Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill wouldn't end the separation of children from their parents, but it would also provide that the parents could be put in jail with their children.

The alternative, which is false, seems to be to put the mother in the cage with the toddler or they run free and we will never see them again. It is not true.

There was something called the Family Case Management Program--100 percent attendance rate at the immigration hearing. Those are not my figures. Those are figures from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

One hundred percent of the people showed up at their hearing, either to get relief or to be removed, at a cost of $36 a day, as compared to $711 a day to keep a child in a temporary tent facility.

We don't want to see the equivalent of internment camps, as we saw in World War II, for these asylum seekers.

We need the orderly administration of the immigration laws. This bill will lead to mass incarceration of mothers and their toddlers.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we be honest about why we are here today. Every major problem in this bill that this bill purports to tackle was actually created by President Trump himself.

First, there is Trump's policy of ripping children away from their parents. He issued an order last night purporting to address this issue, but we would not need to address it in legislation if it weren't for his misguided policies. And I will point out that his remedy appears to be the same one that is in this bill, which is to put the mothers in the cages with the toddlers and to incarcerate whole families.

Then we have the DACA program that President Trump chose to eliminate. He says he cares about Dreamers, but it was his own decision that created the present danger to these young Americans in waiting.

And, finally, we have the asserted need to change our asylum laws to make it almost impossible to qualify, and to authorize the prolonged detention of asylum-seeking families with children, to ensure compliance with the laws.

I mentioned during the discussion of the rule, this is not necessary. We had a program called the Family Case Management program that, according to the inspector general for the Homeland Security Department, resulted in a 100 percent attendance rate at immigration court proceedings. And that is, in fact, what we need. We need attendance at the court hearing. And if a person prevails, they would be granted asylum, if they fail, they will be removed. What we need here is the orderly processing and application of immigration law instead of the chaos that President Trump has brought to us.

I would like to point out that this program costs $36 a day compared to over $700 a day to put a child in one of those cages. Now, those aren't my figures. Those are from DHS.

We don't need this legislation. We need the President to take action. He can do what needs to be done today by picking up the phone.

Now, he has backed off temporarily, maybe because of public pressure, but he has not addressed the issue of the Dreamers.

I don't know what the words a special path mean, but there is a new path for Dreamers in this bill. However, as has been mentioned by Mr. Nadler, for some, it could take as long as 23 years. So if you are 27 years old now, by the time you are able to apply and receive U.S. citizenship, you would be 55 years of age. I think that is a ridiculous proviso, especially, as we have all acknowledged, these are young people who are Americans in every capacity, but for their----

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say, I think that the President has taken the Dreamers, the little children, the asylum- seeking families as hostages for the anti-immigrant provisions in this bill.

It has been mentioned that we have a generous immigration system. To whom? Two-thirds of the visas go to the immediate nuclear family of Americans. So that is what we want.

To eliminate the ability of Americans to have their sons and daughters with them is simply wrong.

Madam Speaker, we should vote against this disaster of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Correa for yielding, and I thank him for organizing this Special Order.

It is a part of immigration law--it is not a violation of immigration law, it is a part of immigration law--that people fleeing for their lives can come to the United States and apply for asylum. Not only is that in our statutes, but it is also in a treaty that we ratified. People concerned about the rule of law ought to realize this is part of our law.

Here is what is happening. People fleeing for their lives, primarily from Central America, are going to the ports of entry. In some cases, we have received reports that they make their claim and their children are taken away from them, I believe in violation of law.

In other cases, even though they are there to make an application, they are turned away by Border Patrol. They then go down the road and find a Border Patrol agent to turn themselves in to, to make their claim for political asylum. And when that happens, their children are then taken away from them.

Mr. Speaker, there is a report today from the Department of Health and Human Services, which says that since this policy was adopted by the Trump administration, 1,329 kids have been taken from their parents in this cruel policy. I think that this is not the American way.

