Jim Jordan And Jamie Raskin Discuss Major FISA Legislation

[0:14] I now welcome our third panel, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, from the Committee [0:20] on Judiciary. [0:21] Your full statement will be submitted for the record. [0:24] We ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. [0:27] Chairman Jordan, I welcome your testimony. [0:29] Thank you. [0:30] Thank you, Madam Chair. [0:31] The Judiciary Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the FISA program, and we've [0:36] seen a huge change from just a few years ago when Congress last reauthorized Section 702 [0:41] in the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. [0:44] That law contained 56 different reforms to the FISA law, including Title I and 702, which [0:52] is up, as we all know, for reauthorization now, included new training process, approval requirements [0:58] before running a U.S. person query. [1:02] There were audit requirements, including audit requirements and accountability measures for [1:07] those who misuse the program, and enhanced reporting and transparency. [1:10] In fact, we get some reports now on the number of U.S. persons who were searched in the database [1:15] every quarter. [1:18] These reporting and transparency requirements, such as allowing certain members of Congress [1:21] and staff to attend Foreign Intelligence Court proceedings. [1:25] And the results are good. [1:27] In 2021, before RISA was enacted, the FBI reported conducting nearly 3 million U.S. person queries. [1:34] An audit of those queries found that 278,000 times they did not comply with the rules. [1:41] I think this is important. [1:42] Just a few years ago, because of what we were requesting the inspector general to look at, [1:48] we found that they were doing 3 million queries in one year, and 278,000 times in that respective [1:56] year, they didn't follow the rules. [1:57] They didn't follow their own rules. [1:59] FBI agents ran queries on protesters, donors to congressional campaigns, public officials, [2:05] journalists, colleagues, and ex-girlfriends. [2:07] But today, the story is totally different, totally different. [2:11] In the year after we passed our law, last year, the FBI reported conducting just 9,089 [2:19] U.S. person queries, from 3 million to 9,000. [2:22] Of those 9,000, 127 did not comply with the rules. [2:25] And most of those 127 were clerical errors, typo errors, when they were going through the [2:30] process. [2:31] 2026 is not 2024. [2:34] Thanks to RISA, improper queries have fallen from the recent high of 278,000 to 127. [2:40] And due to the improved reporting required by the law, Congress has more insight than [2:44] ever into the program's operation. [2:48] Today, U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI are audited to ensure compliance with applicable [2:52] requirements and standards. [2:55] The results of those audits and other information are provided to Congress on an annual, semi-annual, [3:00] and as I said earlier, even quarterly basis. [3:03] We are also all aware of the state of the world right now. [3:07] Multiple recent ISIS-inspired attacks here in the United States, military operations in [3:11] both Venezuela and Iran, the 702 program is incredibly important for protecting our national [3:17] security and advancing our interests abroad. [3:20] In light of the progress that has been made and the threats we face, we think a temporary, [3:26] short-term extension of the program makes sense now. [3:31] That does not mean our job is over. [3:33] The Judiciary Committee will continue to conduct aggressive oversight of FISA, just like we've [3:37] done for the past five years. [3:38] And we will continue to work on some things that we think will be helpful in the future. [3:43] But again, 2026 is not 2024, and a short-term clean extension of the 702 part of FISA law [3:51] is an acceptable outcome for the situation that we find ourselves in. [3:54] I think it's interesting that we're talking—I'll finish with this, Madam Chair—that we're [3:59] talking months, not years. [4:01] We're not talking a 10-year reauthorization. [4:03] We're not talking a five-year reauthorization. [4:04] We're talking 18 months after 56 reforms that have definitely worked while we're facing [4:13] the threats that we face and while we're involved in the military conflicts that we're [4:16] involved with. [4:17] Again, I would urge a yes vote for the legislation. [4:20] With that, we'd yield back. [4:22] Thank you, Chairman Jordan. [4:24] Ranking Member Raskin. [4:25] Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, and thank you, Mr. McGovern. [4:28] I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Jordan, who's really done more to educate me on FISA [4:34] 702 than anybody. [4:38] But I want to ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing President [4:42] Trump and Stephen Miller's so-called clean extension of Section 702 of FISA. [4:48] The clean extension is a dirty deal. [4:50] The bill before us today leaves the Trump administration in charge of policing its own [4:54] abuses of this sweeping authority. [4:58] That is going to be unacceptable to the American people who understand how our privacy rights [5:02] and civil liberties are being trampled every day. [5:05] FISA needs independent guardrails, and my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee acknowledge as [5:11] much. [5:12] Simply put, we must reform FISA to protect our privacy and civil liberties and ensure that [5:17] Section 702 will not be used to spy illegally on Americans. [5:22] Many of you know that I voted in 2024, with most House Democrats and most House Republicans, [5:28] to reauthorize Section 702 without a warrant requirement. [5:31] At the time, I was persuaded that the specific reforms adopted by the Biden administration and [5:36] codified in the 2024 reauthorization, as the Chairman explains, would provide sufficient [5:42] safeguards against government abuse of the privacy rights and civil liberties of the people. [5:47] These reforms relied on internal watchdogs to keep the intelligence agencies in line and [5:53] on the administration to accurately report its own abuses to Congress and to the courts. [6:00] But those reforms now depend on Trump administration officials to respect the law, which is, I am afraid, [6:07] oxymoronic, if not just moronic. [6:11] After returning to the White House, Donald Trump quickly removed the Office of Internal Auditing, [6:16] the internal watchdogs charged with verifying FBI's representations that the reforms are actually [6:24] being put into place. [6:26] President Trump then illegally fired a majority of the members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties [6:32] Oversight Board, which was set up as an independent body to guarantee the privacy [6:38] and civil liberties of the people in the operation of FISA. [6:43] The Department of Justice then reassigned other key compliance personnel. [6:48] The FBI shut down its independent compliance office. [6:54] The administration's recent claim that FBI compliance exceeded 99% in both 2024 and 2025 might [7:01] be true, but the people charged with checking this claim are gone. [7:07] And even 1% noncompliance, if they are to be trusted, could mean that the data of thousands [7:13] of American citizens has been illegally accessed and compromised by the FBI. [7:18] And the truth is that the FBI has no idea how many times its analysts have accessed U.S. [7:23] person information in the last year. [7:25] As we speak, the intelligence community is using a system that the FISA court itself has deemed [7:30] unlawful and inconsistent with the statute. [7:33] The details of this case remain inexplicably classified. [7:38] And the DOJ seems to be waiting until the last possible minute to indicate whether the government [7:43] will fix this problem or appeal the decision. [7:46] But the point is that the agencies appear to have constructed a way to work around the prior [7:51] guardrails that we put in place. [7:53] And neither DOJ nor ODNI has any way to count how many times that workaround has actually been [8:00] used, 99% compliance maybe, but only if you think the FBI has come up with a way to give [8:06] us an accurate count, and only if you trust Kash Patel to give us an honest self-assessment [8:12] in the first place. [8:13] Look, times have changed since 