Floor Statements

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 425, I was unavoidably detained due to my responsibilities as the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this statement is to highlight my support of House Resolution 657 which passed by unanimous consent on July 11, 2014. Had I been able to, I would have cosponsored this resolution. I firmly support Israel's right to defend itself against the unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization. I condemn these attacks on our Israeli friends and call on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket fire and other attacks against Israel. Israel remains a vital ally of the United States in the Middle East, and it is in the best interest of both countries to maintain our cooperation and support.

Ms. Speaker, I submit the following poem by Albert Carey Caswell.

Brooks Robbing Some, the Man With the Golden Heart and Glove

On fields of green,

there is but one position seen!

Where, there's such hell to pay!

Because, third base is such the place . . .

Where only those of courage play!

That hot corner,

where on any pitch you're a goner . . .

As lasers come screaming at you every day!

Where with each and every pitch,

this could be it. ``D'' Day!

Because it's just the place,

where instincts and quickness and speed come into play!

Where, those faint of heart,

do not so wish to take stay!

And it takes a special man,

to command the courage to play!

With but only micro seconds to so react in time,

to stay intact and steal the game away!

Who said that crime does not pay?

Because in Baseball,

for stealing big bucks you will get paid!

And that's something that Brooks has done

both night and day!

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I first want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Rogers, for his leadership. Once again, he has produced a bipartisan and bicameral Intelligence Authorization Act that we are taking up today.

I know he is retiring. He has served his country well as an FBI agent and on the Intelligence Committee, and now as chairman. We are going to miss him. But I know that whatever he does, he will always think of the United States of America first. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his friendship.

I also want to acknowledge the members of our committee, both Democrat and Republican, and our staff who have come together as a team in a bipartisan way to do what is right for our country.

Now, this Chamber passed its fiscal year 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act less than a month ago, with over 300 votes in favor. Today we are taking up just the Senate's fiscal year 2014 bill, which the Senate recently passed by unanimous consent.

I hope the House passes this bill and sends it to the President's desk today. We need these annual intelligence authorization acts to ensure the most rigorous oversight and accountability over all U.S. intelligence agencies and over all U.S. intelligence activities. We must ensure that our intelligence agencies spend money only on programs of which Congress is informed and approves. This bill does that.

We also need these annual intelligence authorizations to set the priorities for our intelligence professionals and their agencies and to allocate resources to critical national security programs, including those that detect, prevent, and disrupt potential terrorist attacks. This bill does that, also.

And we need the intelligence authorization acts to promote fiscal discipline. This bill makes cuts to certain areas and adds money in other in a responsible, well thought-out, and fiscally prudent way. The result is a budget below the President's request. In fact, since Chairman Rogers and I assumed leadership of the Intelligence Committee, we have reduced the Intelligence Committee's budget by 20 percent, without reducing capability. I am pleased to see the Senate is going along with us.

I do want to acknowledge, also, Senators Feinstein and Chambliss for working together with us in a partnership to do what is right for our country and our national security.

The unclassified legislative text in this Senate bill is very similar to what this Chamber debated last month. It makes substantial improvements to the security clearance process. It requires detailed reports on matters such as electronic waste and chemical weapons in Syria. And it promotes education in science, technology, engineering, and math.

The Senate also added three substantive provisions, all of which greatly promote transparency, oversight, and accountability.

First, the bill creates independent, Senate-confirmed NSA and National Reconnaissance Office directors, as well as independent, Senate-confirmed NSA and NRO inspectors general.

Second, the bill requires the Attorney General to establish a process for

the regular review for publication of Department of Justice legal opinions provided to the intelligence community.

It also requires that any classified opinions that can't be published be made available to the appropriate committees or Members of Congress. Third, it amends the National Security Act to prohibit any personnel actions against a lawful intelligence community whistleblower.

As for the classified schedule of authorizations, it is identical, except for some minor, prorated adjustments.

