Justin Amash

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. AMASH. 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.

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. In 2011, Congress enacted a provision of the NDAA that authorizes the indefinite detention of Americans caught on U.S. soil. That provision, which is permanent law and continues to apply to this day, authorizes the President to detain persons who ``substantially supported'' forces ``associated'' with terrorists. It is important to note that ``substantial support'' and being ``associated'' with terrorists were not defined in 2011 and still have not been defined by Congress. There is a good argument that this provision is unconstitutionally vague. In fact, a Federal court has already ruled that the provision is unconstitutional because it chills First Amendment association and free speech. Our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to detain anyone in the United States indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country's security and in equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies, but the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutionally protected rights. The Constitution entitles all people to be charged with a crime and to be given a trial when the government detains them in the United States. Join me in affirming this right by voting for Smith-Gibson, which is the only amendment that protects the rights of those of you watching at home.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. I would like to thank Chairman Issa and thank and congratulate Dr. Ron Paul for his tireless work on this issue for many decades. Mr. Speaker, what is the Federal Reserve? I think even many Members of this body couldn't answer that question. And yet Congress has delegated its constitutional authority to this committee of bankers and Presidential appointees. To no institution in our country's history has Congress given so much power while knowing so little. As our central bank, we've entrusted the Federal Reserve with managing inflation. That means the Fed can change the value of Americans' life savings, their retirement accounts and their mortgages. Lately, the Fed has taken on the role of ``lender of last resort.'' It has made unprecedented market interventions, promising billions of dollars to the country's largest financial institutions. When investors wouldn't buy mortgages, the Fed did. When creditors became wary of Congress' spending binge, the Feds stepped in. Years ago, Congress enacted an audit statute, but it prevents an audit of monetary policy. The government's accountants understandably were outraged, saying they couldn't ``satisfactorily audit the Federal Reserve system without authority to examine the Fed's largest assets.'' Congress should be wary of all types of central planning. We should be especially vigilant against unaccountable groups that profoundly affect Americans' lives and liberty. Pass this bill, and let's audit the Fed.

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, the House has voted repeatedly to strike problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from the bill we have considered. The same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this legislation by striking section 8039. My amendment does just that. As drafted, section 8039 prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting out any function unless it will save a minimum of $10 million or 10 percent of the Department's performance costs--even if the contractor is less costly overall and can perform the work more efficiently. Independent studies have found that public-private competitions lower costs by between 10 and 40 percent, regardless of whether the competition is won by a private contractor or the government. Rather than stand in the way of public-private competitions, Congress should cut the red tape and make the use of this cost-saving process easier, not harder. The requirements in section 8039 are largely codified in existing statute. Retaining section 8039 will obstruct, and potentially nullify, any current efforts to reform the system in ways that improve public- private competitions and bring much-needed transparency, consistency, and reliability to the process. Instead of complicating the use of competitions that improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the most efficient way to deliver services. This amendment will send that message by reducing restrictions on the Department of Defense and making it easier to achieve reforms that will increase the availability of cost-saving competitions throughout the Department. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first amendment to H.R. 5856. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues, Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Landry and Mr. Rigell. I think their amendment is very well intentioned, and they care very deeply about this issue. I've had many conversations with them about it. But the first part of the amendment does nothing. It says the AUMF does not deny habeas corpus or any constitutional rights for any person who is detained in the United States who is otherwise entitled to the availability of habeas corpus or such constitutional rights. In other words, if you have constitutional rights, you have constitutional rights. The second part of the amendment might be harmful. It says: Persons detained by the military are allowed to file a habeas petition not later than 30 days after the date on which such person is placed in military custody. First, the Constitution already gives detainees the power to file a habeas at the moment they are detained. At best, the 30-day window does nothing; and at worst, it can be read to allow the government to deny habeas for 29 days or to deny habeas if the petitioner didn't file until after 30 days. So I would like to express my disapproval of the amendment.

