Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. National Defense

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which passed the House last year by a unanimous voice vote. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 currently prohibits the Army and Air Force from enforcing U.S. laws without authorization by the Constitution or Congress. Today, I offer an amendment to strengthen that existing law to include the Marines, the Navy, and the federalized National Guard and Reserve components.

My amendment would also prohibit the use of evidence unlawfully obtained by or with the assistance of the military in a court of law or other legal proceedings.

Put plainly, it would prevent any President of either party from unlawfully using the military as a domestic police force, and it would ensure that evidence obtained because of unlawful acts isn't used against any American. I would hope that this is a proposition that both parties can support.

Last year, as I said, this amendment passed by voice vote and with broad support. However, this year, conspiracy theorists, including some who served in this body when this amendment was passed previously, have announced their opposition. I guess it is fair to say that they were for it before they were against it.

You may hear some of these conspiracy theories this evening, so let me be very clear. This amendment has one goal: to prevent any President from unlawfully using our Nation's Armed Forces against Americans exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

Last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't want evidence obtained illegally by the military to be used against people. This year, well, we will see.

This amendment will ensure the government cannot use evidence obtained by the military if acting unlawfully and allow us to better protect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Surely, we can all agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

First of all, my colleague says that we already have laws against the military unlawfully engaging in the enforcement of domestic policy. We only have laws against certain branches of the military doing that. This bill would expand that to any branch of the military. So, this is not covered by existing law.

I am rather struck by the argument I hear against this amendment that if the military engages in unlawful activity, it appears they are okay with using that unlawfully obtained evidence in a court of law. That wouldn't be allowed in any criminal proceeding if law enforcement obtained evidence unlawfully. It shouldn't be allowed if the military obtains evidence unlawfully.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has changed from last year when this passed on a unanimous voice vote to this year is, apparently, this year, some of my colleagues are willing to have the military enforce domestic policy in violation of the law and use the fruits of that illegal action against American citizens. I don't think that is right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer amendment 451 as the designee of Mr. Malinowski.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of amendment No. 451 for my colleague, Congressman Malinowski.

Before I do, though, I am glad that I have the opportunity to respond on my previous amendment regarding the Posse Comitatus law. My colleague in opposition made the claim: Well, what if evidence is obtained by the military lawfully? Would the amendment exclude that? I sought recognition to answer his question, but he did not want to recognize me, and I understand why, because the answer is quite simple from the text of the amendment.

The amendment reads: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information obtained by or with the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces in violation of section 1385 of title 18, shall not be received in evidence,'' and that is the pertinent part of that provision.

So the simple answer to my friend's question, what about evidence gathered lawfully? Well, obviously that is not impacted. It is only in the case that the military is used unlawfully, and evidence is gained unlawfully that it would be excluded, much as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine that my colleague recognized. If that is true in criminal court, it ought to be true when the military acts in violation of the law.

Let me now turn to amendment No. 451 for my colleague, Tom Malinowski.

This is a simple and straightforward proposition. It requires a review of any actions by the military in Brazil to interfere with their upcoming elections. This is not coming out of the blue, but responds to clear and concerning signals including:

Number 1, in April, President Bolsonaro repeated a falsehood that officials count votes in a secret room. He then suggested that voting data should be fed to a room ``where the Armed Forces also have a computer to count the votes.''

Number 2, senior generals have already begun to publicly question the integrity of the election.

Number 3, the Minister of Defense sent a preemptive and unfounded formal complaint to electoral authorities expressing ``concerns'' about the election, and generals are getting involved in digging up electoral fraud stories.

Number 4, thousands of military officers have been appointed to run the Brazilian Government, more than under the military dictatorship. Eleven officers in the Cabinet and military officers atop the national oil company indicating that they are already well positioned to maintain and expand the military's power and influence.

Number 5, senior officials are advocating the reintroduction of military laws from the dictatorship that would eliminate constitutional protections, furthering concerns about the health of Brazil's democracy.

These are concerning signs, and we must be vigilant to advocate for democracy, particularly in the largest country in Latin America with a population larger than Russia and also a country that is a major non- NATO ally.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say that I am in complete agreement with my colleague about the cold, but I am not in agreement about the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a profound concern that we all ought to share that President Bolsonaro may be preparing his own big lie about the Brazilian elections and that he may bring the military in to help propagate a big lie about fraud in the elections in Brazil. He seems to be laying the foundation for making such a claim.

It would be a compounding of the tragedy we have experienced in this country if America's chief export to Brazil turned out to be a big lie in how to undermine integrity and faith in our elections and institutions.

This is a simple reporting requirement of a list of possible actions by military officials in Brazil surrounding the elections. It is a sense of Congress that whatever findings are made about military intervention in the elections ought to be assessed in terms of whether the coup clause has been triggered; that is, of course, the annual appropriations clause that prohibits U.S. assistance to countries where a coup has taken place.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the warning signs in Brazil, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source