We encouraged all Members to review the classified schedule of authorizations, as well as the classified text, and I am pleased that so many have come down to the Intelligence Committee's classified spaces to do so.

We have spent a long time poring over every aspect of this bill--in our committee spaces, at the agencies, with the Senate, and in the remotest corners of the Earth, where our intelligence professionals operate--and I can say this is a very good bill, which I am proud to support.

For the sake of keeping the country and its allies safe, for the sake of vigorously overseeing even the most classified intelligence programs, and for the sake of our intelligence professionals who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, often in harm's way, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send it to the President today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama, Terri Sewell, who is a very good member of our committee.

I just want to say that Ms. Sewell is a new member of the Intelligence Committee, and through her dedication, intellect, and willingness to travel, she is quickly becoming a highly influential member on our committee.

She also keeps her focus on the people, both the American people as a whole, and the intelligence professionals who work every day to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to ensure the most rigorous oversight and accountability over all U.S. intelligence agencies and all U.S. intelligence activities, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

I also urge my colleagues to support this bill for the sake of all of us, not just in America, but around the world, who benefit from the work of our intelligence community in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that our dedicated intelligence professionals who work worldwide--often in harm's way--can keep us safe and our allies safe. They are truly the best in the world.

We can disagree about policy, but we should never disagree about the professionalism, bravery, and devotion to the

rule of law that are the hallmarks of our intelligence professionals.

Finally, once again, let me just thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership for these past years. I also want to sincerely thank every member of the Intelligence Committee.

I want to thank Congresswoman Terri Sewell for being here tonight and for being involved in this bill. You were a big part of our success.

We debate, and we argue, but we always negotiate, and we always keep in our minds what is most important: the security, privacy, and civil liberties of the American people.

Together with the Senate--and I thank Senators Feinstein and Chambliss again--we have produced for the House to consider today a truly strong bill, which I am proud to support. I urge all my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

The USA FREEDOM Act that reformed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the product of nearly a year of carefully considered negotiation and debate. It passed the House last month with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 303 votes, but now, we have an amendment to an appropriations bill that makes major legislative changes to FISA with only 10 minutes of debate, and it makes our country less safe.

It would prohibit the urgent search of lawfully-collected information to thwart a bomb plot against a synagogue in Los Angeles, a church in Maryland, or the New York Stock Exchange.

It has no emergency exceptions, and it basically says that what you can do to stop a criminal in this country, you can't do to stop a terrorist. That is wrong. We cannot allow this to happen.

We will continue to work on FISA and our other national security laws to maximize privacy and civil liberties, especially for U.S. persons, but we must do so carefully and deliberately. We must make sure to also keep our country and our allies safe from terrorist attacks.

Ultimately, while I applaud these Members for continuing to look for ways to reform our intelligence laws, we shouldn't be doing this on an appropriations bill with only 10 minutes of debate.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Chairman Rogers, I thank you for your comments. I also have the same comments for you.

When we took the leadership of this committee, we knew that the stakes were so high and that we had to work together on behalf of the people of the United States of America. We came together with Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, moderates, all realizing that we had to come together. Because of your leadership, because of your focus, we have been able to pass FISA, and hopefully we will be able to pass these bills today.

We are going to miss you, but you will always be there as my friend, and I will always respect you as a great American who cares about the United States. Thank you.

Now, we need to pass this Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 to ensure rigorous oversight and accountability over all U.S. intelligence agencies and all U.S. intelligence activities. This is so important.

We cannot go back to the days when we give the intelligence agencies a blank check to spend as they see fit. We must have oversight. Remember, Congress specifically amended the National Security Act of 1947 to replace blanket intelligence appropriations with specific authorization.

Why did we do this? To ensure that our intelligence agencies spend money only on programs of which Congress is informed and approves. So today we need to make sure we maintain this means of critical oversight by passing the bill.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for 2014 and 2015 is in four parts: the unclassified legislative text; the unclassified report; the classified annex, which explains our intent for the classified aspects of the bill; and the classified schedule of authorizations for both fiscal years. We have been encouraging all Members to review all parts of the bill, and I am pleased to say that they have come to the Intelligence Committee's SCIF, classified spaces, to do so.

