nadler: mr. speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the judiciary committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. i now yield -- i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. supporters of this bill have called it reform. this is not reform. it's a massive expansion of the government's ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. if you need proof, look at the bill's section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some law enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. there is no on

nadler: mr. speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the judiciary committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. i now yield -- i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. supporters of this bill have called it reform. this is not reform. it's a massive expansion of the government's ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. if you need proof, look at the bill's section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some law enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. there is no on

nadler: let me add one thing. the republicans have shown -- circled the wagons around the president, it's obvious. trying to discredit the special prosecutor and the f.b.i. and institutions of government. and doing things against -- all kinds of things, hillary, uranium one. but the key is, one key i should say is not whether there was collusion last year, which is what the special prosecutor is investigating, but the key is we were attacked by the russians. the intelligence community have been warning for years that in order to wage this country by cyber warfare. that started. we were attacked. the intelligence community says we are going to be attacked. one of the things we are talking about today, we have to defend ourselves. the administration by refusing to acknowledge the attack is refusing to do anything to defend ourselves. imagine the day after pearl harbor, president roosevelt said, well, i don't know about that. we are saying that this administration, the congress must make the administration defend us

nadler and ms. waters said, to protect themselves against it. >> i just want to add one clarification. there's a difference -- obviously, one type of interference is sbeeinterferingh the physical electronic machinery of counting votes or registering voters, et cetera. and that's where we know there were attempts in 21 states. completely different. and that's one thing. and as far as we know, they didn't succeed in actually affecting the physical count of ballots cast. but secondly, what we're really talking about is interfering with the election campaign in various ways, by all the things you've heard about. we do know in direct answer to your question, that the russians last year interfered not only in the presidential race, but in congressional races, as well. in over 20 congressional races. how much that affected, if anything, is unknowable. we know they interfered with artificial -- you know, with bots and fake facebook, and all of this stuff. in at least 20 congressional races. they did that la

nadler: mr. speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the judiciary committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. i now yield -- i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. supporters of this bill have called it reform. this is not reform. it's a massive expansion of the government's ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. if you need proof, look at the bill's section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some law enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. there is no on

nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member. i thank him for his leadership. he's served on this subcommittee, and i thank mr. cohen for his very eloquent explanation. let me say that i stand with these women. jenny r., kathy l., women who have experienced -- lindsey -- women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, wanting a child and wanting the protecti of roe v. wade. i sta with these women. i rise tod to, again, ask the question why we divide over the wonderment of birth. i am reminded of h.r. 4712, passed in 2002, the born-alive infants protection act that was widely supported. now we come just in the eve of failed administration in its first year and to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming who i have great respect for for their position of pro-life but it do

nadler that -- ides of mr. nadler, that under the proposed bill, meaning the underlying bill, they anticipate rarely if ever needing permission from the f.s.c. to review yeary results. so -- query results. so this requirement that the supporters of the bill and opponents of the amendment basically doesn't mean anything at all. because the f.b.i. told mr. nadler's aides that that was the case. now, we have a debate here today on whether to put the f. back into the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the f. means foreign. and that is why the amendment should be adopted or if it fails then the underlying bill should be defeated. this is a time to stand up for the oath of office that every one of us took a year ago to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. the only way we can do that today is by supporting amash and defeating the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr.

nadler and mr. -- excuse me -- mr. schiff on this subject. we are not that far apart. i think that the motion to recommit addresses most of the current concerns we have been getting from the outside groups and communities who are dedicated -- whose organize purpose is to protect the civil liberties of the american people. but, again, with great respect for everyone's opinions and whatever they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do, we want to be sure we strengthen their hand in terms of protecting the national security of our country which is our first responsibility. keep the american people safe. and as we do so to honor our oath of office to the constitution, to honor the principles of the constitution. our founders knew full well the challenge between security and civil liberties. they he lived in a world when they were under attack. the war of 1812 came very soon after the establishment of our country. so this is not a foreign idea to them and it question griefs to us the responsibility -- begrief

let's stop chairman nadler and chairman schiff, and then talk about releasing more. there is a process you have to go through and what disturbs me is that some of the discussion of what may or may not be in that memo. there say limited amount of people that have seen that memo within the house of representatives and the nondisclosure agreement i signed, i believe it is a felony to release that information without going through this process and this process was put in place by previous administrations to protect the american people, to protect government officials and to have a better process in place for releasing top secret information rather than through media links. >> why are you comfortable releasing the four-page memo if you haven't seen the underlying intelligence that the memo purports to be based on. >> again, the doj has been submitting thousands upon thousands of pages of intelligence and details to the department -- to the judiciary committee, to the intelligence committee, to the oversight and government reform committee. i think all of us would want to

