Devin Nunes

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for allowing this bill to come up today. I rise in support of H.R. 805, the Tulare Youth Recreation and Women's History Enhancement Act. This bill simply removes a Federal revisionary interest in two parcels of land in my hometown of Tulare, California, and offers their conveyance to the city. This would allow the city to purchase this land from the Union Pacific Railroad, which received the land from the Federal Government by right-of-way in the 19th century. One parcel has long been home to a historic Women's Club House which has served as an important community center for more than 100 years. The Women's Club House is in need of critical repairs, but the city of Tulare has been reluctant to make repairs without clear title to the land. If this bill were enacted, the city would be making needed repairs to this historical landmark, preserving it for generations to come. The second parcel of land is home to the Rotary Skate Park, which is a recreational park used by young and old residents alike. Both of these community locations are extremely important to the people of the San Joaquin Valley, and this bill will ensure their continued use for many years to come. I want to thank, again, the chair and ranking member for their support, and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Wednesday, April 18, 2018, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on several Roll Call Votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call No. 145--YES, Roll Call No. 146--YES and Roll Call No. 147--YES.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Tuesday, February 13, 2018, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on two Roll Call Votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: on Roll Call No. 70--YES; and Roll Call No. 71--YES.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a framework for the Government to target non-U.S. persons located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence information, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. S. 139 reauthorizes and improves upon this authority--the intelligence value of which cannot be overstated. For example, Section 702 was critical in the tracking of Hajji Iman, a senior Islamic State terrorist who was removed from the battlefield. Members have had numerous opportunities over the past several years to attend Section 702 education sessions, either on Capitol Hill or at Fort Meade, Maryland. These sessions have demonstrated the extensive level of oversight related to this authority, and underscored that no acts of intentional abuse have occurred since its creation. Despite these facts, and the fact that various courts have affirmed the constitutionality of Section 702, some Members sought to add further protections to enhance U.S. person privacy. As a result, S. 139, which reauthorizes title VII of FISA for six years, includes additional privacy, oversight and transparency provisions. Throughout the debate, a good deal of inaccurate information about Section 702--including about the program's oversight, as well as the current or potential use of incidentally collected U.S. persons information by the Government--was put forward publicly. Section 702 is not a bulk-collection authority. It is instead narrowly applied to a relatively small number of targets worldwide. In the Director of National Intelligence's 2016 annual transparency report, the Intelligence Community publicly reported that there are roughly 106,000 Section 702 targets--a vanishingly small fraction of the worldwide population of just over 7 billion. The targets' communications are, moreover, sought only for legally authorized foreign intelligence purposes. Section 702 is used for counterterrorism purposes, as well as to target spies, weapons proliferators, and other foreign threats to the United States and allies. Section 702 is subject to a rigorous oversight regime by all three branches of government. The independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) produced a report on Section 702 in 2014, which states that Section 702 is constitutionally sound and implemented in a way that protects U.S. person privacy, while at the same time offering several recommendations to better enhance the program's privacy protections. As of 2016, the PCLOB reported that the Executive Branch has implemented all of its recommendations, either in whole or in part. In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), as well as several U.S. district courts and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, have confirmed that Section 702 is constitutional, and that the implementation of the program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 1. nsa's ``about'' communication collection One issue during the reauthorization debate was how, if at all, Congress might address the National Security Agency (NSA's) voluntarily discontinued practice of collecting so-called ``about'' communications, in connection with NSA's Section 702 upstream collection. NSA and other Intelligence Community agencies obtain so-called ``downstream'' collection, which involves only the collection of messages ``to'' or ``from'' Section 702 selectors. NSA, on the other hand, is the only Intelligence Community element that conducts Section 702 upstream collection, which permits NSA to target non-U.S. people located outside of the United States for foreign intelligence purposes with the assistance of the providers that operate the ``Internet backbone.'' Because of the way communications traverse the Internet, it is possible for NSA to acquire communications ``about'' a Section 702 target's specific selector, rather than ``to'' or ``from'' the selector. This type of communication is known as an ``about'' communication, and takes place only in NSA's upstream collection. NSA is statutorily prohibited from intentionally acquiring domestic communications, meaning those that originate and end in the United States. Therefore, NSA set up several filters in upstream collection to avoid intentionally ingesting domestic communications. In 2016, NSA self-reported a technical problem related to ``about'' communication collection. The agency then informed the Department of Justice, the FISC, and the appropriate