Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 33: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 35: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 36: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I use today to recognize Mr. Columbus Bone, Sr., who passed away on June 2, 2014.

Mr. Bone, who lived in Detroit, Michigan, was 100 at the time of his passing. Born in Huntsville, Alabama on October 6, 1913, Mr. Bone lived a life committed to faith, family, and our country.

Mr. Bone, the youngest of nine brothers and sisters, was the foundation of his family. In 1942, he married Pauline Harrison and lived a life devoted to loving his son Columbus Bone, Jr., six grandchildren, six great-grandchildren, thirty nieces and nephews, and over 150 great-grandnieces and nephews.

Following his marriage, he cemented his dedication to our country by joining the Armed Forces in 1942. Mr. Bone served a private in the Quarter-Master Unit of the Army during World War II until his honorable discharge on August 29, 1946. Mr. Bone was awarded a F.A.M.E. Medal for his service by the Northern African Theaters. His bravery and honor speak

volumes to his true spirit of an American patriot.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my constituent, Pvt. Columbus Bone, Sr. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring his legacy.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, Conyers No. 1.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment seeks to increase funding for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project by $2 million. This requested increase from $5 million to $7 million is consistent with both the President's budget request and the appropriations bill the Senate reported out of the committee late last week.

The level of funding provided for in this bill falls below not just requested amounts, but also below the current enacted amount for this program. My amendment amount would solve this discrepancy.

Mr. Chair, homelessness is not only corrosive to individual lives, but also to our national character. It is unthinkable that more than a million people routinely go homeless in the most prosperous nation this world has ever known.

In the struggle to eliminate homelessness, the National Homeless Data Analysis Project is essential. In 2001, Congress directed HUD to ``take the lead on data collection'' on homelessness, and the result was this project. It provides critical resources to communities to improve data collection, reporting, and integration of data with other Federal funding streams.

Over the past decade, the data collection, integration, and reporting produced by this project has allowed HUD and other agencies to move away from using largely anecdotal and often inconsistent evidence to using quality data for policy decisions.

At the end of the day, no matter which side of the aisle we sit on, this is the type of initiative we should all support. Better information leads to better decisionmaking and, ultimately, better policy outcomes, particularly in times of shrinking budgets.

In a policy arena as important as homeless assistance, this House cannot afford to underfund enhanced data collection initiatives. A vote for this amendment is a vote for smarter use of Federal funds and a vote to make every homeless assistance program better targeted and more effective.

In my own district, homelessness is a chronic problem. In the Detroit area during 2012, over 19,000 people were homeless at some point. That figure includes nearly 4,000 children. In order to help them, however, we need to understand the circumstances that have forced them onto the streets.

The 6,000 homeless families with children in Detroit have different needs than homeless adults. Certain similarities between those who are homeless because of unaffordable housing and those who are homeless because of mental illness or domestic violence may hide the critical differences that prevent help from achieving its intended goal.

I fully support any project that would lead to a better accounting of the real experiences of the poorest people in my district or anyone else's and ultimately result in better decisionmaking in the provision and administration of Federal homeless assistance programs. I hope and feel certain that my colleagues feel the same.

This measure is, quite simply, about good government. This measure is not a budget increase. This amendment would simply grant discretion to allocate up to $2 million of the already existing funding in the bill for homelessness assistance grants to the National Homeless Data Analysis Project. It would not increase the overall appropriations under the heading for homelessness assistance grants. Under the $2.1 billion heading for homelessness assistance grant, there is still approximately $100 million in flexibility.

I urge support for the National Homeless Data Analysis Project. I urge support for smarter usage of Federal funds; and I urge support for enhanced policy outcomes. I thank you for the time, and I hope that we can pass this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 24: Page 99, line 11, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art, which will be celebrated with a series of public programs and exhibits.

Originally founded in the former Capitol Hill townhouse of Frederick Douglass, the museum was first opened by my friend Warren Robbins on June 3, 1964.

Over the ensuing decades, the museum has come to take a greater role in furthering cultural development in our Nation's capital. In 1979, it joined the Smithsonian Institution, and it relocated to its current location on the National Mall in 1987.

As the only national museum in the United States dedicated to the arts of Africa, it plays an important role in elevating the knowledge and understanding of visitors and academics alike. As a repository of stirring and thought-provoking artifacts, and a place for evocative performances and dialogues, it serves as a source of inspiration so many of our artists--luminaries like the late Maya Angelou who was a tireless advocate for the museum.

This museum has come a long way over the past 50 years, to play an important role in the Smithsonian Institution, in the Washington, D.C. community, and in the cultural life of our Nation and the world.