do we know anything about jerrold nadler's attitude towards the impeachment process? darren: for now he is taking the lead, along with what you have heard from nancy pelosi and others. let the process play out. let's have a more proactive, positive message. he's been bird dogging the chairman of that committee, criticizing him again today as he goes after fbi officials and turning the rush investigation on its heels. flipping it up upside down by looking back to hillary clinton and the fbi. on the republicans' case, he's trying to push it forward. if nadler were in charge, it would be a much more intense case to try to see what happened. 10 or 11 months for now, it will be a very different place. susan: thank you niall stanage and darren samuelsohn for being here on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> reviews life career during the even, he talk about his time kgb. in prison by the here's a look.

we also heard from judiciary committee ranking member nadler, congressman farenthold, congressman amash, congresswoman lofgren and also congressman poe. in addition to the vigorous debate before the rules committee, both the judiciary committee and intelligence committee held markups on legislation to re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. today, we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of americans' privacy. mr. chairman, i'd like to publicly thank chairman goodlatte and chairman nunes for the important work on this legislation. as a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual americans without hindering the intelligence community ability and identities of our enemies. the value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, to provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community try to defeat o

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in strong opposition to the fisa amendments and re-authorization act of 2017. which re-authorizes section 702 fisa for six years without enacting adequate protection force our privacy. supporters of this measure want to convince us a new incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. it does not. our right to privacy does not begin when the department of justice fisa for six years with criminal case against us. nor has a fully does it begin w prosecutors interyou are our emails and text messages into evidence against us in court. the constitution guarantees far more than this. our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for information it might find useful. s. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. we therefore cannot, we must not support this bill. make no mistake, s. 139 is not a compromise. the judiciary committee,

congressional black caucus, others are participating in this as well, including congressman jerry nadler of new york, right? >> he will speak at this saying you have leaders coming forward, signing their name on this, saying this is something we want to push forward. he spoke earlier saying, look, this is a chance to put every member of congress on the record that we don't approve, in his words, of racism and the president when he makes these kinds of racist remarks. wolf? >> we will stand by and hear what they have to say. thanks so much. only four presidents, in fact, have ever been censured. andrew jackson was the first followed by john tyler, james polk and james buchanan, all in the 1800s. the writer for reuters jeff basin, boston globe reporter scott herndon and chief political analyst gloria borger. it's largely symbolic because it's not going to pass the majority of the house. but it's significant. >> it is significant because you'll have a group of people on the floor talking about this. and i think what you're going to see is the outrage people have about the president's commen

>> i don't want to comment on the substance of the memo. >> we just heard from jerry nadler, who said he also has seen the mystery memo. he said it is profoundly misleading. >> i think that's why the public should judge. and i read what i read. i'm certainly willing to read a democratic memo if that's made available to me as well. >> why isn't devin nunes releasing it to the senate intel committee or the public? >> i think it should be released to the american people. and i hope that that process can occur as soon as possible. >> the justice department has called it reckless. do you agree? >> i don't want to comment on the substance of the memo, but in my opinion it should be released to the american people and then experts across the board can decide. >> i understand you are hamstrung by the classified. you can't say anything. i got it. but in broadbrush strokes, in other words, some of your republican colleagues are talking about this mystery memo and planting the seed that something ominous is afoot. is that reckless? >> i think that the american people would judge and i would urge

take a listen to how top democrat in the house, jerry nadler, described it earlier today on "new day.t shouldn't come out, because i've read it, and i've read the underlying source material. it is profoundly misleading. sufficiee it to say, the docume is extremely misleading as compared to the underlying documents, and it's very dangerous for the republicans here to say, oh, we have got this document that's terrible, but we can't tell you what's behind it, we can't show you the evidence because that's secret. >> now, nadler, of course, isn't alone. as the ranking committee on the house intel committee, adam schiff, has also signaled that democrats may issue their own counter memo. >> let's talk about these texts between fbi officials, talking about a secret society. it may have been a joke, actually. you saw the text. what can you tell us? >> so, having reviewed this memo, i have to say, it's far more cryptic than a clear plot to undermine the president. the day after the november 2016 election, fbi lawyer lisa page says to peter struck, are you going to give out your calendars? seems