The budget for fiscal year 2014 is slightly below the President's budget request, while the budget for fiscal year 2015 is less than 1 percent above the President's budget request.

We both, we made cuts to certain areas and added money in other areas in a responsible, well thought-out way, and a fiscally prudent way.

Since Chairman Rogers and I assumed leadership of the committee, we reduced the Intelligence Committee's budget by 20 percent, but this year's bill acknowledges the need to right the ship after the storm of sequestration.

The bill sets the priorities of our intelligence professionals and their agencies, and it allocates resources to critical national security programs, including those that detect, prevent, and disrupt potential terrorist attacks.

Let me also mention some specifics. The bill continues to emphasize the value of our satellites; scales back the intelligence community's use of contractors; pushes for further improvements in the continuous evaluation of insider threats; provides critical forward-looking funding for Navy airborne intelligence surveillance reconnaissance to maintain military intelligence capabilities during the transition to newer, more capable aircraft; and invests in both the recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest for our cyber workforce, particularly within the FBI. Our younger generation, we must educate them and have them work in this area.

We have spent months poring over this bill and its specific authorizations in great detail--in our committee spaces, at the agencies, and in the remotest corners of the Earth where our intelligence professionals operate--and then I can say this is a very good bill, and I am proud to support it.

Many of the amendments on the floor today also promise to make a great bill even better.

For the sake of keeping the country and its allies safe, and for the sake of rigorously overseeing even the most classified intelligence programs, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, my good friend and a member of our committee, who has been very thoughtful and has allowed us to do the things that we needed to do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Adam Schiff, a valued member of our Intelligence Committee, who has worked closely with me and our committee on very important issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly), a great Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, a great Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Peter Welch, my good friend and a great Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for his diligent work in the area of transparency on behalf of the American people.

As we have seen in this last year, trust in the intelligence community by the citizens it serves is incredibly important.

As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, we take seriously the responsibility to provide to the public as much information as possible while protecting sensitive sources and methods.

When classification permits, the budget of the intelligence community has been released. In other cases, the American people rely on our committee and on all of their Representatives, like Representative Welch, to review the budget of the intelligence community on their behalf.

I look forward to working with Representative Welch to continue to find ways to increase the trust of the American people in the intelligence community as it relates to transparency.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the sake of rigorous oversight and accountability over all U.S. intelligence agencies and all U.S. intelligence activities, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important, bipartisan bill. I also urge my colleagues to support this bill for the sake of our brave intelligence professionals, who, like our military, work day and night, often in the most austere of places, to keep us safe and our allies safe; and for the sake of all of us--not just in America, but around the world--who benefit from the work of our intelligence agencies, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is a solid bill that we should be proud to support.

Finally, once again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your leadership, our relationship, and your commitment to the people of the United States of America. You served in the military, and you served in the FBI. We are going to miss you.

Thank you also to every member on the Intelligence Committee. We have had many debates, many hard negotiations, and many tough struggles, but at all times, whether or not one member or another agreed or disagreed, we respected the fact that another member had another point of view, and then we resolved those issues.

Each of us has worked even harder to find common ground on behalf of the American people to protect us from terrorist attacks and other issues that are out there that relate to national security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I support all these amendments.

I agree with Chairman Rogers that it is very troubling when senior U.S. officials who know our most sensitive secrets leave the Federal Government and immediately go to work for a company that is owned by a foreign country that poses a significant counterintelligence threat to us.

I do have some concerns that this restriction might be seen as singling out our intelligence professionals, since it does not apply to every senior official in the government with a top secret clearance. I would be in favor of a waiver procedure for when the risks are low. For example, for someone who wants to teach English at a State-funded university in his or her retirement. But on the whole, I agree with Mr. Rogers and support this provision.

