[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6985-H6988]
JUDICIAL REDRESS ACT OF 2015
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1428) to extend Privacy Act remedies to citizens of
certified states, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1428
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Judicial Redress Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PRIVACY ACT REMEDIES TO CITIZENS OF
DESIGNATED COUNTRIES.
(a) Civil Action; Civil Remedies.--With respect to covered
records, a covered person may bring a civil action against an
agency and obtain civil remedies, in the same manner, to the
same extent, and subject to the same limitations, including
exemptions and exceptions, as an individual may bring and
obtain with respect to records under--
(1) section 552a(g)(1)(D) of title 5, United States Code,
but only with respect to disclosures intentionally or
willfully made in violation of section 552a(b) of such title;
and
(2) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 552a(g)(1) of
title 5, United States Code, but such an action may only be
brought against a designated Federal agency or component.
(b) Exclusive Remedies.--The remedies set forth in
subsection (a) are the exclusive remedies available to a
covered person under this section.
(c) Application of the Privacy Act With Respect to a
Covered Person.--For purposes of a civil action described in
subsection (a), a covered person shall have the same rights,
and be subject to the same limitations, including exemptions
and exceptions, as an individual has and is subject to under
section 552a of title 5, United States Code, when pursuing
the civil remedies described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a).
(d) Designation of Covered Country.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, designate a
foreign country or regional economic integration
organization, or member country of such organization, as a
``covered country'' for purposes of this section if--
(A) the country or regional economic integration
organization, or member country of such organization, has
entered into an agreement with the United States that
provides for appropriate privacy protections for information
shared for the purpose of preventing, investigating,
detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses; or
(B) the Attorney General has determined that the country or
regional economic integration organization, or member country
of such organization, has effectively shared information with
the United States for the purpose of preventing,
investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses
and has appropriate privacy protections for such shared
information.
(2) Removal of designation.--The Attorney General may, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, revoke
the designation of a foreign country or regional economic
integration organization, or member country of such
organization, as a ``covered country'' if the Attorney
General determines that such designated ``covered country''--
(A) is not complying with the agreement described under
paragraph (1)(A);
(B) no longer meets the requirements for designation under
paragraph (1)(B); or
(C) impedes the transfer of information (for purposes of
reporting or preventing unlawful activity) to the United
States by a private entity or person.
(e) Designation of Designated Federal Agency or
Component.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall determine
whether an agency or component thereof is a ``designated
Federal agency or component'' for purposes of this section.
The Attorney General shall not designate any agency or
component thereof other than the Department of Justice or a
component of the Department of Justice without the
concurrence of the head of the relevant agency, or of the
agency to which the component belongs.
(2) Requirements for designation.--The Attorney General may
determine that an agency or component of an agency is a
``designated Federal agency or component'' for purposes of
this section, if--
(A) the Attorney General determines that information
exchanged by such agency with a covered country is within the
scope of an agreement referred to in subsection (d)(1)(A); or
(B) with respect to a country or regional economic
integration organization, or member country of such
organization, that has been designated as a ``covered
country'' under subsection (d)(1)(B), the Attorney General
determines that designating such agency or component thereof
is in the law enforcement interests of the United States.
(f) Federal Register Requirement; Nonreviewable
Determination.--The Attorney General shall publish each
determination made under subsections (d) and (e). Such
determination shall not be subject to judicial or
administrative review.
(g) Jurisdiction.--The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
any claim arising under this section.
(h) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term in section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code.
[[Page H6986]]
(2) Covered country.--The term ``covered country'' means a
country or regional economic integration organization, or
member country of such organization, designated in accordance
with subsection (d).
(3) Covered person.--The term ``covered person'' means a
natural person (other than an individual) who is a citizen of
a covered country.
(4) Covered record.--The term ``covered record'' has the
same meaning for a covered person as a record has for an
individual under section 552a of title 5, United States Code,
once the covered record is transferred--
(A) by a public authority of, or private entity within, a
country or regional economic organization, or member country
of such organization, which at the time the record is
transferred is a covered country; and
(B) to a designated Federal agency or component for
purposes of preventing, investigating, detecting, or
prosecuting criminal offenses.
