c-span 2. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> voorkorhing disease syndrome is extremely rare, but her friends do not have to be >> hi. >> when you are connected you do not have to be. announcer: cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the house has reauthorized the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the measured data passed 273-147 with bipartisan support. one of the most contentious issues involve the section of 702 which allowed warrantless wiretaps.

republican andy biggs and democrat jayapal would require warrants for any americans. surveillance act. that's the act under which we're able to spy on our adversaries, those individuals who intend to do our nation harm. it's been great debate and great discussion among the members. in this body everyone is in tbreement that there have been -- in agreement that there have been unbelievable abuses by the f.b.i. of access to foreign intelligence. the underlying bill of which there's broad support punishes the f.b.i., it criminalizes the f.b.i.'s abuses, it limits and restricts the f.b.i.'s access to foreign intelligence and it further puts guardrails to punish the f.b.i. what's also in agreement here on this house floor is the

protection of americans' civil liberties. you have to have a warrant and there's absolute constitutional protection of americans' data. no one in this statute, there's no place in this statute where americans' data becomes at risk. the debate today though is not about fisa or spying or on our -- on oured a never says -- on our adversaries. it's a about a warrant -- it's about a warrant in the amendment. this amendment largely drafted by senatorwider and -- senator wyden and co-sponsored by elizabeth warren would for the first time in history provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. it would provide constitutional rights to our enemies, no court, no law has ever come out of this body that would provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. we spy on hezbollah, we spy on hamas, we spy on the ayatollah,

we spy on the communist party of china. this bill provides them constitutional protections to communicate with people in the united states to recruit them for the purposes of being terrorists, for being spies, and for doing espionage. the 9/11 perpetrators were in the united states and they were communicating with al qaeda. at that time we made a grave mistake in that we were not spying on al qaeda and we didn't see who they were communicating with in the united states. we changed that and we began to spy on al qaeda and we got to see the extent to which they were recruiting people in the united states to do us harm. if this amendment passes, al qaeda will have full constitutional protections to recruit in the united states, the communist party will have full constitutional protections to recruit in the united states and there will be no increased protection of constitutional protections for americans and their data. the only data that would become protected is data that's located

in al qaeda's in-box and the communist chinese in-box. how is it that they become protected? this amendment would require that you have to have a warrant to look into communist chinese party data for the recruitment efforts that they are doing within the united states. you would have to have evidence of a crime that is occurring in order to be able to get to that warrant. which means we'll be blind. the moment that this -- if this becomes law, we will be blind and we'll be unable to look at what hezbollah is doing in the united states, what hamas is doing in the united states, what the communist party is doing in the united states. there's no additional protections in this amendment for americans. americans still have full constitutional protection of their own data. let me give you an example of how this works under their amendment. . we're spying on hamas. two people in the united states send emails to hamas. one says, happy birthday, and one says, thank you for making -- for the bomb making classes.

now whether those two emails go to hamas, right now we see them. if you send a happy birthday to hamas and we see it, that doesn't matter. it's not a threat to the united states. you send an email that says, thank you for the bomb making classes, we intercept that email, we read it, we find out who it is and then when we come here to go find that person, to arrest them, to make certain that they don't harm americans, we have to go to court and get a warrant. there already is a warrant requirement for the protection of americans and people who are here in the united states. ... if you have to look at a warrant for the two people that sent the emails, you have no evidence of a crime. no ability to read these a emails. we will go dark. we will go blind. the f.b.i. abuses have been extraordinary in their searching of foreign data. we need to punish them. this underlying bill punishes the f.b.i.

we should not punish americans. we should not make our nation less safe by giving constitutional protections to hamas, giving constitutional protections to the communist chinese party? i have been talking to members on the floor they say, hey, this amendment is about protecting americans' data in the united states. it's not. americans' data of the united states is already protected by the constitution. there is nobody on this house floor who would argue that you don't need a warrant to look at americans' yacht in the united states. this amendment -- data in the united states. this amendment, i encourage everyone to read it, applies to the data we collect in spying on hamas, hezbollah, the chinese communist party. to give them a warrant, to give them constitutional protections means that they are opened for business. the day after this passes, and we go blind, the communist chinese party has a complete pass to recruit in the united states students to spy on our industry and our universities. hamas and hezbollah have a

complete pass. we will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks within the united states. currently we keep america safe by spying on our adversaries. do not give our adversaries constitutional protection. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. himes: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. first, let me emphasize again that as the chairman said section 02 is our single most important intelligence authority. our single most important intelligence authority. we use it every day to protect the nation from threats range interesting china and russia to terrorist plots to fentanyl traffickers, and much more. it cannot be allowed to expire. it is also true that the 702 program requires substantial reform. we have done this before. and we are doing it in this base

bill. i would also make a critical point here which is that this is arguably our most heavily scrutinized and overseen intelligence authority. it is approved, i will say this twice, every single year and has been since 2009 by federal judges. federal judges who crawl all over this program looking for constitutional violations, looking for violations of law, and since 2009 they have recertified this program. it is also overseen by the congress, the chairman and i see problems with the program, it is overseen inside by the attorney general. it is the most scrutinized intelligence collection program that we have. the bill before the house today is the product of very serious oversight, resulting in a base text that preserves the value of 702 while putting in place more than 50 significant reforms aimed at preventing its misuse. those misuses that were detailed anti-chairman referred to, which by the way are down to the tune