I also agree with Mr. Connolly and Mr. Kilmer that we need to find efficiencies in the intelligence community's use of software. In fact, we just don't need to find them, we need to fix them. Finding and fixing inefficiencies translates into saving taxpayer dollars, which is something we must always strive to do.

I agree with Ms. Robin Kelly that we need to increase the diversity of our intelligence workforce by adding predominantly black institutions to ongoing intelligence community programs currently designed for Historically Black Colleges. Diversity is a good thing in its own right, and it will create even greater opportunities for intelligence collection.

I agree with Mr. Carney that we must reduce our declassification backlog. As The New York Times reported just this week, even material that should be automatically declassified isn't. So we need the Director of National Intelligence to look across the intelligence community and figure out how to improve the declassification process so that more national security information can be made available to the American people now.

I also agree with Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee that we need to get a handle on how we are employing our contractors. We need to know whether they are doing the type of work that should be done by U.S. Government employees.

Let me be clear, however, that contractors perform a very valuable service, and our companies are among the very best in the world. But there needs to be a clear line between what we expect from our employees, who owe 100 percent of their loyalty to the government, and what we expect from our contractors, whose patriotism is without question, but whose loyalty is also to the company that employs them.

Finally, I agree with Mr. Keating, Mr. Rooney, and Mr. Hanna that we need to take a close look at the memoranda of agreement between the Federal Government and the State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to make sure they are written clearly enough and well enough to ensure the free flow of intelligence, while still making sure to protect sources and methods.

Intelligence is critical, particularly in the midst of a domestic crisis. And for it to be useful, it must get to those who need it.

In addition to the manager's amendment, which makes technical and clarifying changes to the bill, I support all these amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Franks, a leader in the bipartisan House Electromagnetic Pulse Caucus, has brought attention to the serious threats posed by electromagnetic pulses, whether from a solar storm or a nuclear-armed enemy that could harm our critical infrastructure.

Given what we know about our Nation's critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, I support this amendment's purpose, to gain even more information that can better protect our utilities, financial systems, medical facilities, networks, and other infrastructure.

Therefore, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), one of the key members of our committee and one of the experts in the area of cybersecurity.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I support this amendment because the time is right to step back and take stock of where we are and how we are doing in our fight against terrorism. The threat is not going away, but it is rapidly changing.

The Director of the FBI, Jim Comey, recently said that the terrorism threat is very much alive and growing in new and more dangerous places around the world. It even surprised him, when he started, just how virulent and dispersed the terrorist threat had become.

From Pakistan to Yemen, Afghanistan to Syria, north Africa to Iraq, the threat from al Qaeda is waning in some areas, but growing in others. Unless we approach this dangerous problem holistically and precisely, we risk just squeezing the balloon, suppressing terrorism in one area, only to see it grow in another.

So I think it is a good idea to sit down and take a comprehensive look at the problem today, to make sure that we are confronting it in the precisely right way, to make sure that we are measuring our effectiveness correctly, and to make sure that we have the right and most current legal authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

As I said in the opening hearing on worldwide threats, ``education is the keystone of security and prosperity in the 21st century.''

The cyber threats we face are grave, and we need to train the best, the brightest, and the most dedicated--like our veterans and our retired intelligence professionals--to be our next generation of cyber defenders. We call them cyber warriors.

Every day, we hear about cyber attacks in the news. Early last year, for example, our financial sector suffered a wide-scale network denial of service attack that proved difficult and very costly to mitigate. The retail giant, Target, is another recent example of our vulnerability to cyber attacks. And today, The Washington Post stated that Iranian hackers are targeting U.S.A. officials through social networks.

We need to pass cybersecurity legislation like CISPA, and we need to do far more to expand our bench of cyber professionals and innovators. We need to invest in early education in science, technology, engineering, and math. And we equally need to leverage the experience and wisdom of our veterans and former intelligence professionals. Our adversaries are making heavy investments in cyber education. We must do the same. For this reason, I support this amendment.