Mr. Speaker, I saw a report from CNN today. Here is what it says: ``The undocumented immigrant from Honduras sobbed as she told an attorney Tuesday how Federal authorities took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center . . . when the woman resisted, she was handcuffed. . . .''

The Catholic church has spoken out again today from CNN, and this is what Cardinal DiNardo said:

Families are the foundational element of our society and

they must be able to stay together. While protecting our

borders is important, we can and must do better as a

government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure

that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the

answer and is immoral.

We are here today to say: America, we need to take a stand. The President and his administration has decided to terrorize children in an effort to deter people from availing themselves of the opportunity provided for under immigration law. That is simply wrong.

America, now is the time to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize over three decades of the dedicated work and compassionate leadership of Mr. Sal Ventura in service of improving the lives of working families in our community.

Sal was born in San Jose in the late 50's. Raised and educated in Santa Clara County, he completed the San Jose City College Labor Studies Program and started his long and storied career with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) with an apprenticeship in 1981. Sal was hired as IBEW staff in the Organizing Department in January, 1995, and by May, 1997, he was appointed as Business Agent.

In all, Sal spent 36 years as a member of the IBEW and 32 years as a member of the IBEW Local 332 Political Action Committee, serving as Chairman for 14 years. Over the course of his career, Sal served as an elected Executive Board member and as Vice President of IBEW 332. As he retires, Sal is the current President of the South Bay Labor Council executive board and the assistant manager of IBEW Local 332.

During his career, Sal expanded his efforts beyond IBEW and served on many labor and community boards and committees, including as Former Executive Board Member of the South Bay Labor Council, Delegate and former Trustee of the Santa Clara/San Benito Counties Building Trades, and Chairman of the South Bay Labor Council Community Services Committees. Additionally, Sal has served on the Board of Christmas in April/Rebuild Together Silicon Valley and with our community radio station, KKUP.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby recognize and commend Sal Ventura for his lifelong work and commitment to work in the best interest of our community. I congratulate him on his impressive career and commend him on his invaluable service. As Sal continues his life in San Jose with his wife, Jenny, his two daughters, two puppies, and a parakeet, I wish him a restful and fulfilling retirement. We have been lucky to have him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, to honor the 100th Annual Memorial Day Service in our community and to take a moment to remember those in our military who selflessly sacrificed their lives for our nation.

This year, the United Veterans Council of Santa Clara County will help conduct the 100th Memorial Day Service in our community to recognize and celebrate, with gratitude and appreciation, the fallen heroes of our U.S. Armed Forces.

We acknowledge that through their heroism, our service members protected our freedom and fostered the safety and prosperity that we enjoy as a nation. We remember also the families of all those who perished in service to our country, and express our gratitude to them.

Mr. Speaker, we hereby recognize and commend those members of our U.S. Armed Forces, who have lost their lives in service of our country, as well as their family and communities, who supported their service for our country. During our 100th Memorial Day Service, our community comes together to remember those who dedicated their lives to preserve and protect our way of life and our future.

Mr. Speaker, on April 27, I missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 162; NAY on Roll Call No. 163; YEA on Roll Call No. 164; YEA on Roll Call No. 165; and NAY on Roll Call No. 166.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, I missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 155; NAY on Roll Call No. 156; NAY on Roll Call No. 157; YEA on Roll Call No. 158; NAY on Roll Call No. 159; YEA on Roll Call No. 160; and YEA on Roll Call No. 161.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues, Congressman Pete Aguilar, Congresswoman Karen Bass, Congresswoman Nanette Barragan, Congressman Ami Bera, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Congressman Salud Carbajal, Congressman Tony Cardenas, Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congressman Lou Correa, Congressman Jim Costa, Congresswoman Susan Davis, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congressman John Garamendi, Congressman Jimmy Gomez, Congressman Jared Huffman, Congressman Ro Khanna, Congressman Ted Lieu, Congressman Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Scott Peters, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Congressman Raul Ruiz, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Congressman Adam Schiff, Congressman Brad Sherman, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congresswoman Norma Torres, Congressman Juan Vargas, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, to commemorate my distinguished colleague, the Honorable Barbara Lee, as she celebrates her 20th anniversary in the United States House of Representatives.

