Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. 7888.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

This bill is about the extension of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That is the act under which we are able to spy on our adversaries, those individuals who intend to do our Nation harm.

There has been great debate and great discussion among the Members in this body. Everyone is in agreement that there have been unbelievable abuses by the FBI of access to foreign intelligence. The underlying bill, for which there is broad support, punishes the FBI. It criminalizes the FBI's abuses, limits and restricts the FBI's access to foreign intelligence, and further puts guardrails to punish the FBI.

What is also in agreement here on this House floor is the protection of Americans' civil liberties. You have to have a warrant, and there is absolute constitutional protection of Americans' data. There is no place in this statute where Americans' data becomes at risk.

Debate today, though, is not about FISA. It is not about spying on our adversaries. The debate today is about a warrant requirement in an amendment that has been offered by Representatives Biggs and Jayapal.

This amendment, largely drafted by Senator Wyden and cosponsored by Senator Warren, would for the first time in history provide constitutional rights to our adversaries. It would provide constitutional rights to our enemies. No law has ever come out of this body that would provide constitutional rights to our adversaries.

We spy on Hezbollah. We spy on Hamas. We spy on the Ayatollah. We spy on the Communist Party of China. This bill provides them constitutional protections to communicate with people in the United States to recruit them for the purposes of being terrorists, for being spies, and for doing espionage.

The 9/11 perpetrators were in the United States, and they were communicating with al-Qaida. At that time, we made a grave mistake in that we were not spying on al-Qaida and didn't see who they were communicating with in the United States. We changed that and began to spy on al-Qaida and got to see the extent to which they were recruiting people in the United States to do us harm.

If this amendment passes, al-Qaida will have full constitutional protections to recruit in the United States; the Communist Party will have full constitutional protection to recruit in the United States; and there will be no increased protection of constitutional protections for Americans and their data. The only data that would become protected is data that is located in al-Qaida's inbox and the Communist Chinese's inbox.

Now, how is it that they become protected? This amendment would require that we have to have a warrant to look into Chinese Communist Party data for the recruitment efforts that they are doing within the United States. We would have to have evidence of a crime that is occurring in order to get that warrant, which means we will be blind.

If this becomes law, we will be blind, and we will be unable to look at what Hezbollah is doing in the United States, what Hamas is doing in the United States, and what the Communist Party is doing in the United States. There are no additional protections for Americans in this amendment. Americans still have full constitutional protection of their own data.

Mr. Chair, let me give you an example of how this works under their amendment. We are spying on Hamas. Two people in the United States send emails to Hamas. One says happy birthday, and one says thank you for the bomb-making classes. When those two emails go to Hamas, right now, we see them.

If you send a happy birthday to Hamas and we see it, that doesn't matter. It is not a threat to the United States.

If you send an email that says thank you for the bomb-making classes, we intercept that email, read it, and find out who it is. Then, when we come here to go find that person to arrest them and to make certain that they don't harm Americans, we have to go to court and get a warrant.

There already is a warrant requirement for the protection of Americans and people who are here in the United States. If you have to have a warrant to look at the two emails that are sent to Hamas, happy birthday and thank you for the bomb-making classes, then you have no evidence of a crime. You have no ability to read these two emails. We will go dark. We will go blind.

The FBI abuses have been extraordinary in their searching of foreign data. We need to punish them. This underlying bill punishes the FBI. We should not punish Americans. We should not make our Nation less safe by giving constitutional protections to Hamas and by giving constitutional protections to the Chinese Communist Party.

I have been talking to Members on the floor, and they say this amendment is about protecting Americans' data in the United States. It is not. Americans' data in the United States is already protected by the Constitution. There is nobody on this House floor who would argue that you don't need a warrant to look at Americans' data in the United States.

I encourage everyone to pick this amendment up and read it. It applies to the data that we collect in spying on Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Chinese Communist Party. To give them a warrant and to give them constitutional protections means that they are open for business.