I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gallego) for his amendment. He represents the area of Texas that is close to the border. He understands the threat and why we need intelligence to deal with national security.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to honor Mr. Edward C. Kiernan on the occasion of his retirement after more than 45 years in the radio business, including more than two decades as the longtime head of WBAL Radio and 98 Rock in Baltimore.

Under his leadership, WBAL has become one of the most honored stations in the country. During his tenure, it has become the market's longtime talk news leader as well as the recipient of numerous Associated Press and Edward R. Murrow Awards. Mr. Kiernan has helped expand the station's web and mobile presence and secured media rights to Baltimore Orioles, Ravens and Navy football games. In fact, he won back Orioles rights in 2011 after a 4-year run on a competing station.

An active industry leader, Mr. Kiernan has served as president of the Advertising Association of Baltimore, as a board member of the Baltimore Radio Association and as chair of the Federal Emergency Broadcast System for the State of Maryland.

Mr. Kiernan also has a passion for his community, and his civic and charitable efforts are too numerous to list in their entirety. He has served on the boards of the Baltimore Bicentennial Committee and the Partnership for a Drug Free Maryland. He is on the Visitors Board of the University of Maryland Children's Hospital, is a member of the Life Board of the American Red Cross, the Leadership Council of Johns Hopkins Bayview Hospital, the Board of Directors for the Hampden Family Center and a supporter of Our Daily Bread.

He oversaw the WBAL Radio Kids Campaign, of which every dollar benefits underprivileged children in the listening area. The effort has earned WBAL the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation ``Service to Children Radio Award.''

Prior to his time in Baltimore, Mr. Kiernan spent 17 years as Vice President and General Manager of WCBS Newsradio 88 in New York, where he worked to acquire rights to New York Jets football games and launched two new political programs. He is a graduate of Southern Illinois University and holds an honorary doctorate from St. John's University.

I have considered Mr. Kiernan a friend and colleague for many years. I know him to be a hard worker with a great sense of humor and commitment to our city. It is with great pride that I congratulate him on his retirement and wish him continued success and happiness in the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the USA FREEDOM Act, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

On May 8, the House Intelligence Committee passed out of the committee the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act, the identical bill that the Judiciary Committee passed out of committee on May 7.

I especially want to thank Chairman Rogers for his years of leadership on the House Intelligence Committee. I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, and also Congressman Sensenbrenner and the staff of our Intelligence and Judiciary Committees for the hard work they did on this bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner, and we have come a long way.

After our committee markups, Chairman Rogers and I have continued to work with the Judiciary Committee and the administration to iron out some remaining issues, which we have done and which is represented in the current bill.

The bill represents the productive efforts of bipartisanship and working together for the American people. Just yesterday, the administration stated that it ``strongly supports'' passage of our bill. Again, the administration said that it ``strongly supports'' passage of our bill. It also stated that the USA FREEDOM Act ``ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation, while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected.''

The USA FREEDOM Act contains important measures to increase transparency and enhance privacy while maintaining an important national security tool.

First, we have ended bulk collection of telephone metadata and ensured the court reviews each and every search application. The big database up at the National Security Agency that contains phone numbers of millions of Americans will go away. It will be replaced with a tailored, narrow process that allows the government to search only for specific connections to suspected terrorists to keep us safe here at home. There is an important emergency exception when there isn't time to get prior approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, also know as FISC.

Second, we have required expanded reporting for court decisions to improve transparency without threatening sources and methods.

Third, we are creating an advocate to provide outside expertise for significant matters before the FISA Court.

Fourth, we have established a declassification review process of court opinions to ensure the public has access to our national security legal rulings in a manner that still protects our sources and methods.

The USA FREEDOM Act is critical to our country's safety and our intelligence community. It is a focused, logical bill that will let us protect our citizens from terrorist attacks through important legal tools while strengthening civil liberties.

