[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9294-9295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               H.R. 2217

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ALAN GRAYSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 17, 2013

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my earlier remarks 
describing the intent of Congress with regard to H. AMDT. 124 to H.R. 
2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014. My 
amendment reads as follows: ``None of the funds made available by this 
Act may be used in contravention of the First, Second, or Fourth 
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.''
  The Department of Homeland Security, all of its officials, and all 
contractors and subcontractors working on its behalf or operating under 
inherently governmental functions shall respect anonymous speech. No 
funds shall be used to attempt the unmasking of anonymous speakers, 
unless two conditions are met. One, there must be probable cause that 
an anonymous speaker is engaged in criminal activities and two, a 
warrant from a court with jurisdiction over domestic matters must be 
issued. Warrants from the FISA court do not serve this purpose, as 
those courts have jurisdiction over foreign and not domestic matters.

[[Page 9295]]

  It is the intent of Congress that the Department of Homeland 
Security, all of its officials, and all contractors and subcontractors 
working on its behalf or operating under inherently governmental 
functions respect the freedom of the press, defining press as ``every 
sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and 
opinion'' (per Justice Charles Evans Hughes). In any granting of press 
privileges, DHS is prohibited from distinguishing between media 
businesses with established track records and citizen publishing 
vehicles or blogs with partisan, noncommercial, or advocacy missions. 
DHS shall under no circumstances engage in prior restraint and shall 
respect the precedential value of New York Times Co. v. United States 
(1971). No citizen exercising first amendment rights shall be 
prohibited from publishing information by the use of funds appropriated 
in this bill.
  It is the intent of Congress that a search under the Fourth Amendment 
is neither reasonable nor constitutional if, as the Supreme Court noted 
in Katz v. United States, (1) a person expects privacy in the thing 
searched and (2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. 
Considering the advances in electronic storage and retrieval 
technology, as well as the general trail of electronic residue left by 
any citizen using email, search engines, most forms of banking and 
commerce, VoIP, or use of the internet or mobile phones, it is the 
intent of Congress that the Department of Homeland Security, all of its 
officials, and all contractors and subcontractors working on its behalf 
or operating under inherently governmental functions should go beyond 
the so-called ``third party doctrine'' in protecting fourth amendment 
rights. Any examination without a person's consent to the Government 
(not a private party) of search engine records, e-mail, internet 
records, phone records, or information produced in the course of 
ordinary business is considered a search of that person's ``papers and 
effects.'' The Department of Homeland Security, all of its officials, 
and all contractors and subcontractors working on its behalf or 
operating under inherently governmental functions are prohibited from 
using appropriated funds to engage in such searches.
  It is not the intent of Congress that every form of surveillance that 
is technically feasible should be performed. Nor is it the intent of 
Congress that every form of surveillance that is somehow arguably 
within court precedent or some strained interpretation of a relevant 
statute should be performed. On the contrary, statutory authority for 
surveillance is to be construed narrowly, because all forms of 
government surveillance implicate and potentially impair or even 
destroy our privacy rights. It is never the intention of Congress that 
security concerns override constitutional rights--on the contrary, we 
take an oath of office to defend those rights. The Fourth Amendment 
makes it clear, not only by its wording but by its very existence, that 
the right to privacy is a fundamental part of the American experience. 
We cannot protect our liberty by snuffing it out--we cannot destroy our 
village in order to save it.

                          ____________________