the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: thank you, mr.

chairman. to hear the administration tell it, having to get a warrant is the end of the world. guess what? in literally any other context in which law enforcement or intelligence agencies want to read american's communications they have to get a warrant. that's been the rule for over 200 years. for 46 years the government has had to get a fisa title i order to read american's communications in a foreign intelligence investigation. these are investigations in which americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cyber crime you name it. somehow, a warrant or title i requirement is completely consistent with national security in those high stake cases yet the administration and those opposed to this amendment allege it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this same basic longstanding protection to section 702 queries, where the american often isn't even suspected of wrongdoing at the time of the query. i don't buy it, neither should you. over a decade ago, as my friend

mr. nadler said a moment ago, a group of intelligence experts unanimously recommended requiring a warrant for u.s. person queries of section 702 data that group included michael morel, former acting director of the c.i.a., and richard a. clark, former chief counterterrorism adviser to president george w. bush. bipartisan. recommended the same thing that we have in our warrant today with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. turner: i want to thank mr. biggs, he participated in the working group between the jew dish committee and other committees to put together this bill working directly with the speaker's office and the second working group that drafted the

specific bill we disagree about his amendment though which is why we're here on the debate. this amendment is not about americans inboxes and outboxes. this is not about americans' data this amendment is about hezbollah's tai tay, hamas' data and the communist chinese party data you don't have to take my word for it. just pick up this amendment. read the front of the amendment. this amendment says you need to get a warrant to go into data collected by 702. 702 data which we all agree, everybody agrees that 702 data is the collection of foreigners abroad. that's hamas, hezbollah. communist china's party. al qaeda. what they want is a warrant to search the inbox an outbox of says boll la, al qaeda and the communist chinese party when they're communicating with people in the united states. this is dangerous. it will make us go blind and it will absolutely increase their

recruitment of people inside the united states, not even american citizen to do terrorist attacks and harp americans. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield to the co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. nadler, for one min. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: in 2021, the intelligence community conducted over 278,000 inappropriate searches through american's private comeub keyings. it broke the law more than 278,000 time. mr. biggs and i do not agree on much but we agree that the status quo is unacceptable. without a probable cause warrant requirement, it is clear that the intelligence community will go on breaking the law and violating american's rights in the process. as i have said again and again, if the government wants to peruse the private communications of americans they can go to title i of guy savage section 702 has fewer privacy

protections because it's meant for foreigners located overseas. people who do not have constitutional rights. any american's data we collect under 0 is collected at a standard far below the fourth amendment and that should not be. i strongly support this amendment, i encourage my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona vie nerve -- reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, ranking member of the intelligence committee, mr. himes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chair and i thank the judiciary committees and intelligence committees for this important debate. i sat here and listened to the judiciary committee support for the warrant amendment. and the entire argument is constructed on the foundation of the notion that u.s. person queries violate the constitution. the fourth amendment. that's the argument. i'm not a lawyer.

so i am tempted to defer to my good friends oh the judiciary committee. but i'm likely to defer more immediately to the people who are charged to defend our constitutional rights in the federal courts. and i'm going to quote from the pclob report here. a statement made by the court in april, 2022. quote, all three united states circuit court of appeals to consider the issue, that's the second, ninth and 10th circuits, have held that the incidental collection of a u.s. person's communication under section 702 does not require a warrant and is reasonable under the fourth amendment. i'm in the a lawyer. but i am inclined to defer to three separate circuits. so my friends on j judiciary pot to the pclob. the gentlelady quoted the chair of the pclob in her personal

capacity, the pclob had profound misgivings with their own warrant requirement which was far narrower than the biggs amendment warrant requirement. the two republican members of the pclob wrote a rebut oofl the pclob's proposal. i'll quote. this the republican members, i would suggest that i'm always amazed by the chairman of judiciary's alignment with his party. the republics said fisk preapproval would most negatively impact the most important and urgent query, the ones that show a connection between foreign targets and u.s. persons, the ones that the f.b.i. must review as quickly as possible. please vote against the biggs amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has ex-poor the gentleman from ohio reserves. though gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you. so let's just get -- consider that the second circuit has said that a fourth -- that a fourth

amendment arnt is appropriate. and they have -- they haven't finished concluded it. i don't know where mr. himes is going to keep riding off on that. but the second circuit is still considering that. let's take a look at something else. the u.s. person queries designed to search for communications between americans and foreigners who happen to be u.s. persons targeted. that's what we're hearing so mr. turner says the law already requires a warrant to surveil an american. when he says surveil he's talking about collecting all of an american's communications. in that case, under title i, a warrant is required. a u.s. person query is an attempt to access some of an american's communications, incidentally those collected under section 702 and to to so without a warrant. they can do so wowpt a warrant. that's distinction we're getting at with that, i'm going to reserve. chip the gentleman from ohio is recognized.

mr. turner: what mr. biggs just said is a great description. if this amendment passes, communist china, the communist party in china, hezbollah and hamas get to fully recruit in the united states, free, because we would have to get a warrant to monitor them. not to monitor americans. already the constitution requires that you have to have a warrant, you have to go to court for a warrant because their constitutional rights are protected since the birth of this nation. american's inboxes and outboxes are protected by a constitutional right for a warrant. the inbox an outbox of h hezbollah, hamas and the communist chinese party, are not. if they are communicating into the united states and people are communicating back with them that's not protected speech if you send a thanks for the bomb making classes email to the head of hamas that shouldn't take a warn for us to see because we need to protect americans. now inside the united states, everybody's communications are protect the constitution is sound. since the birth of this nation

we have fought to ensure that. f the swamp to give the american people the protection they already have, protection of communications. they don't have protection to talk to hamas or china and that they'll be recruited to be a spy. there shouldn't be a warrant for those communications. we shouldn't be able to see them. our nation would be unsafe. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. biggs: i yield a minute to the chairman of the committee, mr. jordan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: my good friend from ohio says we're searching foreigners in this database. if we're just searching foreigners, why do we have this

distinction called u.s. person queries? if you're just searching the bad guys, that's one thing. we're not or you wouldn't have violated u.s. person queries 278,000 times. you can search all the bad guys you want. that's what we want. do surveillance. they're in the database and you want to do more, go do it. but if you want to search an american, their phone number or email address, you have to get a warrant. that's all this does. don't make it too complicated. mr. himes used the term, u.s. person queries. that's not a foreigner. that's someone here in the united states who is a person. and they're being searched. and all we're saying is, if you're going to do that, go get a warrant from a separate and equal branch of government. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. biggs: i want to dovetail on that because my friend from the

intelligence committee keeps talking about we aren't going to be able to look at that maas or any of niece nefarious actors. that's simply inaccurate. the administration cites examples of using 702 and monitoring foreign subjects. but when it comes to warrantless searches for americans, they can't provide any examples where they've provided any useful information and yet they want to continue to look at u.s. persons' information without a warrant. i o'. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio -- >> he's too late. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. roy: mr. speaker, i have an amendment put the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. roy of texas. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 1137, the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, and member opposed each will control five minutes. the the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. roy: the amendment i put together requires the f.b.i. to report to congress on a quarterly basis rather than annual basis for the queries conducted. we simply want more information and want the ability to look at

this and understand whether the f.b.i. is actually conducting these the proper way. we think quarterly is nor efficient and effective. we said it doesn't kick in for a year. the f.b.i. was complaining it was too burdensome and couldn't get it done. they have a $200 million new headquarters but couldn't figure out how to get this done. we gave them a year, quarterly reporting. it also grants the chairs and ranking member on the chairs of judiciary and intel on the house and senate the ability to go to the fisk. the chairman will say they oppose this. i know this because they put out their propaganda last night saying to quote this amendment would result in a unprecedented expansion to access of the details of the most sensitive and highly classified operations being undertaken to the government to numerous congressional staff which raises significant counterintelligence concerns. we can't have congressional staff in the fisk, no, no, no. that would be terrible. we don't want to have article 1

be able to go over and get in front of the fisk and see what's happening to protect the american citizens. we would rather the intel community in all of its infinite wisdom be able to make all the determinations about the security and safety of the american people. and by the way, we have all the provisions in the language to say it's up to the intel world and the f.b.i. and all the security people to set the circumstances and all the requirements under what the congressional staff would have to have in terms of clearances. but to say we can't have congressional staff be able to observe the fisk, to be able to understand what is happening there, and be able to come back here so congress could know what is happening to protect the american people is basically absurd. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: the gentleman is correct, the intelligence committee does oppose this

amendment. but we oppose this because there was a working group that was put together by the speaker and had two representatives of the judiciary and two representatives from the intelligence committee and two representatives appointed by the leadership and the chair, mario diaz-balart. every person in that working group opposed this amendment. now, the underlying bill already includes a provision of a requirement the fisa court create transcripts and those transcripts be transmitted to the congressional committees of jurisdiction which include judiciary and intelligence. we'll already know what it happening. the difference is whether you pull up a seat and eat popcorn while watching the court. i want to go back to the biggs amendment, the jayapal amendment is really what's dominating this whole debate. this amendment, if you just read the front page of it clearly says that it is about the intelligence that's gathered from foreigners abroad.

this is the not about americans' data. americans' data are safe, constitutionally protected, their inbox and out box. no amendment on this floor can change the constitution, no statute on this floor can change the constitution. the statute we're talking about is 702 which is spying on foreigners abroad. everybody in this house is pissed at the f.b.i. and pissed about the abuses that have occurred. punish the f.b.i. pass this underlying bill. do not pass the biggs amendment and cause us to go blind and make america less safe. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. roy: the entirety of the debate that's been had down here has been focused on the warrant requirement, right? the reason we have this particular amendment before us right now is simply to be able to have more reporting and more understanding of what's happening in the fisk. but there is always constant resistance by the intelligence community to looking under the

hood. because it is always the case that they want to use the fear. perhaps it's a universal truth the loss of liberty and home is to be charged against danger, real or pretended from abroad. james madison and thomas jefferson, may 13, 1798. the fact is the founders knew precisely what would occur. the government in the quest to have power in the name of stopping foreign adversaries and in the name of fear would use that power against our own citizens. that's what's occurring. that's what's happening. and we have before us real and obvious abuses, 278,000 of those abuses. going after the american people. and our response is a bunch of technical stuff that chases the actual core problem. our friends don't want to get

into peeling back the hood of what's happening in the intel community because our friend are the intel community. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner: in conclusion, as we look at this debate and this bill which is about spying on foreigners abroad, hezbollah, hamas, the chinese communist party, giving them constitutional protections is unprecedented. there's no court that has ever done it. there's been no bill that has passed this house that gives constitutional protections to foreigners abroad. americans' constitutional rights are preserved in the constitution. this amendment undermines our security by giving americans constitutional rights here in the united states to foreign adversaries. vote no on the biggs amendment. vote no on this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: this amendment is about reporting requirements. on the point of the warrant,

after the rampant abuses by the federal government, it's clear we should have a warrant requirement under 702 to protect americans from the we'ring of incidental communication collected en masse under a broad grain of power to target foreign entities. that's the truth. this is the f.b.i. that targeted catholics and put pro-life progressive activists in jailened a targeted president trump. the opponents gave up the game and said openly the need to target u.s. persons right here on the floor. the only thing that makes this warrantless collection of millions of americans international communications lawful, quote, unquote, is the government certification that it is targeting foreigners, and only foreigners. if the government changes its mind and wants to go after an american, it should have to go back and get the warrant that it skipped on the front end. this is not that hard. by the way, the argument we would need 2,000 judges to filter through warrant requirements begs the question,

which is it? the proponents own data indicate they'll only get a hit 1% to 2% of meta data and some of those would have exceptions under the warrant amendment we offer and probably would be less than 1%. so the 2,000 judges argument is straightup false. it's just not that hard. if you want to go after an american and you want to look at their information, get a warrant. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. turner: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed

in house report 118-456. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 3 printed in house report 118-456 offered by mr. cline of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1137, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cline, and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. cline: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the reforms especially section 702. while h.r. 7888 in its current form includes many provisions the intel agreement agrees on it falls short of what is protected. america must act to preserve the american's rights. what authorizes 702 must include a warrant for communications collected and an end to the law

enforcement and intelligence agency with the purchase of data. the reporting requirements offered by congressman roy and my amendment which would current end the practice of abouts collection which long has been a controversial subject. on top of collecting communications to or from a collector of a intelligence target and upstream collection from companies that offer cables that interconnect with networks include information about the selector. fisa court opinions of 2011 since declassified noted it resulted in collections of, quote, tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications each year by the n.s.a. due to what was described as the technical implementation of abouts collection. this practice has been halted by the f.b.i. but acknowledged they maintain the right to initiate this upon notification back to congress. this must be codified in order to stop this type of abuse from occurring, and so my amendment would do that.