Throughout her career representing the East Bay of California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee has fought to turn our nation's promise of peace, equality and justice for all into a reality. Her legislative accomplishments are many and varied, but they are all rooted in the universal goal of uplifting the marginalized and underrepresented. She has been relentless in her commitment to addressing and alleviating poverty, ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and advancing a vision of U.S. foreign policy that actively promotes global peace and security.

As a young working mother who relied on public assistance while raising her sons, Congresswoman Lee knows firsthand the challenges faced by those living in poverty. She has rightly called out the moral atrocity that is America's epidemic of poverty. Since 2013, she has served as Chair of the Democratic Whip's Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity, which is finding solutions to end the scourge of poverty. Congresswoman Lee has also made addressing institutionalized racism and racial wealth disparities a cornerstone of her approach. On the Appropriations Committee, she works tirelessly to protect and expand programs like unemployment insurance, housing assistance, child care, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Congresswoman Lee has also been a consistent force for ending HIV/ AIDS domestically and globally. She has authored or co-sponsored every major piece of legislation dealing with the AIDS crisis since entering Congress, including bills to establish the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Due to this groundbreaking legislation, the United States is a world leader in responding to the HIV/AIDS pandemic and ending this public health emergency for good.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee is also a leading voice for global peace and security. She is best known for her brave lone opposition to the open-ended 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that passed by Congress just three days after the September 11th attacks. Her foresight in predicting that this war authorization would be used as a blank check for perpetual war has proved prescient; today, this AUMF remains the legal basis for more than 40 military operations around the world. 16 years later, Congresswoman Lee remains persistent in her efforts to repeal the AUMF, and last year achieved a historic victory when her repeal bill was adopted by a bipartisan and nearly unanimous vote of the Appropriations Committee.

Congresswoman Lee has fought to strengthen ties with countries around the world--serving three times as the U.S. Congressional Representative to the United Nations. Her decades of persistent advocacy for normalizing relations with Cuba was integral to the re-opening of the U.S. embassy on the island. Through her position on the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, Congresswoman Lee has been a vocal champion of soft power initiatives, securing lifesaving funding for foreign development, nutrition and health care programs. Her leadership positions in Congress include: Vice Chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (2017-present), Vice Chair and founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, and Co-Chair of the Sudan and South Sudan Caucus.

She is the former chair (2008-2010) of the Congressional Black Caucus, a former co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, where she serves as co-Chair of the Health Care Task Force. Congresswoman Lee is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee, and previously served on the Banking, International Relations, Financial Services, and Foreign Affairs committees.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee's extraordinary work makes her an invaluable member of Congress. Today we celebrate her passion, commitment, and dedication to public service these past 20 years, and express our admiration that she remains a renegade for peace and justice. We send her our highest regards and best wishes as she crosses this incredible milestone.

Mr. Chairman, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been an important element of the law. It has allowed the internet to flourish. We support that.

But we never intended section 230 to protect people who are trafficking in human beings, who are abusing children, who are prostituting children. Really, modern slavery. It is an outrage.

And when we saw the court cases about Backpage where they basically used the CDA as a shield for action that was absolutely criminal, in my judgment, those guys belong in prison, as far as I am concerned. The good news is that the bill drafted by Representative Wagner actually fixes this problem.

We just got a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice. I just received it. This is what they say: ``Every day, trafficking victims in America appear in online advertisements that are used to sell them for sex. The Department works diligently to hold traffickers accountable for their crimes but faces serious challenges.''

It goes on to say that the ``high evidentiary standard needed'' is a problem; but it also says that that bill, as drafted and reported from the Judiciary Committee, addresses the issues that are preventing prosecution, and it ``would take meaningful steps to end the industry of advertising trafficking victims for commercial sex.''

I would just like to say thanks to the authors of the bill, as well as the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. We worked together on a bipartisan basis to make adjustments. We had hearings so that we could have this bill that the Department of Justice says will allow them to successfully go after these guys who are trafficking these children and other victims.