of 90%, this bill would codify those reforms and require that the f.b.i. continue to follow those rules. this legislation contains the most significant reforms to 702 ever. among many other proposals, this bill will continue the progress already made that i referred to by the biden administration and others to ensure compliance. the bill would ban queries to conduct -- to find evidence of a crime and cut by 90%, 90% the number of f.b.i. personnel that can approve u.s. person queries. that's what we give up if we don't pass this bill. we will consider several amendments to the bill, most of which i will support. however, i am opposed to the biggs amendment, an extreme and misguided proposal that ser seriously undermines our national security. i understand the instinct. there is no way to collect intelligence on foreign emails

and text without having some americans on the other side of this. this bill puts in place protections to make sure that the abuses of the past don't continue into the future. i would add i understand the concern. federal judges crawl all over this program every single year and not one federal judge, not one has found constitutional issues with u.s. person queries. the president's civil liberties oversight board, proposed a warrant that is much less extreme than the one in the biggs amendment. the pclob, this proposal was split smith on that -- was split on that, proposed only in the event that a u.s. query produces information, only in that event, which is about 2% of all queries, would a warrant be required. the biggs amendment would require a warrant for every single u.s. person query that the government makes inside information it already has.

the narrow exceptions including in this amendment will also not work. you don't need to take that from me. talk to anybody in the government who use this is program. we don't know if a query is about something that is an exy againcy until we know what is in the information. that that query would turn up. enacting this amendment would make us far less safe. we'll lose the ability to disrupt terrorist plots. identify spies. interdict fentanyl. and much more. not because it was actually required. but because we simply chose not to look. as jake sullivan said this week, quote, the extensive harm of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated. i would point my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to the president's extraordinarily strong statement of administrative policy in which he reiterates the damage done by this amendment should it

pass. and my friends, a lot of what we do here, the consequences don't appear immediately. if we turn off the ability of the government to query u.s. person data, the consequences will be known soon. and we will audit why what happened happened, and the consequences will be known soon and accounted -- accountability been list vitted. i ask members to vote for the underlying bill and oppose the biggs amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: i yield to dr. wenstrup. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i'm in support of this underlying bill. certainly. this is a bipartisan product. it came out of the intelligence committee. and it came out of the intelligence committee when we realized a few years ago all the abuse that is were taking place within our intelligence system. and we knew we had to act.

and there had to be reforms. and there had to be criminal liability when people in our agencies are doing the wrong things. that wasn't in place. and for the last 2 1/2 years we have worked on this, we worked on it in a bipartisan way, not just with the intelligence committee, but with the whole body. we opened this up to the entire body. republican, democrat, regardless of what committee you are on. and we worked together to craft a very good bill. this isn't just an intelligence committee bill. this is a house of representatives bill. and that's what we have come forward. this bill ensures americans' civil liberties are secure. and that we have intelligence collection tools that we need to safeguard our country from foreign threats. the constitution requests us to provide for our defense. that is what we are trying to do. and to work against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

that is what we are trying to do. so i want to set the record straight. it's already in statute that a warrant is required every single time the united states government wants to investigate a u.s. person. under fisa, under section 702. but a warrant is not required to do a query. to find out what you might need for probable cause to get a warrant. now this amendment wants to put a warrant on getting a query when time is of the essence. mr. speaker, if ayatollah khomeini is talking about you, and we pick up that, i want to know why he's talking about you, mr. speaker. and i want to do a query into the information we already have to see if anyone else is talking about you. and i want to find out if they are planning to cincinnati you,

mr. speaker -- to assassinate you, mr. speaker. i shouldn't need a warrant to try to find out if a foreign actor is trying to assassinate a u.s. citizen. i shouldn't need to find fought a foreign actor or terrorist is working with someone in the united states to harm other americans. but if we want to investigate that person, yes, we do. so there is a lot of misinformation out there. american civil liberties are not being harmed. i'll give you a hypothetical example. american citizen bob smith, pops up in a fisa database. some are saying the government can obtain or search bob emails' text and phone calls. that is not true. that is not true. but you can do a query to see if anyone else is talking about this person. and not just anyone else anywhere, but a foreign actor or

a foreign terrorist whose information you already have. can you imagine if you are looking for -- the chair: the gentleman has 20 seconds remaining. mr. wenstrup: i want to just say what's true and what's not true. a query does not investigate a u.s. citizen. in many cases it's acting on behalf of the u.s. citizen to keep them safe. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: mr. chairman, it is my privilege to yield two minutes to the single longest serving member of the house intelligence committee ever, a member who as my republican colleagues regularly remind me, whose progressive bona fides are