The day after this passes and we go blind, the Chinese Communist Party has a complete pass to recruit in the United States students to spy on our industry and on our universities. Hamas and Hezbollah have a complete pass. We will be blind as they try to recruit people for terrorist attacks in the United States.

Currently, we keep America safe by spying on our adversaries. Do not give our adversaries constitutional protection.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), who opposes giving constitutional rights to our foreign adversaries.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment by Mr. Biggs.

First of all, I thank Mr. Biggs. He participated in the working group that we had that was joint between the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee that drafted and put together this underlying bill, including working directly with the Speaker's Office in the second working group that drafted the specific bill, this underlying bill.

We disagree about his amendment though, which is why we are 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 data, Hamas' data, and the Communist Chinese Party's 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 that you need to get a warrant to go into data collected by 702. The 702 data which we all agree--everybody on this floor agrees that 702 data is the collection of foreigners abroad. That is Hamas, Hezbollah, the Chinese Communist Party, al-Qaida.

What they want is a warrant to search the inbox and outbox of Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and the Chinese Communist Party when they are 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 citizens--to do terrorist attacks, recruit for espionage, and to harm Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. What Mr. Biggs just said is a great description. If this amendment passes, the Chinese Communist Party, 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 and you have to go to court for a warrant because their constitutional rights have been protected since the birth of this Nation.

Americans' inboxes and outboxes are protected by a constitutional right for a warrant.

The inbox and outbox of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Chinese Communist Party are not. If they are recruiting into the United States and people are communicating back with them, that is not protected speech. If you send a thanks for the bomb-making classes email to the head of Hamas, that shouldn't take a warrant for us to see because we need to protect Americans.

Now, inside the United States, everybody's communications are protected. The Constitution is sound, and since the birth of this Nation, we have fought to ensure that. I would say it is the definition of a swamp when you stand on this floor and say you are going to give the American people something they already have; they have protections of their communications. They don't have the protection to be able to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah and the Chinese Communist Party and say that they are going to be recruited to be a terrorist to do espionage or to be a spy. That is what we are talking about.

There should not be a warrant for those types of communications. We wouldn't be able to see them. We would go blind. Our Nation would be unsafe.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is correct, the Intelligence Committee does oppose this amendment. We oppose this. There was a working group that was put together by the Speaker which had two Representatives of the Judiciary Committee, two Representatives of the Intelligence Committee, 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 that the FISA court now create transcripts and that those transcripts be transmitted to the Congressional committees of jurisdiction, which includes Judiciary and Intelligence.

We will already know what is happening. The difference is whether or not you pull up a seat and you eat popcorn while you are watching the court.

I want to go back to the Biggs amendment here for a second because the Biggs/Jayapal amendment is really what is dominating this whole debate.

This amendment, if you just read the front page of it, clearly says that it is about the intelligence that is gathered from foreigners abroad. This is not about Americans' data. Americans' data is safe, constitutionally protected. They are inboxed and outboxed. No amendment on this floor can change the Constitution. No statute on this floor can change the Constitution.

The statute that we are talking about is 702, which is the spying on foreigners abroad.

Now, everybody in this House is pissed at the FBI and is pissed about the abuses that occurred. Punish the FBI. Pass this underlying bill. Do not pass the Biggs amendment and cause us to go blind and make America less safe.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, 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 is no court that has ever done it. There has 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.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Biggs amendment, and a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition because the National Security Agency stopped ``abouts'' collection in 2017 because it was fraught with peril. This amendment is not necessary because the intelligence community is not doing this and hasn't been doing it since 2017.

I do want to go back and assist somewhat in the debate of some of the terms that are occurring with respect to the Biggs-Jayapal amendment.

The Biggs-Jayapal amendment, as I indicated, would make us go blind. It would make it so that we can't read the inboxes and outboxes of foreigners abroad who are al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Chinese Communist Party.

