Justin Amash

Mr. AMASH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. AMASH

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

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

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

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

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