democratic congressman jerry nadler is leading the effort. he'll join us next. soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters. ♪ ♪ there are two types of people in the world. those who fear the future... and those who embrace it. the future is for the unafraid. ♪ all because of you ♪ ♪ the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ >>> welcome back. president trump says he is not a racist. he said that again last night. he denies using a vulgar word to describe immigrants from these afr

i have at the table congressman jerry nadler, the ranking member of the house judiciary committee. we were -- when we booked you to come to the show, we were going to talk about what we were learn about the case for obstruction of justice and we just got this bit of news. your reaction to this news. >> well, my reaction to this news is that in retrospect, it's not surprising. the president and the people around him have been doing everything they can to discredit the special prosecutor to discredit the investigation. to discredit any agency that cooperates with it. the fbi, et cetera. with a view toward disabling the investigation and discrediting whatever report may come out. this is the behavior of people with something to fear. of people who obviously think that there's a high likelihood the special counsel will either decide the president's guilty of a crime or recommend -- or issue a report that might lead to impeachment or something. the fact that he tried to or that he wanted to fire him before he was warned off by his lawyers is not surprising in that regard but it is more

there is no uniform system and is congressman nadler also talked about because you have those individual systems we have started looking at how we as members of congress can incentivize those states to do certain things to protect their systems. so part of it is legislation on the elections task force that is to provide money for the states to incentivize them to shore up their systems and protect them but the russians are unique. they are aggressive and what we have to do is be as unique and aggressive in defending ourselves. i am optimistic that we can get the republican leadership to work with us that we can come up with a bipartisan solution but at this point it's all democrats pushing to come up with solutions that we all know that russians created from a problem standpoint. >> the russians have chiaro wing forums and we also have a report that is going to be revealed about how the russians have interfered with and hacked into elections systems in other countries and how they do it. first of all we cannot believe that somehow they are going to stop the interference because somehow t

we also heard from judiciary committee ranking member nadler, congressman farenthold, congressman amash, congresswoman lofgren and also congressman poe. in addition to the vigorous debate before the rules committee, both the judiciary committee and intelligence committee held markups on legislation to re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. today, we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of americans' privacy. mr. chairman, i'd like to publicly thank chairman goodlatte and chairman nunes for the important work on this legislation. as a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual americans without hindering the intelligence community ability and identities of our enemies. the value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, to provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community try to defeat o

there are certainly democrats like jerry nadler of new york saying that this was an appropriate and possibly be evidence of attraction of justice by the president. was inappropriate and possibly could be evidence of obstruction of justice by the president. that something they could be looking at. l began be asked to head to congress intensify? alex: that's a possibility, but it's unlikely that he would appear. he does enjoy executive privilege. i don't think the white house would let him testify in an open hearing certainly. i doubt they would let him talk to congressional investigators. lawyerdoes have a representing him and rollers investigation -- in mueller's investigation. we have yet to know what he's been interviewed by mueller however. david: in washington politically, it's a question of does it change any republicans months? inds? democrats are not favorable to the president in the first place. does it change any republican minds on capitol hill? alex: i don't see a change in dynamic today. i don't think this story is the kind of story that's going to affect the dynamic on capitol h

you and your colleague, ranking member jared nadler, you're planning to introduce a resolution next week to censure the president over his shithole remarks. why take this action? >> absolutely. one, i think it's important for the american people to understand that this is not how we run government, this is not how we feel. two, it's important for the world to know this is not how americans view africa, nigeria, haiti, el salvador. i hate to put it in such a basic term, but we have to show the world we're better than this. he may be our president, but he is not the moral compass of the united states. >> do you think republicans will come on board to formally reprimand the president? >> well, i think a few of them will. but more than likely, most of them will not. you know, unfortunately, in washington, if it's your president, you ignore the bad stuff. and with this president, it seems like they ignore the bad stuff every day. and this is not his first insensitive or racist remark. unfortunately, it's become a normal or regular occurrence. >> the house speaker, paul ryan, said that the pre

nadler already made that expectation, we need to understand exactly what happened here. and really reinforce this very basic idea that the white house counsel, counsel for the office of the president is not the personal lawyer for donald trump and certainly he should understand the recusal statute and the idea of trying to discourage the attorney general of the united states from recusing himself from an investigation, that he's required to recuse himself from, because the statute requires it, to undermine that is very, very disturbing. we need to know more about it. but again, i think it's a reflection of this notion that somehow everyone in the white house and administration works personally for donald trump rather than for the institutions and for the country and for the constitution that they were swore to uphold. >> the "new york times" reports that the attorney general jeff sessions was searching for dirt, negative information on the fbi director james comey and that sessions wanted one negative news article a day about comey, the justice department flatly denies t

