Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Chair, in 2021, 2022, the FBI did over 3 million U.S. person queries of this giant 702 database--of this giant haystack of information, 3 million queries of United States persons. Make no mistake, query is a fancy name for search. Three million Americans' data was searched in this database of information, and guess what? The FBI wasn't even following their own rules when they conducted those searches. That is why we need a warrant.

This is not Jim Jordan talking about it. This is not Ranking Member Nadler talking about it, but The Washington Post reported last May that 278,000 times the FBI found, the Justice Department found, that they didn't even follow their own darn rules when they searched this giant haystack, this giant database of information on Americans.

What we are saying is, let's do something that the Constitution has had in place for a couple hundred years that has served our Nation well and protected American citizens' liberties. Let's make the executive branch go to a separate and equal branch of government, the judicial branch, and get a probable cause warrant to do the search.

After all, it has done pretty well for this great country, greatest country ever, for a long, long time. Why wouldn't we have that here?

By the way, in a bipartisan fashion coming out of our committee, 35-2 vote, we said we will even put exceptions in there. If it is an emergency situation, the FBI doesn't have to get a warrant. They can do the search. If it is an emergency situation, they can do it. We have put exceptions in there.

Here is the fundamental question that I raised the other day: Of the over 3 million searches in a 2-year time span, how many of those aren't covered by the exceptions we have in our warrant amendment? What is the number? Guess what? We can't get an answer. They won't tell us, which should be concerning in and of itself, but if it is a big number, we should be particularly frightened.

If they don't follow the exceptions and they are searching Americans, searching your name, your phone number, your email address in this giant database, that should scare us. And if it is a small number, then what is the big deal? We can't get an answer to that question.

The underlying bill has got some changes and reforms that are positive, that are good, but short of having this warrant amendment added to the legislation, we shouldn't pass it.

This amendment is critical, particularly when you think about the 278,000 times they abused the system, didn't follow their own rules. Now we say, oh, we have got some new rules, they will follow them now. No. No.

The real check we have in our system is a separate and equal branch of government signing off on it. That is how we do things in America. And never forget, this is the FBI who has had some other abuses in different areas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Before yielding to my good friend, I just want to underscore what the gentlewoman from Washington just described. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, says that our amendment is consistent with what should happen. Our amendment is consistent with the majority recommendation of that board.

This was a board specifically created to protect Americans' liberties, looking at how the intelligence community operates by the 9/ 11 Commission Act of 2007. The majority of that board said this amendment is what needs to happen.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), a member of our committee.

Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, you just heard the words of Benjamin Franklin from my good friend Tom McClintock, that those who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither. I hope that we aren't marked in history as the generation of Congress that was willing to give up American liberty and freedom. It is what we stood for. It is what we have worked for. It is what the men and women of this country have died for. We owe it to them. It is our most important right as Americans. It is what the United States of America represents.

We were told all this before. We were told in the last renewal of section 702 that everything was going to be okay, no worries, all the security was there, nothing to be concerned about, don't look here.

Then we saw what happened. We saw that political campaigns and donors were gone after. We saw that Members of Congress were investigated. We saw that journalists were investigated. We saw that individuals who were Libertarians or liberals or conservatives were investigated. We saw FBI agents' own coworkers and even their ex-girlfriends and others were investigated. The average man and woman in America were investigated.

It was wrong. It occurred not dozens, not hundreds, not thousands, but, over that time period, millions of times, millions of illegal queries.

I cannot support, and I will not support, this legislation unless there is a major change in the form of an amendment that would require what we know needs to be done: a search warrant. It is a basic American right.

Don't let them scare you. It doesn't mean that we are not going to go after terrorists. It doesn't mean that we won't protect the United States of America.

While I finally wrap up here, if this bill is so good the way it is written, why do we exempt Members of Congress? Do you know why? It is because they are scared that they may still at the end of the day go after us.

It is wrong. Rules for thee, not for me. We should not stand for it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Self), my friend and colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a Judiciary Committee member and friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think the ranking member is right. The vote was 35-2 on a major piece of legislation. That doesn't happen a whole lot in our committee.

I thank our committee and I thank the Members on the Republican side who worked so hard over the last year putting this legislation together. We had three individuals in particular, Ms. Lee, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. McClintock, who served on a task force focused on this getting in right. I think they have a good product if, as the ranking member just said, the warrant amendment is actually adopted into the base text.

I also thank the Democrats who worked so hard, and their staff working with our good staff, on putting this together: Ranking Member Nadler, Ms. Jayapal, and several others working together to defend a fundamental principle.

The Judiciary Committee is supposed to be that--we are all supposed to do this, but where it is really focused is the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be that committee that is determined to make sure Americans' liberties are protected. I think the staff and the Members have worked hard to put together a product that will do that if, in fact, this amendment gets added here in a few minutes.

When the folks who started this country came together, they had it right when they created separate and equal branches of government. The checks and balances in our system are good. They protect our rights, our liberties, and key principles.

We should adhere to that. As I said earlier, it has served us well. This amendment follows that fundamental principal, so I hope we adopt it. Then if we adopt it, I hope we adopt the legislation.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chair, I would just point out that my good friend from Ohio says that we are searching foreigners in this database. Well, if we are just searching foreigners, why do we have this distinction called ``U.S. person queries''?

If you are just searching the bad guys, that is one thing, but you are not or you wouldn't have violated U.S. person inquiries 278,000 times. That is the fundamental distinction.

You can search all the bad guys you want--that is what we want. Do surveillance on them. They are in the database. You want more about them in the database, go do it. But if you want to search an American-- their name, their phone number, their email address--you have to get a warrant.

That is all this does. We shouldn't make it too complicated. That is all this does.

Mr. Himes just used the term, ``U.S. person queries.'' That is not a foreigner, that is someone here in the United States who is a person, and they are being searched. All we are saying is if you are going to do that, go get a warrant from a separate and equal branch of government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, now they want to expand it. This is the second amendment in a row where they are going to expand FISA.

We can't have a warrant for the existing program, this giant haystack of information. You can't have a warrant when you go search American citizens there, but now they want to expand it and tell us you still can't have a warrant.

Holy cow. Pretty soon, this is going to be everybody gets searched for any darned reason they want. That is not how it works in America, at least it is not how it is supposed to work.

The third amendment is going to expand it, too. We spent all morning talking about the warrant requirement, which should be so obvious, and they want to expand it.

Mr. Chair, I understand we have a border problem. Holy cow, do we understand that. I may not agree with my Democratic colleagues on how to fix it. In fact, I know I don't, but expanding FISA, you have to be kidding me. This amendment authorizes surveillance of a whole new category of individuals.

We should absolutely vet foreigners who seek to enter the United States, whether legally or illegally, but Congress should not expand FISA or section 702 beyond its current scope of authority.

This whole year, we have been focusing our committee on limiting FISA and reining it in so that we still can do what we needs to be done: look after bad guys and look at bad guys but not infringe on Americans' liberties. This just expands it. That is not what the purpose of this bill is.

We should address the border problem. Holy cow, our committee spent a boatload of time on it. That is an issue where, unfortunately, we didn't get a 35-2 vote on H.R. 2, which is a good piece of legislation.

This is going to sweep up so many more Americans, where the FBI 278,000 times illegally--not illegally but didn't follow their own rules when they queried the database. Now, they have even more.

Holy cow, Mr. Chair, this is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. I will close my time by saying, Mr. Chairman, every time you expand FISA, you underscore the need for a warrant. The bigger and bigger this database gets and the more that U.S. persons are going to be searched, you underscore the need for a warrant, which we spent a whole morning debating.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source