Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield further to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. This is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause has never applied. It has never applied. The gentleman is attempting to change the law if he thinks that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself 30 seconds and yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to point out two things. First of all, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has noted, this legislation is an effort to bring together widely disparate points of view about how to both maximize our national security and our civil liberties. And there are those outside groups that were just referenced who would like to see more than the language that they were able to obtain in this bill. But I think it is very important for everyone to know that while those groups--some groups--have withdrawn their support for the bill, they do not oppose the bill, and that is a very important distinction for Members to understand. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I neglected to add another key member of the committee, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee who has also been a key bipartisan member of this negotiation. At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey. A number of the things the gentleman has stated are simply not accurate. First of all, the selectors all have to be approved by court order. Secondly, it is important for everyone to understand that the information gathered is targeted to foreign nationals, not to American citizens. Thirdly, the increased transparency that is created by this legislation, both in the FISA Court itself and with the fact that the data is now going to be required to be retained by the companies that own the data and not held by the government, provides extra assurance that, if some kind of massive data collection grab were attempted by the government, it would be exposed, as Mr. Nadler pointed out earlier. Finally, the special selectors language that was carefully worked out in a bipartisan manner carefully limits the ability of people to gather data. It has to be based upon discrete requests, and discretion has a meaning in the law. It has to be limited to identifiable persons or things, and it has to be done in such a way that the court approves it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3361.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I call up the bill (H.R. 3361) to reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. From the founding of the American Republic, this country has been engaged in a profound debate about the limits of government. In the Federalist Papers, the Founders argued passionately for a Federal Government that would protect the American people from foreign threats. At the same time, the Founders struggled to create a structure to contain and control that government in order to protect the God-given rights of the American people. They carefully crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to accomplish these two different, yet complementary, goals. In essence, this debate has illuminated the exceptionality of the United States. The ceaseless effort to restrain the reach of government is in our DNA as Americans. And for 225 years, we have refused to accept the idea that in order to have national security, we must sacrifice our personal freedoms. Some, however, think these goals are in conflict with one another following last year's unauthorized disclosure of the National Security Agency's data collection programs operated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Today, the House will consider legislation that once again proves that American liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. We can protect both Americans' civil liberties and our national security without compromising either one. For nearly a year, the House Judiciary Committee has studied this issue in detail. We have held multiple hearings, consulted the Obama administration, and worked across party lines to produce bipartisan legislation to ensure these programs protect our national security and our individual freedoms. This bill, the USA FREEDOM Act, was unanimously approved by both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The USA FREEDOM Act makes clear that the government cannot indiscriminately acquire Americans' call detail records and creates a new, narrowly tailored process for the collection of these records. Specifically, the USA FREEDOM Act ends bulk collection by keeping Americans' phone records in the hands of providers and requiring the government to get the permission of the court to request information from providers, using a specific selection term in their request to the court. That limits the scope of information collected. For example, the government would have to identify a specific person or account as part of any request for information or tangible things. Furthermore, the USA FREEDOM Act bans bulk collection not just for the controversial telephone metadata program, but for all of section 215 authorities, as well as NSL letters and pen register, trap and trace devices. These limitations will protect Americans' records of all types, including medical records, email records, telephone records, and firearms purchase records, among many others. At the same time, the USA FREEDOM Act ensures that the Federal Government will continue to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept terrorist attacks. The bill preserves the traditional operational use of these important authorities by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. It provides needed emergency authority to national security officials if there is an immediate national security threat, but still requires the government to obtain Court approval of an application within 7 days. The USA FREEDOM Act increases the transparency of our intelligence- gathering programs by creating an amicus curiae in the FISA Court. This amicus will be chosen from a panel of legal experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of Americans when reviewing the government's request for records. It also requires the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by the court annually. Last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on American technology companies that have provided these records. They have experienced backlash from both American and foreign consumers and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. In January of this year, the Justice Department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning requests for customer information under FISA. The USA FREEDOM Act builds on upon this settlement, allowing tech companies to publicly report national security requests from the government to inform their American and foreign customers. From beginning to end, this is a carefully crafted, bipartisan bill. I would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, full committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Intellectual Property Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott for working together with me on this important bipartisan legislation. I also want to thank the staff of these Members for the many hours, weeks, and months of hard work they put into this effort. Furthermore, I would like to thank my staff--Caroline Lynch, the chief counsel of the Crime Subcommittee, and Sam Ramer--for their long hours and steadfast dedication to this legislation. And I might add that Sam Ramer is going to be missed by the committee as he moves on to take a new responsibility in the private sector, but he wanted to be sure that he could be present today for the completion of the passage of this legislation through the House. I thank Sam and Caroline for their long and dedicated hours put into making sure that this was a finely crafted piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of language Representative Doug Lamborn offered when the Committee on Armed Services marked-up the National Defense Authorization Act. Like most Americans, I remain concerned about Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, its horrendous human rights record, its efforts to destabilize its neighbors, its pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and its threats against our ally, Israel, as well as the fates of American citizens detained by Iran. I remain extremely alarmed by Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment and plutonium separation efforts. In spite of Iran's statements to the contrary, I am concerned that these materials are in fact part of a nuclear weapons program. The pursuit of nuclear materials under the proclamation of peaceful energy initiatives raises some serious concerns when coming from a country with a terrible human rights record and ties to terrorist groups. It is both a necessity and a priority that the United States ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. On November 24, 2013, Iran accepted the terms of an international proposal to temporarily halt further expansion of its nuclear program, in return for relief from economic sanctions. While this proposal would in theory limit Iran's nuclear enrichment program, it does nothing to prevent Iran from pursuing a warhead or nuclear delivery system for a nuclear weapon or curtailing other issues that are threats to U.S. security and the security of our allies. That is why I am supportive of Representative Lamborn's amendment. This amendment makes it crystal clear, that it is the intent of the United States Congress that the U.S. should only agree to a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear program if Iran ceases uranium enrichment, ceases all of their nuclear, chemical, biological, chemical weapon programs, ballistic missile program, and ballistic launch site technology and Iran has ceased providing support for international terrorist. The United States government must use every tool possible to deter threats from Iran. Economic sanctions remain an important and necessary tool to deterring aggressive actions. Should the United States provide any relief from these Congressional mandated sanctions, it is imperative that Iran halt all activities that are threatening to our national interests. Mr. Lamborn's amendment is an important and appropriate addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, and I look forward to seeing it included in law.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, now it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who has been a real leader in combating sex trafficking and has legislation of her own which we will consider later this afternoon.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana, Congresswoman Walorski.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).