The reason I say that is because 702, which is the underlying bill here that is being reauthorized, is tailored only to the adversaries and those who want to do us harm. It is for national security threats. It is for our adversaries. Their inbox and their outbox are not protected. If you are a terrorist or if you are committing espionage or you are a spy and you are communicating with the Chinese Communist Party or Hezbollah, Hamas, or al-Qaida, right now, because we are spying on them, we can read those communications. America wants us to read those communications because it is how we keep America safe.

On 9/11, we had terrorists inside the United States. For all intents and purposes, as people were saying in this debate, they were Americans. They weren't American citizens, but under this law, they were Americans and they had protection under the Constitution. Their communications to al-Qaida were not protected. At that time, we weren't looking. We were not looking. We were blind and we were not listening.

Now, we are looking. If somebody is in this country and they are a terrorist or they are a spy for the Chinese Communist Party, we are looking at the Chinese Communist Party and al-Qaida. In reading those, we can take those to a court and get a warrant and then keep America safe from people who are here who intend to do us harm. This would shut that off. It would make us be blind with respect to those communications.

Mr. Chair, vote ``no'' on the Biggs-Jayapal amendment, and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, we had Members stand and say that they are for vetting foreigners who want to come into the United States. I assume we should vet them for whether or not they have ties to terrorist groups and organizations. Perhaps we should just ask them because I am sure they will tell us the truth, but they won't, which is why we have 702. Section 702 collects information on foreigners abroad and terrorist groups and organizations.

What this amendment does is it allows us to search Hamas on these individuals who want to come into the United States, to find out if they are affiliated with Hamas because they are not just going to tell us.

If my colleagues are for vetting, my colleagues are for vetting, looking at terrorist groups and organizations to see if they have ties to people who are trying to come into the United States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, there is a SCIF off of the House floor to provide additional information to Members that I am not able to present here.

This amendment is to correct a technical issue that was found by the FISA court with respect to critical intelligence and a technological issue in which there was a gap.

Again, 702 is about collecting data and information on foreigners abroad. You have to be both. You have to be a foreigner, and you have to be abroad. You can't be a foreigner in the United States, and you can't be an American abroad. It is about foreigners abroad.

There have been people who have been saying on this amendment that this is about collecting at your local Starbucks, this is about collecting at your local McDonald's. It is not. It is about foreigners abroad.

I end with this: With respect to the Biggs-Jayapal amendment, this important surveillance tool of foreigners abroad is limited to just foreigners abroad and individuals who are in the United States who are being recruited by terrorist groups and organizations and the Chinese Communist Party when they communicate with them and their communications end up in the inboxes of the Chinese Communist Party, Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaida.

If we are reading the inbox of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Chinese Communist Party, and there is an email in there from somebody located in the United States because they are being recruited, either to do espionage, or because they are being recruited for terrorism, my colleagues want the government to read that.

Now, our constitutional protections, which we dearly uphold here and everybody is committed to, is that no American shall have their inbox, their outbox, their electronic communications, and their data spied on by their government. Our constitutional protections require that there be a warrant, and no one should stand in this well and pretend that they do not.

There are constitutional protections for American communications within their data. However, if a person located in the United States is communicating with al-Qaida, Hamas, and the Chinese Communist Party, in this limited group of people that we collect under 702, they can pose a threat to this country.

Additionally, if the Biggs-Jayapal amendment passes, we will go dark. We will no longer see solicitations from the Chinese Communist Party to students in the United States to go and spy for them.

We will no longer see al-Qaida recruiting people in the United States to undertake terrorist attacks.

We will no longer see people who are sympathetic with Hamas, who contact Hamas and say: How can I perpetrate a terrorist attack in the United States?

It is imperative that the Biggs-Jayapal amendment fail and that this underlying bill, which punishes the FBI but protects the American people, pass.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this bill and a ``no'' vote on the Biggs-Jayapal amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source