Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, as these other gentlemen have before me, honor a man who gave everything he had to his God, his family, and his country. These three great loyalties guided the life of Major Brent Taylor and the lives of his devoted wife and children.

As has been indicated, I come from generations of military service. Some of my family had the great honor of serving with Major Taylor. We know from personal experience the great leader and the great man that he was.

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, Brent Taylor, hand in hand with his new fiancee, Jennie, walked into a recruiting office to enlist in the Army. Since then, this man and his family--and it is so important that we remember his family and the many other families of military members who sacrifice and serve as well--have lived a life of patriotic exemplary service.

He deployed twice to Iraq--in 2006 and again in 2007--and served in Afghanistan in 2012.

For his outstanding dedication to duty during combat operations in Iraq, Major Taylor was awarded the Bronze Star. This citation credited the ability of Major Taylor to think calmly and decisively to keep his subordinates safe while traversing more than 600,000

miles throughout Iraq, areas riddled with improvised explosive devices and ripe for ambush.

This award recognized Major Taylor's tendency to do more than just carry out the assigned task. He was a man who went above and beyond to make a positive difference in the world, believing his actions to be a small sacrifice compared to what so many in our Nation's history have given up to keep this the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Such exemplary service is equally evident in his life outside of the military. After serving as a city councilman, his community and neighbors so entrusted him to lead that they elected him to be the mayor of North Ogden City.

In this role, Major Taylor's initiatives included improvements to public works and infrastructure, attracting businesses to the area, and developing a local community center.

The citizens of the community loved his snowplow updates--in Utah, we get a lot of snow--and his ability to see potential and possibility in everything around him.

Serving as mayor was one of the greatest honors of Major Taylor's life and the highlight of his civilian professional career. He believed that service is really what leadership is about.

On January 8, 2018, Major Taylor announced that he would temporarily step down as mayor to continue his service as a member of the Army National Guard on what would be his fourth and final deployment.

He didn't deploy just once, not twice, not three times, but four times he answered the call to serve. And once again, remembering his family, they answered the call to allow their husband and their father to serve.

This man recognized that there was an immediate need for his experience and skills and gracefully rose to accept the call to serve in our Nation's longest war in Afghanistan.

In his final months of deployment, Major Taylor was killed by an apparent inside attack on November 3, 2018, while training Afghan security forces.

A loving husband and devoted father, Major Taylor is survived by his wife, Jennie, and, as you see here, his seven beautiful children: Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline.

One thing I am certain Major Taylor would say: His family was far and away the most important thing in his life. Nothing made him more proud or meant more to him than his wife and his children.

The impression that Major Taylor left was profound. He called on each of us to find some way to brighten someone else's day, to lift another's burden, to make our city, our State, our country, our Nation a better place.

This man and his family paid the ultimate sacrifice to fulfill this call, so it is only well and fitting that, as a tribute to this amazing life, Congress name a facility in honor of his shining example of service and sacrifice.

As has been mentioned, the Department of Veterans Affairs Outstation in North Ogden City will provide a range of services to help guide veterans and their families as they transition from the military to civilian life.

Major Taylor recognized that military service involves the entire family. As such, I am proud to support the designation of this facility, located in a city he loved and where he served and called home, as the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation.

The naming of the building will never repay the debt the Nation owes to Major Taylor and his family, but it can stand as a humble reminder of the faithful man who lived and died in the service of his God, his family, and his country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for chairing this Special Order.

You listen to our colleagues, and it is hard to listen to this and not just feel overwhelmed by it. Some things are so emotional and some things are so obvious that there are times when you just speak from the heart.

One week ago tonight, little baby Dawson was born to my family, a beautiful little baby boy, my sixth grandson. It is unbelievable to me that someone would argue that you could take that child, moments before birth, pull him from his mother's protection, and destroy that life, take away any chance he has of having any happiness in this world, take away any chance he has of being loved in this world; that you would suggest that and not call it evil.

That we could have this conversation like the Virginia Governor who said, Well, we'll take that infant; we'll make them comfortable while we decide how we are going to kill it. How could you have that conversation and not call it evil?

If you think that is okay, go make that argument to the American people. But while you are making that argument, be honest. Yes, this is a baby. Yes, it is moments from birth; in some cases the child has been delivered. It is alive, laying there before you. Yes, you are going to kill it.