I congratulate them on a wonderful 50 years, and I wish them another flourishing 50 more.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, is intended to provide strong, concrete limits that prevent mass and untargeted collection of records and information using domestic intelligence authorities, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the intelligence pen/trap statute, and national security letters. The USA FREEDOM Act is designed to prevent bulk collection on a nationwide scale and other broad collection of information that pertains to large numbers of people who share an identifier. The substitute amendment's definition of ``specific selection term'' is an integral part of our effort to end, and prevent, such broad collection. The identifiers that fit this definition should be narrowly construed to further this goal.

Under the bill, a specific selection term is defined as, ``a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device, used by the Government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things sought pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of such information or tangible thing to the government.''

This definition includes a non-exclusive list of discrete identifiers--person, entity, account, address, device--that are associated with a specific person or a very small group of people. The list is non-exclusive because there may be other discrete identifiers that pertain only to a specific person or a small group. Using an illustrative list rather than an exhaustive list provides necessary flexibility in choosing selection terms that identify particular people or small groups, and is not intended to permit collection of information about large numbers of people who may have some tie to an identifier. For example, a ``specific selection term'' includes the phone number associated with a target's cell phone and the phone number of his home landline he shares with the rest of his family, but not an area code shared by thousands or millions.

The substitute amendment includes ``device'' and ``address'' among the illustrative examples of specific selection terms. Use of these examples is not intended to permit large scale collection. They were added to broaden the type of specific identifiers that could be employed, not to permit broad collection of information that pertains to vast numbers of people. In both cases, these terms apply to a personal identifier--a personal device or address--in which the ``device'' or ``address'' takes the place of another unique identifier, such as a name or account.

For example, the IMEI number of cell phone identifies that ``device'' and is an appropriate selection term because the device is associated with a specific person. However, the IP address of an Internet router that acts as a hub for thousands of email users, while it identifies a specific device, does not qualify as a specific selection term because the records associated it with pertain to so many people. Similarly, an ``address'' could serve as a selection term permitting the government to name the physical address of a home, but not an IP address shared by thousands of Internet users. To use a selection term in a manner that would sweep up the records that pertain to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individuals is exactly the type of mass surveillance that this legislation is designed to prevent.

The USA FREEDOM Act is intended to stop both bulk and ``bulky'' collection, and I expect it to fulfill this function as a critical safeguard to Americans' privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the USA FREEDOM Act. The version of the bill pending before us today is not a perfect vehicle. There is more that we can do and must do to ensure, as the Fourth Amendment requires, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

But let me be clear. The compromise bill before us today is a significant improvement over the status quo. It is a good bill. Now, with this legislation, we stand poised to end domestic bulk collection across the board--in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, in the pen register authority, and in the national security letter statutes--by requiring the use of a ``specific selection term'' before the government may obtain information or tangible things.

This legislation will create a panel of experts from which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can draw expertise and questions involving privacy, civil liberties, and technology. It will also require the court to disclose every significant opinion it issues, because in this country there should be no such thing as secret law. And we have accomplished all these things while providing President Obama with his requested authority for the limited, prospective collection of call detail records.

Any bill we might have offered on this subject would have been imperfect, but we have been careful to include the critical safeguards in this legislation. With the additional reporting, declassification, and transparency requirements laid out in the measure before us, we believe the government would be hard-pressed to attempt to expand its surveillance authorities beyond the narrow intent of this legislation.

As the administration stated yesterday in a formal statement of policy, the USA FREEDOM Act ``prohibits bulk collection.'' This is our intent, and we will hold the current and future administrations to this intent.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. Nadler of New York, and Mr. Scott of Virginia for their tireless leadership on this issue. I also want to express appreciation to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their willingness to work with us to reach this point.

The House is poised to approve the first significant rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. We must seize this opportunity, and so I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3361.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has worked so hard on this.

I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a very active member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for the hard work that went into drafting the bill and the many compromises

that were reached when we went into the final product.

In addition to Caroline Lynch and Sam Ramer with Chairman Goodlatte, Bart Forsyth with Mr. Sensenbrenner, our own staff, Aaron Hiller, Joe Graupensperger, Heather Sawyer, all deserve appropriate credit and praise for the many late nights and long weekends that they spent working on the public's behalf on this critical legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute, and it is to clarify the term ``specific selection term'' because the definition of specific selection term that appears in the compromise bill is imperfect, but the USA FREEDOM Act still ends bulk collection. That is why we are here.

Under the act, the government may not obtain information or tangible things under section 215, the FISA pen register authority, or the National Security Letter statutes without using a ``specific selection term'' as the basis for production.

Critics are correct. This is not as clean or straightforward as the definition approved by both the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee. Nothing in the definition explicitly prohibits the government from using a very broad selection term like ``area code 202'' or ``the entire eastern seaboard.'' But that concern is largely theoretical; the type of collection is not likely to be of use to the government.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``specific selection term'' includes a phrase pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of information, and that is intended to keep the definition within the four corners of the statute.