I was opposed to the original USA FREEDOM Act because it set too high a standard for intelligence collection. In short, it would have threatened America's safety by cutting off the building blocks of foreign intelligence investigations. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner and created a solid bill.

Now, it ends bulk collection of all metadata by the government. Those that say this bill will legalize bulk collection are wrong. They are trying to scare you by making you think there are monsters under the bed. There aren't. We end all collection of metadata records. I am again saying read the bill. That is what the bill says. There is nothing else in the bill. It is direct, and it states that we will end all bulk collection by the government.

The USA FREEDOM Act includes the necessary checks and balances across all three branches of government. It protects our Nation while also protecting Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the USA FREEDOM Act. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

On May 8th, the House Intelligence Committee favorably reported the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act--the same bill that the Judiciary Committee favorably reported on May 7th.

I especially want to thank Chairman Rogers for his years of leadership here on the House Intelligence Committee. I also want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, and the staff of our Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. We have worked together in a bipartisan manner, and we have come a long way.

After our Committee markups, Chairman Rogers and I have continued to work with the Judiciary Committee and the Administration to iron out some remaining issues, which we have done, and which is represented in the current bill. This bill represents the productive efforts of bipartisanship and working together for the American people.

Just yesterday, the Administration stated that it ``strongly supports'' passage of our bill. As the Administration further stated, our bill ``ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation, while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected when these authorities are employed.''

The USA FREEDOM Act contains important measures to increase transparency and enhance privacy while maintaining an important national security tool.

First, we have ended bulk collection of telephone metadata. ``Bulk'' collection means the/indiscriminate acquisition of information or tangible things. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communications records or other tangible things. Rather, the prohibition applies to the use of these authorities to engage in indiscriminate or ``bulk'' data collection.

There is also an emergency exception when there isn't time to get prior approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--also known as the FISC.

Second, we have required expanded reporting for FISC decisions to improve transparency to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees without threatening sources and methods.

Third, we are creating an advocate to provide the FISC with outside expertise for matters before the FISA Court. Importantly, we are doing this without infringing on any constitutional provisions or operational processes.

Fourth, we have established a declassification review process of FISC opinions, to ensure that the public has access to our national security legal rulings, while having procedures in place to ensure that our sources and methods continue to be protected.

The USA FREEDOM Act is critical to our Intelligence Community and to our country's safety.

It is a focused, logical bill that will let us protect our citizens from terrorist attacks and protect their civil liberties while maintaining important legal tools.

For instance, our bill is not intended to impact the current scope or use of FISA or National Security Letters, outside the context of bulk data collection, that are traditionally used for national security investigations. Notably, the introduction of the term ``specific selection term'' is not intended to limit the types of information and tangible things that the government is currently able to collect under FISA or National Security Letter statutes. These changes are prophylactic and intended to respond to concerns that these authorities could be used to permit bulk data collection.

Furthermore, the legislation is not intended to limit the government to use a single ``specific selection term'' in an application under FISA or a National Security Letter. The government may use multiple ``specific selection terms'' in a single FISA application or a National Security Letter. For example, the government may request in a single FISA application or National Security Letter information or tangible things relating to multiple persons, entities, accounts, addresses or devices that are relevant to a pending investigation. Similarly, the government may, in a single FISA application or National Security Letter, use multiple ``specific selection terms''--such a date and premises--to further narrow the scope of production by a provider.

Our bill also ensures that America can protect Americans' privacy interests while at the same time being able to adapt to evolving national security threats and terrorists' use of ever-changing technology and capabilities to evade detection.

In particular, Section 501(c)(2)(F)(iii) provides for two hops--in other words, the Government will be able to obtain the call detail records in direct contact with a reasonable, articulable suspicion (or, RAS)-approved seed--this is the first hop--and then, using those call detail records or ones the Government identifies itself, obtain the second hop call detail records.