democratic congressman and jerry nadler saying that the remarks have prepared us to get a resolutionith our colleagues next week. to condemn president trump for his racist statements. republican senator johnny eiseman from georgia was not in the meeting that says this "that is not the kind of statement that the leader of the free world should make any law to be ashamed of himself." he is is the people of haiti and all mankind an apology." andy bigs, great to have you with us congressman. >> good to be with you, shannon. >> shannon: do you want to weigh in on where we are in this conversation? >> i think that it is very interesting that we are getting mixed messages of what took place in the meeting. i think that that is very interesting. for one thing, then the second thing that the democrats are already preparing a motion resolution of center to go with the impeachment that they already had to go with the russian investigation that they wanted and now it has gone against them. all the way back to the day that he was elected they have been wanting to delegitimize this president. i do

a joint statement from the top democrats on judiciary and intelligence, jerry nadler and adam schiffaying, "republicans are now attacking the fbi in order to undermine special counsel mueller to protect president trump for their claims are directly at odds with the facts." two things, first of all, are you worried about folks, rank and rank-and-file, working around the clock every day, these key law enforcement agencies, feeling a little beat up by the public criticism? secondly, do the democrats have a point? >> to the latter, i don't think that the rank and file feel beat up because a lot of the rank and file that i worked with when i was a federal prosecutor at work with the fbi are contacting me and saying, keep the pressure o. look, a big barrel full of apples at a place like the fbi, there will be a few rotten ones. the problem is, some of the rotten apples were at the very top around some with the most important investigations that were going on. with respect to the democrats, we keep hearing the same thing over and over again. all we are doing is following the facts and the e

it is the hype of hypocrisy for jerry nadler say it's misuse of classified information.o show what's in the memo. that's why we think transparency will be the corruption we've seen at the highest level of the department of justice and fbi. >> what part of the story are we missing? that will get from that memo? i have to think congressman, it's going to be redacted. you will not release complete classified information into the bloodstream of america. >> the staff that prepared this memo was cautious not to expose sources or methods. there's not a word of this memo that should be redacted. none of it would jeopardize national security. two things i would instruct the american people to pay attention to, when they read the memo, i hope within the next couple of weeks, look at how information was authenticated. it's important any fisa not to prosecute a fraud on the court. the way that information is authenticated should be a specific area of focus. second thing, take this memo and overlay it with the five months of missing text messages between peter strozyk and lisa page.

signed, sincerely, jerrold nadler, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resignation is accepted. the house will come to order. members will clear the aisles and remove their conversations from the house. he house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccarthy: on monday, the house will neat at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will remove their considerations from the house and clear the aisles. he house will come to order. the gentleman will resume. mr. mccar

the effort is being led by new york congressmember jerrold nadler and commerce member cedric richmond, chair of the congressional black caucus. it comes as several democratic lawmakers have announced they will skip the statate of the unn address january 30 over trump's racist remarks. among them are congressmember earl blumenauer of oregon; frederica wilson of florida, pramila jayapal of washington; maxine waters of california; and john lewis of georgia. in the israeli-occupied west bank, israeli forces shot and killed a young palestinian man overnight in the town of jenin after a firefight that left other palestinian and two israeli soldiers. the man was identified as ahmed jarrar, a hamas fighter and son of a palestinian man killed by israel in 2002. his family said today he escaped in the two other palestinians were killed and the attack. meanwhile, the head of the united nations' agency for palestinian refugees made an urgent appeal for funds wednesday, after the trump administration canceled 65 million dollars in annual contributions to the agency, known as unrwa. in gaza, reside

nadler and mr. thompson said, to protect ourselves against it. mr. nadler: i want to add one clarification, there is a difference obviously, one five of interference is interfering with the physical or the machinery of counting votes or registering voters and we know there were attempts in 21 states. and that's one as far as we know, they did not succeed and actually affecting the physical count of dallas that were passed -- ballots that were cast. electionng with the campaign in various ways is another thing, all the various ways that you heard about. we do know that in direct answer question, the russians last year, interfered not only in the presidential race, but in congressional races as well, over 20 of them. how much that affected if anything, is unknown. we know the identified with robots, -- with fake facebook and all of this stuff, in at least 20 congressional races. there is nothing to say that they will not do that again, which is where we -- which is what we have to protect ourselves from. not only congressional races, maybe even sheriff