Most Americans find that repulsive. Most Americans find it unbelievable that we are having this conversation. Most Americans find it evil.

Please help us save these children.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment on the floor.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. McGovern of the Rules Committee for making this vital amendment in order.

The base text of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019 provides critical relief for natural disasters that have recently plagued our Nation. The supplemental is necessary, and it is needed, but we do have a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix.

The interior West and, for example, my home State of Utah have been largely ignored. My amendment seeks to rectify this and seeks to increase funding for the West to address the impacts of ongoing drought and, something that we are all aware of, the catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing.

The amendment provides increased funding for hazardous fuel management activities in the hopes of doing three things: first, to increase the resiliency of our forest; second, to protect against future catastrophic fires; and, third, to reduce the amount of damage caused by these fires.

Like many Western States, and, as I mentioned, my home State of Utah, we suffered a devastating fire season that burned countless acres and threatened life and property. Now we are left with the scars of the burns that can be almost as damaging, with flooding, mudslides, and threats to water supplies.

If adopted, my amendment will not only help mitigate the losses from past fires but help to create future resiliency in our forests and lessen the devastating aftermath.

The simple fact is, we can do better. We can actively manage our forests by combating undergrowth, disease, and insect infestation. The Forest Service estimates that my home State of Utah has something like 436 million dead trees that are just waiting to burn. If this is not a threat, I don't know what is.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), my friend, Madam Chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise

in support of this resolution, which, again, rejects white nationalism and white supremacy as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to our values that define the people of the United States.

I call on my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to denounce racial and religious bigotry of all stripes.

Like many, I do have some personal insight into this problem. It doesn't come as a surprise to many that, being from Utah, I am a Mormon. And my church, as many know, was founded in New York in the early 1800s. We were driven further and further west as members of my church were targeted, harassed, and killed for their sincerely held religious beliefs, culminating in the murder of our founder and subsequent decision to relocate to Utah.

My own ancestors were targeted in this bigotry. They lost their possessions. They lost their lands. They lost their freedom. And in some cases, they lost their lives. Unfortunately, such hatred still exists today.

Three years ago, we witnessed the tragedy in Charleston, where a deranged individual motivated by white supremacy shot and killed nine Black worshipers and injured many others.

We remember the riots in Charlottesville, where a white nationalist struck and killed a White woman who was protesting, once again, white supremacy.

But the problem is more widespread than just these individuals who advocate for white supremacy. We also need to condemn anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and those who enable it.

Last October, a perpetrator shot and killed 11 Jewish worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, which we all remember.

All of these should be condemned by all of us here in this body: Black, White, rich, poor, Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. We are all, I believe, children of the same God.

I hope that the majority is sincere in ushering in this resolution to the floor not as just an opportunity to shame one party as irredeemably racist, but as a united statement against bigotry.

When bigotry goes unchallenged, it festers and rears its ugly head in ways that test our Nation's greatest triumphs in shedding these shameful practices of slavery and other types of racial and religious intolerance. This is something that must unite this body. I hope that it does, and I believe that it will.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating the obvious, if I could, when my Democratic colleagues call this bill a compromise.

This bill is a lot of things, but a compromise it is not. It takes away everything we have done for the last year--everything we have done for the last year--and, poof, it is gone. It throws it away.

There is an old saying in the House: It is not the opposing party that is the enemy; it is the Senate.

This is a great illustration of this. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it pains me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have effectively removed my constituents from this process by just accepting the Senate bill. Every Member of the House and our constituents have been silenced in this. We are not represented at all.

Not only has the Democratic majority ignored this body's role in creating this budget, they are throwing away hundreds of hours of hearings, of markups, and of floor time, again, as we are fighting for our constituents. We passed a bill. The House has done our work. Let me say it again: The House has done our work.

If this was a serious effort by our friends on the other side to open the government, then they would pass our House bill again. Then it would go to the Senate, and we would reconcile those two bills.

Let's consider some of the things that have been thrown away, poof, magically gone in a puff of smoke: money for fighting wildfires; money for our Indian brothers and sisters, including for hospital staffing; money for road maintenance, so that children can go to school; and money for our national parks for deferred maintenance. The list goes on and on.

I ran for Congress because I wanted to represent my district. This bill is my district; 70 percent of my district is owned by the Federal Government.