unchallengeable and came to this institution to fight for civil liberties, i yield two minutes to speaker emerita, nancy pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his great leadership of the intelligence committee. and i thank our members of the intelligence committee for their important work to protect our national security on both sides of the aisle. having served there i know it's a place where we strive for bipartisanship. mr. speaker, as the gentleman indicated i came to this committee in early 1990's. my purpose was to protect the civil liberties as we protected the national security of our country. i had two purposes. one, to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. and secondly, was -- on par with that to make sure that we protect the civil liberties. in the course of that time i have had -- i have voted for legislation that is less than what i would have liked, but advanced the cause. the gentleman, both the chair and ranking member, have put

forth a very clear idea about why 702 is important. and i associate myself with their remarks. i just want to say this. i went in the early 1990's. i became the ranking member, the top democrat on the committee. for 20 years i was gang of four, or gang of eight in terms of receiving intelligence up until last year when i stopped being speaker of the house. and for that whole time it's been about what does this mean to the civil liberties of the american people? i have a bill we brought to the floor when president bush was president that addressed some of our fisa concerns. didn't go all the way. this bill does. and in this legislation there's scores, scores of provisions that -- good, strengthen our case for civil liberties. some of them improvements on existing law. some of them new provisions in the law to protect the civil

liberties of the american people. so this biggs amendment ser seriously undermines our ability to protect the national security. i urge our colleagues to vote against it. if this -- i don't have the time right now, but if members want to know i'll tell you how we could have been saved from 9/11 if we didn't have to have the additional warrants. with that i again urge a no vote on biggs. a yes on the bill. and yield back the balance of my time. .. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> to my folks at home, are you concerned about counterterrorism threats? i am, too. fisa section 702 informed the planning of the 2002 military operation that led to the death of the leader of isis.

i'm concerned about fentanyl. we delivered fisa section 702 to identify a supplier in mexico to help thwart the fentanyl threat. are you concerned about cyberattacks? i am. section 702 led to the prevention of a cyberattack. are you concerned about our troops? fisa section 702 has disrupted planned terrorist attacks on our troops in places like the middle east and a u.s. facility in the middle east and 702 is used to monitor communications as the terrorist traveled to go and execute those plans. mr. crawford: we can't overstate the importance of 702. i know you're concerned about the rights of the american people. i am, too. i'm an american just like you are. that's why there already is a warrant requirement in place. we're protecting u.s. persons.

we can't allow 702 to expire and expect we'll have good results the end of the day. i support section 702 and i urge a yes vote. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: it's a pleasure to yield one minute to mr. hank johnson of georgia. mr. johnson: i thank the member and rise in support of re-authorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which first was passed by congress in 2008. it codified what had been a secret and was a warrantless collection of phone, email and other communications of non-u.s. persons located outside of the united states in response to the deadly 9/11 attack that killed thousands of americans.

as they plapped that deadly attack, al qaeda plotters used u.s. communication facilities and american foreign intelligence picked up the chatter but the stove pipe that kept this intel from domestic law enforcement created the situation where domestic law enforcement could not protect us from the threat because they did not know of the plot before it happened. if section 702 had been in place prior to 911, the f.b.i. could have been able to prevent the attack. and allowing section 702 to expire would expose americans to grave danger like the horrific massacre of israeli jews on october 7th, the military style assaults like what happened in russia recently, and other mass cool events, the limits of which are only limited by the depravity of those who would plan them and why i rise in support of this legislation and yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has five minutes remaining. >> i yield two minutes to mr. lahood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mr. lahood: i want to thank you for this bill. i rise in strong support of h.r. 7888, the former intelligence and securing america act. for the past year i let the intelligence committee on fisa re-authorization to work with my colleagues to find commonsense reforms under the processes of 702 to create a balance between protecting national security and preserving constitutional liberties afforded to all u.s. persons. it's important to state at the outset section 702 is used only to target bad actors overseas and our adversaries who are not protected under the fourth amendment. it is not used to surveil or target americans. throughout our process we

regularly engage with security leaders, former trump administration officials, and our colleagues both on the judiciary committee and throughout the conference. this bill makes changes to fisa and 702 without upending the statute that would lead to unintended consequences resulting in the united states being less safe. prior to do coming to congress i witnessed firsthand the valuable use of fisa. section 702 is a critical tool to help the i.c. defend the united states existential things that happened the last nine years, the taking out of bin laden, the assassination of sole amani, the taking out leadd last year taking out al zaharri.

the use of it institutes the largest reform os utilizing fisa from anything other than its intended u age with china and the specificallyt our bill and express grave concern about the warrant amendment that will be brought up today and i urge a no vote on

the warrant amendment and a yes vote on our underlying bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: it's my privilege to yield 90 seconds to a gentleman who prior to coming here defended this nation's security at risk to his own life in the uniform of the 75th rangeer regiment, the gentleman from colorado, jason crow. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crow: i rise in support of the informing intelligence and securing america act to re-authorize section 702 of fisa. as one of the nation's most essential intelligence gathering tools, the importance of re-authorizing fisa cannot be overstated. every day our nation's diplomats and intelligence officials and defense officials and soldiers and marines and air men derive on section 702 to protect our country. it provides vital insights to the kinds of threats we need to protect americans from, including threats against our critical infrastructure, our computer networks and financial

