Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Indeed, Mr. Chair, the Fourth Amendment should not be for sale. We agree on that. That is to say our government should not be able to buy from a third-party information about American citizens that it could otherwise not obtain without a warrant.

The title of the bill, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale, is compelling. We should all agree to that, yet the language of the bill does not coincide with the title of the bill. The bill, without amendment, is somewhere between innocently misleading and a full-on Fourth Amendment bait and switch.

My amendment would narrowly tailor the bill to include searches and seizures normally covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Fourth Amendment states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''

So let's agree that Congress should restrict the government from, via a third party, searching or seizing persons that it could not otherwise search or seize without a warrant. We should all agree on that. Everyone in the House, from the Freedom Caucus to the squad and everybody else, should agree on that.

If that is what the bill actually said, then the bill would likely sail through the House without any real, legitimate opposition because government should not be able to contract out its violation of our Fourth Amendment protections.

Yet, without my amendment, the bill would prevent our law enforcement officers from utilizing information that is currently publicly available, information that is accessible without a need for a warrant in fighting crime.

This Republican Conference backs the blue. It is part of our Commitment to America to keep America safe. Unfortunately, the bill, without my amendment, breaks our commitment and would prevent law enforcement from using everyday tools which do not violate any American's Fourth Amendment rights.

My amendment would clarify that any restriction made on this bill and information that could be obtained by law enforcement or the intelligence community would not include information that is lawfully obtainable without a warrant.

If my amendment is adopted, then the name of the bill would actually fit, and the bill would actually give more weight and confidence to our Nation's Fourth Amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we cannot say that we support law enforcement officers and then take away the tools they need to do their job.

My amendment would strike a proper balance between ensuring our government does not use a third party to violate the Fourth Amendment while at the same time preserving the ability for law enforcement to do its job.

Without adopting my amendment, this bill will make it almost impossible for State, local, and Federal law enforcement to investigate crime. We should be making it easier for law enforcement to do their job rather than tying one hand behind their back. At the same time, we should protect against government's warrantless searches and seizures of American citizens.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source