Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, which incidentally was offered in our committee but which was not agreed to. For years, Members have come to this floor to talk about the need to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims. This was one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the State Department have issued careful guidance to their employees saying in effect, when you see the term ``jihad'' to describe a violent form of terrorism, you might be alienating those moderate Muslims who want to join us in the fight against terrorism. The government must consider how its words will be interpreted by its audience. If Muslims around the world hear something other than what we want to say, we will simply not achieve our goals. This is sensible guidance, not political correctness. Language is a strategic weapon in the war of ideas. We should, therefore, use it wisely. The administration has obviously realized this and has provided appropriate guidance. Congress should not try to undermine this effort by sending contradictory messages about the use of these terms. I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I will just yield myself the remainder of my time to say that this is not about political correctness. This is about recognizing that words matter and the way we use words matter, particularly to those that we're trying to influence and those that we're trying to bring over in this war of ideas. I think it's important to recognize that, again, it's not about political correctness. It's about using common sense. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I just wanted to add my support to this amendment. This is a critical need that we depend on for our national security. And certainly this amendment highlights that we need to refocus our attention in this very critical area for our national security.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment; however, I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community has devoted significant resources to collecting and analyzing intelligence on the narcotics trade and on terrorism, but it has not performed an in-depth analysis of the link between the two. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda have benefited from the greater cultivation, refinement, and trade of opium and hashish. The dark world of narcotics has become a funding source for terrorist groups in Afghanistan. This amendment proposes to bring together all of the intelligence agencies to analyze the connection between terrorists and their narcotics-backed funding. I value Mr. Kirk's interest in the narcoterrorist nexus, and therefore I support his amendment.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to strike the word ``promptly'' and replace it with ``forthwith.'' Would the gentleman agree? Is there an objection?

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to the motion to recommit because essentially it would kill the bill and it would----

Mr. REYES. The answer is no. And I reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to recommit because it simply is intended to kill the bill. Communities all around this country are hurting with $4 gas and all we get from the other side are charades as we've seen here tonight. The whole world watches as we try to do what's right. The whole world heard them say earlier that this was a vital and important piece of legislation that would fund the intelligence community. This is a betrayal of the work that is being done by men and women in the intelligence community that are putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. This is an outrage put forth by the politics, rather than wanting to get things done in this House. I will tell you Mr. Speaker, why would they want to derail----

