Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Frankly, in the House it is rare today that we have an issue that doesn't break on party lines, and privacy, unfortunately, isn't unanimous.
The Fourth Amendment is clear that if the government wants to serve your data, they need to have probable cause and a warrant or a subpoena.
The Fourth Amendment is a restriction on what government can do. It is not a restriction on commerce.
Unfortunately, government agencies are buying nonpublic data that would otherwise require a warrant or a subpoena.
Congress confronts an opportunity today to end that practice by passing the bipartisan and bicameral Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. Nothing in this bill would prohibit a search, paid for or otherwise, of public information. It would, however, restore privacy protections grossly infringed by current practices. Congressman Higgins, a career law enforcement officer, is offering an amendment today that makes that clear. We have heard from law enforcement agencies, and we want to make it clear, nothing in this bill is designed to make your job harder to do.
Mr. LaLota will offer an amendment that I do adamantly oppose. Frankly, it strips much of the content of the bill, and I regret that I do oppose that amendment because it undermines the intent of the bill.
Closing this data broker loophole is an important step toward restoring a government small enough to fit within the Constitution, and we could afford a government that small.
Finding bad guys would be easier if you had perfect information on everybody and full surveillance all the time. It has been recognized that the Third Amendment was put in place, despite the fact that we all might be more secure if we had a soldier stationed in our homes, but the Third Amendment prevents the government from doing that.
The reality is that technology today effectively puts the government everywhere we go. We all essentially have a digital ID. It is a phone number, and we carry it with us. It is tracked. It goes to your car. Your car spies on you, as well.
This data is being collected. People say, well, this amendment doesn't deal with all that. So let me address that concern. People back home might not realize that the committee structure in Congress is broken up into areas of jurisdiction, meaning that certain committees can deal only within their area of jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Committee can reform things in that committee of jurisdiction, but other committees like Energy and Commerce would have to address a broader topic.
People back home wonder why there so many half-baked solutions to problems. Well, a lot of it comes down to our jurisdiction. We don't solve the whole problem often.
What about foreign governments buying our data? Congress in the House passed a ban on that last month. Just prior to the House ban, exporting your data was banned by executive order from the Biden administration. These are safeguards that are bipartisan, and, in some ways, they have already reached to the executive branch.
Again, the Fourth Amendment is designed as a limitation on what the government can do. I am grateful to have the support of over 150 organizations from Gun Owners of America on the one hand to the American Civil Liberties Union on the other.
This is an issue that goes far and wide. It is important to understand, too, people might realize that if they have got a journal that they close it up and they keep it in their house, whether it is by their bed or in a bookshelf or in a safe, the government has to get a warrant or subpoena to get access to that, but your electronic communications don't enjoy the same kinds of protection. They are not being protected by the Fourth Amendment because you have trusted a third party with that, like Gmail, like Microsoft, like Apple. Somebody has your emails, and, because of that, the government is getting access to some of this very private information, nonpublic information, because they are able to buy it.
They shouldn't be able to buy it. If this bill passes and becomes law, they won't be able to buy it and bypass your Fourth Amendment rights.
I encourage all of our colleagues to support this important legislation. Look, freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed. We have such an opportunity today to reclaim the right to privacy that is supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment. I hope everyone will join me in defending freedom today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is a technical correction. Often this is done simply in the Rules Committee. For some reason, they chose not to do it.
The bill itself states that existing Federal laws are the exclusive means by which the government obtains location information of U.S. persons or persons inside the United States, their web browsing history, internet search history, or any other data that would require a court order.
The list is complete except for section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That needs to be added. That is all this amendment does is simply cover comprehensively the list of authorities, including section 702 as a covered authority. The bill isn't really complete without covering that.
I think last week the body spoke that they want to continue to have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This bill would say it also covers everything, including what just passed last week.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I will close by saying I think the case is clear. I appreciate Mr. Nadler for working with me.
I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Lee for being champions of this on the Senate side. I thank the unusual cohort of colleagues here. We have Zoe Lofgren, Pramila Jayapal, Sara Jacobs, and Jerry Nadler from the Democratic Party, and on our side Chairman Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Thomas Massie, and me.
There are so few things today that everyone agrees on. When you have the political spectrum covered from those angles, I think, hopefully, the American people will see this is a reliable solution. It moved through the Judiciary Committee with unanimous support. We don't believe it will get unanimous support today, but I sure hope that it passes.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose Mr. LaLota's amendment.
He makes a great point. We all want to stand with law enforcement. That is a unifying position for Republicans, and I think most Democrats want to support them, as well.
Nothing in this bill prohibits them from doing their job. The Fourth Amendment is a restriction on government activity though, and they are already used to getting warrants for all kinds of things. The novelty is the way that they acquire data to avoid getting a warrant or subpoena. In fact, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, they are required to get a court order.
This amendment doesn't make it clear that this isn't an effort to expand that to say, no, you don't really have to do that anymore.
It is an expansion of surveillance without a warrant instead of the purpose of the bill, so it is hostile to the entire purpose of the bill. It guts the core of the protection that is meant to be restored here.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I oppose Mr. LaLota's amendment, and I strongly encourage our colleagues to do the same so that we can pass a very functional Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act and restore the infringed right to privacy that Americans need restored.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaLota) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bost, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4639) to amend section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, to prevent law enforcement and intelligence agencies from obtaining subscriber or customer records in exchange for anything of value, to address communications and records in the possession of intermediary internet service providers, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source