The legislation also creates a new mechanism for obtaining call detail records on a continuing basis for up to 180 days when there

are reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism and there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the records are associated with a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. The legislation is not intended to affect any current uses of Section 501 outside the bulk collection context, including the use of Section 501 to obtain specified call detail records related to foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person, clandestine intelligence activities, or international terrorism.

I believe that our bill has made real improvements in the way our intelligence collection operates and in improving FISA to achieve even greater privacy and civil liberties protections.

I was opposed to the original USA FREEDOM Act because it put up too many legal hurdles that would have impeded our national security. In short, it would have threatened America's safety by effectively cutting off the building blocks of foreign intelligence investigations.

But we have worked together in a bipartisan manner, and we have come a long way Additionally, since our Committee markups, Chairman Rogers and I have continued to work with the Judiciary Committee and the Administration to iron out some remaining issues, which we have done, and which is represented in the current bill.

The USA FREEDOM Act includes the necessary checks and balances across all three branches of government and strikes the correct balance that is so critical to protecting our nation, while also protecting Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Jan Schakowsky, a very important member of our Intelligence Committee, who focuses very strongly on issues of privacy and constitutional rights and people's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), an expert in cybersecurity. For the years I have been in Congress, I have worked with Mr. Langevin on this issue.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a very important member of our committee who does his homework and has really helped me a lot and advised me on a lot of issues that are important to our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The USA FREEDOM Act is a bipartisan compromise that is strongly supported by the administration.

Our bill protects privacy and civil liberties while also protecting national security.

I urge members to support the USA FREEDOM Act. Nothing in this bill will legalize bulk collection. Unfortunately, there are those Members that are saying this will legalize bulk collection. It is clear that this bill--read the bill--states: there will be no more bulk collection by the government. That is what the bill says, end of story.

This bill balances the issue of taking care and protecting our country from people and individuals who want to kill us and attack us and our allies. But yet it also does what is so important to Americans: to make sure that we protect our constitutional rights and our privacy. It is a balance--it is Republicans, Democrats, left, right, in the middle--coming together and doing what is right for this country. This is what this body should do. We are asking for a ``yes'' vote on the USA FREEDOM Act.

Also, in closing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Rogers and his important leadership that has allowed us to get to this level, the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and also Mr. Sensenbrenner.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before you today to congratulate Baltimore resident and Second District constituent Sean McComb for being chosen as the 2014 National Teacher of the Year. Just 30 years old and with only eight years of experience, Mr. McComb is one of the youngest teachers ever to be selected for this incredible honor.

The National Teacher of the Year is chosen from among the State Teachers of the Year by a national selection committee representing the major national education organizations organized by the Council of Chief State School Officers. It is one of the highest honors which an educator can receive and, as such, Mr. McComb will travel around the country and represent his colleagues in the teaching profession for the next year. He was chosen among four finalists after earning the top spot in Baltimore County and, then, Maryland.

An English teacher at Patapsco High School and Center for the Arts, Mr. McComb inspires his students to turn their challenges into opportunities for excellence, drawing on his own experiences as a student who struggled in school and at home.

Mr. McComb's colleagues describe him as deeply compassionate. He describes his teaching philosophy as ``kids before content and love before all.'' He likes to say that he does not teach English, but rather teaches students English.

Mr. McComb has been instrumental in encouraging middle-achieving students to improve their work habits and academic skills as the coordinator of the school's Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program. Remarkably, 98 percent of AVID students in the last two of Patapsco's graduating classes were admitted to 4-year colleges. The program helped Patapsco, for the first time in its 50-year history, receive recognition as a top high school from The Washington Post and US. News and World Report. McComb also teaches the value of service, working on projects with students that help feed the hungry in the community.