(5) Designated federal agency or component.--The term
``designated Federal agency or component'' means a Federal
agency or component of an agency designated in accordance
with subsection (e).
(6) Individual.--The term ``individual'' has the meaning
given that term in section 552a(a)(2) of title 5, United
States Code.
(i) Preservation of Privileges.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to waive any applicable privilege or
require the disclosure of classified information. Upon an
agency's request, the district court shall review in camera
and ex parte any submission by the agency in connection with
this subsection.
(j) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1428 currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ranking
Member Conyers for introducing this important bipartisan legislation to
extend privacy protections and help ensure that the flow of law
enforcement information between the European Union and the United
States continues unimpeded.
In recent years, several broad and highly publicized leaks of
classified U.S. intelligence information have eroded the global
public's trust in the United States Government and our technology
sector. As a result, both the Federal Government and U.S. businesses
that operate overseas are facing growing challenges from proposals to
limit the international flow of data.
Our allies in Europe, in particular, are concerned that the European
public will no longer support law enforcement cooperation with U.S.
authorities if we do not enact legislation to restore their public's
trust in U.S. privacy protections.
Moreover, American businesses across all sectors face negative
commercial consequences abroad as a result of the climate that has been
created by the unauthorized disclosure of classified data.
H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act, can go a long way toward
restoring our allies' faith in U.S. data privacy protections and
helping facilitate agreements such as the Data Privacy and Protection
Agreement that enhance international cooperation.
According to the Department of Justice, the Judicial Redress Act is
critical to reestablishing a trusting relationship between the European
Union and the United States, to ensuring continued strong law
enforcement cooperation between the United States and Europe, and to
preserving the ability of American companies to do business
internationally.
The Judicial Redress Act accomplishes this by granting citizens of
designated foreign countries a limited number of civil remedies against
the Federal Government, similar to those already provided U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents under the Privacy Act.
This legislation is narrowly tailored in that it only applies with
respect to information obtained through international law enforcement
channels. Any lawsuit brought pursuant to this bill is subject to the
same terms and restrictions that apply to U.S. citizens and lawful
permanent residents under the Privacy Act.
If this legislation is enacted, citizens of designated foreign
governments will be able to sue the United States in Federal District
Court with respect to intentional and willful public disclosures of law
enforcement information by the Federal Government that injure those
citizens.
Additionally, for information that is not subject to an exemption
under the Privacy Act, covered foreign citizens will be able to seek
redress for failures by the Federal Government to grant access to
records or to amend incorrect records. American citizens are already
afforded these types of judicial redress rights in many foreign
countries.
Although these may be limited civil remedies against the United
States Government, they will provide European citizens with the core
benefits of the Privacy Act and, in doing so, will greatly help to
restore the public trust necessary for the continued success of our law
enforcement cooperation with Europe.
The bill will also facilitate adoption of the Data Privacy and
Protection Agreement and promote a healthy environment for U.S.
companies that do business overseas.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 1428, the
Judicial Redress Act of 2015. As you know, the Committee on
the Judiciary received an original referral and the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform a secondary referral when
the bill was introduced on March 18, 2015. I recognize and
appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the
House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, and
accordingly, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
will forego action on the bill.
The Committee takes this action with our mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1428 at
this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation. Further, I
request your support for the appointment of conferees from
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any
House-Senate conference convened on this or related
legislation.
Finally, I would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters
on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as in the Congressional
Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our
understanding.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chaffetz: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 1428, the ``Judicial Redress Act of 2015.'' As you
noted, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was
granted an additional referral on the bill.
I am most appreciative of your decision to forego formal
action on H.R. 1428 so that it may proceed expeditiously to
the House floor. I acknowledge that although you waived
formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on the
Oversight and Government Reform is in no way waiving its
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in those
provisions of the bill that fall within your Rule X
jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment
of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate
conference involving this legislation.
I will include a copy of our letters in the Committee's
report on H.R. 1428 and in the Congressional Record during
floor consideration of H.R. 1428.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us today is good for national
security, good for privacy, and good for business. It is unquestionably
the right thing to do for our Nation's closest allies.