There will now be an amicus in the court to argue that expansive readings of this text--like the reading that took ``relevance'' in section 215 to mean ``all call detail records''--are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the law.

Under this bill, any FISA Court opinion that interprets this definition must be declassified and released to the public within 45 days. If the government tries to expand this authority, the public will know it in short order.

The House is poised to approve the first significant rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. We must seize this opportunity. If this bill is not approved today, we are giving our intelligence people and NSA a green light to go ahead, and I cannot imagine that happening in this body.

I support H.R. 3361 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this opportunity to thank one of the most dedicated members of my Judiciary Committee staff, Michelle Millben, for her service to both the Committee and the House of Representatives. This month she will be leaving to join the White House in the Office of Presidential Personnel as the Outreach and Recruitment Director (Congressional Affairs).

To say that Michelle is a multi-talented attorney would be an understatement. A native of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Michelle received her Bachelor's degree in Music Performance, with honors in the violin and piano, from Oklahoma City University. Her musical talent is evidenced by a strong performance resume, impressively amassed while pursuing her legal education. She has performed in gospel choirs backing up Bruce Springsteen's Super Bowl halftime show and also sang at concerts for President Obama on the National Mall and at his first inauguration. In addition, Michelle has appeared as a choral singer in TNT's ``Christmas In Washington'' and participated as a vocal performer in the annual Kennedy Center Honors, providing background vocals alongside music legends such as Sting, James Taylor, Mavis Staples, Steven Tyler, Carrie Underwood, Heart, and Garth Brooks.

Michelle realized a longstanding dream of coming to Washington by studying at the Georgetown University Law Center as a visiting student during her third year of law school. She was ultimately awarded her Juris Doctor from The University of Oklahoma College of Law in 2009 and joined the Committee staff that fall. Michelle has served as a key resource to Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. While working as an Oversight Counsel, Michelle focused on such issues as the foreclosure crisis, the Fair Housing Act, and oversight of the Department of Justice. After our transition to the minority, Michelle's portfolio grew to encompass matters impacting women and women's health, civil rights, voting rights, human rights, election administration, and campaign finance. Michelle had significant staff responsibility for important pieces of legislation, most notably the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 1540), the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 2014 (H.R. 3899), and a number of significant civil rights bills that have promising bipartisan support. Michelle has also worked to spearhead efforts around the filing of amicus briefs on behalf of Members of the House Judiciary Committee in the landmark Supreme Court cases of Shelby County v. Holder and McCutcheon v. FEC.

While her work on the Judiciary Committee staff clearly evidences a strong commitment to Federal service, Michelle has also taken the time to focus on service to youth and families in her newly adopted home state of Virginia and the City of Alexandria. Michelle currently serves as a Commissioner for the City's Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which strives to provide affordable housing and economic opportunity for city residents, and also serves on the Board of Directors for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington's DC region. As an Associate Minister at the historic Alfred Street Baptist Church, Michelle also directs children's programs during the summer for the congregation's Vacation Bible School which gathers almost 1,000 people nightly during one week in June, while also leading music ministry to hundreds of students during their weekly Tuesday bible study at the church.

Michelle's energy and dedication to community service have not gone unnoticed. She was accepted into the Political Leaders Program Class of 2014 at the bipartisan Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership in Virginia. Michelle has been awarded the Dawn Lawson Leadership Development Award from the Virginia Leadership Institute, and was also

awarded the Oliver Hill Award for Social Activism by the National Black Law Students Association for her efforts in battling against social injustices.

On behalf of the Judiciary Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, I would like to thank Michelle for her exemplary work, generosity, sense of humor, and loyalty over the past five years. She will be sorely missed as a colleague, advisor, and friend. We wish her the best of luck and extend to her our deepest gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Tim Carpenter, the National Director of the Progressive Democrats of America, who passed away this week. Mr. Carpenter will be remembered as a passionate and highly effective advocate for jobs, justice, and peace. Driven by compassion and a limitless commitment to strengthening our democracy, Mr. Carpenter built and sustained a national grassroots network that has been at the forefront of efforts to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enact single-payer healthcare, end mass criminalization, strengthen voting rights, pass meaningful campaign finance reform, stop global warming, and realize the vision of a full employment society. Mr. Carpenter was a deep believer in participatory democracy, and--in building an organization that empowers citizens to both locally and global to affect positive change--he embodied the principles he cherished.

