Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as HPSCI's ranking member and a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I have long advocated for reforms to surveillance authorities to balance the imperatives of…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as HPSCI's ranking member and a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I have long advocated for reforms to surveillance authorities to balance the imperatives of national security and counterterrorism with the privacy rights and civil liberties of Americans.
Today, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act seeks to reauthorize the program while making changes to protect privacy interests. Nonetheless, and I indicated before we took up the bill, in light of the significant concerns that have been raised by members of our Caucus, and in light of the irresponsible and inherently contradictory messages coming out of the White House today, I would recommend that we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address the privacy questions that have been raised as well as to get a clear statement from the administration about their position on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I do this reluctantly. Section 702, I think, is among the most important of all of our surveillance programs. Nonetheless, I think that the issues that have been raised will need more time to be resolved, and I think we need to get a clear statement from the administration of whether they are in support of this legislation or they are not.
This morning, as my colleagues are aware, the President issued a statement via Twitter suggesting that this authority was used illegally by the Obama administration to surveil him. Of course, that is blatantly untrue but, nonetheless, 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, give us more time to address the issues that have been raised by the privacy community within my own Caucus, but also within the administration about its inaccurate, conflicting, and confusing statements on the morning of debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to postpone consideration so that we can take up this bill when it is more ripe for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I would reluctantly urge that we withdraw consideration of the bill for today. I certainly have been working as hard, I
think, 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. And I think that it was only underscored this morning with the contradictory statements coming out of the administration.
An issue of this magnitude and this seriousness really deserves serious and sober consideration. I think we need more time to discuss this with our Members, and I would urge my colleagues not to bring this to a vote today to give us more time to work on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I respect and share the sponsor's commitment to privacy and civil liberties, but this amendment would go vastly beyond the legislation advanced by either the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee. It would prevent the intelligence community from querying lawfully collected 702 information, even in situations directly related to counterterrorism and national security. It would make section 702 a far less effective tool at a significant cost to the national security of the United States.
The amendment would require a probable cause warrant or its equivalent before the government can query lawfully collected 702 data in an effort to find communications concerning someone who may be a U.S. person or a foreign person located in the United States even when such person is communicating with foreign terrorists or intelligence targets.
Probable cause will be lacking in many, if not most, intelligence and counterterrorism contexts. In such situations, the USA RIGHTS Act would prevent the government from detecting and disrupting plots against Americans or identifying and preventing foreign espionage on our soil.
It would also require publication of information related to 702 certifications that would disclose the sources and methods of intelligence gathering, imperilling our ability to obtain foreign intelligence information. That, to me, poses an intolerably high risk.
Instead, the underlying bill strikes a far better compromise. In the underlying bill, a warrant would be required in most nonnational security and nonterrorism cases when there is an open investigation. In the absence of such a warrant, the bill provides that evidence that would be obtained would be excluded from use in court.
That seems, to me, a very sensible balance: requiring a warrant in most nonnational security and nonterrorism cases and providing, in the absence of such a warrant in an open investigation, that information or evidence would be barred from use in court.
That addresses the gravamen of the concern over this program that it could be used for fishing expeditions against ordinary Americans. This amendment, on the other hand, would largely cripple the program. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge opposition to the amendment and support for the underlying bill.