A word of caution, however, and I will talk about this later when the amendment comes up, on the Walters amendment.

The Justice Department says in this letter that they believe ``any revision . . . to define `participation in a venture' is unnecessary,'' and, in fact, that the ``new language would impact prosecutions by effectively creating additional elements.'' In fact, they say the amendment will make it harder to prosecute.

We get told in law school that bad cases make bad law. One of the ways to avoid that is to have the committee process work through it. That did not happen in the case of the amendment that will be offered later.

So based on the Justice Department's admonition, I am grateful to their celebration of the underlying bill, and I am mindful of their warning that the amendment could undo all of the good work that we have done on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act stands for a very simple, powerful idea: a website should not be liable for the actions of its users.

Because of section 230, we have the internet as we know it today. Also, because of section 230, the vast majority of websites can safely and effectively report and coordinate with law enforcement on various crimes, including sex trafficking, child pornography, and the like.

Unfortunately, section 230 has been utilized by bad actors, including a notorious one, Backpage, to traffic in children and to exploit victims. Really, they are slavery victims. The underlying bill, H.R. 1865, puts a stop to that. As the Department of Justice has noted, it will allow for the prosecution of people who are trafficking in victims online.

The Walters amendment, however, for the first time, would carve a hole in section 230 and make it actually more difficult than the underlying bill to prosecute traffickers online. By creating potential liability for ``knowing'' that a user is using their website for facilitating sex trafficking, the Walters amendment would create what legal experts call the moderator's dilemma.

There is no obligation under law to moderate your website. In fact, if you

have 2 million users or 10 million users, you really don't know what is being posted by your users. But under this amendment, if you made any effort to try and find out what was happening among your users--as many websites do today, especially for child pornography, but also for trafficking--you would incur liability because you would then have a reason to know.

Other laws that deal with intermediary liability, such as a requirement to report child pornography or copyright safe harbors of the DMCA, have very clear and specific provisions on when a website has sufficient knowledge and what express actions it should take. The Walters amendment has none of these. There is no case law on it either.

So the amendment really would put web owners in a very weird place. If you do anything to moderate, you are risking liability. The safe incentive would be to not monitor at all. That would be tragic and it would be a gain for child predators, although I know that that is not the intention. You can't stop moderating just for trafficking. You either moderate or you don't moderate.

We do know that there have been tremendous advances for machine- operated filters to find child pornography. Actually, that is one of the easiest things to find, using filters, and it is very important that websites cooperate with law enforcement to catch those bad guys.

Under the Walters amendment, the disincentive would be huge not to do that. I think that is why the Department of Justice does not support the Walters amendment.

As I said earlier--and the chairman put the letter into the Record-- the Department believes that any revision to define participation in a venture is unnecessary. They say that, while well-intentioned, this new language would impact prosecutions by effectively creating additional elements that prosecutors would have to prove at trial.

That is why it is a bad idea to adopt this amendment. As the chairman of the committee has said, section 4 of the amendment also violates the ex-post facto clause of the Constitution by attaching criminal liability to actions that preceded the enactment of the bill. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Although I don't have any doubt as to the good intentions behind the offering of this amendment, it would actually impair the ability to protect victims. It would make it more difficult to prosecute, as the Department of Justice has pointed out.

It didn't go through the Judiciary Committee. I think that is a major fault. One of the things we were able to do in the committee--and we did this together, on a bipartisan basis--was to sort through the unintended consequences of seemingly simple language.

Nothing in writing law is simple. Certainly, nobody wants a provision that is going to negatively impact prosecutions; have unintended consequences for State actions, as the Department of Justice has pointed out; and would provide a disincentive for people to moderate activities to try and catch bad guys and to work with law enforcement.

So, although the intentions are good, the amendment is flawed. I hope we vote ``no'' on it, and then I hope we give a resounding unanimous vote ``yes'' for the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4924, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act.