system and our citizens. this bill before you is the product of careful bipartisan negotiations. these negotiations have insured this bill will not only maintain the effectiveness of fisa but enhances protections for america's civil liberties and makes targeted reforms to address compliance issues. to require a warrant before accessing this information that has already been lawfully collected and reviewed by the courts and in possession of the u.s. government would serve as a de facto ban on ever accessing it. it creates a unaccept is level of risk with consequences that would be felt almost immediately for americans and our national security. so i urge my colleagues to reject the biggs amendment and support the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. crenshaw: thank you. we've seen a lot since i've been here. it's my third term. never before have i been frightened what could happen if fisa is not re-authorized or this warrant amendment is passed which effectively kills our ability to detect and connect the dots between foreign terrorists and what they might do here domestically. i've never been more concerned. i spent the last 20 years of my life fighting for this country, lost an eye doing it. i don't think we actually disagree very much on principle. there's always a balance between civil liberties, privacy, and security. i don't think me and my colleagues are very far apart on that. we're very far apart on the facts at hand. is so let's talk about some myths and some facts. myth, fisa is used to spy on americans. the myth goes like this, if you querreyed an american's name, you could see their inbox. it's not true. it's used to spy on foreign

intelligence targets, foreign terrorists, and you need a warrant to do so. if they speak to an american, you will get that part of the conversation. that is all you get. here's another myth. this bill doesn't go far enough, it doesn't do any reforms. that is not true. the reforms in here would stop in their traction what happened to president trump with crossfire hurricane. it's almost entirely intended to stop what happened to president trump. not only that, they would do the necessary reforms -- it would codify 56 more reforms and put in processes before queries were even made and put in criminal penalties by those who do the not abide by those processes. the f.b.i. hates these reforms, by the way. please support this bill. please do not support the amendment to require a warrant for queries and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. himes: may i require to the remaining time?

the chair: the gentleman has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. himes: it's a live to yield 90 seconds to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. houlahan. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. houlahan: thank you. i rise in support of the former intelligence and securing america act which would re-authorize fisa 702. we live in a dangerous world and section 702 is crucial to keeping americans safe. this is a tool our intelligence agencies rely upon all day to counter all kinds of threats to our homeland from u.s. nonpersons p. again, u.s. nonpersons. whether uncovering chinese spies or foiling terrorist plots or intercepting terrorist plots, this authority is essential to our national security. this tool can even allow our intelligence community to counter drug cartels as they bring fentanyl to our shores and would be enhanced by what mr. crenshaw and i are enforcing, with the national drug processing act.

i urge you to support the amendment. not all the amendments today would strengthen this bill. in fact, i'm strongly opposed to the amendment offered by mr. briggs and am obligated to point out the dangers of passing this extreme amendment. intelligence professionals who rely on 702 keep us safe and have been crystal clear. this amendment would make it nearly impossible to access information exceptional to protect our homeland security. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i urge a yes vote on the overall bill fisa and a no vote on the biggs amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. the gentlemanfrom ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida who opposes giving constitutional rights to our foreign adversaries, mr. rutherford. mr. rut rear ford: thank you. i rise today in strong -- mr. rutherford: thank you. i rise today in strong support to the bill but opposition to the amendment. this amendment ties the hands of our intelligence community

making all of us less safe. this amendment requires the i.c. to get a probable cause warrant to search a set of data that is legally been collected. i.c.'s, our intelligence community, must have access to legally collected, pertinent information, and we should not be adding roadblocks. as a former law enforcement officer, i strongly believe in the civil liberties of all americans and spent my life protecting them but this amendment does not provide any more protection to americans. all this amendment does is gut 702, giving to terrorists, adversaries, and bad actors a major win. restricting access to already legally collected data makes us all less safe. 702 is a vital piece of our security and must be preserved. i urge a no vote on the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from connecticut selected. mr. himes: i yield 90 seconds to dan goldman of new york. mr. goldman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this bill that includes an absolutely exceptional national security program. but i will support this bill only if the amendment that would impose a warrant requirement on queries regarding american citizens fails. first, a warrant is simply not needed because the query in question is not a new search. it simply identifies any contacts or communications with americans within the universe of information that was already lawfully obtained from the original search and that original search can only be of foreign nationals on foreign soil. i spent 10 years as a federal prosecutor and obtained hundreds of search warrants. and based on that experience, i

can say with confidence that requiring a warrant would render this program unusable and entirely worthless. based on the information available to law enforcement, it would be impossible to get probable cause to obtain a search warrant from a judge in a timely manner. and even if it were possible, the time required to obtain a search warrant from a judge would frequently fail to meet the urgency of a terrorist or other national security threat. a warrant requirement is unnecessary and unworkable, and i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the biggs amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. .. the gentleman from ohio's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. hymes: thank you -- mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman.

