Justin Amash

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. AMASH. 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. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. 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. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 154. Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes a new section of the bill added by the Committee on Rules that increases funding for the Maritime Security Program by $500 million. My amendment does not eliminate the program. It simply keeps it at its current authorization level. Just last week the House passed the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act. This defense policy bill, negotiated at length between House and Senate conferees, increases the annual subsidy for Maritime Security Program participants from $3.1 million per vessel to $3.5 million per vessel, a 12.9 percent increase. The provision, added quietly by the Committee on Rules, circumvents regular order and increases funding even more. As amended, H.R. 702 boosts per-vessel payments to $5 million per year, increasing the subsidy by a whopping 42 percent. The proper place for a discussion on funding for the Maritime Security Program is in a defense bill like the NDAA, not as part of a bill that lifts a ban on crude oil exports. This spending increase is all the more reckless, given our more than $18 trillion national debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, lifting the export ban will increase receipts from Federal oil and gas leases by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. We should use those receipts to reduce the deficit. Mr. Chairman, there are two ways we should amend bills. The first way is to go through the normal committee process, by introducing amendments during a markup. Members have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments in the committee of jurisdiction. We should respect the work committees do by not altering the bills they report before we even consider the legislation on the House floor. The second way is to offer an amendment when the bill comes up for debate on the House floor. This gives all Representatives the opportunity to participate in the debate and represent their constituents by voting on the measure. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules changed this bill behind closed doors late last week. The Maritime Security Program is a defense-related program that has nothing to do with oil exports or energy production. This provision has no place in H.R. 702, and its eleventh-hour addition by the Committee on Rules is the latest example of our broken legislative process. Mr. Chairman, we must protect this institution and the legislative process. Adding an unrelated provision to this bill behind closed doors is no way to legislate. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to remove this unrelated $500 million spending increase so we can consider H.R. 702 as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about process. I recognize the concerns of my colleague. This should be handled in the NDAA or in a defense bill. I urge all Members to support my amendment eliminating this $500 million increase in spending and reject the Rules Committee's eleventh- hour revision that has nothing to do with crude oil exports. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. AMASH. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.