This bill would bring much-needed reforms to the process available to congressional employees for filing workplace complaints and ensure a more equitable and transparent process.

Under the new process, employees who file a complaint would have the choice to enter into mediation instead of being required to do so, as is currently the case. Employees should not be forced into mandatory mediation, especially with an employer against whom they have raised allegations of sexual harassment or other types of discrimination. This bill also eliminates the thirty-day ``cooling off'' period currently mandated by the CAA.

Filing a workplace complaint can be harrowing for employees, and having no choice but to face the employer or colleague against whom they have filed the complaint may deter employees from going through with it. That is why the protections in this bill from retaliation by the employing office for requesting remote work or paid leave by an employee who has a filed a complaint are so important.

Unpaid interns, fellows, and detailees in Congressional offices should not be more vulnerable to workplace harassment and discrimination than their congressional staff colleagues. This bill would extend coverage of the rights and protections established under the CAA to these groups.

The bill also requires that a climate survey be conducted of all offices covered by the CAA, each Congress, regarding the workplace environment, including sexual harassment. Collecting information, anonymously, from staff will help us determine whether the reforms we hope in this bill are serving their purpose or if modifications are needed.

H.R. 4924 is the culmination of bipartisan work on the part of House Administration Committee Chairman Harper and Ranking Member Brady, and my fellow members on the Committee, as well as the leadership of my colleague Rep. Jackie Speier, who has championed the issue of fighting sexual harassment on the Hill. I want to thank them all for working collaboratively on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Children's Musical Theater San Jose (CMT) and commemorate its 50th Anniversary Season. Founded as an afterschool

program in 1968 by John P. Healey at Saint Frances Cabrini School in San Jose, CMT is the oldest performing arts institution in San Jose.

Since its foundation, CMT has followed its mission of using musical theater to educate and nurture the young people in our community to get involved with art and theater at a young age. Indeed, CMT has grown from a grassroots volunteer organization to one of the largest theatrical training and performing organizations of its kind in the nation. CMT's 50 seasons have engaged around 50,000 performers and so far staged 364 productions.

As the leading youth theater in our community, CMT offers classes and camps to children as young as four years old and performance opportunities to children as young as six. Indeed, CMT offers invaluable experiences through theater to children between four and 20 years old, casting all who audition for its youth theater productions and awarding scholarships to some participants in their fee-based programs.

CMT has thrived as an invaluable artistic organization in our community, receiving 10 awards for artistic excellence from the National Endowment for the Arts. Its artistic vision, under the direction of Kevin R. Hauge since 1996, has helped to bring hundreds of thousands of performance arts patrons to Downtown San Jose, contributing to the cultural renaissance and development and economic vitality of our city.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor Children's Musical Theater San Jose for its 50 years of extraordinary contributions to the cultural arts community in our city and its sustained leadership in the development of the young members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, along with my colleagues, Congressman Pete Aguilar, Congresswoman Karen Bass, Congresswoman Nanette Barragan, Congressman Ami Bera, Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Congressman Salud Carbajal, Congressman Tony Cardenas, Congresswoman Judy Chu, Congressman Lou Correa, Congressman Jim Costa, Congresswoman Susan Davis, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congressman John Garamendi, Congressman Jimmy Gomez, Congressman Jared Huffman, Congressman Ro Khanna, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Ted Lieu, Congressman Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Congressman Jerry McNerney, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Scott Peters, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Congressman Raul Ruiz, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Congressman Adam Schiff, Congressman Brad Sherman, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Congressman Eric Swalwell, Congressman Mark Takano, Congressman Mike Thompson, Congresswoman Norma Torres, Congressman Juan Vargas, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, to honor the extraordinary life of Frank Napolitano, husband of U.S. Congresswoman Grace Flores Napolitano and longtime Norwalk community leader and activist.

Frank Napolitano was born and raised in New York City, where he spent his formative years, before military service and moving to California. He was a successful chef, restaurateur and businessman for over two decades. He met and later married the former Grace Flores Musquiz in 1982 and began a post-business career as a prominent community volunteer and philanthropist.