congressional committees. The FISC raised concerns with the compliance incident, and ordered NSA to find a solution. After much consideration, NSA, on its own initiative, decided to cease ``about'' communication collection to fix the issues discussed with the FISC. This type of self-reporting of compliance incidents is expected of the Intelligence Community elements--and is reason to credit, rather than doubt, Section 702 oversight mechanisms. This incident and resulting chain of events demonstrates that the law is working as intended and does not indicate that abuse has occurred or that Congress needs to further limit the Section 702 authority. Some in Congress called for a permanent end to ``about'' communication collection. Such a prohibition would limit NSA's ability to reconstitute the collection in the future, even with FISC approval, and use it to identify threat networks. For that reason, rather than permanently prohibiting NSA's ``about'' communication collection, S. 139 includes a compromise that allows for the possibility of a future technical solution. If NSA wants to restart ``about'' communication collection, NSA would need to first convince the FISC that the technical changes to ``about'' communication collection satisfy the FISC's concerns from 2016. After receiving FISC approval to restart ``about'' communication collection, NSA would brief the relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction, and then wait 30 days to provide Congress time to act. If Congress takes no action in 30 days, NSA may move forward with ``about'' communication collection. This legislation strikes the right balance between national security and privacy. 2. fbi access to section 702 information for criminal purposes Similar to all other surveillance authorities, it is possible that a Section 702 target may communicate with a U.S. person or person located inside the United States. Collection on a U.S. person communicating with a foreign target is known as ``incidental collection.'' Such ``incidental collection'' is carefully managed. The Intelligence Community's procedures for handling the incidental collection of U.S. person information are regularly reviewed by the FISC, and have been found to be sufficient by the PCLOB. Furthermore, U.S. district courts have reviewed the issue of incidental collection of U.S. person information under Section 702, and determined that such collection is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Despite the number of Section 702 education sessions sponsored by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the Committee), some have claimed that the Intelligence Community is abusing the Section 702 authority by targeting Americans, an action that is specifically prohibited by statute. There is, however, no evidence of a single intentional abuse that has resulted in the improper targeting of Americans. There have been others who have asserted that the Intelligence Community has inaccurately reported certain statistics each year related to the use of Section 702. These claims are demonstrably false, and unsupported by any evidence. Unfortunately, the dissemination of such inaccurate information is a disservice to the American public and the men and women of the Intelligence Community who serve in silence to keep us all safe from threats, both foreign and domestic. During the course of reauthorization discussions over the past several months, the Committee has brokered key compromises necessary to reauthorize this critical national security authority. Therefore, after significant deliberation, the House and Senate leadership agreed to institute a probable cause-based order requirement for the FBI to access the content of a Section 702 communication that is responsive to a U.S. person query conducted by the FBI during a criminal investigation not related to the national security of the United States. This order requirement does not mandate that the FBI obtain an order before reviewing metadata, accessing the results of any query reasonably designed to return foreign intelligence information, or querying to return evidence of a crime that is related to the national security of the United States. The order requirement is narrowly tailored to address instances where FBI is conducting a predicated investigation into criminal activity not related to national security and seeks to access the content of a Section 702 communication. Consistent with well-established case law, the order requirement should not be construed to mean--and it is not the Committee's intent-- that law enforcement access to lawfully-acquired information constitutes a separate ``search'' under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by various federal courts, does not require the FBI to obtain an order from the FISC to review lawfully- acquired Section 702 information, even if such access was pursuant to a query using a U.S. person identifier. Accordingly, the agreement to institute this limited order requirement is intended as a legislative accommodation to provide additional statutory protections for U.S. person information that is incidentally collected under Section 702. This order requirement, along with the restrictions on the use of Section 702 information in criminal prosecutions, should provide further assurances to the American public that the purpose of this critical national security tool is to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the United States, and the handling and use of Section 702 information against U.S. persons is carefully controlled and managed.