2024. [8:16] The watchdogs are gone. [8:19] We cannot take at face value the representations of an administration that routinely violates Americans' [8:24] constitutional rights, lies to federal judges, and defies court orders. [8:29] Those who argue for a blank check are telling the American people they can rely on Kash Patel [8:34] to report to Congress when the FBI abuses its 702 authorities. [8:39] Can we really trust them to operate Section 702 consistent with the law? [8:46] Without proper guardrails, U.S. person information is ripe for abuse. [8:52] It can and has been abused to spy on American citizens. [8:55] In 2022, the FISA court detailed an historical pattern of non-compliant inquiries, queries [9:01] at the FBI. [9:03] Improper searches swept in elected officials, campaign donors, and Black Lives Matter protesters, [9:07] among others. [9:09] President Trump has made it clear he's in favor of mass surveillance. [9:13] His administration has built profiles on American citizens, demanded that AI companies assist [9:18] the government in mass surveillance, and paid Palantir hundreds of millions of dollars to [9:22] build a mega database of Americans' personal data. [9:26] The President has made clear he sees FISA as a tool a President can abuse to spy on his [9:31] political opponents. [9:32] How can we possibly trust him to operate Section 702 consistent with the law? [9:37] Madam Chair, we've got time to get this right. [9:40] Saying no on the clean reauthorization does not mean 702 suddenly turns off in April. [9:45] FISA allows existing certifications to continue past the sunset, and the FISA court has certified [9:51] 702 programs through March of next year. [9:54] It's nonsensical to think that the administration, which has gutted so many internal oversight functions, [10:00] engaged in mass surveillance, and daily violates people's rights, can be trusted to police itself [10:05] with this sweeping authority. [10:07] Congress must enact strong guardrails on 702. [10:10] Let's start by opposing a clean reauthorization. [10:13] I will vote no when this comes to the floor later this week. [10:16] If it does, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I thank you very much, Madam Chair. [10:19] Thank you very much, Mr. Raskin. [10:23] Mr. Jordan, do you want to respond to anything that Mr. Raskin has said? [10:32] Well, my friend from Maryland talked about all these abuses. [10:35] All the abuses happened when Democrats were in the White House. [10:38] I mean, the numbers I gave you, the 278,000 times that didn't follow the rules, that was [10:42] in the previous administration. [10:44] Go back to Title I. [10:45] Go back to 2016. [10:48] We all know what happened. [10:50] We all know that the Clinton campaign, the Democrat campaign, hired the law firm Perkins [10:54] Cooey, who hired the public relations firm Fusion GPS, who hired a foreigner, Christopher [10:58] Steele, who then wrote a document. [11:01] They gave the fancy name dossier that was used by the Obama administration, the Comey [11:05] FBI, to go take it to the FISA court. [11:08] Again, this is Title I, but this was abuse, took it to the secret court, lied to the court, [11:14] got the warrant to go spy on the other party's campaign. [11:16] That happened in American politics, in American election. [11:19] So, you know, you talk about times have changed. [11:23] They have. [11:24] We went from 278,000 times the 702 program was abused, where they didn't follow the rules, [11:29] to 127. [11:30] I would argue that's a result of the good work of the Congress. [11:33] In the RISA Act we passed two years ago, they had the 56 reform. [11:36] So, yeah, times have changed. [11:37] I think they've changed for much better, and that's why I'm not opposed to a short-term, [11:42] 18-month extension. [11:48] What is your response to Mr. Raskin saying that we're not facing a deadline of April 20th, [12:01] but that this can go on because we've heard this today? [12:06] If we reauthorize the rules. [12:08] I've heard that argument. [12:10] I never try to get in too many debates with the constitutional law professor, Mr. Raskin, [12:15] but you know that's going to get challenged in court. [12:18] If we don't reauthorize the law and there's no reauthorization of the 702 program and the [12:24] administration is simply banking on what the FISA court said when they approved the rules [12:29] presented to the FISA court, I think that's going to get challenged in court. [12:32] We probably don't want that when we're in the middle of two conflicts and we've had multiple [12:39] terrorist attacks and threats here on the homeland. [12:42] So, I think that is a big concern, and I would argue better to reauthorize, much better to [12:47] reauthorize. [12:48] That's what the deadline is next Tuesday. [12:49] So, I would argue we should do that versus going to court and having the fight in the [12:53] court. [12:55] One more question. [12:56] Can you expand on the non-compliant queries conducted by the FBI that were discovered [13:03] due to the accountability reforms implemented from RISA? [13:10] So I think you're asking, now that we've passed the bill, there's been a handful. [13:14] Most of those were just typos, different clerical mistakes in the process. [13:19] They got to get approval from someone. [13:21] Maybe they didn't get the official sign off from someone before they did the query. [13:25] It could be those kind of things. [13:26] So it's relatively minor versus what we saw before when they were doing searches of members [13:31] of Congress. [13:32] They were doing searches on donors, on journalists, on Black Lives Matter people, on people who [13:37] were here January 6th. [13:38] So they were doing those kind of things, which I know the ranking member would agree, that's [13:44] not how it works under our Constitution. [13:47] So those are the concerns now. [13:50] And even better now, we have consequences. [13:54] If you're a member, if you're an employee at the FBI and you engage in doing things wrong, [13:59] you can be held to account. [14:02] And what are those penalties? [14:04] All the way up to termination. [14:06] It could be termination. [14:08] Now, so those are, you know, first, do you not follow? [14:13] There could be marks on their record. [14:14] It could be terminated if they're not following the rules that are getting proved by the court [14:18] before they, on the front end. [14:19] Thank you, Mr. Jordan. [14:20] You bet. [14:22] Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. [14:24] You know, I have a tough time believing this administration cares about accountability. [14:30] You know, I can't get over the fact that they pardoned everybody who attacked this building [14:36] on January 6th. [14:37] I'll never get over that. [14:38] They're beating up cops and with almost no resistance from the Republicans here. [14:44] And, you know, when you talk about short-term extensions, we talk about short-term extensions, [14:50] I think about a month, you know, or six weeks or eight weeks. [14:53] I don't think about a year and a half. [14:55] That doesn't strike me as a short-term extension. [14:58] But before I get to my questions, Mr. Raskin, do you have anything you want to add? [15:02] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. [15:06] Well, first of all, I take your point about a short-term extension being something like a [15:13] week. [15:14] We talk about a year or two weeks. [15:15] 18 months seems like a lot longer. [15:18] It seems like an attempt to entrench this law without the protections that a lot of people [15:25] on a bipartisan basis think we need. [15:27] I guess, you know, my reaction to Mr. Jordan, I think, reflects the whole reason why we need [15:36] to have a Bill of Rights and categorical rights. [15:39] Because, you know, when your party's in, you kind of see no wrong. [15:44] And I'm not putting this on my friend, Mr. Jordan. [15:46] I'm saying everybody, right? [15:47] It's very easy. [15:48] I mean, go back to, you know, Jefferson and the Democrat Republicans versus the Federalists. [15:55] When John Adams was in, they could see everything wrong that Adams was doing with the Alien and [16:00] Sedition Acts and attacking people's civil liberties and privacy rights. [16:04] And then when Jefferson was president, the other side saw everything that they were doing wrong [16:09] in