Frank Napolitano rose to become a highly recognized leader with the City of Norwalk where he served for many years as Chairman and member of the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission; he was designated Citizen of the Year by the Norwalk Community Coordinating Council; and prior to that served on the city Parks and Recreation Commission. He also served as an officer and member of several civic and fraternal organizations including the Norwalk Knights of Columbus as a Fourth Degree Member and the Norwalk Lions Club as a Melvin Jones Award recipient.

It was during these many years that he worked tirelessly on several important community benevolent projects including distributing thousands of turkeys and food baskets to families in need during the holiday seasons. He was instrumental in organizing many community carnivals and fairs on behalf of the city and service organizations at the City Hall Lawn to raise much needed funds for their community projects.

Frank's commitment to community service, led to his most significant and long-lasting program, the Norwalk Santa's Sleigh Foundation. Together with Norwalk Mayor Luigi Vernola and Vernola's daughter Lisa Salas, they co-founded the annual Santa's Sleigh visitation program in 1989 in cooperation with the City, Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff's Departments to distribute toys and goodies to Norwalk Youth and Families throughout the Christmas and holiday season. This award winning program has been imitated by numerous cities and has provided countless families with extra Christmas spirit for decades.

In recognition for his business acumen and community service, Napolitano was appointed to the California state Senate Insurance Committee Advisory Commission on Small Business in 1988. He served for several years advising on the effects of insurance industry practices on small businesses. He left the commission upon the election of his wife Grace to the California State Assembly in 1992.

Frank Napolitano was the constant protector and provider for his large combined family which today has grown to four generations including children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, also his son Louis Napolitano of New York. Frank was the bedrock of continuous support for his beloved wife throughout her career that began with service on Norwalk City International Friendship Commission, later elected to the Norwalk City Council, the California state Assembly and for the past twenty years as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives serving for ten terms in Congress.

Today, The California Democratic Congressional Delegation salutes and honors an outstanding husband, father and civil servant, Mr. Frank Napolitano. We will join all of Frank's loved ones in celebrating his incredible life. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, like the ranking member, I oppose this bill. It does not meet the standards that we should have for adhering to the Constitution.

Now, this is a confusing debate in some ways because what is it we are talking about?

We are all against terrorism, and we have authorized the collection of data of terrorists communicating with each other. In section 702, if they communicate with somebody here, we can collect that, too.

But because of the architecture of the internet, we are collecting vast amounts--we can't go into the numbers here in open session--vast amounts of data. It is not metadata; it is content. It is the content of your phone calls, content of your emails, and the content of your text messages and video messages. Under section 702, you can search that for Americans for crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. We should change that.

As Judge Poe has said, you need a warrant to go after Americans for a nonterrorism crime. There is a reason why a left-right coalition--the NAACP and FreedomWorks, Color of Change and Gun Owners of America--has joined together on the same point of view. We should stand up for the privacy rights of Americans and reject this bill and have a warrant requirement for searching for the information of Americans that is in this vast database.

Just one further point: The very weak predicate criminal investigation trigger for a warrant which is at the end of the investigation would apply only to the FBI. So if you are the ATF, you would never have to get a warrant. If you were the DEA, you would never have to get a warrant. This bill is inadequate, and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this amendment. The government conducts 702 searches and broadly defines foreign intelligence investigations that may have no nexus to national security, and we are using this database for just criminal investigations that are domestic.

When you say ``incidental collection,'' it sounds like it is not much. Well, the fact is it is a huge amount of data in its content. What this amendment says is: if you are going to search for the information of an American who has been collected in that database and it is not terrorism but domestic criminal investigation, get a warrant. Get a warrant. That is what the Fourth Amendment requires.

Now, I took exception to the comment that 702 would go dark. We know that this existing FISA order goes through April, so the 702 program is not going dark. We have time to do this right. We have time to make sure that the Fourth Amendment is adhered to in the reauthorization of 702. Put the ``foreign'' back in the FISA bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner for the reasons he has outlined that this bill should not become law. However, I am also speaking in favor of the Amash amendment that has been put in order that would fix the problems that he has so eloquently outlined.