How can I just sit by and say that my constituents will have no voice in this bill or in this appropriations process at all?

Finally, my friends on the other side know these bills don't stand a chance of actually becoming law. They know that. The Senate won't take these up. The President has said he won't sign it.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk compromise, then let's actually try to do that. Let us take where we are and let us take where the Senate is and try to bring them together. That, Mr. Speaker, is compromise.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to honor my good friend, Damon. He was a dear friend, trusted colleague, loving husband, and a warrior who loved and served his country. We will miss him.

Very briefly, I would like to make the observation that the staffs that we work with here on the Hill are some of the finest men and women in the country, and the staff that we work with on the Intelligence Committee is the finest of them all. Damon was their leader. He was looked to for his leadership, for his compassion, for his humanity, and for his example of what it meant to be a warrior.

I also have to mention his family, as we honor them as well. Some of you know that I wear my father's Air Force wings. My brothers have served in the Air Force. I served in the Air Force. So did Damon's family.

Yesterday, I had the honor of meeting his father and mother, both retired Air Force who have served valiantly and served proudly, also his brother. I have to mention his wife, an Air Force colonel, who is a leader, a rock.

Having met her, I can tell you that I would follow her into battle. She is a great example of the finest young men and women that our Nation has to offer. This family has proven that they love their country by serving their country. We honor them in this small way today in the words that we say.

Damon, God bless you. To Damon's family, God bless you. Thank you for

generations of service to your country and for being an example to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Tipton, for yielding, and it is such a great pleasure that I address the House tonight as we talk about the Anwar Sadat Centennial Celebration Act, which we will be voting on later this evening.

This is actually a great time, and it is a very fitting time, to give the late President Sadat this much-deserved recognition. Just last Monday marked the 40th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, something, of course, which he is very responsible for. Additionally, this year is the centennial of his birth.

President Sadat's historic visit to Israel in 1977 was the first ever by an Arab leader and the foundation of lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. This visit was all the more courageous given the fierce opposition and outrage he faced at the time.

President Sadat fought for peace and paid the ultimate price. In honoring Mr. Sadat, we honor a man who truly embodied the statesmanship and fortitude necessary to bring peace to the Middle East, virtues that are as important today as they were then.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), the Sadat Gold Medal Commission, and the Anwar Sadat Committee for their hard work on this bill.

President Anwar Sadat's shining example of putting aside our differences and working towards peace is just as important today as it was during his tenure as President of Egypt. It is my sincere hope that we can reflect on the dream and the bravery of this visionary man and work as he did for peace, even when it seemed impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends from New Jersey and Michigan for their help on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a startling statistic. Every 9 minutes, someone in the United States attempts suicide or is successful, and for every suicide-related death, there are 25 attempts. These are truly heartbreaking statistics. Sadly, they hit close to home in Utah, which ranks fifth for the highest suicide deaths in the U.S.

One example is Madison Radtke, a charitable and loving young lady who unexpectedly took her own life. I have gotten to know Madison's family, and it has been an honor to do so. Madison is remembered for her kindness to others and for her ability to see the good in each person.

Here is something that is startling and should be terrifying to those of us who are parents: Madison didn't show any sign of suicidal thoughts. To others around her, she seemed to be making the most of the prime of her life.

This is a sad reminder that suicide can strike anywhere. These are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, our family members. I believe that we have the power and we have the responsibility to reach out and to help them. Yes, there are many tools available for people who are struggling with mental illness or thoughts of suicide, but, tragically, some of these resources are simply too difficult to find in a time of urgent need.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline dialing number is cumbersome and is very hard to remember, and most people have never even heard of it. Additionally, in Utah and many other States, there are various other entities that provide service, but there is not one consolidated number for people to call.

After the recent passing, as has been mentioned, of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain, calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline jumped 25 percent. While the hotline number has increased access, I know we can do better, and that is the purpose of this bill. This is where Congress can help.

I introduced the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act to streamline and to provide easy access to potentially lifesaving resources by designating a new and very simple national

three-digit dialing number, very similar to 911, for national suicide prevention and mental health crisis.

The study will also examine the overall effectiveness of the current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line for individuals both here and abroad and their access to that. Ultimately, the report will recommend ways to improve the existing system.