terms of curtailing people's rights. [16:11] That's why we need the law, because the human mind is a fragile instrument. [16:16] We see things through our own perspective. [16:18] And so, you know, I want to thank Mr. Jordan who really educated me a lot about what's really [16:23] going on with FISA and 702 and why it's so important to have these protections built into [16:29] the process. [16:30] And what we've gotten instead, as I pointed out, was a dismantling of the Office of Internal [16:34] Auditing, a sacking of, I think, every member but one of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight [16:40] Board, and then a transfer out of the personnel who are actually looking at it. [16:44] So that sets us up ripe for abuse. [16:47] And that would be true regardless of who's president, but especially, I would say, from [16:51] my perspective, a president who has done so much to trample the civil rights and civil [16:57] liberties of law firms, lawyers, colleges, universities, immigrants, citizens protesting [17:06] in Minnesota. [17:07] It just doesn't show the kind of sensitivity to people's privacy rights and civil liberties [17:12] rights that we need. [17:13] Mr. Jordan, let me ask you. [17:16] I mean, we're the Rules Committee. [17:18] I mean, I think 25 amendments have been submitted to the committee. [17:24] You know, the issue is, you know, for this committee, you know, and obviously, as chair [17:29] of the Judiciary Committee, your voice matters here with the majority. [17:34] I mean, do you support a full and open debate on all those amendments? [17:41] And specifically, do you support the Biggs Amendment number three, the warrant requirement? [17:46] Is that something you support? [17:47] I'm for—I mean, that's up to you guys to decide what amendments— [17:50] It's really not up to us. [17:51] That's a good combo that people do this all the time. [17:54] I thought that's how it worked. [17:55] The Rules Committee decides what rules— [17:56] Everything is carefully coordinated. [17:57] —how the rules works and what amendments are made in order. [17:58] I mean, but—but do you support the Biggs Amendment number three? [18:00] I'm for—I'm for a clean reauthorization, as I said before, because, you know, I understand [18:07] you guys said clean short-term is a shorter time period. [18:10] But 18 months is one of the shortest reauthorizations I've ever seen. [18:12] Well, that's a year and a half. [18:13] It's too long for me. [18:14] But do you—the question I asked was not whether a year and a half is too long or not. [18:18] The question is, do you support the Biggs Amendment number three, the warrant requirement? [18:23] And—and you don't want to seem to answer that, but— [18:25] No, I'm—I'm fine with the clean—as I said before, I'm fine with the clean— [18:29] Oh, so you do not support it. [18:30] Now, if—if the reforms that we put in place, if we find out there's abuse in the future, [18:34] we may have to come—we may have to relook at that thing. [18:36] I—I get that. [18:37] But I am satisfied with the position we're in right now— [18:39] So you do not support— [18:40] Clean reauthorization is fine. [18:41] All right. [18:42] So you do not—the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not support the Biggs Amendment [18:46] number three— [18:47] As I've said multiple times, I'm fine with the clean reauthorization for short-term. [18:49] So—and I guess the question is, you know, clean extension or not, I mean, would you [18:54] at least support allowing the Biggs Amendment to get an up or down vote on the floor? [18:59] I mean, why can't—I mean, I—why can't we in the House decide this? [19:02] Why—why—why—why is it up to you and— [19:04] Well, I think you're going to get a chance later—later this evening. [19:06] I mean, you get a chance to vote. [19:07] You guys are going to decide. [19:08] How—where? [19:09] On the floor? [19:10] No, right here. [19:11] You're going to decide what amendments are in order. [19:12] Yeah, I don't want to vote, but I don't know. [19:13] We have one, two, three, four compared to nine. [19:15] I mean, I could tell you how—how this is going to work. [19:17] Well, when you guys were in charge, I think it was nine to four. [19:19] It's just the other way around. [19:20] That's how it works. [19:21] I don't want to vote to make the Biggs Amendment in order. [19:23] The question is—the question is, do you believe that we should have an up or down vote on this? [19:28] And the answer— [19:29] I leave—I leave—I leave that to the—the Congress and the House and the way it works. [19:32] I take that as a no. [19:33] I take that as a no. [19:34] I—you know what I mean? [19:35] You know, we all talk about democracy and, you know, that—you know, this—that we're supposed [19:39] to be a model for the rest of the world and we're supposed to debate important issues seriously [19:43] and passionately. [19:44] But again, we—you know, under Republican leadership, this has become the most closed Congress in history. [19:51] You know, more bills go to the floor with no amendments in order. [19:55] And on something like FISA, on issues of warrants, on issues of privacy, I mean, people feel strongly about that. [20:02] Not just people on the Judiciary Committee— [20:03] I understand. [20:04] —not just people on the Rules Committee or on the Intelligence Committee, but others feel strongly about it. [20:08] And the idea that somehow it's an imposition to ask that we debate and vote on it on the House floor, [20:14] that everybody has an opportunity—that that's just too much? [20:17] Boy, this place is— [20:18] I didn't use imposition. [20:19] I didn't use that word. [20:20] Well, I mean, you're—you're basically saying no, Mr. Raskin. [20:24] But I think the House of Representatives should absolutely debate that, discuss it, analyze it, and vote on it. [20:30] And I think, you know, that that would be perfectly within our power and rights and duty to send that forward. [20:39] You know, it's interesting. [20:41] A number of courts, including the FISA Court, have found that a search warrant requirement is not constitutionally required in this context. [20:49] The Supreme Court has not opined on it and analyzed the whole issue. [20:55] But, you know, I think this is something that Congress itself should be debating and trying to understand. [21:03] This is a time when people's civil liberties and people's civil rights really are under attack. [21:08] And I think that we should be debating. [21:10] The critical thing is that, one way or another, we need to have judges involved before there are searches of American persons taking place. [21:19] You know, even if the courts are right that you don't need to have a warrant, at the very least, [21:23] a judge has got to be interposed between the FBI and just doing a search of Americans. [21:29] And going back to the Biggs Amendment, just for a second. [21:31] I mean, correct me if my mind is failing me, but we have voted on that previously, right? [21:37] Yes, indeed. [21:38] And if I remember correctly, it was a tie vote? [21:41] Well, 2-12. [21:42] Yeah. [21:43] Yeah. [21:44] And, you know, how did you vote on that? [21:46] I voted for it. [21:47] Yeah, you voted for it, but now you're against it. [21:49] Well, it's funny how things change, because I think Mr. Raskin voted against it. [21:52] I voted against it, and now I'm for it. [21:54] I voted for it. [21:55] Which might explain why we need it. [21:57] I guess I'm the only consistent thing. [21:59] To the ranking member, I voted for it after we saw 278,000 abuses of the rules, their own rules. [22:07] Now we have much less abuse, much problem, 127 most in Colorado. [22:11] So things have changed for the better, and I'm saying short-term. [22:13] I can live with that, and if things get bad again, I'll be right back here advocating for additional change. [22:18] If I could address that, I mean, you know, gullibility is not a quality I usually associate with Mr. Jordan, but I don't know how he knows that the issues have been solved here. [22:30] It seems like he's taking the word of Kash Patel, because all of the real monitors and watchdogs have been fired and sacked and driven out of the building. [22:38] I take the word of the inspector general, something we all agree with. [22:42] Inspector generals do the work in all these agencies. [22:44] If I can reclaim my time, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it was a tie vote previously. [22:50] It was. [22:51] And, you know, it's clear that people have strong opinions about this, and it's clear that people have a lot of concerns. [23:01] And I guess the issue is if you want to vote no on it this time, that's your prerogative. [23:05] But you can tell the chairwoman right now that you think that the Biggs Amendment should be made in order, and we can have that debate, and I'm sure that it will be made in order. [23:13] We can have that debate, and we can have that vote. [23:15] I will vote for the Biggs Amendment. [23:16] I did before. [23:17] I want to do it again. [23:18] But, I mean, the idea that given you know how tight that was in the last go around, why not give people that same opportunity this time? [23:28] Well, I don't know about the ranking member, but I've found that just because I might suggest something to Chairman Fox doesn't mean she's going to do it. [23:34] She makes up her own mind. [23:35] And I know the folks in North Carolina understand that as well. [23:38] Well, I mean, I would say maybe the Speaker could make the judgment, but every time he's asked by a reporter about any question, he says he doesn't know anything about it. [23:47] So I'm not sure whether he'd weigh in on this or not. [23:50] I'm just simply saying that this is an important matter to people. [23:54] Quite frankly, not just Democrats, but for a lot of Republicans. [24:00] And I know there are a lot of Republicans that would vote for the Biggs Amendment. [24:03] Yeah. [24:04] Including Mr. Biggs, who would lead the charge. [24:06] But, I mean, I know a lot of Republicans would. [24:07] Well. [24:08] This is not like a, you know, a side issue. [24:10] All I'm suggesting is that we ought to have a, here's a radical idea, we ought to debate it and vote on it. [24:15] Yeah. [24:16] You know, and that's my recommendation. [24:18] Clearly. [24:19] I'm not saying it's not an important matter. [24:20] I think it is an important matter. [24:21] That's why I've spent years, years reforming this program. [24:26] And we have done a number of reforms that all of us participated in getting done. [24:31] And I think that has made a world of difference. [24:33] And for a short-term 18-month extension, at the point we find ourselves in America right now, [24:38] with conflicts going on overseas, with terrorist attacks on the country, I think this is important. [24:43] Because it's a foreign intelligence surveillance program. [24:47] We need to be listening to what foreigners might be up to, what they might try to do to our country. [24:51] If you're so convinced that everybody believes that this bill is perfect, [24:54] then, you know, put the Biggs Amendment on the floor and let people vote it down, if that's the case. [25:00] That's all I'm saying. [25:01] Mr. Raskin? [25:02] Well, wartime is the time when people's civil liberties and privacy rights are most offended and most violated. [25:09] So this would suggest the fact that we're in a war, and indeed a war that was never declared by Congress, [25:16] has never been authorized by Congress, suggests to me that we need to zealously protect the civil liberties and civil rights of the people. [25:24] Let's vote on this stuff. [25:25] I yield back. [25:27] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. [25:28] Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized. [25:30] Thank you, Madam Chair. [25:34] You know, there have been serious concerns about the abuse of some of these things in the past. [25:41] And I think you pointed out very well that they were of the past administration. [25:47] And there was numerous, 56, as I recall, in 2024. [25:52] We did those reforms. [25:53] They are taking place now. [25:55] And I appreciate them. [25:57] They increased transparency, oversight, accountability. [26:00] There's a lot going on there, and very helpful reforms. [26:04] And so I appreciate that. [26:07] And so I do support the short-term clean extension, because I think it makes sense at this point. [26:12] And Mr. Chair, I was just wondering if maybe, you know, you mentioned, you kind of briefly mentioned, you know, [26:19] maybe some military actions going on or military things going on. [26:22] Mm-hmm. [26:23] And can you speak about why this extension is so important right now? [26:27] And given the DHS Democrat shutdown right now, and so I'm wondering if you could maybe talk about the importance of it with those things going on. [26:37] No, great point. [26:38] I mean, we can't necessarily say this, can't talk about much in this room, but we've all been to the briefings where we hear from key people in the administration, [26:45] the director of the CIA, the director of the FBI, head of ODNI, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they all talk about how important this program is. [26:53] We want our government to listen to what bad guys are doing overseas. [26:56] I always say this is a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, two sections, Title I, 702. [27:01] So we want that to happen. [27:02] We are concerned about when Americans, when there's queries done on Americans, and that's why we put the 56 reforms in, [27:08] and we're going to continue to watch this, as I said before. [27:11] But you have this environment that we're in, involved in Venezuela, this military conflict in Iran, [27:18] the numerous threats we've had here and terrorist attacks we've had here in the United States. [27:23] You have all this going on, and oh, by the way, the Democrats have shut down part of DHS for, what, 50, 58 days. [27:30] So I think that is, in that environment, I think that just underscores what we've talked about already. [27:36] And thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think given what you've just mentioned, but the environment and situations we're in right now, [27:44] this, and it's a short term, 18 months, and making sure that we have this taken care of by April 20th, [27:53] I think is incredibly important. [27:55] So I thank you for bringing it forward, and I yield back. [27:59] Thank you. [28:00] Thank you, Ms. Fishbach. [28:01] Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized. [28:02] Thank you, Madam Chair. [28:04] You know, for the last three years, reforming FISA has been one of the rare areas of bipartisan agreement on the Judiciary Committee. [28:11] So I am a little disappointed to see Mr. Jordan's change of heart because he has been a steadfast supporter of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. [28:20] For anyone not convinced about the need to strengthen the Fourth Amendment and the need to reevaluate the laws governing intel collection, [28:28] right now, under the Trump administration, we're seeing precisely the kinds of abuses that are made possible when Congress gives up too much authority to the government, allowing it to survey its citizens. [28:40] We have seen, under the authority of National Security Presidential Memo 7, which was issued last September, [28:47] the Trump administration weaponizing the government to spy on and target American citizens on the basis of their speech. [28:55] They're surveilling protesters who oppose the administration policies. [29:00] They're surveilling people who have beliefs that conservatives simply don't like. [29:04] These are the types of abuses that concern the drafters of the Bill of Rights, and I think they'd be horrified to see what's happening in America today. [29:12] Look, we all share concerns about our national security, particularly as the President has started a war in the Middle East without authorization and apparently without any clear goals or objectives. [29:25] And we're also concerned about national security because for six weeks or more, our House Republican colleagues have refused to fund DHS. [29:36] They have rejected a unanimous Senate bill that would have funded DHS. [29:41] They have refused to take yes for an answer, so yes, there are legitimate national security concerns. [29:47] But during both the last FISA reauthorization and today, there are sensible reforms on the table to ensure that we continue to collect valuable intelligence while also preserving Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. [30:00] And so those reforms should be allowed a vote. [30:03] I oppose the bill as it is. [30:05] I would ask the Chair and the