Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 4435, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; And Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3361, USA FREEDOM Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree completely with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). How can we possibly be having a meaningful debate about our national defense policy when we are not even allowed to have a vote or a debate on the war that this country happens to be engaged in at this given time? It is a pretense for a discussion that while still important is omitting the single largest public policy issue that our constituents are interested in and that men and women are putting their lives at risk for related to defense.

There were 131 germane amendments, including the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, relating to the war in Afghanistan, and 130 others that are rejected under this rule--not even allowed a minute of discussion on the floor, no less a vote. What would it take to allow a full discussion of those issues? Well, 131 amendments, and customarily, even if we gave each 10 minutes, that is just 2 or 3 days of legislative time about our entire national defense policy. Isn't that what we owe this country as our Nation's deliberative body here, as Representatives of the United States Congress, to discuss for 2 or 3 days all the issues that Members on both sides of the aisle have brought forward relating to defense? I am including, first and foremost, the obvious issue of the war that we are currently engaged in and the demands from our constituents that whatever side prevails in that vote--and in the past, I have joined my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Jones, on that issue--at least we should be able to debate and discuss whether an ongoing American presence in Afghanistan is in our national security interests.

The process under which these bills have come to the floor prevents open dialogue and debate, and, frankly, continues to undermine the reputation of this body, the United States Congress, as a deliberative and representative body. One need not wonder why congressional approval ratings are so low. Here we are having a debate for a day on national defense, and we are prohibited from debating and voting on the single largest issue relating to national defense.

In addition, this bill brings up a very weakened form of the USA FREEDOM Act. Not only was this bill weakened in the Judiciary Committee, but, in addition, it was weakened just 24 hours ago before the Rules Committee. Nonetheless, Members from both sides of the aisle submitted amendments to improve the bill, but, unfortunately, every single one of those 20 amendments are blocked under this rule. So we block 131 amendments by Members on both sides of the aisle from debate and from a vote, and we blocked 20 amendments for Members on both sides of the aisle with regard to the USA FREEDOM Act.

Look, this underlying rule also blocked amendments relating to military preparedness. It blocked a widely popular amendment that I think would have more than enough votes on the floor of the House, according to its chief sponsor, Mr. Denham, that would allow our aspiring Americans to enlist in the military to ensure that we have the very best and most capable aspiring men and women to defend our country. Absent that amendment, the military will have to essentially go to the next best person on their list, have a harder time meeting their recruitment goals, and have to accept something less than the very best to defend our country and protect our national security. The majority blocked this important bipartisan amendment that would allow aspiring Americans who seek to serve our country and know no other country and owe no other allegiance to any other country to earn their legal status through military service.

The majority also blocked an amendment by Mr. Castro that would have allowed aspiring Americans who are DACA-qualified to become eligible to attend, train, and serve at U.S. service academies. I have had the deep honor of having been appointed by then-Speaker and now-leader Pelosi to serve on the board of governors along with my colleague, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

Members from across the country undergo--like we do in our office--a selection process where we interview the very best and brightest young men and women from across our districts for appointment to that academy, and one of the greatest honors I have as a Representative is being able to make the phone calls to the talented young individuals that our panelists have chosen to say, yes, we are providing you an appointment to one of our officer universities, and you will be able to serve as an officer in the United States military, one of the U.S. service academies. However, again, as a result of the failure of this rule to allow for even a debate or a vote on the Castro amendment, once again, our military academies are being forced to accept the next best, the less prepared student, rather than the most prepared and the very best officer that we need in today's and tomorrow's military to keep our Nation's national security interests safe.

Both the Denham and Castro amendments would strengthen our service morale, our national defense, and our military preparedness. And those are an example of the 131 amendments to this bill that are blocked from discussion or votes under this restrictive rule.

In addition, this rule makes in order H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act. Now, this bill was supposed to rein in the NSA's illegal and far-reaching wiretapping programs. Though I have never in my time here supported the PATRIOT Act, even many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have believe that the interpretation of that act was overly broad, and therefore, it is desirable for Congress to assert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in some of the worst excesses. But I am dismayed to find that the final text on the floor was not only weakened in the committee process but was weakened just 24 hours ago behind closed doors with less than just about 24 hours for Members of this body to even read the new version of the weakened USA FREEDOM Act.

Mr. Speaker, last year's revelations that the NSA had been collecting detailed information about our communication patterns have undermined the trust that my constituents and Americans across the country have in our government. It has created conflicts with our allies abroad, threatening jobs in our country by sullying the reputation of American companies and rifling our international trade waters. The NSA collection of metadata is a clear violation of our constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and it simply can't continue.

Now, while I am pleased that the Chamber is finally taking up legislation that is aimed at reining in the NSA's activities, however, while this bill does take baby steps towards restoring some of Americans' freedoms that are so inherently part of our constitutional system, I am very disappointed that it doesn't require the government to fully meet the standard, nor does it resolve this issue in any way, shape, or form to the American people.

The USA FREEDOM Act curtails the NSA's ability to monitor Americans' private communications under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. And the legislative intent is clear: to prohibit the collection of bulk data such as the type that was occurring under the secret program revealed by Edward Snowden. However, the language in the bill falls short of accomplishing that, and none of the amendments that were designed to improve this bill and make it work to secure our privacy rights were even allowed to be discussed under this rule here on the floor of the House, which is another reason that this rule simply must be brought down.

This legislation amended the definition of ``specific selection term,'' which is required to conduct surveillance under FISA in a way that creates the possibility that the NSA could misuse the bill. Now, again, a secret government agency that we have acknowledged has had oversight problems in the past, having overly broad discretion, has shown and demonstrated that it has been unable to provide the proper oversight.

So the bill's new definition of ``specific selection term'' can be read to create a loophole permitting intelligence agencies to use selection terms that could permit the collection of large segments of data associated with the particular email domain or IP address.

The American people have seen how broadly in the past the intelligence community has interpreted their authority under surveillance law. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The new definitions provided in the underlying bill provide a potential loophole almost as wide as the initial loophole in the PATRIOT bill itself and fails to address the privacy concerns of the American people.

In addition, the new language eliminated provisions that strengthened and clarified the ban on reverse targeting in 702 and the minimization provisions for both the 215-based CDR program and the FISA pen register statute.

The language is a major departure from the bill that passed out of two committees. So you might hear Members on both sides of the aisle say, oh, the bill passed by voice on committee. To be clear, this is not the bill that passed in committee. This bill was changed 24 hours ago and severely weakened. Were the proponents of these changes hesitant to bring these changes forward in committee because they knew they would engender bipartisan opposition? Perhaps. But let it not be said without refutation that these bills have passed committee by a voice vote unanimously. The bill has changed significantly since it passed committee.

Again, while I am encouraged that this Congress is finally taking up a bill designed with the intent of reining in the excesses of the NSA, this process is flawed. Twenty amendments were offered; none are allowed under this rule. If we can defeat this rule, Members from both sides of the aisle will be able to move forward to improve upon the USA FREEDOM Act to ensure that it can be examined and that Congress can engage in their proper oversight role with regard to this bill.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source