Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the west Michigan community is mourning the loss of Richard DeVos, a man whose spirit touched millions of lives and helped shape Grand Rapids into the thriving city it is today.

Rich passed away on September 6 at the age of 92, survived by 4 children, 16 grandchildren, and 6 great-grandchildren. Rich follows his late wife, Helen DeVos, who passed away at the age of 90 in October of last year.

A World War II veteran, an entrepreneur who never feared failure, Rich was a larger-than-life presence whose Christian faith and love for America were evident in all that he did.

I greatly admired Rich, as did countless others, not just from west Michigan, but from around the world, for his optimistic and caring approach to family, friends, business, and philanthropy alike.

Anyone who knew Rich will tell you that he was an incredibly charismatic, encouraging, and kind person. I was fortunate enough to have a personal glimpse into this legend of a man who did so much for the west Michigan community while his work at home and abroad was changing the world.

While no one can fill the void that Rich's passing leaves, our community takes comfort in knowing that his legacy of generosity, entrepreneurship, and kindness will have a lasting impact.

May the memory of him be eternal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment replaces the underlying bill with the USA RIGHTS Act. Like the base bill, under the USA RIGHTS Act, the government can still use section 702 for its purpose of surveilling foreigners overseas; and the government can continue to store, share, and access that data to investigate national security threats.

The key difference is, in USA RIGHTS, it has to do with the collection and use of innocent Americans' data, not foreign intelligence. This means the amendment cannot harm section 702 programs if, as the government says, they are designed solely for foreign intelligence rather than domestic surveillance on Americans.

We all want the intelligence community to be able to do its job, and I have offered the USA RIGHTS amendment to give them the tools to collect foreign intelligence while also protecting the Fourth Amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, my amendment protects the rights of Americans consistent with the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment protects the rights of Americans consistent with the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to whether the gentleman has additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill and the USA RIGHTS amendment present a stark choice.

The underlying bill allows the government to warrantlessly collect an astounding volume of Americans' communications, makes no material reforms to the collection and use of that data against Americans, and explicitly allows even more surveillance than the law currently permits.

In contrast, USA RIGHTS allows the government to conduct broad foreign surveillance and share intelligence throughout the relevant agencies, but it also adds protections to prevent the erosion of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.

These are two very different options, Mr. Speaker, but for all of us who care about civil liberties, who believe the United States can protect itself without retiring the Fourth Amendment, and who believe Congress has an independent obligation to protect the Constitution, the choice is clear: support the USA RIGHTS amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, each year the Federal Government uses civil asset forfeiture to take billions of dollars' worth of property from people who have not been charged with any crime. It is an unconstitutional practice that is used to violate the due process rights of innocent people.

Fortunately, some States have passed laws to limit asset forfeiture; but the Federal Government helps State law enforcement evade these requirements by doing adoptive forfeitures where the Federal Government accepts property seized by the State law enforcement, forfeits it under Federal law, and gives the State agency a cut of the proceeds.

Mr. Chairman, this practice is outrageous. It supplants the authority of States to regulate their own law enforcement, and it further mires the Federal Government in unconstitutional asset forfeitures.

In 2015, the Department of Justice placed limits on adoptive forfeiture, prohibiting the Federal Government from accepting property seized by local police when there is no involvement by Federal law enforcement and the property does not relate to public safety. These are commonsense restrictions that prevent the most egregious seizures.

Unfortunately, these restrictions were revoked in June of this year. My amendment would restore them by prohibiting the use of funds to do adoptive forfeitures that were banned under the 2015 rules.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I encourage everyone to support this amendment. We must defend the Fifth

Amendment and we must protect property rights.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with great sadness, the people of west Michigan learned of the recent passing of former Congressman Vern Ehlers.

Vern was a humble man who served our community with honor. Early in his life, Vern moved to Grand Rapids to attend Calvin College. After earning his Ph.D. at Berkeley, he returned to help launch, and later chair, Calvin's Physics Department. His passion for science, technology, and the environment came to define his time at Calvin and tenure in Congress.

In 1993, Vern was elected to Congress and served until his retirement in 2010. Vern was the first research physicist in Congress, and his impressive background contributed to his many achievements.

Vern was a member of the Committees on Education and the Workforce; Science, Space, and Technology; and Transportation and Infrastructure. He served as chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and his portrait now hangs in the committee's main hearing room.

I have staff who worked for Vern, and they all admired his compassion, independent thinking, and nonpartisan record. Colleagues often referred to him as ``the smartest man in Congress.''

Vern lived as commanded in Micah 6:8: ``To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with Your God.'' He placed his hands on this verse each time he was sworn in.

Our community will endeavor always to honor his legacy.

My deepest condolences go out to Vern's wife, Johanna, his children and grandchildren, and to everyone whose lives he touched. May his memory be eternal.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 154.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

We are here today for a very simple reason: to defend the Fourth Amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every American.

As the Director of National Intelligence has made clear, the government collects the phone records without suspicion of every single American in the United States.

My amendment makes a simple, but important change. It limits the government's collection of the records to those records that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section 215.

Opponents of this amendment will use the same tactic that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights--fear. They will tell you that the government must violate the rights of the American people to protect us against those who hate our freedoms. They will tell you there is no expectation of privacy in documents that are stored with a third party. Tell that to the American

people. Tell that to our constituents back home.

We are here to answer one question for the people we represent: Do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every American's phone records?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

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

We're here to answer one question for the people we represent: Do we oppose the suspicion list collection of every American's phone records?

When you had the chance to stand up for Americans' privacy, did you?

Please support the Amash amendment and oppose the NSA's blanket surveillance of our constituents.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.