majority that as we consider the rule later today, we make in order the amendments that have been mentioned. [30:12] Mr. Biggs' number three amendment, which would have a warrant requirement, and his number four amendment, which would prevent the government from buying bulk data, again, without a warrant when targeting individuals. [30:24] Mr. Ruskin, is there anything else you want to add? [30:27] I thought you captured it nicely, Ms. Gallen. [30:30] I would say it's easy to support oversight and scrutiny when the other team is in power. [30:35] And we passed all of those dozens of bipartisan reforms together when President Biden was in office, and we began to make progress on an inherently vulnerable context within FISA. [30:53] But President Trump came in, dismantled the Office of Internal Auditing, dismantled the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, ousted the critical monitors, clearly views it as a place where there was political abuse before, and thinks it's ripe as an instrument for political abuse. [31:12] I am willing to say that it is an instrument that we must protect against any President and any team that gets in, but I would definitely oppose a clean reauthorization. [31:30] I know that we can do a lot better than that, and I know that we do have, in substance, significant majorities of the House of Representatives who support, if not a search warrant requirement in every case, [31:42] certainly substantial reform to what's taking place now. [31:46] Well, and we have seen the abuses in a variety of contexts, and certainly as members of the Judiciary Committee, we've seen representatives of the Administration be less than forthcoming when asking for the information that we would need to see if these reforms have really taken effect. [32:03] So thank you for your testimony, and I yield back. [32:06] Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. [32:10] Mr. Scott, you're recognized. [32:13] Thank you, Madam Chair. [32:15] And Mr. Jordan, Mr. Raskin, welcome to the Rules Committee. [32:20] When we're talking about 702, we are talking about terrorism, cartels, drug dealers. [32:33] Is that a fair statement? [32:35] Would both of you agree with that? [32:36] Yep. [32:39] Terrorism, primarily. [32:40] And so I just—and most of our questions in the past have gotten around the conduct of the FBI. [32:50] Is that a fair statement? [32:51] Mm-hmm. [32:52] And today, after the reforms that the majority of us voted for, the FBI is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime, right? [33:05] They can't just go looking for something to arrest somebody with, and I'm thankful that we passed that. [33:11] And they can only access FISA 702 if the foreign, the Section 702 target, is relevant to an existing, open, predicated full national security investigation. [33:27] Is that accurate? [33:29] Yes. [33:30] So there already has to be a full investigation going before the FBI can use 702. [33:36] Yeah, they can't— [33:37] National security related investigation. [33:39] Right. [33:41] It can't just be some static situation where they go, oh, I'm going to search Austin Scott, which is things that happened in the past. [33:48] Absolutely, they happened in the past. [33:50] And if they happened for me, by the way, I didn't set myself— [33:54] No, I was just an example. [33:55] I'm sorry. [33:56] It would have been a pretty boring search, I'm afraid. [34:01] Today—now, prior to what—the reforms we adopted, a third to a fourth of the agents that the FBI had access to the database, correct? [34:12] It was a huge number. [34:15] One estimate we heard in a briefing three years ago was potentially 10,000 agents could access the database. [34:21] It's less than—it's 3,000 agents today, right? [34:25] Significantly smaller. [34:26] It's less than 6 percent. [34:28] And they don't even have access to all of the database, correct? [34:34] Yes. [34:37] My point is this. [34:40] Everybody's—we all agree on that, Mr. Raskin? [34:47] Has anything I said not been accurate? [34:49] Well, I'll just say this. [34:51] We don't know a lot about what's taking place right now. [34:53] So, for example, when you talk about the reduction in the number of queries or who's got the right to do the queries, [35:00] there are other things that are not being defined as queries that are still taking place. [35:04] There are searches. [35:06] There are reviews. [35:07] There are other things that are happening. [35:09] And this is the problem with not having meaningful oversight. [35:12] I just want to get back to what we agree. [35:23] I hear you. [35:24] And if that's happening, then I expect Chairman Jordan would work with you to resolve that. [35:31] Is that fair enough? [35:33] Very fair. [35:34] I mean, none of us want that. [35:36] None of us on this committee, on the Intelligence Committee, or any other committee want them operating outside of the law. [35:42] But I, again, want to get back to the FBI is prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. [35:48] The FBI can only access VISA 702 data if the foreign target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. [36:02] We're talking about terrorism. [36:04] Forgive me. [36:07] Are you referring to a foreign target or an American citizen, a U.S. person? [36:10] They can only query if the foreign target, Mr. Jordan? [36:19] All that's right. [36:20] But they could query the American's name in the context of all that, an ongoing predicated investigation. [36:25] As I said before, what was happening prior was a completely static situation, not the investigation. [36:31] I'm going to search a congressman. [36:32] I'm going to search donors. [36:33] I'm going to search journalists. [36:34] I'm going to search my ex-girlfriend. [36:35] That was the kind of baloney that was going on prior. [36:37] That's right. [36:39] I agree with you. [36:41] But there are times when a foreign target may be in communications with a U.S. citizen [36:50] that it would be necessary to move expeditiously to stop a terrorist attack inside the United [37:00] States of America. [37:01] Is that okay? [37:02] Yes. [37:03] And they may want to move expeditiously on the American because the American may not [37:08] know they're somehow engaged in something. [37:09] They may want to warn and give them a sort of a preemptive, like, hey, we need to let you [37:14] go. [37:15] That's correct. [37:17] And I just say this to say, this is, unless the point was made that, you know, who voted [37:22] for what last time, this is an important tool for protecting American citizen security. [37:33] And I do think that RISA did a very good job of making sure that we balance the protection [37:44] of American citizens, stopping the abuses that we had seen in the past, and protecting [37:53] Americans' constitutional rights. [37:55] And I do think that we need to have this vote on the extension. [38:04] And then I expect that things will continue. [38:06] And if we see any abuses over the next 18 months, then I imagine the backlash from that [38:14] would be pretty extreme for anybody at the FBI that did that. [38:17] And I will tell you, Mr. Raskin, I think you would see Republicans, including this one, [38:23] that if there were any abuses from the FBI lining up for very serious consequences to [38:29] the people that abused the constitutional rights of any American citizen. [38:34] And so I'll just, Mr. Jordan, do you have anything else that you would like to say? [38:37] No, that was well said. [38:38] I would just point out, and I should have said this earlier, but I was thinking about [38:42] Title I and 702. [38:43] There are criminal penalties for knowingly and willfully disclosure of classified information [38:46] and stuff related to 702. [38:48] So there are some criminal penalties we put in two years ago that I think are positive [38:53] as well. [38:54] That's correct. [38:55] And I do think that there needs to be a review of the incident. [38:57] I do think that if you're active in an investigation and you're moving fast and you do something [39:02] a thousand times, if you do something a thousand times, you're prone to make an error on one [39:06] of them. [39:07] So as long as the agents are treated fairly, I'm good with the consequences for anybody that [39:15] knowingly and willingly abused it. [39:17] So, Madam Chair, I'm going to yield at this stage. [39:22] Thank you