willing to take as long as it gets. And i will agree with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. There are good things in this legislation. I said that yesterday at the rules committee. What i also said is lets get it right and if the president is saying, were not going to do this until we figure out everything that went wrong, i agree with him 100 and more importantly, more importantly the American People agree with that. They want this fixed. They dont want they dont want anything done on this until we get to the bottom of everything that took place in the comey f. B. I. I yield to my good friend and gentleman, fellow Judiciary Committee member, the judge from texas, mr. Gohmert. The speaker pro tempore members are reminded to direct their remarks through the chair. The gentleman from ohio yields two minutes to the gentleman from texas. The gentleman from texas is ecognized for two minutes. Mr. Gohmert one of the advantages we have seen from having a tight speech, you dont forget things that are important points. But one of the weaknesses is you cant respond to the myriad of points Somebody Just made explaining why we need massive reform to the fisa bill and the information thats come out. And now, i got here 15 years ago. And i was part of the reauthorization back in those days. And we got lied to by the Justice Department about how this would be used. They came back into private meet, oh, we dont go after americans. We have seen from the information thats come out in recent weeks that they do exactly what they told us behind closed doors they never did. This thing needs to be massively reformed. What happened in the last 24 hours . Something called the rules committee. And it wouldnt allow our reforms, it wouldnt allow this body to vote on important reforms. Go reread the Fourth Amendment. Were not supposed to authorize searches and seizures against americans without the proper due process, without probable cause, without particularly describing the places to be searched and what to be seized and the fisa court has violated that. Some say, we just added amicus in there and thatll take care of it. The fisa judges did not vevpb the honor of their courts after finding out they were lied to repeatedly and fraud against them to do something about it. That tells you we need massive reform and a vote to go to conference is a total dabe case of this bodys job to put out a good bill that does reform and i ask everybody, vote no to go to conference so that we can force this house to do its job. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler madam speaker, let me just say first of all that of course much of what the distinguished gentleman from ohio said is fiction, as we all know. But second of all this bill as of yesterday noon was supported by the republicans, was supported by the gentleman from ohio, as making sufficient reforms, as making the reforms we recognize we need in the fisa system. I now yield such time heas may consume to the distinguished majority leader, mr. Hoyer. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Hoyer thank you, madam speaker. This is testimony dated 5 27 2020. Im going to read you some passages from that testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this important legislation. I will go down, skip a couple of paragraphs, perhaps hell want to point those out. Fortunately, the gentleman said this bill makes important Structural Reforms to the rogram to combat abuses. He then said, most importantly, this bill includes accountability measures. He went on to say it also includes reforms that strengthen ongress oversight powers. Finally, he said, i would like to thank senator lee and leahy for their amendment to the housepassed bill which strengthens the amicus role in these proceedings by extending them to any sensitive investigative matter involving any u. S. Persons. I also fully support this inclusion. As well as the lofgrendavidson amendment which was not on the bill to limit the f. B. I. s ability to obtain internet browsing history of americans. Trying to find a word of opposition to this bill. Clearly taken by the rule committees as support of the passage of this bill. My, my, my. As i pointed out earlier, the consequences of a twinkling of a tweet. From the president of the United States. Like that. Changing the vote of 126 people. Who i believe voted on principle. And on conviction. For this bill. For americans. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan let me first point out, i already said that. I supported the legislation, i said that but i also said we can make it better. And the president , in light of what we learned in the last two months, we need to make it better. I think we can do that. And we should never forget the president of the United States plays a pretty important role, in fact, hes got to sign the bills, last time i checked. So his position does have real impact. I yield to my colleague and friend from our great state, mr. Davidson. From the great state of ohio. For two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Davidson i thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam speaker, as the majority leader well knows, better than most of us in the room, for a bill to become law, the president of the United States must sign it. And hes made clear hes not going to sign this product. So its a complete waste of everyones time to send over a bill that has no chance to become law. And rather than make this bill better, rather than make this bill something that could become law, were going to run out the clock on more broken process. Why are we going to do that . Were going to do that because the people that are working to preserve the status quo, the broken status quo of warrantless spying on american citizens want to keep that status quo in place. So rather than allow real reform weve had a process that bypassed the Judiciary Committee. When chairman nadler realize head didnt have the votes to move his own product through the committee he pulled the whole committee process. In a committee process, amendments would be able to be offered and because they knew the amendments would be offered, in accordance with the rules of the house and would be adopted if they were given a chance to vote, they had to pull it so they didnt run it through the committee. The people that are represented by all 435 of us in this body had no chance to have their voice heard in a regular process. So leadership jammed through this broken bill to try to put some window dressing of reform on it. Some of them are important, they are better than the status quo, but theyre just modest reforms. Thats why they had so much support if people who want oto preserve it. Then when there was a real reform you saw that dropped off. When there was the lofgrendavidson reform that would stop warrantless searches on americans browser data they stopped it. Not a single vote on an amendment in the peoples house of the United States of america to preserve and protect the freedoms guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. Yes we must make our nation secure but we must do it constitutionally in full compliance with the bill of rights, no one is exempt. Article 1, article 2, or article 3. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler i listened to this gentleman moments ago who said we shouldnt pass any legislation the president wont sign. The king of england used to have the royal prerogative, absolute veto. The president does not. This house and the nat should do its job and pass proper legislation and let the president do his job. We had 2 3 of the votes in this house for this bill. And yet the gentleman from ohio mentions the lofgrendavidson amendment. I support this amendment. And if we had gone forward we could have gone with it. But the fact of the matter is, theyve withdrawn their support because of the president s tweet r no other reason and we are where we are now to preserve the ability to have the fisa act that preserves National Security as well as the improvements in the act embodied in this bill and the Senate Version of the bill that improves security while improving privacy protections against surveillance, we must approve the speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan we yield. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Nadler madam speaker, i i repeat what i said before. We have a choice. The fisa act as everybody agrees is not in good shape. The fisa act is necessary to preserve the security of the United States. I think everyone agrees with that. But we need improvements in the fisa act to make sure that while we protect the security of the United States against foreign aggression and foreign subversion, such as the russian attempt to subvert our elections four years ago, we also must improve the fisa act to provide greater protections against unwarranted surveillance, greater American Protection for american Civil Liberties an privacy. This bill does that. It may not do it as much as some people want but it gos a heck of a lot farther than what we have now. This bill must be passed if were going to have the protections of Civil Liberties that we want. This intill a decent balance. And i urge its adoption. To do that we have to go to conference and i urge the adoption of the motion to go to conference. I yield back the balanc with the federal government at work, you can use the congressional directory. Order online at cspan. Org. Veterans Affairs Secretary robert wilkie, with other department officials, testified before a House Appropriations agencystee on the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Secretary wilkie provided an update on the chair of the v. A. Has provided through the pandemic and talked about some of the challenges moving forward. This is 2. 5 hours