Mr. Speaker, education is about more than textbooks and syllabuses. The best teachers give us much more--like inspiration, confidence, and compassion. Teachers like Mr. McComb touch the lives of young people and provide them with the knowledge and support they need to become future leaders. I ask you to join me in congratulating Mr. Sean McComb on this remarkable achievement and wish him many more years of success.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 212 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 213 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Wilson of Florida

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 214 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Langevin

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 215 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 216 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 217 I was unable to vote due to a medical procedure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before you today to recognize the efforts of a truly significant individual in the judicial field. Not only is it a privilege to know Judge Louis A. Becker, but also to call Judge Becker a friend. Our lives had some remarkable commonalities. We both worked as a lifeguard in Ocean City, Maryland. We both played lacrosse during our school years and graduated from the University of Baltimore's Law School. Finally, we both worked for our Nation's Intelligence communities during our long careers in public service.

The Honorable Louis A. Becker was appointed by Governor Ehrlich as an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Howard County in July 2005, after having been appointed by Governor Schaefer to the District Court of Maryland for Howard County in 1989. On occasion, he has been specially assigned to Maryland's 2nd highest appellate bench, the Court of Special Appeals. Thus, he has adjudicated thousands of bench and jury trials involving major felonies and complex civil cases and authored several appellate opinions.

He is a graduate of Loyola University, B.S., Political Science, 1965 and the University of Baltimore School of Law, J.D., 1970. Having served on active duty and the Reserves from 1965 to 1994, he retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Intelligence.

Prior to the bench he practiced law with emphasis in the areas of criminal law, real property, corporate, computer, and professional malpractice. He was formerly a member of the Board of Governors of the Maryland State Bar Association and served on its Ethics & Judicial Selection Committees, and Solo/Small Firm Practice Section Council. As Chair of the latter in 1999-2000, he received the American Bar Association Solo/Small Firm Bar Leader of the Year Award. He is a Fellow of the Maryland and Howard Bar Foundations. He is Past President of the Howard County Bar Association and he is currently serving a second term as President of the James Macgill American Inns of Court; an organization dedicated to promoting judicial and legal excellence. He served on the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission from 1975 to 1980.

Judge Becker has written and lectured on search and seizure law as well as lawyer and judicial ethics for the Maryland Judicial Institute, the New Trial Judges Orientation Course and the Maryland Institute for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers (MICPEL). Having taught Professional Responsibility, he is currently teaching Trial Advocacy at the University of Baltimore Law School where he was awarded Adjunct Professor of the Year in 2003, and has been a member of the Dean's Advisory Council since 1994.

As a judicial leader, he was the founder of the first Drug/DUI Treatment Court in Howard County. Over the years his community involvement has included service on the Board of Trustees of the Howard County Library, the Howard County Executive's Mental Health Services Restructuring Task Force and the County Youth Lacrosse Program.

His wife of 46 years, Shawn, a Registered Nurse who holds a Master's Degree in Nursing Policy, is Senior Director of Patient Safety, US Pharmacopeia (USP). He has two grown sons; one of whom is a commercial banker and the other a construction project manager, and three grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from this incredible list of accomplishments, Judge Louis A. Becker has had a distinguished career as an attorney and a judge for the State of Maryland. He has served our country with distinction. I ask that you join with me today to applaud the tremendous work he has done for our courts and our community as he enters retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H.R. 4118 would increase the number of uninsured. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 31 on the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2642, ``The Farm Bill.''

This conference report has made great improvements in reducing the draconian cuts to the SNAP program proposed in the House passed version of the Farm bill. While I appreciate the reduction in cuts, we should do more to help those most in need. The Conference report also eliminates the King Amendment, which would have destroyed critical state safety and labeling laws. The bipartisan bill includes strong conservation provisions that will help protect our nation's soil, water and wildlife resources. Most notably, the bill makes federal crop insurance subsidies contingent on basic soil and wetland conservation practices. While not perfect, this conference report is a

fair compromise that will hopefully lay the groundwork for finding additional common ground in the future.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 632 I was at a medical appointment in Baltimore, MD and therefore unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 633 I was at a medical appointment in Baltimore, MD and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''