both for being here. [39:23] Thank you. [39:25] Thank you, Mr. Scott. [39:26] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, you're recognized. [39:28] Thank you very much, Madam Chair. [39:31] And as I'm sitting here and investigating and understanding what this bill does, it strikes [39:37] me, Chairman, do you think the federal government should be able to access and gather our medical [39:46] records? [39:49] It's a law right now. [39:50] I don't think so, no. [39:51] No, I'm not for that. [39:52] In general, do you think that would be right, that we'd have the federal government accessing [39:56] and gathering and compiling our medical records, your medical records? [40:00] No, I don't like the federal government telling us what we can say, telling us what we can [40:06] tweet, getting into our privacy. [40:07] I don't like that at all. [40:08] That's why we have the Bill of Rights. [40:09] Yeah, you don't like it at all. [40:10] But the reality is it's happening right now. [40:13] And that's because under this law, and I think it is an issue of what the law is, and that's [40:20] our job is to decide what the law is. [40:23] Right now we have the data brokers loophole, where the federal government is able to amass [40:29] this information by buying it from others. [40:32] Right? [40:33] Am I correct in understanding it that way? [40:35] Yeah, and that's why last Congress, and I think we're working on that bill this Congress [40:38] as well out of our committee, given the name Fourth Amendment's not for sale, anything that [40:44] would require a warrant that would otherwise require a warrant from government, government [40:48] can't just go buy that information. [40:50] And so we've passed that before, and we'll look to pass it again. [40:53] I'm trying to . [40:54] Yeah, but we don't, it's not in this clean, it's not in this reauthorization. [40:57] And I think that that's the problem, because we know that that's happened. [41:01] I think that the question is, the statement made by Mr. Scott was, if we've seen abuses, [41:10] then we should do something about it. [41:12] But we've already seen these abuses. [41:14] You know, it's not hypothetical. [41:17] So in one instance, data brokers sold private location data from around 600 Planned Parenthood [41:23] locations across 48 states to an anti-abortion political group that used it to target misinformation [41:30] to women. [41:31] In another example, Texas law enforcement exploited data broker footage for more than 83,000 automatic [41:40] license plate reader cameras. [41:42] We have an instance in Georgia where data was gathered, and then the law enforcement used [41:52] it to prosecute a woman who had had a miscarriage. [41:57] And whether or not you agree with this particular subject, whether you're allowed to deal with [42:03] miscarriages, you know, I think we should. [42:05] I think women's health should be protected. [42:08] The law doesn't presently provide, and we're going to be addressing this. [42:12] And this is my concern. [42:13] And Ranking Member Raskin, I mean, there need to be reforms now, right? [42:21] Because otherwise we're going to have 18 months without any reforms in guardrails as I see [42:26] this bill. [42:27] Is that correct? [42:28] This is a time of tremendous danger for people's civil liberties and their civil rights. [42:33] And I know my friends across the aisle thought it was serious under President Biden. [42:40] Well, you know, that pales by contrast to what we're living through today in terms of the [42:46] government weaponizing the Justice Department, prosecuting or trying to prosecute members [42:52] the Congress, going after people identified by the President as his political foes, and using [42:59] the government in a completely partisan and subjective way. [43:05] And I just think there are vast millions of Americans, if not the vast majority of Americans, [43:12] who would not trust this government with our privacy rights and with our civil liberties like this. [43:19] We need to build the protections in. And again, I say it with all due respect that this should [43:24] be for all administrations, but there are lots of people who feel it very intensely right now. [43:30] And we should not have the government spying on its citizens, its residents, and that's what's [43:37] happening here. And so it might be that this administration's actions sort of really tell you the abuses are [43:45] happening, so we should act now, so that it then applies to all further administration. [43:51] Well, that's right. And, you know, the problem with, well, let's take 18 months and then see what happens, [43:57] is a lot can happen in that time, and we're not going to know what's happening. I mean, you know, Mr. Jordan [44:02] had his phone records. They were revisited or, I don't know, reviewed by the government. He didn't find out for [44:11] several years, I think, that that was taking place. But that was subject to a warrant, right? That was subject, [44:17] that wasn't just, am I correct? Well, there was a, I think there was a process there. He'll explain exactly what [44:22] happened. But the point is that, and this has happened, again, on both sides, on all sides, so I'm trying to [44:28] lift it just one centimeter above the normal partisan contest we have here. We need rules that are going to bind the [44:36] government, regardless of who is in power. And we've got the opportunity to say that a court, a judge, [44:44] has got to look at any attempt by the FBI to query things of a private nature of U.S. persons, U.S. citizens. [44:56] Yeah, and I really liked it last time when we had, I told him I thought I was living in an alternate [45:03] universe, when we were pushing for affidavits, and we were pushing for things to protect privacy, [45:10] and we had agreement across the aisle among certain of us, and I wish we were back in that position, [45:16] and we weren't saying, we have to do it now. We pushed ourselves up to a deadline. And not like a short [45:21] extension, 18 months, that's a long time where a lot of damage can be done to people's personal [45:27] data. But I will, unless there's something urgent. [45:29] Well, just on that 18-month point, I mean, it feels to me like, I don't know exactly [45:35] where the 18-month time came from, but it seems to me like it's saying to the administration, [45:42] okay, you get 18 months more to do what you want to do, and then we'll talk about what happens [45:48] in the future. In the meantime, there's no emergency in terms of renewing this, because the present [45:55] certifications are going to be lasting for a long time. So we've got time to work this out. [45:59] Well, I did yield back, and I do appreciate your smile, because I mean, it just feels like [46:06] you're in a different place than you were last time. We'll yield back. [46:11] I could point out that the examples you raised on the government purchasing material, most of [46:15] those are outside of 702. Most of those are law enforcement. And we, so when we passed the bill [46:20] last year, we worked with local law enforcement, where does it make sense for them to be able to [46:24] purchase certain information, but not others that would, that would, you know, we think violate [46:27] the Fourth Amendment. So that is much broader than, than, than 702. [46:31] Yeah, yeah. Well, the problem is, is that, you know, Social Security data was released. I mean, this is an [46:36] administration that has released so much private information about Americans, that it is alarming [46:43] and scary. And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. [46:46] Thank you, Ms. Leisure-Fernandez. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized. [46:49] Thank you very much. Chairman Jordan, is there anything else you wanted to add in response to prior? [46:56] I have to tell you, I'm really concerned. I know it's 702. I've been to the briefings in the previous [47:07] administration when we were talking hundreds of thousands. I've been here where we're talking [47:12] about, I think your terminology was a handful, and I think that's accurate. So there's no [47:18] question in my mind that this administration is doing what it's supposed to. That said, I [47:23] worry about civil liberties. I've been a student of the Wilkesite Rebellion and John Wilkes and the [47:31] whole creation of our constitutional freedom from government intrusion. And I'm very, very [47:37] concerned. And unfortunately, I'm finding myself drawn to arguments on both sides, because it is a [47:43] close call for me. But what can you do to reassure me, besides telling me that this administration is [47:49] doing and it has been doing the right thing and will continue to do, I hope, what can you do to [47:54] reassure those of us who are a little concerned? But why should it be clean when we could be [48:01] looking at, you know, some amicus interventions, not on a case here and there, but on all cases, and [48:11] looking at perhaps, you know, specialized warrants and then notification to people so they have a [48:16] right to defend, maybe not in the first instance, but certainly somewhere down the road where they [48:21] can say, wait a minute, why did you take my privacy and my information? [48:26] I would just say maybe a few quick thoughts. One is, you know, I know the Democrats are making a [48:32] different argument, but we've been around Congress a while. You've been around Congress a while. [48:35] Normally, you reauthorize things for several years. This is 18 months. So while they might [48:40] want to say that's a long time, I think that's a relatively short time period. Remember, the one we [48:46] voted on two years ago with all the reforms was two years, and we're just now starting to see all [48:49] those reforms and the positive impact they've had. So it's short term, those reforms are there. [48:55] Second, I think, you know, the other side likes to criticize the current FBI director, but [49:00] it was that FBI director who first gave us the information about all the abuses happening in [49:04] Title I of Eisen. He wrote the memorandum. We don't know about what took place with the [49:09] dossier, how a foreign authored document was laundered by one campaign to the FBI and then [49:16] used as a basis to go spy on the other party's campaign. That's crazy, but that happened. [49:21] And it was Kash Patel, Director Patel, who wrote that document and figured out what was going [49:25] on. And at the time, we were told, oh, no, you guys are all crazy. Well, it turned out [49:28] to be all true. And that was the beginning of it all. So that's the guy you have now at [49:33] the FBI who's, I mean, responsible for the reforms we have seen. And then third, I would [49:38] just say, like, there are good people in Congress like you and everyone else in this who, I [49:42] think everyone's motives in here are genuinely, they're genuinely concerned about protecting [49:46] the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment. [49:48] So you believe if we find out there are problems that we could get the votes at the end of the [49:52] 18 months if need be, no matter who's in charge? [49:55] I know the amount of work that we've done on judiciary. And it started off just a handful [50:01] on this. But what we've done and then how that, as the gentlelady was, as Ms. Ledger [50:06] Fernandez was talking about, how we came together in a bipartisan way to get the 56 reforms and [50:11] things we did last year, and how we almost, you know, the vote was 2-12-2-12. So I know [50:18] that this Congress is committed to protecting American civil liberties. But in the situation [50:22] we're in, I don't think it's too much to say short-term when the commander-in-chief, [50:27] at a time we're in two military conflicts, military operations, or a short-term extension [50:33] of something that we've reformed dramatically, I don't think that's too much to ask. And if [50:39] there are additional problems in the next 18 months, by golly, we'll dig into it, and [50:42] we'll address it in a bipartisan way and fix it. [50:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [50:48] Mr. Norman, you're recognized. [50:52] Thank both of you for coming. Congressman Jordan, you know, we've all seen the issues [50:57] you had with unlawful investigations, unlawful, violating every right that you had, Scott Perry [51:06] the same way. Do you really think, one, are there consequences moving forward for those [51:13] who violate, that are on the books, that are immediate, that I know the numbers that can [51:21] access files, queries, are limited, but what keeps them in check with all the tools they [51:30] have available? [51:31] One, Congress is watching, much closer now. Congress is watching what they do. [51:35] So we get the reports about what happened, how many searches, who did it. We get them quarterly [51:40] now. Second, when it comes to Title I, we can go in and we have certain people cleared [51:47] from the committee, certain lawyers on our committee staff who can go in there, we can [51:50] go in there. So there's just much greater access, accountability, process involved. And if someone's [51:55] violating those processes, there are penalties that they're subject to, both on the Title I [52:00] side and on the 702 side. But if we find out, as I just said, if we find out in the future [52:05] there were abuses and we need to enhance those criminal penalties, okay. Because we're talking [52:10] about people's liberties here. But, as I've said now several times, I think the framework [52:14] we're in, short-term extension, makes sense. [52:17] Well, everywhere I go, people want consequences. Not long, drawn out, hearings from. [52:24] You have all these hearings, you get, you know, ones on the stand get scorched, but there's [52:32] no consequences for anybody. Only the, well, it's funny you say that, because that's the [52:39] number one question I get as I'm traveling around the country. It's like, and you were [52:43] more diplomatic about the way you said it, but most people just look at me like, hey, Jordan, [52:48] when is someone going to jail? And I'm like, we can't prosecute anyone. All we can do is [52:52] do the oversight and propose legislation, pass legislation, and go from there. And we can do [52:57] referrals if we think some of that's warranted, which we've done a handful of those where we thought [53:01] it was legitimately warranted. But yeah, the one guy who was held somewhat responsible is [53:07] Kevin Kleinhans, is the guy who lied to the court back and took a document, changed the meaning [53:13] of it on email. He was, he lied to the court, and he did have some consequences that he faced, [53:18] criminal penalties that he faced, for lying to the court clear back in 2016 when they went [53:22] to the FISA court. [53:23] Okay, thank you. Now you're back. [53:26] Mr. Norman, would you yield a second? [53:27] Oh, yeah. [53:28] Mr. Chairman, you went over fairly quickly the oversight of the court. [53:33] The oversight that occurs by the committee and by Congress. [53:40] Would you mind going over that again, I think a little more slowly? [53:44] Because I think that's a very important part of the reforms that were done. [53:52] And I think it would be good for all of our members to hear what you said. [54:00] Mr. Raskin has implied that there isn't any oversight going on, and I think it would be [54:06] helpful, the role of Congress in the oversight particularly. [54:11] Okay. [54:12] So on the front end, to do the search, there's certain protocols and processes in place that [54:17] have to be approved. [54:18] It can't just be one person, 10,000 agents just hitting the system. [54:22] It has to be, first of all, within all the framework of what Representative Scott talked [54:27] about in that kind of investigation that's going on. [54:30] Then there's process in place. [54:31] You've got to get sign off from certain superiors and others in the FBI before you can do the [54:37] search or the query. [54:39] So those approval requirements, there's training on the front end, process and approval requirements [54:44] on the front end. [54:45] And then there's accountability where they have to give us reports what's going on. [54:50] And we have the ability to go in and talk to them, both on the Title I and on 7-2. [54:56] So the reporting, the transparency, the training in the process and the approval up front before [55:02] you can do the searches, all that was in these multiple reforms we did two years ago to the [55:07] bill. [55:08] And to clarify, you said we have the ability. [55:12] Is that indeed being done? [55:14] Yeah. [55:16] The oversight is being done. [55:18] It isn't just that you have the ability to do it, but