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, the frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan Authorization for Use of Military Force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them, and not give them a charge in a trial. That's the frightening thing. That's the thing that the Smith-Amash amendment fixes. It's the only amendment that does it. I sometimes hear this strange argument that the Constitution applies only to citizens, not persons. If you read the Fifth and 14th Amendments, it applies to persons. Those are the amendments that provide for due process. James Madison said the Constitution applies to persons. And logic dictates that the Constitution applies to persons. It applies to noncitizens. Is the government allowed to make noncitizens worship a State religion? Is the government allowed to take noncitizens' property without compensation? Can the government quarter troops in noncitizens' homes? Can the government conduct unreasonable searches and seizures on noncitizens' homes? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Everybody here understands that's ridiculous. No one disputes that all persons in the U.S. are covered by the Constitution. HASC claims to protect persons. The House Armed Services Committee in the NDAA claims to protect persons with respect to habeas. The Gohmert amendment claims to protect persons, not citizens. And the Smith-Amash amendment protects persons. It's a phony argument. The Smith-Amash amendment is the only amendment that will protect citizens.

Mr. AMASH. We have a very clear choice here. A Federal court has ruled section 1021 in the NDAA unconstitutional. There is one amendment that fixes it. Will you do it? And if you don't, how will you explain it to your constituents?

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm extremely concerned about the privacy implications of the bill. The liability waiver goes too far, and the government can access too much of Americans' private information and use it in too many ways. Our amendment addresses that last concern. Our amendment prohibits CISPA from being used to snoop through sensitive documents that can personally identify Americans. The documents that our amendment makes off-limits to the government are library and book records, information on gun sales, tax returns, educational records, and medical records. We didn't pull this list out of thin air. In fact, the list already exists in Federal law as part of the PATRIOT Act. Under the PATRIOT Act, the Federal Government can obtain these documents as part of a foreign intelligence investigation only if senior FBI officials request the documents and a Federal judge approves. Many have questioned the wisdom of allowing the government access to sensitive documents even in those more limited circumstances. If the PATRIOT Act requires the approval of a Federal judge and a senior FBI official, surely we can't allow access to such personal information without any judicial or agency oversight. I don't know why the government would want to snoop through library lists or tax returns to counter a cyberattack. But if the government wants these records, it has existing legal processes to obtain them. Our constituents' privacy demands that we not give the government unfettered and unsupervised access to these documents in the name of cybersecurity. Please support the bipartisan Amash-Labrador-Nadler-Paul-Polis amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. AMASH

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

Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, did you know the Federal Government subsidizes the Goo Goo Dolls, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Gipsy Kings? What about the Culture Shock East Coast Dance Concert? Well, it does. My amendment to H.R. 2584 will reduce the deficit, save taxpayer dollars, and stop subsidies to bands, including the Beach Boys. This amendment will reduce the deficit by $2.2 million by transferring funding from the National Capital Area Performing Arts program to the spending reduction account. The National Capital Area Performing Arts program provides free concerts and subsidized performances in and around Washington, DC, by paying for ushers, performers, lighting and other performance-related costs. The program funds venues like Carter Barron Amphitheater in DC. Even the National Park Service, which administers the program, has recommended its elimination, saying it distracts the Park Service from performing its core functions. My amendment is simple. It will transfer all of the program's $2.2 million in funding to the spending reduction account. I like the Beach Boys as much as the next person, but that doesn't mean we should force taxpayers to subsidize my ticket if I go to their concert. Don't break taxpayers' trust. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to prevent the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on niche entertainment programs in the Washington, DC, area. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. AMASH

Mr. AMASH. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that west Michigan learned on Friday of the passing of our First Lady, Betty Ford. The First Lady spent most of her life in Grand Rapids. A graduate of Central High School, she worked in a department store downtown and was a dance instructor. Early on, Mrs. Ford showed her heart for the disadvantaged in our community, teaching dance to children who were physically disabled, deaf, and blind. A mutual friend introduced Mrs. Ford to Jerry in 1947. A successful lawyer and former star of the University of Michigan's football team, the future President was not quite in public life when they met. No one could have foreseen the set of circumstances that thrust the Fords into the White House, but Mrs. Ford took the challenge with gusto. As First Lady, she revealed many of her struggles to the public so that she could help others with similar difficulties. In the 1970s, she publicly spoke about her battle with breast cancer, which was not often discussed during that time. In the 1980s, she took the lessons she learned battling alcoholism to found a number of foundations and institutes dedicated to helping others with the condition. Betty Ford honored west Michigan with her public service, humor, and grace. We are proud to have called such a fine citizen one of our own.