Under current law, United States citizens are entitled to access and
request a correction to personal records
[[Page H6987]]
held by a Federal agency. If the agency denies access or fails to make
a requested change or otherwise violates their privacy rights, then we
may seek redress in Federal court.
Under current law, these rights are conveyed only to United States
citizens and not to the citizens of our closest allies, even though
many European countries offer our citizens similar rights overseas,
probably somewhat like the Europeans give our folks moneys when they
record a song and play it over there, but we don't. We should have that
same reciprocity and fairness.
H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act, will extend these core privacy
protections to the citizens of certain foreign countries, those
designated by the Attorney General as trusted allies. This small change
to our laws will afford immediate benefits both at home and abroad.
This act will facilitate information-sharing partnerships with law
enforcement agencies across the globe. We know from experience that
open lines of communication with our allies yield intelligence and save
lives.
The act will enable the U.S. and the European Union to complete an
umbrella agreement to govern information sharing across the Atlantic
for law enforcement and counterterrorism purposes. This agreement,
which would include significant protections for individual privacy,
would not go into effect until we have made these changes.
Earlier this year a coalition of companies, trade associations, and
civil rights organizations wrote to the leadership of both parties to
outline the economic cost of ``a significant erosion of global public
trust in both the U.S. Government and the U.S. technology sector.''
Their fears appear to have been well founded.
Earlier this month, citing concerns about insufficient privacy
safeguards in the United States, the European Court of Justice
effectively suspended the safe harbor agreement that allows companies
to move digital information across the Atlantic.
Although there is far more work to be done to restore the agreement,
I hope that our allies will take this legislation as a sign of good
faith and recognize that a basic right to privacy extends beyond our
borders and we will work to restore the public trust necessary for the
continued success of U.S. industry overseas.
The Judicial Redress Act is supported by the White House, the
Department of Justice, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. It
has been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, Information Technology
Industry Council, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and IBM, among others.
At base, this bill is a measure of basic fairness. Our friends abroad
should have some course of redress with respect to information that
they provided to the U.S. Government in the first place.
We all benefit when the information we share is accurate. Our
partners in trade and security should have the ability to seek recourse
when it is not.
I thank Representative Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this
issue, for his leadership on many issues, including sentencing reform,
for his extreme knowledge of the world, and for sharing it with me on
occasion. I thank Mr. Goodlatte for those same talents and
achievements.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the
Committee on the Judiciary, and the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, strong international relationships
abroad are critical to the safety and advancement of the United States.
That is why I was pleased to introduce the Judicial Redress Act of 2015
with Ranking Member John Conyers and to speak in favor of it today.
For many years, the United States and the European Union have worked
together to secure data protection for their citizens under agreements
known as safe harbor. Earlier this month, however, the European Court
of Justice issued a landmark ruling invalidating the agreement because
of privacy concerns.
The European court's ruling illustrates how fragile trust between
nations can be. It is easily lost and hard to rebuild. Moreover, this
lack of trust has had huge economic and security consequences for the
United States. Our businesses have struggled against public backlash
and protectionist policies, and our government has faced increasingly
difficult negotiations to share law enforcement and intelligence data.
The Judicial Redress Act of 2015 is central to our efforts to rebuild
strained relationships with our allies and to ensure privacy and
security for both American and European Union citizens. The sudden
termination of the safe harbor framework strikes a blow to U.S.
businesses by complicating commercial data flows. If we fail to pass
the Judicial Redress Act, we risk similar disruption to the sharing of
law enforcement information.
In many ways, the Judicial Redress Act is a privacy bill. It is
backed and supported by many of our country's top privacy advocates.
But make no mistake. The bill is crucial to U.S. law enforcement. At
the heart of the Judicial Redress Act is the pressing need for the
continued sharing of law enforcement data across the Atlantic.
In our complex digital world, privacy and security are not competing
values. They are weaved together inseparably, and today's policymakers
must craft legal frameworks that support both.
This bill provides our allies with limited remedies relative to the
data they share with the United States, similar to those American
citizens enjoy under the Privacy Act. It is a way to support our
foreign allies and to ensure the continued sharing of law enforcement
data.