i'd like to thank the gentleman from ohio for his terrific work in the face of very real the president's civil concerns. challenges and his commitment to not a single federal court, bipartisanship. this is a critical and bipartisan effort. after years and years scrutiny, it's one that he and i and many has identified a fourth others have spent thousands of amendment issue. hours on. so this is a policy choice. as we close out debate, two and i would say to those friends things are very, very clear. number one, this authority must of mine on my side of the ■aisl, maybe you've spent more time on be re-authorized. i've heard too many members this collection authority than i saying that, i'll vote to have. i've probably 2,000 or 3,000 re-authorize it so long as i get this amendment passed. hours. maybe you've spent more, i'm if you are serious about keeping willing to concede that. the american people safe, if maybe you know better than ido. you're serious about what you but i would ask you to listen to the people who use this every said which is that this must be single day at the department of re-authorized, vote for final passage. justice, at our intelligence this is our single most community, i would ask you to read the last paragraph of the important tool to keep americans administration's statement of safe. administration policy which concludes with the lierng our secondly, the biggs amendment is intelligence, defense, and an extreme amendment. public safety communities are and i understand the instinct as united. i mentioned before, the pclob, the extensive harms of this proposal simply cannot be mitigated.

we're article i. maybe you've done a lot of work. maybe you know bet own the biggs amendment. we'll find out. pass the biggs amendment. do what the sap says would badly damage our safety. we'll find out. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 15 minutes. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: in 2021 and 2022, the f.b.i. did three million u.s. person queries of this giant 702 database osm this giant haystack of information. three million queries of united states persons. and make no mistake. queries of -- queer vie a fancy name for search. three million americans' data

was serged in this database of information. and guess what? the f.b.i. wasn't even following their own rules when they conducted those searches. that's why we need a warn. 278,000 times. not jim jordan talk about it. not ranking member nadler talking about it. "washington post" reported last may that 278,000 times the f.b.i. found, the justice department found they didn't even follow their own darn rules when they searched this giant haystack, this giant database of information on americans what we're saying is, let's do something that the constitution has had in place for a couple hundred years that's served our nation well and protected american citizen's liberties. let's make the exec tiff branch go to a separate and equal branch of government, the judicial branch, and get a probable cause warrant to do the search. after all it's done pretty well nor great country, greatest country ever, for a long, long time. why wouldn't we have that here?

oh, by the way, in a bipartisan fashion, come ought of our committee, 35-2 vote, we said we'll even put exceptions in there. if it's an emergency situation they are f.b.i. doesn't have to get a warn they can get a search if it's an emergency situation they can do it. we put exceptions in there. here's the fundamental question. i raised this the other day. here's the fundamental question. of that over three million searches in a two-year life span, how many aren't covered by the exceptions we have in our amendment? what's the number? guess what we can't get an answer. they won't tell us. which should be a concern in and of itself. but if it's a big number we should be frightened. if they're not following exceptions, they're searching americans, your name, your phone number, your email address in this database. and if it's a small number what's the big deal? you don't -- if it's a small number, but we can't get an

answer to that question. so the underlying bill has got some changes and reforms that are positive, that are good but short of having this warrant amendment added to the legislation, we shouldn't pass it. this amendment is critical. particularly when you think about the 278,000 times they abuse the system and didn't follow their own rules. they said now we've got new rule, i'll follow them now. the real check we have in our system is a separate and equal branch of government signing off on it. that's how we do things in america. and never forget this is the f.b.i. who has had some other abuses, different arias. this is why we think this warrant requirement is so darn apartment. with that, i reserve the balance of our time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. nadler: i rise in strong support of meaningful reform to

fisa section 702 and in strong opposition to a mere fig leaf or worse, a mere expansion of 702. unfortunately we won't know which of these paths we're taking until the conclusion of the debate. what i know at the moment is the base text before us right now is completely inadequate. though it has some perfectly fine provisions it does not represent real reform. some of the proposed amendments that would be coming up today would take us in the wrong direction and changing the sunset from five years to years does absolutely nothing improve the bill. ultimately this legislation should only move forward if it contains an amendment to mandate that the intelligence community obtain a probable cause warrant before they search the 702 database for american's private communications. some of my colleagues appear confused by how 702 collection works. what we mean when supporters of a warrant requirement refer to backdoor searches for u.s. person information. let's be clear about what we're

talking about. fisa section 702 permits the intelligence community to sweep up the communication of foreign targets located overseas. when these communications are obtained, they go into what is known as the 702 database where all the 702 data is housed. if the u.s. government wants to target a u.s. person for foreign surveillance, the u.s. person meaning an american legal or permanent resident, they already can they do this by getting a warrant under title i of fisa, a separate and distinct part of fisa from section 702. the government cannot target americans under 702 because 702 does not protect the constitutional rights of the targets of the surveillance. foreigners not located on u.s. soil do not have constitutional rights so this is not a problem. what is a problem, however, is that massive amounts of americans' communications are still swept up in 702 searches. if a u.s. person communicates with a foreign target, that american's communications with

