Motion to Go to Conference on H.R. Usa Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The information I had was, as the chairman has indicated, that the gentleman who just spoke appeared before the Rules Committee in support of this bill. And we can get the transcript. I don't have it right now, but perhaps somebody can get that transcript for me.

For my entire career in public service, I have supported efforts to make America both strong and safe and a force for peace and reconciliation. In the course of those years, I have striven to draw an acceptable balance between our national security and the protection of our personal liberty and the right to privacy central to our unique extraordinary democracy; a government of laws, not men.

Pursuant to that principle, as the majority leader, I scheduled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for floor consideration over 2 months ago.

Previously, in 2008, Roy Blunt, then the minority whip, and myself, the majority leader; Senator Kit Bond, Senator from Missouri; and Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia, worked together, at a time of great controversy with respect to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to forge a bill that would garner bipartisan support. It was a difficult bill, with the same kind of principle differences that Chairman Nadler spoke of earlier and I am going to speak about again.

We passed that bill in a bipartisan fashion with, as we have today, people on the right and people on the left concerned about its content. So there was bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. Speaker Pelosi and to-be President Obama, then in the Senate representing Illinois, voted for that bill. I have tried to continue to forge that balance through the years.

The bill I brought to the floor a few months ago was a bipartisan effort to achieve that critical balance, and when it came to a vote, it received two-thirds of the votes from both Democrats and Republicans. This bill essentially had two-thirds of the votes on the Republican side and two-thirds of the votes on the Democratic side, so obviously, two-thirds of the votes of this House.

As I observed yesterday, Americans must have been heartened by the fact that we could reach a bipartisan agreement on such a difficult bill. It was not a partisan bill. The leaders, all three top leaders, on both sides of the aisle supported, essentially, this bill.

That bill, upon Senate consideration, was amended by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to strengthen the protections of privacy, which should have been heartening to those on the right and the left, and it was certainly heartening to me.

And then, what did they do? They passed it, with 80 Senators, 48 Republicans supporting this bill; 48 out of 53 supporting this bill. But this is not a partisan bill; and this bill is about that balance.

Mr. Nunes and Mr. Schiff supported this bill and supported this balance. And two-thirds of us made a judgment that they had done a job worthy of support.

So two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate, two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate, two-thirds of the Republicans in this House, and two-thirds of the Democrats in this House have supported this bill. I believe that support was garnered because an assumption was made, a premise was adopted by the overwhelming majority of us, that it was a carefully crafted balance between security and individual liberties. It may not be perfect, but we have a responsibility to protect this country and our people.

In consultation, therefore, with other leaders, I scheduled this bill for consideration yesterday. The night before, I got a call from my friend, the minority leader, that the President was urging Republicans in the House to change their votes to ``no.''

In the twinkling of a presidential tweet, without any substantive logic to justify their actions, I was told that the 126 Republicans who had voted for this bill when it was considered in the House would now change their votes and vote ``no.''

Chairman Nadler has said this, and I want to share this because it is worth repeating. I believe when FISA passed the House in March, every Member, those who voted ``yes'' and those who voted ``no'' voted their principles and their conviction on what they believed was in the security interests of the United States. Every one of the 435 people--I don't think there were quite 435--that voted on that bill, in my view, voted on principle and out of conviction.

I, of course, believed that the two-thirds of the Members who voted for the bill, on principle, and pursuant to conviction about making this country safe, were voting, not for party, but for principle.

Therefore, I was surprised because I saw, not then nor now, any reason that either principle or conviction should be changed, particularly in light of the fact that 80 Senators--80 Senators--48 Republican colleagues of yours, Madam Speaker, voted for this bill.

Therefore, I assumed that we could bring Members back. We had a controversy where some didn't come back. We had a new rule you don't like. We could bring the Congress back and vote on a bipartisan bill for America.

But, as a result of the President's antipathy toward Federal law enforcement and his personal sense of grievance, authorities that have expired will continue to be lapsed.

The complicity of those who believe that the reauthorizing of these authorities was in the best interest of the United States, in preventing its passage last night and today, is, I think, both sad and irresponsible.

Madam Speaker, I regret that we did not bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

This is a result, in my view, Madam Speaker, of patently political and indefensible abandonment of principle and responsibility, both as a coequal branch of government and its policymaking branch as well.

Madam Speaker, we need to send this bill to conference. I urge my colleagues to vote to send it to conference. And if you think this needs to be perfected in some way, as Mr. Nadler said, that is the place to do it now that we are not going to have it on the floor.

Let me repeat. I would have had it on the floor. But we will not get an opportunity to vote on it, so I will wait to see the result of a conference with the Republican-led Senate on the bill that the President has threatened to veto.

Two-thirds of us believed that this was a bill that was good for America. This is a serious issue with serious consequences, and I urge you to vote ``yes.'' Do not kill this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is testimony dated 5/27/2020. I am going to read you some passages from that testimony:

``Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this important legislation.''

I will go down, skip a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps he will want to point those out.

``Fortunately,'' the gentleman said, ``this bill makes important structural reforms to the program to combat abuses.''

He then said: ``Most importantly, this bill includes accountability measures.''

He went on to say: ``It also includes reforms that strengthen Congress' oversight powers.''

``Finally,'' he said, ``I would like to thank Senators Lee and Leahy for their amendment to the House-passed bill which strengthens the amicus role in these proceedings by extending them to any sensitive investigative matter involving any U.S. persons. And I also fully support this inclusion as well of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment,'' which is not on the bill, ``to limit the FBI's ability to obtain internet browsing history of Americans.''

I am trying to find a word of opposition to this bill, clearly, taken by the Rules Committee as support of the passage of this bill.

My, my, my. As I have pointed out earlier, the consequences of a twinkling of a tweet from the President of the United States: Like that, changing the votes of 126 people, whom I believed voted on principle and on conviction for this bill for America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source