I recognize this legislation alone is not a panacea. It is not going to solve every problem. There is much more that we can do and we must do, and some of the solutions will require a multifaceted approach; but it is an important step and one that has the potential to avert tragedy, such as the loss of Madison, and to save many lives.

For those of us who have seen firsthand and been impacted by the tragedy of suicide or attempted suicide, it is simply time for us to act.

Mr. Speaker, as you know--I think everyone knows this much--much of the land in the Western States is controlled by whom? The Federal Government.

In my own home State of Utah, about two-thirds of the land is owned and controlled by the Federal Government. Because States cannot tax this Federal Government land, it means that about two-thirds of the land in Utah cannot be taxed.

This, as you can imagine, presents enormous challenges for Western States when they are trying to raise sufficient funds for things like public education.

Recognizing this challenge, Congress made sizable land grants to the Western States, but it was based on the condition that granted lands be held in trust and used to generate revenue for education and other worthy causes.

Since the time State lands trust grants were made, large areas of the West have been designated for Federal protection. This has resulted in these trust lands being encapsulated inside federally protected lands, creating land management conflicts that are just enormous and very difficult to overcome.

Once again, the end result is that you have reduced revenues for our children in Utah, and we have a challenge finding sufficient revenue to educate them. It is clearly in the best interest of States and the Federal Government to transfer ownership of some of these trust lands to the Federal Government in exchange for less sensitive and revenue- generating lands transferred to the State.

This truly is bipartisan, a win-win, and not difficult to see that everyone is better off by this. Land exchanges between States and the Federal Government have become very expensive and time-consuming. That is why my bill advancing conservation and education creates a streamlined mechanism for transfer of lands between States and the Federal Government.

As I said, this bill truly is a win-win, and it proves to the people on all sides that we can come together and that we can solve some of these very complex land issues.

So, again, I want to thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for working with me on this important legislation. I would also like to thank the Wilderness Society, SITLA, and others who have worked to make this possible.

If you are a conservationist, if you are an educator, if you are a legislator on either side of the aisle, this is something that most of us agree is helpful and positive for the Federal Government and also for the children in Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel James Brown, a friend of mine, who has faithfully served the Tooele Army Depot and the United States Army. It is my honor to recognize the years of service Colonel Brown has given to our Nation prior to the upcoming change of command. Colonel Brown has been instrumental in expanding Tooele Army Depot's mission of readiness, as well as ensuring a safe and secure worksite for its employees.

I offer my sincere thanks to all those who served at the Tooele Army Depot, as well as those who have had the privilege to serve with Colonel Brown. I understand the sacrifices of our military men and women on behalf of our Nation. I am humbled by the work these men and women do every day to protect our freedom and our Nation's freedom as well. And we have to remember their families because their families-- their spouses and children--also sacrifice.

Defending honor, duty, and country is the greatest service one can achieve in the United States military. Colonel Brown's courage and dedication is enduring, and his work will continue to support generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to add my voice along with my colleagues' to congratulate the state of Israel on its 70th anniversary. From its humble beginnings, Israel has faced insurmountable odds but has prevailed.

Israel is a light in the region and an example of democracy and opportunity. From its technological advances to its cultural wonders, Israel continue to improve and impress the world.

Since the United States formally recognized the state of Israel in 1948, the US-Israeli relationship has only strengthened. Israel has proven itself to be a key ally politically, militarily, and economically.

Ultimately, I have had the opportunity to personally visit Israel many times and can sincerely say that its greatest asset is its people.

My sincerest well wishes on this special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the VIII Summit of the Americas was held this past weekend, April 13 and 14. These gatherings of government leaders in the Western Hemisphere are only held once every 3 years. While together, they discuss common policy issues; they affirm shared values; and they commit to address challenges facing the Americas. This year the summit was held in Lima, Peru.

Two years ago, I cofounded the Congressional Caucus on Peru with my colleague from New York, Mr. Meeks. I launched the caucus to not only strengthen the U.S.-Peruvian relationship, but also because Utah has such a special relationship with Peru. Peruvians are the second largest immigrant group in Utah, and approximately 40,000 are living in our State. Given that Peru is a major player in trade, education, and technology in Latin America, I strongly believe that it is critical that we maintain a strong connection.

As co-chair of the Peruvian Caucus and a supporter of stability in the region, it was wonderful to see these world leaders commit to strengthening democracy, while also fighting against corruption and human rights violations. I look forward to continued cooperation among American nation-states.

