USA Rights Act Backers Optimistic Before House Fight to Substitute Section 702 Bill Language
Backers of new limits on the U.S. intelligence community's use of data collected under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 girded themselves Wednesday for a Thursday House floor debate on replacing the revised text of the Rapid DNA Act (S-139), which now contains language similar to the controversial FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act (HR-4478), with text from alternate Section 702 legislation. The House voted 233-181 Wednesday to move forward with the Thursday debate and vote on the measure. The House Rules Committee voted 6-3 Tuesday to allow House consideration of an amendment to substitute text from the Uniting and Strengthening America by Reforming and Improving the Government’s High-Tech Surveillance (USA Rights) Act (HR-4124/S-1997) before a floor vote on the underlying S-139. House leaders moved last week to bring S-139 to the floor as a vehicle for taking up HR-4478's language (see 1801050059 and 1801080014).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Leading House and Senate sponsors of HR-4124/S-1997 touted momentum Wednesday for the language switch, which they told reporters is needed given concerns that HR-4478 would allow the intelligence community to expand its surveillance capabilities and wouldn't close a “back-door” search option the government can use to mine the Section 702 database for non-terrorist-related inquiries. HR-4478 would renew Section 702 authority through 2023, and would require the FBI to obtain a warrant for reviewing Americans' information collected under the program if the agency wants to use it in the prosecution of criminal cases. House consideration of the S-139 vehicle Thursday will follow months of acrimonious debate on Section 702 reauthorization. Congress momentarily paused the fight in December by passing a temporary extension of the surveillance statute via a continuing resolution to fund the federal government that's to expire Jan. 19 (see 1712200037, 1712210050 and 1712210054).
“We feel we have a great opportunity tomorrow” to successfully substitute the USA Rights language by appealing to House members with the “simple proposition that when you want to spy on Americans, get a warrant,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who's leading the amendment bid. The existing HR-4778-based language “is unconstitutional, hugely problematic, and we're here to defend the rights of the American people,” he said. The language substitution “is essential,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., HR-4124's lead Democratic sponsor. If the federal government “wants to invade the privacy of Americans,” it needs to be in accordance with Fourth Amendment principles, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., repeated his earlier threats to filibuster the S-139 vehicle if it comes to the Senate without the substitute language (see 1801030043), calling the HR-4778 language currently in the legislation “actually worse” than the existing Section 702 statute. He acknowledged the chances of successfully substituting in the USA Rights language are better in the House than the Senate but predicted “victory in the House” will “encourage the Senate to go along.” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called the situation “fluid” but said the substitution bid is “picking up more and more political support every day.” He said he believes the Senate will acquiesce as citizens learn that HR-4778's language represents “fake reforms.”
House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said he and other Democrats fully back substituting in HR-4124's language because it's “far, far preferable” to moving forward with the “wholly unacceptable” HR-4478 text. “If it's adopted, wonderful,” Nadler said. “If not, we will” determine how to move forward. Three House Rules Democrats present at the Tuesday committee meeting voted against the HR-4124 amendment in favor of another proposed amendment aimed at restricting Section 702 powers. House Rules Democrats will support inclusion of the HR-4124 language on the House floor because it's a comprehensive solution, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., told reporters after the session. House Rules Republicans backed allowing the HR-4124 amendment on the floor.
House Intelligence Committee leaders defended HR-4478 during the House Rules meeting. The version of the bill appended to S-139 “is a product of extensive negotiations” over several years and “reflects a compromise” of competing Section 702 bills from different congressional committees, said House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif. The bill as written “can pass the House” and “has a very good chance of passing the Senate and would be signed into law” by President Donald Trump. “That's what a compromise is and that's what we've done,” Nunes said. House Intelligence ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the HR-4478 language “goes beyond” the existing Section 702 statute by instituting new privacy protections, making it “a responsible compromise between those who would say we ought to have a clean reauthorization and those that say we shouldn't be doing queries of U.S. persons under any circumstances.”
The White House strongly backed the underlying HR-4478 language, telling House Rules reauthorizing Section 702 authorities “in a manner that preserves their effectiveness, is a top priority” of the Trump administration. “The Administration would prefer a clean and permanent extension” of Section 702 but the HR-4478 languages' six-year extension of the statute is “a critical extension that will keep America safe from those who wish to do us harm,” the White House Office of Management and Budget told the committee. Trump's advisers “would recommend that he sign the bill into law” if Congress passed it “in its current form.”