the target end up in the 702 database too. while we do not know precise numbers we know a vast amount of americans' communications is swept up every year. the intelligence community is not supposed to search the 702 database for u.s. person identifiers like our name, phone numbers and addresses, without cause. searching for americans' private communications in the 702 database, communications the government otherwise would not have access to without a warrant is the constitutional egive lept of conducting a warrantless search. but we know that this -- that the government breaks this law all the time. 278,000 times in fact, at last count, in 2021 alone. officials are supposed to find it reasonably likely that a query will turn up evidence of a crime or foreign intelligence information. but that did not stop phlegm searching for protesters, politicians and political donors to name a few, without proper predicate. because of these repeated violations, chairman jordan and

i agree that the only way to preserve american's privacy and constitutional rights is to require they are intelligence community to obtain a probable cause warrant when they want to search the communications of americans housed in the 702 database. that is a basic tenet of the fourth amendment. chairman turner stated incorrectly that the proposed warrant requirement gives constitutional rights to suspected terrorists abroad. nonsense. the warrant requirement does not change any aspect of surveillance of valid targets under section 702, nor should it. the problem is that when we surveil the internet we sweep up massive amounts of u.s. person information. and the warrant requirement we propose would apply the fourth amendment to that information. nothing more. and our constitution demands nothing less. we have repeatedly heard some of our colleagues tell us that the sky is falling. that a probable cause requirement would end u.s. person search of the 702

database. but there are no facts to back up these claims. we will be considering an amendment today to add a requirement for u.s. person search of the 702 database. the exception amendment makes a case for cyber security cases and emergencies. thus the vast majority of these searches can continue without a warrant. but for the small percentage of searchers of american communication that would be affected the government should have probable cause to search their communications. it is simply unfair to ask the intelligence community to both zealously protect our security while also protecting our the constitutional rights of those surveilled. americans' system of checks and balances exists precisely for case such as this with two considerings must coexist at odds with one another. for too long, fisa section 70 has enabed the surveillance of americans without adequate safeguards to protect our civil liberties. americans need congress to enact these guard israels and with section 702 expiring soon we

have a rare opportunity to protect americans' privacy while giving enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe i feel encourage my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, unless a probable cause warrant is adopted. i reserve the balance of my time. the spe the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i yield to the gentleman from the judiciary committee, mr. mccline to be. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. mcclintock: i don't discount the dangers we face from enemies abroad but we cannot discount the dangers we face at home from the powers the bill would continue. it's been pointed out the f.b.i. abused these powers 278,000 times in a single year. and turned them against american citizens. fishing for january 6 and black lives matter rioters, probing political donors, even piercing

congressional offices. john adams believed that the indiscriminate searches by british officials became the first spark of the american revolution. having lived under such a tier think -- tyranny the funkers protected with us the fourth amendment. before authorities can search through our records they have to get a warrant from an independent judge by showing probable cause to suspect that we've committed a crime. now there are many excellent reforms in this bill and i applaud them. but they largely depend on these agencies policing themselves and, and experience warns us that's not enough. without a warn requirement i fear these powers will once again be turned against our fundamental liberties and these days, that scares me as much as a terrorist attack. just imagine how much safer we'd all be if we stationed a soldier in every house. but we have a third amendment to protect us against that tyranny just as we have a fourth amendment to protect us against the tyranny of indiscriminate

searches. benjamin franklin's warning echoes through his ageo ours today. those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. let that the no be history's judgment of us. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. nadler: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: the gentlelady is recognized. - we have an obligation to safeguard our national security. every single day the f.b.i. conducts and average of 500 warrantless searches of americans' private communications resulting in over 278,000 searches in one year alone.

the f.b.i. has invaded the privacy of members of congress, a state court judge who reported state right misappropriations. we cannot pass this bill without my amendment and representative biggs and lofgren and davidson to close the backdoor search loophole. unfortunately, there are some members of the intelligence community, some members of this body that are circulating information that simply isn't correct and i need to correct the record right here. some members have implied the privacy and civil liberties oversight board does not support the amendment. to counter that, let me share some quotes from sharon bradford franklin in her personal capacity as chair of the privacy and civil liberties board, the independent government agency tasked with securing the

government branch secures national security work that protects our civil liberties and privacy. here are her quotes, it's critical in re-authorizing section 702 congress include a warrant requirement for u.s. person queries. another quote, requiring a warrant for u.s. person queries would neither end u.s. person queries nor undermine the overall value of section 702. another quote, outside of the category, quote, victim queries, the f.b.i. has not been able to identify any cases in which a section 702 u.s. person query provided unique value in advancing a criminal investigation. in addition, the government has been unable to identify a single criminal prosecution that relied on evidence identified through a u.s. person query. another quote, the warrant requirement contained in the warrant amendment includes important exceptions that would

address the government's concerns about slowing down the process for u.s. person queries. exceptions are provided for exigent circumstances, consent, cybersecurity, and meta data only queries. mr. speaker, let me be clear the privacy and civil liberties oversight board in its oversight capacity has the same access to all the classified intelligence that the agency site when they try to scare us into re-authorizing fisa with minimal changes. we have a bipartisan amendment that would fix this problem. we have a responsibility to stand up for civil liberties of our constituents. we cannot pass this bill without requiring intelligence agencies to ensure that americans' privacy rights are upheld at every turn. i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you.