I was recently in the region. It is a beautiful place with beautiful people, but they are facing severe challenges, and we want to support them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all 243 United States athletes that have secured qualification in the upcoming Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games. I am proud to say that 15 of these Olympians come from my home State of Utah. Through their talent, their hard work, and their dedication, I am confident that they are going to represent Utah and, in fact, the entire United States very well.

These individuals come from all walks of life. Some are in the middle of their professional careers, some are students, many of them are parents. Together, these individuals will be able to showcase their immense strength

and skill through unparalleled determination.

Although these Olympians are not guaranteed success or a medal, it doesn't prevent them from doing what they love to do. We should all look up to these Olympic athletes for inspiration to become better, stronger, and more dedicated to reaching our goals, even when we know it is tough.

I wish these athletes good luck in the upcoming events, and I thank them for representing the United States and the great State of Utah. As we watch the Olympics, all of us look forward to hearing our national anthem played and hearing them chanting: U-S-A, U-S-A.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words. Chairman Sessions is a hero of mine. There are a lot of reasons why I hold

him in such high regard. One of the reasons is that he understands a couple of very important things.

I think the first thing he understands is that the primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep Americans safe in a chaotic world. The second thing he understands is that nothing is more important than thing one.

It is for these reasons that I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation to fund our military. Our inability to constantly fund our Federal Government has real consequences, but it has no greater consequence than it has for our military members.

Nothing impacts our military with more devastating effect than the lack of sustained, predictable funding. We need to do what is right for the men and women in uniform charged with defending our country, including, I might add, members of my own family who are deployed, even as we speak.

The uncertainty of funding creates problems in the supply chain with regard to everything from large acquisitions to the smallest repair part. It impacts training as funding is needed to lock in major events to include logistical support, movement of personnel and equipment, and access to sufficient types and quantities of munitions. I have spoken with military members, as recently as the last few weeks, who told me about their funding and their training being canceled because of the threat of a government shutdown. It has implications for their safety and their well-being.

In a letter to Congress last September, Secretary Mattis warned of the consequences: funding through a CR cannot be reprogrammed; training impacts begin immediately, as I have said; and hiring actions and recruiting is curtailed.

The bottom line is this: governing by crisis has had an enormous impact on our military, and it is time we do what is right and fully fund our country's defense.

Funding the Department of Defense in the year 2018 will keep Americans safe by boosting our national defense and give a much-needed pay raise to our troops and an increase in end strength for the Active Duty, Guard, and the Reserve.

Let me end with a personal observation. These wings that I proudly wear are my father's Air Force wings. He was an Air Force pilot in World War II. He had five sons who served in the military. I am proud to say that I was one of them, as Chairman Sessions has indicated. As I indicated as well, I have members of my own family who are deployed now, or will deploy in the next year. These young men and women put their lives on the line to serve and to protect our country. For heaven's sake, let's give them the funding to do that. Let's do the right thing. That is why I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I call up the bill (S. 139) to implement the use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform decisions about pretrial release or detention and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, S. 139.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 139.

On January 19, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 will expire. This vital legislation includes section 702, which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 702 is one of the most, if not the most, critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas.

Now, some claim section 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. This assertion is simply false. Section 702 is a targeted program, with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. Given that the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection.

Section 702 targets spies, terrorists, weapons proliferators, and other foreign adversaries who threaten the United States, and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and our homeland.

As an example, Hajji Iman, who was the second-in-command of ISIS, was located via section 702 and later removed from the battlefield. While the vast majority of examples remain classified, this is just one instance that demonstrates the necessity of this authority.

Subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government, section 702 is one of the government's most rigorously overseen foreign intelligence collection authorities. To date, while compliance incidents occur and are dealt with appropriately, there has never been a known, intentional abuse of this authority. Nevertheless, the program should be subject to regular adjustments, as necessary, to ensure the effectiveness of privacy protections.

Therefore, after careful consideration of the best way to strengthen privacy protections without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee supports S. 139, a bipartisan bill that includes provisions and addresses concerns raised by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate.