Specifically, the bill will give citizens of covered countries the
ability to correct flawed information in their record and access U.S.
courts if the U.S. Government unlawfully discloses their personal
information.
As United States citizens, we already enjoy similar protections in
Europe. Granting these rights to our closest allies and their citizens
will be a positive step forward in restoring our international
reputation and rebuilding trust.
In fact, our European colleagues have noted that the passage of the
Judicial Redress Act is critical to negotiating a new agreement,
central to their willingness to continue sharing law enforcement data
with the United States and necessary to improving relations between
nations.
If we fail to pass this bill, we will undermine several important
international agreements, further harm our businesses operating in
Europe, and severely limit sharing of law enforcement information.
The Judicial Redress Act currently enjoys broad support and has been
endorsed by the Department of Justice as well as the Chamber of
Commerce and numerous U.S. businesses.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives John Conyers,
Randy Forbes, and Glenn Thompson, for cosponsoring this legislation, as
well as Senators Orrin Hatch and Christopher Murphy for their work on
companion legislation in the Senate.
The Judicial Redress Act amounts to a small courtesy that will pay
huge diplomatic and economic dividends. I urge my colleagues to pass
this important bill and my colleagues in the Senate to take it up
without delay.
Let's put the President's infamous pen to good use by signing this
legislation.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I will perfunctorily reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, to
come over here and discuss H.R. 1428, the Judicial Redress Act. Echoing
a lot that has been said already, this is a great starting point for,
really, a broader conversation about privacy rights and a conversation
that is sorely needed.
I supported this bill when it passed the Committee on the Judiciary
unanimously, and I am proud to support it today. The bill extends the
same rights afforded to Americans under the 1974 Privacy Act to
citizens of certain allied nations. Importantly, only citizens
[[Page H6988]]
of countries who extend similar rights to Americans for redress for
privacy violations are eligible.
As everyone here is aware, revelations about U.S. surveillance
operations created serious trust issues, and both the government and
tech sectors experienced a decline in that global trust. Advances in
technology and innovation have made it possible and necessary for law
enforcement to exchange information, but it should not be done at the
expense of privacy rights.
In order to restore global trust and ensure continued competitiveness
for our thriving tech industry, we must work to restore consumers'
faith that their data is secure in U.S. tech companies and their
privacy rights are protected.
{time} 1615
The United States tech industry employed an estimated 6.5 million
people in 2014 and made up a large 7.1 percent of the U.S. GDP, which
is going to do nothing but grow.
The free flow of transnational data is critical for the continued
success of this industry that contributes in such a major way to our
economy. We have to show our allies that they can be confident sharing
data across the oceans and the various barriers.
The Judicial Redress Act is a step toward regaining trust and
rebuilding cooperation with our allies, ensuring that U.S. businesses
can continue to grow and thrive internationally. H.R. 1428 is
particularly important because the U.S. and the EU have negotiated the
Data Protection and Privacy Agreement for the last 2 years.
During the negotiations over the agreement, the EU Parliament and EU
Commission made clear that the Safe Harbor Agreement would not be
finalized absent U.S. enactment of a law to enable EU citizens to sue
the U.S. Government for major privacy violations. With the European
Court of Justice Ruling on the Safe Harbor Agreement, it is more
important than ever that we create solutions that work for today's
ever-changing tech industry, from the small companies to the household
names. It is also critical that we work with our allies to create a
clear standard for governing the privacy of personal information to
ensure strong and cooperative exchanges between law enforcement.
Laws and agreements written before many of today's innovations even
existed are due for an update, and this bill is an important first step
that I am proud to support. I am thankful that the chairman has brought
it forward for this body to put its stamp on and send to the Senate so
that it will be taken up and then sent to the President so that we will
continue to move forward in the protection of privacy rights for all
Americans and our companies.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being part of this bill, and
thank you for your efforts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I again reiterate, this bill is a good
bill. It is a very important bill that will help promote law
enforcement cooperation around the globe and will help U.S. companies
that do business overseas to be able to better obtain the respect and
trust of foreign governments and foreign citizens, so I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1428.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