before yielding to my good friend i want to underscore what the gentlelady from washington just described. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board created by the 9/11 commission act of 2007 says that our amendment is consistent with what should happen. our amendment is consistent with the majority recommendation of that board. this was a board specifically created to protect americans liberties looking at how the intelligence community operates by the 9/11 commission act of 2007 and the majority of that board said this amendment is what needs to happen. with that i yield to my good friend from new jersey, a member of our committee, two minutes. >> thank you. and thank you, mr. speaker. mr. van drew: you just heard the words of benjamin franklin from my good friend mr. mcclintock. those who give up freedom to safety deserves neither. i hope we aren't marked in history as the generation of congress that was willing to give up american liberty and

freedom. it is what we stood for. it is what we've worked for. it is what the men and women have died for. we owe it to them. it is our most important right as americans. it is what america is. the united states of america represents. and we were told ■all this before. we were told in the last renewal of 702 everything was going to be ok. no worries. all the security was there. nothing to be concerned about. don't look here. and then we saw what happened. we saw the political campaigns and donors, they were gone after. we saw that members of congress were investigated. we saw that journalists were investigated. we saw that individuals who were libertarians or liberals or conservatives were investigated. we saw f.b.i. agents own co-workers were investigated and

they investigated their ex-girlfriends and others. and just the average man in america, the average man and a woman was investigated. it was wrong. millions of times, not dozens or hundreds or thousands but over that time period, millions of times. millions of illegal queries. i cannot support, i will not support this legislation unless there is a major change in the form of an amendment that would require what we know needs to be done, a search warrant. it's a basic american right. and don't let them scare you. it doesn't mean that we're not going to go after terrorists. it doesn't mean we won't protect the united states of america. and when i finally wrap up here, if this bill is so good the way it's written, why, why do we exempt members of congress? you know why? because they're scared they may

still at the end of the day go after us. it's wrong. rules for them and not for me. we should not stand for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the crime subcommittee, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. even in this time of 2024 we need this legislation to protect now one of the most revered civil rights leaders, dr. martin luther king. yes, we need legislation that would in fact protect someone who simply wanted to provide justice to this nation. and he was the subject of co-intel pro, a hardly distorted investigation of his family, of his belongings, of his extended family members, of his wife, who

i think at the time was expecting. this legislation is important to save lives. it is important legislation to ensure that our intelligence community, our law enforcement community can do their job. but it is not legislation that should be utilized to abuse the american people. so i rise today to speak of the concerns on h.r. 7888. it is a bipartisan bill to. section 702 of the foreign intelligence act, fisa, and other fisa provisions before they'd expire on april 19. but in doing so, we find ourselves being subject to the eye of the night, if you will, in penetrating the personal matters of individuals that have no desire to do harm to this country. as we know all too well, 702, authorities would deprive our national government of the

insight and suspects as identified and would encounter. if we lost 702 we lose vital protections to the united states and its allies from hostile foreign adversaryies including terries and spies and to inform cybersecurity efforts but we're also acutely aware 702 is an extremely controversial warrantless surveillance that must not be authorized without a reform to rein is warrantless surveillance of americans. indeed, warrantless surveillance intended for non-american targets located abroad has resulted in the collection and capture of americans' communication and yes, the results of capturing information that safeguards the american people and provides us with a safety net that we can fight for justice, fight for civil rights, and yet be protected. it is no secret intelligence agencies have turned 702 into a

domestic spy tool used to hundreds of millions backdoor searches of americans' prove phone calls and emails and text messages. by the way, mr. chair, we have a whole new world of technology where you can probe every aspect of our life and these have shown shocking abuses against civil rights leaders, protesters, members of congress, 19,000 donors through congressional campaigns and political parties. to protect the american people, we need to maintain the vital collection authority as intended to protect our nation and national security. we must do that while at the same time strengthening its protective guardrails with the most robust set, if you will, of protection we possibly can. that's why i've joined with several members, including mr. cline, to offer the abouts amendment and we'll off they're as one of the judiciary three.

this amendment does something congress should have done several years ago, prevent the government from resuming abouts collection, a form of section 702 that poses unique risks to americans. abouts collection is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance. can you imagine under section 702 of fisa but merely contain information related to the target? it is unbelievable we would go after innocent americans, members of congress in the random searching, phishing. the random search and phishing of information that may not be relevant, in the past abouts collection focused on collecting communications that included a target's email address or twitter handle or something like that but in theory abouts collection could collect emails who merely mentions a person who

is a target of 702 surveillance. i rise to say we cannot pass this legislation without these vital amendments and we cannot pass this legislation without the american people believing when they pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america they're pledging allegiance to civil liberties, freedom, justice and equality for all. i rise to support these amendments and as well a free nation with democracy and liberty for all. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: gentlelady yields. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield two minutes to mr. self of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. self: it appears the house of representatives is experiencing a constitution will a crisis of conscience. we are actually debating if a warrant should be required for government intelligence agencies to spy on americans. frankly, i'm stunned this is even called into question. especially among my republican

