BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2711. This legislation would have a significant impact on law enforcement, and it would interfere with laws in a dozen States.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association sent a letter to Chairman Issa and me opposing this bill. This is part of what they wrote, and I quote:
As the chair and ranking member with jurisdiction over H.R. 2711, we urge you to ensure that the bill is not considered on the floor unless it is amended to exempt law enforcement in its provisions. Until that time, FLEOA will continue to strongly oppose this legislation.
They also wrote, and I quote:
The legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals.
They're not the only law enforcement organizations that oppose the legislation. The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys also sent a letter opposing H.R. 2711. Here's part of what they wrote, and I quote:
The most disturbing aspect of the legislation involves its dramatically negative impact on civil and criminal law enforcement investigative efforts.
They went on to say, and I quote:
The version of legislation approved by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 24 did not contain any exceptions. Clearly, this measure raises a magnitude of administrative and legal concerns that should be addressed before the House gives further consideration to approval of this legislation.
The committee held no hearings on the legislation and heard testimony from no law enforcement officials before marking up the bill, and now it is being rushed onto the floor in record speed with apparently no regard to its consequences to law enforcement.
The bill also would interfere with the laws put in place by 12 States to protect their citizens. For example, my home State of Maryland enacted a law in 1977 that made it a felony to record a private conversation unless every party to the conversation consents to the recording or another exception applies. This law was deliberately crafted to provide greater protection to Maryland residents.
H.R. 2711 preempts the laws of Maryland and other States that require all parties to consent to a recording. The bill deems Federal employees to have consented to a recording just by performing their official duties and does not even require that they be notified.
Maryland's statute requires actual consent, not forced or assumed consent. To assume a person consents to having their conversation recorded just by participating in the conversation undermines the State's laws, as well as those in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other States that require multiple-party consent for recordings.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2711 is a dangerous and poorly considered piece of legislation. I oppose this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman is inaccurate. The fact is that when the bill came in, at first, we did apparently have certain exceptions for law enforcement, consistent with these concerns. That's not in the bill. As a matter of fact, just today, July 31, 2013, we have a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association talking about the bill that's on the floor right now:
H.R. 2711 creates a broad right to record conversations with Federal employees and requires that the notices of the right to record conversations be provided to individuals engaged in discussion with Federal employees without any exceptions related to criminal investigations. This proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement and would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism investigations.
That's from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me say this. The chairman has made some allegations that things were not true--and I guess he's not talking about us, but I guess he's talking about the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association in a letter that, just today, referring to what he just talked about, says--and I further quote from this letter of July 31, 2013:
Also, by requiring written notices under the threat of disciplinary action, H.R. 2711 would create new administrative and bureaucratic requirements for agents conducting investigations. The time and the resources available to agents are already stretched too thin, and new administrative burdens make it more difficult for agents to protect the public.
That's from them.
By the way, the letters from the Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, their opposition to this bill goes to the bill that is on the floor right now, so they have their concerns.
Again, I wish that this was something that we could have had testimony so that we could hear from those law enforcement agencies so that we could come to some type of agreement with regard to their concerns, but we did not have that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, based upon the arguments that we've already made, I would urge Members to vote against this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT