Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I have put forward here requires the FBI to report to Congress on a quarterly basis rather than an annual basis the number of U.S. person queries conducted.
We simply want to have more information. We simply want to have the ability to look at this and understand whether the FBI is actually conducting these the proper way. We think quarterly is more efficient and more effective. By the way, we extended it, it does not kick in for 1 year.
The FBI was complaining it was too burdensome. The FBI couldn't get this done. They got a $200 million new headquarters, but they couldn't figure out how to get this done, so we gave them 1 year.
Great, so you have a year; quarterly reporting.
It also grants the chairs and ranking members of the Committees on Judiciary and Intelligence in the House and the Senate, the ability to go to the FISC.
Now, the problem is the chairman is going to say they oppose this. I know this because they put out their propaganda last night saying: This amendment would result in an unprecedented expansion of access to details on the most sensitive and highly classified current intelligence operations being undertaken by the government to numerous congressional staff which raises significant counterintelligence concerns.
We can't have congressional staff in the FISC. No, no, no, that would be terrible. We don't want to have Article I be able to go over and get in front of the FISC and be able to see what is happening and protect American citizens. We would rather the intel community in all of its infinite wisdom be able to make all of the determinations about the security and safety of the American people.
By the way, we have all the provisions in the language that say that it is up to the intel world and the FBI and all the security people to set the circumstances and all of the requirements under what the congressional staff would have to have in terms of clearances. However, to say that we can't have congressional staff be able to observe the FISC, to be able to understand what is happening there, and be able to come back here so Congress can know what is happening to protect the American people is facially absurd.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, pretty much the entirety of the debate that has been done here has been focused on the warrant requirement, right.
The reason that we have this particular amendment before us right now is simply to just be able have more reporting and more understanding of what is happening in the FISC. 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 is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against danger real or pretended from abroad.'' James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798.
The fact is, the Founders knew precisely what would occur, that 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 is what is occurring. That is what is happening.
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 is happening in the intel community because our friends are the intel community.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, to be clear, this amendment is about reporting requirements. However, on the point of the warrant, after the rampant abuses by the Federal Government, it is clear that we should have a warrant requirement under 702 to protect Americans from the querying of incidental communications collected en masse, under a broad reign of power, to target foreign entities. That is the truth.
This is the FBI that targeted Catholics, put pro-life progressive activists in jail, and targeted President Trump.
The proponents give up the game, saying 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'' is the government's 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 that we would need 2,000 judges to filter through warrant requirements begs the question. Which is it?
The proponents' own data indicate they would only get a hit for 1 to 2 percent via metadata. Some of those will have exceptions under our warrant amendment that we offered, so it would probably be less than 1 percent; so the 2,000 judges argument is straight up false. It is just not that hard.
If you want to go after an American, if you want to look at their information, get a warrant.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding.
I will just note that I certainly appreciate the intent of my friend and colleague from Texas. Obviously, we want to go after cartels, and we want to make sure we can stop the flow of fentanyl into our communities that is killing and ravaging Texans and Americans across our country.
The problem here is it is unnecessary. They can go certify right now. They can go right now and certify a whole other class. We don't need this law to do that. That is the important part. We don't need this amendment, and we don't need to risk expanding it.
Be that as it may, here is my real problem. Just today we have information where we had a terrorist on an Afghan watch list who was released into San Antonio, Texas. ICE just walked away from it, and now we have somebody on the terrorist watch list sitting in San Antonio, Texas.
So am I supposed to say I want to grant more power to the intelligence community and more power to the government that is releasing terrorists as we speak onto the streets of Texas? It defies any kind of logic.
They have the tools to do what they need to go after fentanyl without expanding FISA, which is being abused against Americans.
By the way, Mr. Chair, you need the warrant requirement in order to protect against expansion of FISA.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, everyone agrees that the fentanyl crisis is a terrible and serious public health and crime issue, but a mass, warrantless surveillance tool created by word games is not the answer. It is dangerous.
Indeed, the willingness and desire of some to create exactly that points back to the reason that Congress must impose a warrant requirement to deter the abuse of the section 702 foreign intelligence database collected to surveil foreigners abroad to permit backdoor searches against Americans. That is the issue.
Oppose the Crenshaw amendment and support the Biggs amendment to make them get a warrant.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source