your staff- [55:23] Information comes to us. [55:24] We can send staff into, particularly on the Title I side, we can send staff into FISA [55:30] court. [55:31] And so all that is now. [55:34] And in the reports, I remember we had the debate in the committee, in the markup in [55:39] committee a couple of years ago. [55:41] I think we had an annual report requirement and that was no, we had a member offer the amendment [55:46] that was agreed on in a bipartisan way to shorten that timeframe to semi-annual and quarterly [55:51] reports that we get. [55:52] Thank you, Mr. Norman, for yielding. [55:56] You yield back. [55:59] Mr. Jack, you're recognized. [56:02] Mr. Chairman, I was hoping you could, for the record and also for my own knowledge sake, [56:08] you mentioned some of the reforms that were adopted back in, I think, 2024. [56:11] I think they were pretty expansive as it relates to protecting the rights of Americans and could [56:16] potentially assuage concerns with some of our colleagues. [56:19] So I would welcome you walking through some of those reforms for myself and others. [56:22] Yeah. [56:23] It's like, as I said before, and sometimes it's easier to tell the story because I don't [56:29] know if you were in here, Representative, when they were in the opening statements, but to [56:34] look at the numbers. [56:35] So initially, a few years ago, there were upwards of 10,000 FBI agents who could search the database. [56:46] We know from the IG and the reports we got that that process was abused in major ways, [56:54] where they were looking at members of Congress, donors, journalists. [57:01] I always use the example, ex-girlfriends they were looking at, which is not part of any [57:05] investigation arising from actual foreign intelligence that they got while surveilling [57:11] a foreigner. [57:12] So the number who can actually query the system, much smaller today. [57:17] The abuses that took place or the number of queries actually done in 2021 were 3 million. [57:23] Now it's down to last year, 9,000. [57:27] And the number of abuses when it was 3 million in 2021 was 278,000 times. [57:32] They didn't follow their rules. [57:34] And we think, and now that number is 127, but most of those were some of the clerical things. [57:39] As I was talking about the process, you have to go on the front end. [57:41] Maybe someone didn't get approval of both the people he asked to get approval of before [57:45] he searched the database, got only one sign off. [57:48] Those kind of things were that number. [57:50] So we think all the front end process, front end approval, limited number who can do it, [57:59] all those things are protections. [58:01] And then if there are people who are messing up, still not following the rules. [58:04] And again, the rules get taken to the FISA court. [58:06] They get approved by the court itself. [58:08] Here's how you're going to conduct searches on the 702 program. [58:11] If there are abuses, then there are consequences, including some criminal, [58:16] consequences, termination, and other things for the agents who didn't follow the rules. [58:21] Thank you. [58:22] I yield back. [58:24] Thank you. [58:25] Thank you, Mr. Jack. [58:27] Mr. Neguse, you're recognized. [58:30] Well, thank you, Madam Chair. [58:32] I appreciate that. [58:34] And I certainly wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the [58:38] ranking member and the chairman of my committee. [58:41] Chairman Jordan, I suspect ranking member McGovern has already asked you this question, [58:47] but I will just preface by saying I thought I'd seen everything in the House of Representatives, [58:54] but I never thought I'd see the day that Jim Jordan would be championing a clean, quote, [59:00] unquote, reauthorization of FISA. [59:02] That was not- [59:03] It's a different program today. [59:04] Not on my bingo list. [59:05] What was that? [59:06] Different program today. [59:07] Different party, it sounds like. [59:08] No, no, no. [59:09] Different president. [59:10] Totally different situation today. [59:11] One question I guess I've been struggling with is why 18 months? [59:15] Clearly, there's a lot of consternation about FISA. [59:18] There's a real desire by a lot of your members, members on the Republican side, members on [59:22] the Democratic side, breaking member Raskier and others, about potential changes that ought [59:26] to be made. [59:28] I just wonder why are we landing on 18 months? [59:30] Why not 12 months? [59:31] Why not 14 months? [59:32] Why not a shorter timeframe for the reauthorization? [59:34] I don't know that happened. [59:35] This is pretty long. [59:36] Well, I actually think it's pretty short because most time we reauthorize things for [59:40] five years, six years, seven years, eight years. [59:41] How long is the National Defense Authorization Act reauthorization? [59:43] Well, that's an annual thing, of course. [59:46] Well, months, annual deal, right? [59:47] Yeah. [59:48] So I don't know. [59:49] You're describing this issue or would you describe that? [59:51] Compared to a lot of other things we've done around, and certainly this FISA law, [59:54] I remember when I first got to Congress, it was a lot longer than 18 months. [59:58] I don't know what it was. [59:59] I think it was four years, five years, maybe 10 for some of it. [1:00:02] And Title I, I don't know that we, I don't think that is up for reauthorization. [1:00:06] We changed Title I when we had to do the reauthorization for 702. [1:00:10] We changed aspects of Title I to protect Americans' liberty. [1:00:13] So yeah, these are normally much longer, I think maybe in like 10 before. [1:00:17] So I think 18 months, relatively speaking, is short. [1:00:19] I guess I would query whether or not, and I don't know if a ranking member [1:00:24] was asking if you thought about this, but it just, it strikes me that a reauthorization [1:00:28] that aligned with the expiration that's been outlined in the court ruling, right? [1:00:35] Which I guess is next March, I guess? [1:00:37] March 27th, yeah. [1:00:38] Yeah. [1:00:39] It doesn't, I don't quite understand why we wouldn't just time the reauthorizations [1:00:43] to perhaps mimic that schedule. [1:00:45] Well, it's not time- [1:00:46] And I suspect that that would- [1:00:47] I don't know. [1:00:48] I don't know. [1:00:49] I actually do not know that. [1:00:50] I don't know if the ranking member does either, but it's, I don't know why the court [1:00:55] does it when they do it. [1:00:56] They reauthorize it for a year. [1:00:57] That's run to, because they did it on March 27th. [1:00:59] So it must go to March 27th next year. [1:01:01] And of course, right now, the timeline we're on is April 20th. [1:01:03] Yeah. [1:01:04] So I don't know, I don't know why it doesn't, they don't say that. [1:01:07] Fair enough. [1:01:08] Well, I, I mean, based on some public reporting, it suggests that there's some members of your conference [1:01:14] that are on their way to the White House to have a conversation with the president about this particular legislation. [1:01:19] And maybe if they're checking their phones and, or they're watching this debate, I would just say to them and throw this idea into the atmosphere that 18 months is awfully long. [1:01:29] And it's, I would, would think eminently reasonable to suggest a shorter timeline, perhaps an annualized one. [1:01:36] But in any event, I know we, you all have had a fulsome debate on this. [1:01:39] Ranking member McGovern? [1:01:40] Well, I wouldn't. [1:01:41] No, I just say it's going to be a long night. [1:01:42] Okay, got it. [1:01:43] Got it. [1:01:44] I will, I will stop there. [1:01:45] I will yield back to the chairwoman. [1:01:47] Oh, that's amazing. [1:01:48] Thank you, Mr. Neguse. [1:01:49] Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized. [1:01:51] Um, I, I think, I agree we've had a, a full debate here. [1:01:55] Uh, I don't have any additional questions, but, uh, thank you both for coming. [1:01:58] Thank you. [1:01:59] Thank you. [1:02:03] Well, everybody's heard the, the, um, uh, bells for voting. [1:02:10] I believe Mr. Himes, do you wish to speak? [1:02:13] Okay. [1:02:15] Well, I would say that our witnesses are excused. [1:02:20] If there's no further, um, questions of our witnesses, then you're excused and we'll recognize Mr. Himes. [1:02:34] No, I'm going to, we're- [1:02:35] We're-