with that i'd like to offer 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentleman from texas vehicles for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i ask unanimous consent to address the house. i'm delighted to be able to work with the gentleman from virginia on what i think is crucial to codify, because as you said, the f.b.i. had stopped doing it but here we are again. so it is my pleasure to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from connecticut, the ranking member on the intelligence committee. mr. himes: i thank you, gentlelady, and the gentleman from virginia. i support this amendment and will be recommending a yes vote to the amendment from the minority caucus. i'm surprisedded gentleman from virginia and ask for a minute and believe it's important we believe this is not an argument between civil rights and denigrating civil rights.

the chair: does the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. cline: for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from texas may not yield time. the chair: the gentleman controls the time. mr. cline: if you'll yield back, i'll yield to the gentleman. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. mr. cline: i yield to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: i think i surprised the gentleman by saying i will recommend a yes vote on the amendment i think it's important that this not become a debate between civil rights and perhaps those who are less concerned about civil rights. i will yield to no one on my defense of the civil rights incorporated in our bill of rights. i'm the ranking member of this intelligence. i spend my days marinating in

the depredation the chinese government would visit on us, but i voted against the tiktok ban because it has first amendment equities at stake. this amendment is a good one. collection is not undertaken today by the i.c. and it is too technically difficult and too risky, there's too much of a risk that communication that are not about a target to an american get swept up in this about collection. i'll be adamant and stand with the second, ninth and 10th circuit in saying the biggs amendment is not addressing constitutional issues but this is an important amendment i'll support. i thank the gentleman and the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. cline: i'm happy to yield additional time to the gentlelady from texas. however much time she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from virginia. the home of my alma mater the university of virginia, school

of law. and the gentleman from connecticut also, the home of my alma mater. to be able to find collegiality in a very posh question for the american people is very much a statement that should be made. this amendment does something congress should have done seven years ago, as i've indicated, prohibiting the government from resuming abouts collection a form of surveillance that poses a unique risk to americans. it's also very disturbing, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, because most americans would scratch their heads why is this real van to the immediate investigation? abouts collections is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance under 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, but merely contain information relating to that target. and that means that you become a target because it happened to be sitting around you.

it happened to be going to you or from you. in the past, abouts collections focused on collecting communications that include a target's email or phone address or twitter handle or something lick that. but in theory, abouts collection should -- could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of a surveillance, 702 surveillance. i think it's extremely important to recognize merely menges, merely menges that individual, and you could have your materials, your private information wrapped up in a roundup -- roundup if you will, a lassoing of the extended material scattered and you and you could be subject to some kind of haul if you will, hauling in data about you so nothing in the text or legislative history of 702 indicates that this type of surveillance is authorized. that's why i think this amendment with mr. cline is extremely important.

is extremely important because it shows that we're working together. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from virginia's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek reckings in? mr. turner: to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. turner: the national security agency stopped abouts collection in 2017 because it was fraught with peril. this amendment isn't necessary because they're not ding this, haven't been doing this since 2017. i want to ■gobackand say cyst in the debate with some of the terms occurring in the biggs-jayapal amendment. the bigs-jayapal amendment would make us go blind. it would make it so we can't read the inboxes and outboxes of foreigners abroad who are al qaeda, hamas, his bo lal and the chinese communist party. the reason i say that, 702, the underlying bill here that's

being re-authorized is tailored only to the adversaries and those who want to do us harm. it's national security threats. it is our adversaries. their inbox and their outbox is not protect. if you are a terrorist or if you are a committing espionage, you're a spy, you're communicating with the chinese communist party or hezbollah or hamas or al qaeda, right now because we're spying on them we can read those communications. americans wan us to read those communications. that's how we keep americans safe. in 9/11 we had terrorists inside the united states. those were for all intents and purposes, they were americans. they weren't american citizens but under this law they were americans, they had protection under the constitution. but their communications to al qaeda were not protected. at that time we western looking. we were not looking. we were blind. we were not listening. now we're looking. and if somebody is in this country and they're a terrorist

or they're a spy for the communist chinese party we are looking at the communist chinese party and al qaeda and in reading those we can take those to a court and get a warrant and then keep america safe for people who are here who intend to do us harm. this would shut that off. it would make us blind with respect to c