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I will just be really brief today. I want to thank all of my colleagues. There are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of the aisle on this issue, and we have taken many steps at the House Intelligence Committee to take Members out to the agencies that are doing this work. We have offered time for Members to come down to the SCIF to read all of the information because, at the end of the day, we all take the American people's constitutional liberties seriously. I think the robust debate that has occurred in this House over the last year on this issue, through many markups, through many committees, and then even today on the floor here in the House of Representatives, has been a tough fight because it is a tough issue. But in closing, this really is a compromise. We worked with the House Judiciary Committee for many months. I can't thank Chairman Goodlatte enough for all of his very difficult work in trying to find a compromise. At the same time, the House Intelligence Committee, we have worked to come to a compromise with the Democrats on the other side of the aisle. So with all of that said, this is one of those days, if we get this bill passed, I think we can walk out of here proud that we all stood our ground for stances that we really believe in, but, at the end of the day, the House is going to work its will in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I stood here several weeks ago to speak in support of the original House-passed tax reform bill. Since then, as a member of the conference committee, I have participated in the process of strengthening this bill and making it even more transformative. That is why I continue to stand in strong support of the bill and conference report we will be voting on today. Washington's special interests have distorted business decisions for too long, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to reform our broken Tax Code. Should we fail to act now, businesses will continue to leave the United States for tax purposes, taking thousands of good-paying jobs-- American jobs--with them. Our small businesses will continue to suffer the damaging effects of a bewildering and punitive Tax Code that gives unfair advantages to their larger, well-connected competitors. But all this will change if we pass this bill. For years, I have advocated for full and immediate expensing, which will allow businesses of all sizes to write off costs immediately. This bill will provide full expensing, which is one of the many progrowth pieces to this legislation. I am confident my colleagues will soon see the tremendous effect of full expensing and make the important decision to extend it before it expires. Mr. Speaker, I stand here with my colleagues on an historic day in support of one of the most dramatic reform bills to come before this body since I came to Congress. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act simplifies the Code, grows the economy, and allows for strong business investment. I have said before that I will not accept the status quo of our broken Tax Code or a minimal reform that merely adjusts rates. Instead, we must transform the Code into a system that is simpler and fairer and that encourages economic growth instead of suppressing it. That is what this bill does, and that is why I strongly support its passage.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Mr. Speaker, for years, the middle class has been saddled with a broken Tax Code and low wages. Small businesses have been crushed by overly complicated rules and a higher tax burden than corporations. As a result, America has suffered from a self-inflicted uncompetitive Tax Code, lagging behind the rest of the world both in economic growth and job creation. Companies have fled for lower tax jurisdictions and more competitive business environments. Since the 1986 Tax Reform Act was passed, Washington has continued to make the Tax Code longer and more complicated, adding special interest loopholes and industry-specific carve-outs back into the Code year after year. This has allowed the Tax Code to dictate business decisions instead of letting businesses dictate business decisions. For the first time in 31 years, we are wiping the Tax Code clean and replacing it with one that is fair and simpler for everyone. For the better part of my career, I have advocated for a cash-flow tax system that would allow small businesses to expense 100 percent of their costs immediately. H.R. 1 contains an expensing provision that would give businesses the tremendous opportunity to reinvest, allowing them to grow their businesses and create jobs. The impacts for the American economy would be huge. Small businesses across rural California, from the small family-owned farm to the neighborhood restaurant and any other entrepreneur, deserve a type of tax system that allows them to create jobs and be able to compete on an equal footing globally. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to just point out to those in the audience, those who are watching this, that today you are going to hear a lot about how Republicans are giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. Mr. Speaker, that is always what the left says about the Republicans. However, you will also hear a lot of talk about people who itemize and SALT deductions and how those are somehow increasing taxes on the middle class. The reality of this, Mr. Speaker, is these deductions go to millionaires and billionaires. So for my friends on the left, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that Republicans are giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires when you are attempting to keep the very tax cuts called SALT, State and local tax deductions, that go to millionaires and billionaires. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Brady and all my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. For years, we have been working on this legislation, but this is a historic moment. Congress has the opportunity to positively impact every American by reforming our Tax Code, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, November 2, 2017, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on a rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 604. Stated against:

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 481, I call up the bill (H.R. 3180) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Himes, for his kind comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill, H.R. 3180.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, bipartisan bill that we have worked all year putting together in a bipartisan manner. I thank all of my colleagues not only on the Intelligence Committee, but also those colleagues who came down to review the bill. Hopefully they got all the information from our staff to provide all the answers that they may need so that they understand the classified nature of the bill and the importance of this bill to our Nation's intelligence community and our warfighters. I want to highlight just a few things in the bill, because we did debate this bill on Monday, so I will go through this quickly. The legislation provides the intelligence community authorization needed to protect and defend the United States. It supports critical national security programs, such as those protecting Americans against terrorism, cyber attacks, and hostile foreign nations. The total funding authorized in the bill is slightly below the President's budget request, and is consistent with the House Budget Committee-passed fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. H.R. 3180 enables the intelligence community to carry out its vital work protecting Americans in the most complex threat environment since 9/11. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I wasn't aware it is your birthday, but happy birthday, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank both the majority and minority members of our committee for working in a bipartisan manner this year to complete this bill, which I believe is a really good product and will support the men and women doing very difficult work to protect the American people. I do want to thank the staff not only from the minority side, but also from the majority side, specifically: Shannon Stuart, Nick Ciarlante, Scott Glabe, Bill Flanigan, Allen Souza, Lisa Major, Jacqueline Tame, Mark Stewart, Chelsey Campbell, Andrew House, Marissa Skaggs, Angel Smith, Kash Patel, Doug Presley, Steve Keith, George Pappas, and Jack Langer for helping craft this bill with the minority; as well as the committee-shared staff of Brandon Smith, Kim Kerr, and Kristin Jepson. I would also like to take another moment, as Mr. Schiff just did, our ranking member, and thank our fellow who will be leaving us this year, who has been here a couple of years, Mr. Phil Tubesing, who will be going back and ending his congressional fellowship. We thank him for all of his work. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to pass this bill and send an overwhelming message to the men and women who protect this country that this Congress stands ready to support them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUNES

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3180) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3180.

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, passing an annual intelligence authorization bill is the most important tool Congress has to conduct effective oversight of the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government. The Intelligence Committee has brought a bill to the floor every year since fiscal year 2010. Once again, the bill is a bipartisan product that reflects contributions from all committee members. It was reported out of committee by a unanimous voice vote. Because most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of the Committee's schedule of authorizations and direction are found in the classified annex to the bill. This classified annex has been made available to Members since markup in the House Intelligence Committee spaces. At the unclassified level, I can report that the overall funding authorized by this bill is slightly below the President's budget request. Furthermore, the bill funds the Military Intelligence Program in line with the levels of the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. The bill implements the first stage of a committee initiative to streamline and optimize defense intelligence beginning with the Defense Intelligence Agency; provides guidelines to guarantee that intelligence community contractors can meet with Congress unhindered; and enhances oversight of intelligence activities by mandating intelligence community reports on threats to Federal elections, leaks of classified information, security clearance processing, and other vital activities. Mr. Speaker, America faces an international threat matrix more complicated than anything we have endured in the past. The recent, impressive progress made by the U.S. military and its allies against ISIS in Iraq and Syria has not ended the ISIS terror threat. In fact, based on the group's ability to inspire terror attacks through social media and other means, ISIS could remain a significant threat to the West even after it loses all the territory it controls. Additionally, al-Qaida remains active in Afghanistan and has retained its close links to the resurgent Taliban. Meanwhile, other threats from belligerent regimes like Iran and North Korea continue to intensify, while instability in failed states like Libya presents pressing security challenges to the U.S. and our European allies, including through the facilitation of waves of mass migration that provide cover for the movement of jihadists to the West. This bill will ensure that the dedicated men and women of our intelligence community have the funding, authorities, and support they need to carry out their mission and to keep us safe, while providing Congress with the tools it needs to provide robust oversight over their actions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, July 24, 2017. Hon. Devin Nunes, Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nunes: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security in H.R. 3180, the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.'' The bill includes provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate the desire to bring this legislation before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on Homeland Security will forego seeking a sequential referral on this bill. However, this is conditional based on our mutual understanding that foregoing action on H.R. 3180 at this time does not prejudice this Committee with respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matter contained in this bill or similar legislation. This waiver is also given with the understanding that the Committee on Homeland Security expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this or any similar legislation, and requests your support for such a request. I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 3180, and ask that a copy of this letter and your response be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Michael T. McCaul, Chairman.