colleagues. the constitution is absolutely clear. we as americans have the right under the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizures. a right that the f.b.i. has violated in over 278,000 improper searches of americans and 3.4 million warrantless confer eyes of american's' prov. we know this is not up for debate. they've been caught. if we do not pass this warrant requirement especially in light of these facts, the continued victimization of americans by the f.b.i. through fisa section 702 will be legitimatized. as an army officer, as a county judge, now as a member of congress for 40 years, i have been under oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. i will do so today on behalf of over 800,000 of my constituents

in texas district 3. get a warrant. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. jordan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i yield two minutes to judiciary committee member and friend from the great state of wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzgerald: thank you, mr. speaker. the debate today is really focused on whether or not the f.b.i. should be required to obtain a warrant to access u.s. person data. as the quote we're all familiar with, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i want to remind my colleagues of the debate on the previous fisa re-authorization bill in the 115th congress. many of my current and former

colleagues stood behind this very podium and swore up and down the fisa amendments act of 2017 would provide necessary protections for u.s. person information while keeping our country safe. yet since the bill became law, there were nearly three million u.s. person queries just in 2021. and hundreds of incomplete fisa applications and the use of section 702 to query data on members of congress, protesters, and even f.b.i. janitors. it it appears to me that the factor that continues to fall by the wayside in all the debates that are happening is that human nature plays a part. mr. speaker, that's the dilemma we find ourselvesin. we didn't pick this. this is where we ended up. do we allow human nature to take its course and permit the f.b.i.

to continue to abuse u.s. person data which the department of justice, i.g., special counsel durham, the fisa court and numerous independent review bodies have found to be negligent, inappropriate and a threat to american privacy? or do we rein in the f.b.i. and fight for our fourth amendment rights? i choose to side with the latter and support the amendments that limit rather than expand the f.b.i.'s ability to query u.s. person data thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is is . mr. nadler: the suggestion has been made that the warrant requirement is extreme. there's nothing extreme about this idea. over a decade ago, a group of intelligence expert unanimously

suggested requiring a warrant. that group including michael morel, former acting director of the c.i.a. and richard clark, former chief counterterrorism adviser to president george w. bush. these top national security officials understood that we can protect national security by respecting the fourth amendment rights of americans. the house of representatives has twice passed amendments with a warrant requirement for back door searches by large, bipartisan majorities. some of my colleagues who spoke against this amendment today including former speaker pelosi have voted more than once for this reform. over 75% of americans support this reform. calling something extreme doesn't make it extreme. this is an idea that's been in the mainstream for over a decade. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: i'm prepared to close -- mr. nadler: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from

new york is recognized mr. nadler: mr. chairman, chairman jordan and i agree on very little but we are united in our belief that adding a warrant requirement to section 702 is absolutely necessary before we consider supporting re-authorization of these authorities. i will reserve judgment on final passage of the bill until we see what amendments pass but i urge members to join us in supporting real reform and real reform means at the minimum the warrant requirement to give effect to americans' constitutional rights. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, mr. speaker. i think the ranking member is right, the vote was 35-2 on a major piece of legislation. that doesn't happen a whole lot, i should say, in our committee. so i want to thank, i want to thank our committee, i want to thank the members on the republican side who worked so hard overast year putting this legislation together. we had three individuals in

particular, ms. lee, mr. biggs, mr. mcclintock, who served on the task force, focused on trying to get this right. i think they've got a good product if, as the ranking member just said, the warrant amendment is actually adopted into the base text. i also want to thank the democrats who worked so hard and their staff working with our good staff on putting this together. ranking member nadler, ms. jayapal and several others. working together to defend a fundamental principle, the judiciary committee is supposed to be that -- we're all supposed to do this but where it's really focused is the judiciary committee is supposed to be that committee that's determined to make sure americans' liberties are protected. and i think the staff and the members who have worked hard to put together a product that will do that if in fact this amendment gets added here in a few minutes. when the phones who started this country came together they had y

created separate but equal branches of government. the check and balances in our system are good. they protect our rights, our liberties, our key principles. this amendment follows that fundamental principle. >> next week, the house and senate will be in session. this heads over to the senate, which is expected to receive the articles of impeachment from the homeland security secretary on tuesday. also tuesday, secretary mayorkas scheduled to appear before the house homeland security committee to testify ohis budget request for fiscal year 2020ive. the senate finance committee will hear from the irs commissioner on the current tax filing season, along with budget

requests for his department. wednesday, the senate committee will hold a hearinon the potential threat to the 20 for election. witnesses include the director of national teigence, the cybersecurity and interests are -- and the executive assistant director of the fbi's national security branch. watch next week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also had to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> do solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so hope you got? >> saturdays, watch american history tv as we explore major

investigations of our history by the u.s. house and senate. authors and historians will tell these stories and we will see story footage. we will examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. this week, senate committee led by tennessee senator examines organized crime in the early 1950's. hearings included key figures, including crime us franca still, resultininhe fbi acknowledging a national organized crime syndicate. watch congress investigates, saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the house plans to bring articles of impeachment against the secretary to the senate. stephen neukam reports on congre