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, ironically enough, I think this is a good idea. I would gladly accept this because I think it's important that we get the information that Mr. Hoekstra is asking. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Skelton. Mr. Speaker, I'm still puzzled why they would want to derail this important authorization that funds the intelligence community, why they would want to destroy the bipartisanship that they bragged about earlier. I think it is important that we let this bill go forward. I think it's important that we do what's right. I think it's important that we stop this foolishness here on the House floor. I now yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. REYES. I will continue to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be allowed to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 5959.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a sponsor of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill represents the culmination of more than a year's work by the members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee, together with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, to bring to the floor a bill that modernizes our surveillance authorities while protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his efforts to strengthen this bill. As always, I greatly appreciate my good friend's commitment to protecting our country and the principles that we hold so dear. I also want to thank the respective ranking members and all that worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor today. This bill, Madam Speaker, enjoys wide support inside the Democratic Caucus. It has been endorsed by our Democratic whip, by our Democratic Caucus chair, by the Blue Dog Coalition, the New Democratic Caucus and by a number of our colleagues. For that, I want to thank in particular our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for leading the effort towards a bipartisan compromise. This bill is a far better deal than the Protect America Act. And it is far better than the Senate bill that passed earlier this year. Madam Speaker, intelligence is the first line of defense in our Nation's effort to prevent terrorism and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This legislation strengthens the ability of our intelligence agencies to conduct lawful surveillance of foreign targets. But this legislation also serves another very important and vital function. It strengthens the constitutional rights of Americans, protects them from unlawful surveillance and it stops this President, or any President, for that matter, from invoking executive power to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. This bill does more than just retain the original FISA requirements for an individual warrant based upon probable cause for surveillance targeting Americans here in the United States. For the first time ever, this bill requires in statute warrants for Americans anywhere in the world. It also requires the government to establish clear guidelines to ensure that no American is the target of any surveillance without a warrant. It clarifies that FISA and Title 18, the Criminal Code, are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct domestic surveillance. It will prohibit any unlawful, warrantless wiretapping, the kind we saw under this administration. It provides accountability by requiring the inspectors general of various agencies to compile a comprehensive report on the President's surveillance program and that review must be given to Congress. It requires prior court approval of the procedures used to conduct surveillance of foreign targets, except in an emergency, similar to the current FISA law. This legislation, Madam Speaker, also addresses the issue of lawsuits against telecommunications companies that comply with directives from our government. This bill does not grant immunity to any government official who might have violated the law, and this bill does not grant automatic immunity to telecom companies, as the Senate bill would have. Under this legislation, a Federal District Court will review the evidence submitted by the Attorney General and then the court will decide whether to grant civil liability and protection to a company that provided post-9/11 assistance to the government. This bill does not grant immunity. Congress isn't deciding the question of immunity; the District Court will. Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill will sunset in 4\1/2\ years, ensuring that the next administration will be in a position to assess and review the effectiveness of this legislation. This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise, and, as such, both sides got less than they wanted. But it is a product of a good faith effort by both Republicans and Democrats to give our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to keep America safe, while protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this very important piece of legislation. In addition, Chairman Reyes submitted the following views for the Record: Exigent Circumstances Prior court review is an absolutely integral part of this bill, but we have also crafted an ``exigent circumstances'' circumstances provision that allows the Administration to commence surveillance immediately in an emergency. This provision should be invoked rarely, if at all. In the normal course of events, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will have ample time to submit applications for surveillance to the FISA Court for its approval before initiating a particular surveillance. When used, this exception should be for purposes of a true emergency, involving unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances. I consider this to be limited to situations where the intelligence sought would serve a critical function in protecting national security and where the failure to act immediately would result in the loss of what might be the only opportunity to collect the information in question. The Intelligence Committee intends to engage in regular and vigorous oversight of these new authorities and, in particular, the use of the ``exigent circumstances'' exception to ensure that the important protections in this bill are not circumvented. ``Reverse Targeting'' The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 regularly uses the term ``targeting.'' We intend this term to mean more than simply the process of selecting a telephone number or an e-mail address to surveil. Rather, it is meant to describe the process of purposely acquiring communications of or information about a specific individual. It is in this context that Section 702(b)(2) prohibits what is generally referred to as ``reverse targeting.'' In our discussions with the intelligence agencies, they have agreed that this language prohibits the targeting of one or more persons overseas where the purpose is to acquire the communications of or information about a U.S. person or any specific person reasonably believed to be inside the United States. Accordingly, Section 702(f) requires that the government adopt guidelines to ensure that this does not occur. Inadvertent Collection of U.S.-Person Information Because of the nature of the new surveillance authorities granted under this bill, we were particularly concerned about the potential for a significant increase in the inadvertent collection of U.S.-person communications and information. For that reason, we have adopted several oversight provisions that require the Intelligence Community to report to Congress on the number of targets later determined to have been located inside the United States, the number of disseminated intelligence reports that contain U.S.-person information, and the number of disseminated intelligence reports that contain information identifying specific U.S. persons. The Intelligence Committee plans to conduct vigorous oversight of the reports. Exclusivity The exclusivity provision of this bill is extremely important. This language is designed to prevent any future efforts to conduct surveillance that is not authorized by statute. The bill not only establishes that FISA and Title 18 are the exclusive means of conducting surveillance, it requires that any future authorization for surveillance must be explicitly established in statute. The language should in no way be read to imply that there is an inherent power to conduct surveillance beyond what is expressly authorized by statute. In particular, the language in Section 102(c)(l)(ii) should be read to require citation to specific statutory authority in all certifications for assistance in conducting electronic surveillance issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B). Sunset This bill is set to expire on December 31, 2012. During the next four years, Congress will continue to assess the surveillance activities of the U.S. Government and assess whether additional changes need to enacted before the sunset date to correct any deficiencies or problems that arise. Civil Liability Provisions The provisions in title II of this bill establish a meaningful court review to determine whether telecommunications companies should be protected from civil liability for assistance provided to the government. It is important to state that these provisions are not intended to imply in any way that the President's conduct in connection with the President's warrantless surveillance program was lawful or to excuse the conduct of any government official that might have violated the law. Further, no telecommunications company should interpret these provisions to imply that Congress will act in the future to seek the dismissal of any other lawsuits charging improper conduct in connection with surveillance activities. Rather, Congress considers the tragic events of 9/11 to be a unique set of circumstances that require special consideration. As a general matter, we expect companies and private citizens to respect the rule of law and to require the same of its government. With respect to the applicable legal standard, we intend ``substantial evidence'' to apply not only to a finding that assistance was provided in response to a request that meets the standard of this bill. That standard should also apply where the court is asked to determine that the alleged assistance was not provided. A simple declaration from the Government or the defendant that the alleged assistance did not occur should be deemed insufficient where there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Similarly, when the Government alleges that a surveillance program was ``designed'' (as opposed to ``intended'') to detect and prevent terrorism, the court should examine the evidence to assess the scope of the program and determine, where appropriate, that indiscriminate surveillance that acquires the communications of millions of Americans is not truly ``designed'' to detect or prevent terrorism. Finally, these provisions should also not be interpreted to remove the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of the process this bill establishes.

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

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. Jane Harman, who is the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. REYES. I grant the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on all sides.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) who serves as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence on our Intelligence Committee.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a valued member of our Intelligence Committee. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. I grant the gentleman another 15 seconds.