Before 702 was enacted into law, the NSA and the FBI would need to get a probable cause warrant to collect this information. We made a major change that allows this information to be collected when a foreigner is communicating with an American, and when you go to the ``abouts'' collection, which the underlying bill would codify, even when that doesn't occur, when there is merely discussion of a foreigner. That is not what I think our Constitution requires. And we did not outsource to the judicial branch or the executive branch the decision on what the Constitution requires us to do.

Now, we have learned that there is a vast amount of information being collected--we can't go into the details of that in an open session, just that we have been told by Admiral Rogers the scope of this--and that the database that is so-called incidentally collected because of the architecture of the internet could be searched for Americans without a warrant is not consistent with the protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Amash amendment, which is basically the USA RIGHTS Act, ends these backdoor searches by requiring a warrant. It ends reverse targeting. It bans the ``abouts'' collection and prohibits the collection of domestic communications, prevents the misuse of information on Americans, and is something that we should support.

Now, in a letter to the Senate in October, a coalition of groups said this:

The USA RIGHTS Act, which is essentially the Amash

amendment, is markedly superior to all current legislative

proposals to reauthorize section 702.

Who said that?

The American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks, the NAACP, but also the Project On Government Oversight, and Color of Change. This is a broad, left-right coalition that has come together, even though there are many things we disagree on, because we agree on one thing: When we took an oath to defend the Constitution on our first day of this session, we didn't take that oath to defend the Constitution when it is convenient or when we feel like it. No. We took that oath to defend the Constitution every day, in every way, and with every bill. And without the Amash amendment, this bill falls short.

Just a note on where we are in the timing. It is true that this has been delayed, I would say unconscionably delayed, for this proceeding. But we have more time than has been suggested.

Under the existing act, it provides that, if there is an existing order from the FISA court, that order remains in effect even if the underlying bill lapses. We have an order that extends into late April. So we have a deadline, but it is not this week and it is not next week. We owe it to our constituents and we owe it to our obligation to the Constitution to get this right.

When Jim Sensenbrenner, who is someone whom nobody is going to question his conservative credentials, and when Judge Poe, Zoe Lofgren, and Jerry Nadler come to the same agreement on the Constitution, I would hope that our colleagues would listen. Vote for the Amash amendment, and, if it does not pass, vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond.

The NSA will not go dark, and I think it is important that we understand that.

We are collecting the content of phone calls, emails, text messages, videos, pictures of Americans, putting it in a database and querying it, searching it without a probable cause warrant. That is the state today, and that will continue until reform is done. It will not go dark. I thought it was important to make that clear.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I know he wanted to yield to my colleague from the Judiciary Committee, to have the chance to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, for us women who have been victims of assault or harassment, this is a very serious, serious matter. I intend to vote for this bill today. But, as has been mentioned, it is just a first step. We know on the House Administration Committee that we are going to have to dig in and make sure that the training that is referred to in this bill is a lot better than what we have right now. It is deficient.

I would like to say also that the process that we have for victims to come forward is an embarrassment. It needs to be refined, reviewed, and fixed from the point of view of the victim.

Here in America, every day we open our news feed and we see someone else who has been fired because of engaging in sexual harassment misconduct. It is part of, really, a component of devaluing women. That is what this is about.

I heard my colleague from the House Administration Committee mention the columnist who said that the sexual harassment racket is over. I am afraid it isn't. Not yet. But it is our obligation to make sure that it does end.

We are the House of Representatives. It should be expected of us that we take the lead, that we set the standard for how women can be valued in the workplace. I think this first step is valuable, but if we had to walk a mile, this is a foot.

I am happy to support this measure, but I am looking forward to working with Mr. Brady, who has been such a leader, and the committee. We have had a bipartisan effort with the chairman of the committee. We have got a lot of work to do, and I look forward to doing it.