An inquisitive mind and an extraordinary advocate, Mr. Carpenter travelled from coast to coast, meeting with Americans to learn about their struggles with unemployment, lost healthcare, polluted air and water, denied access to the polls, and injuries suffered on the battlefield. The coalition he assembled to address these injustices is diverse and extraordinarily engaged. Their work--facilitated by Mr. Carpenter--has been indispensable to

generating progress for struggling people and our planet. I am extraordinarily grateful for his contributions to our nation and world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today--the 25th observance Workers' Memorial Day--in memory of the thousands of men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers who got up one morning, got dressed, kissed their loved ones goodbye, and never returned home.

We owe those workers--the pillars of our modern economy--and their families more than mere remembrance. We owe them more than just our thoughts, prayers, and sympathies. We owe them something that is far too rare in this town: we owe them action.

Anyone who remembers the history of workplace safety would tell you that the problem has improved since the labor movement first coalesced around safer workplaces. In 1970, their hard work finally paid off. Congress came together--Democrat and Republican--to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Even then we did not see eye to eye on this issue; the process was long, and fraught with setbacks. However, we knew that 13,800 workplace fatalities every year--18 for every 100,000 workers--was something we could not in good conscience allow.

We knew that we could not sit idly by while so many died--so we put aside differences, worked together, and saved the lives of thousands of Americans, and protected the health and well-being of millions more. We cut workplace fatalities, from 18 out of every 100,000 employees to 4 out of 100,000. We cut total yearly workplace fatalities, from over 13,000 to almost 4,000, despite massive growth in the size of total national workforce. We did what Congress is supposed to do: pass legislation that improves peoples' lives.

However, with time and neglect the vitality of our workplace safety protections has waned. Enforcement actions are rarely undertaken. Our criminal penalties are paper tigers. Civil penalties have been flat since before the Clinton administration, after being raised only once since 1970. It would take hundreds of years to inspect all our workplaces at current funding levels. We have failed to act, and our failures are measured in lost lives and wrecked bodies.

We spend too much time debating whether employers can risk their workers' lives without consequence. We spend too much time arguing about the cost of regulation--when the median penalty for killing a worker is only $5,175 dollars.

Today, I hope my colleagues will remember that a human life is worth more than that. I urge my colleagues to consider the multiple pieces of legislation that would enhance workplace safety protections introduced this Congress. We should start with the Protecting America's Workers Act, which would strengthen the penalties for workplace safety violations, index them for inflation, and provide for additional penalties for the most callous violators.

The time has come to address the shortcomings in our workplace safety system. The time has come to ensure that more fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters return home to the people they love.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that demonstrates that members of different parties with different philosophies can come together when the cause is so clear and straightforward, and we come here today, supporting the 4-year reauthorization of three programs established under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004.

These programs facilitate a holistic approach to the use of DNA in sexual assault cases by providing Federal grants to address the huge DNA backlogs and to provide DNA training and technical assistance to States and local law enforcement agencies.

The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program is named for Debbie Smith who, as my dear friend Mr. Scott has indicated, was kidnapped from her home and was raped in nearby woods.

The attacker remained unidentified for more than 6 years until a DNA sample, collected from a convicted person who was serving time in a Virginia State prison for other crimes, revealed his identity as her attacker. The delay in identifying her attacker caused Debbie Smith untold psychological and emotional torture.

I am very pleased by the fact that, along with Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Mr. Scott and Judge Poe, we were able to meet with Mrs. Smith and her husband, who honor us by witnessing this proceeding that is now going on.

I want to commend not only the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott, but also Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Judge Poe, who all have worked so hard to make this law work.

We are reducing the backlog, but the person who championed this issue the most was Carolyn Maloney, and I am happy to recommend her for the commendation that she deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the upcoming anniversary of the essential diplomatic relationship between the United States and Taiwan. This enduring partnership is built upon strong cultural ties and the shared values of democracy and the rule of law.

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law on April 10, 1979, serves as the legal basis for relations between United States and Taiwan. 35 years later, the TRA remains the foundation of the continuous bilateral relationship between our two countries and represents the United States' commitment to the people on Taiwan.

I was proud to support US-Taiwan relations in 1979, and I am proud to support US-Taiwan relations today.

The TRA has enabled Taiwan to flourish as a democracy while at the same time achieving miraculous economic growth. The TRA provides the confidence that has allowed Taiwan to govern itself, expand trade with the global marketplace, and engage in cross-Strait negotiations. We, as a Congress, are proud of what we created with the Taiwan Relations Act and will do everything in our power to uphold this law that has proved so fruitful for Taiwan and the United States.

As we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the TRA, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new chief representative of Taiwan to the United States, Ambassador Lyushun Shen. Ambassador Shen is a seasoned diplomat with many years of experience working in Washington, D.C. I am confident that he will continue developing the common interests for our countries, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 2014, I was traveling with President Obama for his address at the University of Michigan and unable to vote on the rule for H.R. 2575. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''