Justin Amash

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the President to order the indefinite detention of American citizens arrested on U.S. soil without charge or trial.

The NDAA says that:

The Afghanistan AUMF, empowers the President to detain any

person who substantially supported associated forces of

terrorists.

``Substantial support'' and ``associated forces'' are not defined.

Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a nonviolent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the 2012 NDAA, if the President determines the group was associated with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely and without charge or trial.

This compromise amendment guarantees that persons arrested on U.S. soil under the Afghanistan AUMF or the NDAA will be charged for their wrongdoing and will receive a fair trial. The government will be required to tell people detained on U.S. soil the allegations against them, and the government will have to make its case before a judge, just as the Constitution requires.

President Obama pledged in signing the 2012 NDAA that he ``will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,'' saying that to do so ``would break with our most important traditions and values. . . . ''

But, Americans' constitutionally protected rights should not depend on Presidential promises or who is in charge. A free country is defined by the rule of law, not the government's whim.

Mr. Chair, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, leaving these powers on the books is not only a dangerous threat to our civil liberties, but also undermines one of our strongest assets in trying suspected terrorists: Article III courts and domestic law enforcement.

Since September 11, the Federal Government has successfully prosecuted hundreds of defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism. Our Constitution works.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Representative Barbara Lee and Chairman Smith, for joining me on this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For more than a year, Republicans have been speaking forcefully about the use of FISA to gather intelligence on people associated with the Trump campaign. The concern is that some information was inappropriately included in an application submitted to the FISA court which then found probable cause and granted an order to authorize surveillance of a Trump associate.

I appreciate my colleague's concerns about Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, but if my colleagues are concerned about the part of FISA used during the 2016 Presidential campaign, they should be terrified of section 702.

Under section 702 of FISA, the FISA court does not approve targets. There are no individualized applications or requirements to show probable cause in order to collect communications. The government can search and sweep in billions of communications, including communications of Americans, and then query that data for a particular American's communications without a warrant.

The communications can be used to investigate and prosecute Americans. The government can use an American's data to send them to prison without ever obtaining a warrant for it.

The Amash-Lofgren amendment puts in basic safeguards to allow the government to continue using section 702 for its stated purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, while limiting the government's warrantless collection of Americans' communications under FISA.

This amendment gives my Republican colleagues an opportunity to show that their concern about Fourth Amendment violations extends to the countless Americans that are impacted by the government's warrantless FISA surveillance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, a vote for this amendment is also a vote to keep the President in check. For 2 years now my Democratic colleagues have spoken about the administration's violation of civil liberties and its disregard for laws passed by Congress.

Section 702 is a broad authority with limited oversight and its regular use involves the warrantless collection of Americans' data. Even under previous administrations, the government has misled or kept information from Congress about its use of surveillance authorities, including their impact on Americans.

The government has also repeatedly failed to abide by legal limitations placed on those surveillance powers. The Fourth Amendment recognizes that broad surveillance powers are too dangerous to be put in the hands of any President.

The Amash-Lofgren amendment protects Fourth Amendment secured rights by limiting the ability of the President to unconstitutionally collect Americans' communications without a warrant.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chairwoman, my colleague is parroting the same thing we hear each time we try to make any reforms to the government surveillance authorities. These arguments are no longer credible.

Just a few months ago, the former Director of National Intelligence admitted that the government ``may have oversold'' the importance of the NSA's dragnet of Americans' phone records when Congress was considering reforms in 2013. Now we have seen reports that the program has been shuttered entirely despite the government's dire warnings about limiting it to protect Americans' rights.

Madam Chair, my amendment still allows the government to use section 702 for its purpose of surveilling foreigners overseas. All it does is limit things like collecting fully domestic communications.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Roy).

Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairwoman, when I go back to my district, I hear from my constituents and they always ask: What is wrong with Washington? We can see what is wrong with Washington right here. We have Republicans for months saying: We are worried about FISA abuse. FISA is out of control.

Here we are trying to limit FISA, and they are running against it. They are saying: No, we can't limit FISA. Democrats say: We want to hold the President in check. Executive powers are out of control.

We have an amendment to hold the President in check. This is our time to stand up for the American people.

I am sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to defend their rights. I want to thank Ms. Lofgren for joining me in this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I can't begin to tell you how saddened I was at the passing last month of my dear friend and colleague, Walter Jones.

What a great man Walter was and what a great loss to this institution.

Walter was one of my closest friends in Congress. I wish I had been able to spend more time with him, but I will be forever grateful for the time that I did spend with him.

I am glad I was able to attend his funeral in North Carolina to say good-bye and celebrate his life with his family and friends. I am pleased to join with my colleagues here today to do the same.

Even though Walter was one of my best friends, he would always refer to me as ``Chairman.'' I used to think that was because I was the chairman of the House Liberty Caucus. Then one day I realized that he would call all sorts of people ``Chairman,'' so I asked him about it, and he told me, ``Everyone is chairman of something.''

Well, Walter, you were the chairman of kindness, humility, dignity, courage, integrity and honor.

Walter was one of the best men I knew, a kind, humble, dignified man dedicated to his faith, his family, and the people he represented.

Walter had a courage and integrity you rarely see in this chamber or anywhere. He never gave up fighting for what he believed in. He wasn't in Washington for money, power, or fame. He cared about honor and doing the right thing, and he was brave enough to admit when he was wrong.

You were a good man, Walter, no matter what you may have thought about your mistakes. You were a good man, chairman, and I will miss you.

May your memory be eternal.