The bill's reforms include:

Requiring specific section 702 query procedures, separate from existing minimization procedures, which must be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every year;

Limiting the instances in which the government can use section 702 information to prosecute U.S. people;

Requiring the inspector general of the Department of Justice to conduct a review of the FBI's interpretation and implementation of the FBI's section 702 query procedures;

Temporarily codifying the end of the NSA's section 702 upstream ``abouts'' collection until the government develops new procedures and briefs the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees;

And, finally, improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimization procedures and requiring additional reporting to Congress on how the intelligence community is using other FISA authorities.

Mr. Speaker, during discussions over the past several months, both the House and the Senate have made several concessions to achieve this compromised language in order to reauthorize this critical national security authority. Accordingly, S. 139 now includes a probable cause- based order requirement for the FBI to access the content of a section 702 communication during FBI criminal investigations on Americans, unrelated to national security.

This order requirement does not reflect the committee's belief or intent that law enforcement access to lawfully acquired information constitutes a separate search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by numerous Federal courts, does not require the FBI to obtain a separate order from the FISC to review lawfully acquired 702 information.

Though not required by the Constitution, this compromise is meant to provide additional protections for U.S.

person information that is incidentally collected under section 702. Along with the restrictions on the use of section 702 information in criminal prosecutions, this should provide further assurances to the American public that this vital national security tool is used strictly to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the United States, and the handling and use of any incidental U.S. person information is carefully controlled and monitored.

Mr. Speaker, America faces an array of international threats more complicated than anything we have endured in the past.

Speaking for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I cannot emphasize enough that now is not the time to draw back on key national security authorities.

I am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. When Congress must reauthorize this program again in 2023, we hope those who debate these issues, both inside and outside this Chamber, do so with intellectual honesty and integrity.

The USA RIGHTS Act, which has been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, is an attempt to kill this compromise. In its place, the amendment would begin resurrecting the information-sharing walls between national security and law enforcement that the 9/11 Commission identified as a major factor in the failure to identify and thwart the 9/11 plot.

If individuals in this body cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. There is no support for this bill in the majority of the committees of jurisdiction whose members understand that this amendment would render section 702 inoperable.

Therefore, in order to keep the U.S. interests and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. Section 702 is critical in that regard, and S. 139 provides the intelligence community with the authorities needed to protect the homeland while implementing key privacy enhancements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 139, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues believe that Congress should go above and beyond what is required by the Fourth Amendment and institute additional safeguards on how the government handles any potential U.S. personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. While the varying committees may have different ideas as to how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and national security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction.

Under S. 139, if the bill conducts a U.S.-person query into its database during a criminal investigation not related to national security and conducts a section 702 communication, the FBI must obtain an order from the FISA court prior to assessing the content of the communication.

The committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the Fourth Amendment, but it is adding more protections, as a matter of policy, in order to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authority is being used to investigate U.S. people.

Proponents of the USA RIGHTS Act amendment will say that S. 139 does not go far enough in its current form and that they have crafted a great compromise that allows the intelligence community to do its job.

Unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our national security. Per the office of the Director of National Intelligence, under the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, the FBI would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9/11 hijackers. This is unethical to the 9/11 Commission Report, and anyone who thinks about voting for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting.

Unlike the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, S. 139 is able to balance national security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission reporting. I echo the White House statement last night strongly opposing the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support S. 139.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to emphasize how dismayed I am by the amount of disinformation being propagated by opponents of section 702. I have heard some things over the last couple of days, and I just wonder, how in the world can someone believe that.

Let me tell you why this amendment must be opposed. Under the USA RIGHTS Act, the intelligence community would not be able to query the name of the suspected terrorist supporter in the United States to see if he is in contact with terrorist recruiters. It would not be able to query the name of a person in the United States who has been suspiciously approaching U.S. Government employees with security clearances to determine if that person is part of a foreign espionage network.

We would not be able to query the name of a registered owner of a suspicious vehicle parked in front of the Washington Monument to see if that person is in contact with terrorist operatives overseas. We would not be able to query the name of a person in the aftermath of a mass casualty attack on the United States to see if he has terrorist connections, or as a follow on, if potential follow-on attacks are imminent.

We would not be able to query the name of a foreign national who travels to the United States to take flight training but doesn't care about learning how to land.

Individuals in this room who want to end section 702 know that they have an opportunity to do with their vote, but they would be putting troops and American lives at risk. And if that is okay with you, then go ahead and vote for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, but I promise you, you will regret it when, some day, in this dangerous world we live in, we have to answer to our constituents for our votes here today.