[Congressional Record: February 8, 2011 (House)]
[Page H520-H527]
EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business
records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving
wiretaps until December 8, 2011.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 514
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSETS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO
ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORDS, INDIVIDUAL
TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS, AND
ROVING WIRETAPS.
(a) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C.
1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is
amended by striking ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting
``December 8, 2011''.
(b) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004.--Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118
Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking
``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``December 8, 2011''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 514 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Next September 11 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst
terrorist attack on the U.S. in history. America is fortunate not to
have suffered another attack of such magnitude in the past decade, but
we must not take this relative security for granted or let our safety
become complacency.
America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up
their
[[Page H521]]
goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe today
because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence
community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to
protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the
resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats.
On February 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act
will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security
cases the authority to conduct ``roving'' wiretaps, to seek certain
business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are
not affiliated with a known terrorist group. These types of provisions
have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for years to
apprehend typical criminals. It is common sense to give our national
security investigators the same tools to fight terrorists that our
police officers have to combat crime.
The ongoing threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
continues. In the last few years, terrorists have attempted to blow up
a plane over Detroit; to bomb New York's subway system; to destroy
skyscrapers in Dallas, Texas, and Springfield, Illinois; and to
detonate a car bomb in New York City's Times Square. Most of these
plots were thwarted thanks to the Patriot Act and other national
security laws.
The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing
terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions
expire would leave every American less safe. We must continue these
intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists.
And President Obama agrees.
In a letter to Congress last month, Director of National Intelligence
Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder urged us to reauthorize the
expiring provisions, noting that they are critical tools that ``have
been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection
operations.''
{time} 1430
This bill reauthorizes the expiring provisions through December 8,
2011, the last day that the House of Representatives is scheduled to be
in session. This extension serves two important functions. First, it
ensures that these intelligence-gathering tools will remain available
to national security investigators. And second, it provides Congress
with the opportunity to engage in a thorough review of these provisions
as we pursue and consider a longer reauthorization.
I urge my colleagues to support our ability to continue to protect
Americans against terrorist plots and attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I reluctantly rise in nonsupport of this provision to extend expiring
provisions of the Patriot Act because of section 215 of the Patriot
Act, which I'd like to call to your attention. This is the act that
allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect
business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business
produce virtually any type record. We don't think that that was right
then. We don't think it's right now. And I feel obligated to oppose any
extension of these expiring acts since we've had no hearings, no
markup, no committee vote, nobody's done anything about it. They're
saying, well, ex-chairman, just support this, and we'll get to it
afterward. Well, I can't go along with that.
This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and
seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or
probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon
a person's privacy. And so I urge a ``no'' vote on the extension of
these expiring provisions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is currently the chairman of
the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the
Judiciary Committee, and who previously, as chairman of the Judiciary
Committee itself, was responsible for writing the Patriot Act
provisions.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I'm a
little bit puzzled that my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is
opposing the extension of these three provisions of the Patriot Act
today because last year, he called up a Senate bill that provided for a
year's extension of these three provisions, and managed the time and
voted for it. And after hearing his comments, I'm wondering why he has
changed his mind.
In 19 days, three national security laws will expire unless Congress
votes to reauthorize them. H.R. 514 temporarily extends these laws--
FISA business records, roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf definition--
until December 8 of this year.
As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the last decade, I
oversaw the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in response to the 9/11
terrorist attacks. Title II of the act addressed enhanced foreign
intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority. Sixteen
sections of that title were originally set to expire on December 31,
2005. Also set to expire on that date was section 6001 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which is the
lone wolf definition.
In 2005, I again spearheaded the effort to reauthorize the Patriot
Act. Recognizing the significance of the act to America's
counterterrorism operations and the need for thorough oversight, the
House Judiciary Committee held 9 subcommittee hearings, 3 days of full
committee hearings, then a robust full committee markup reauthorizing
legislation.
The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 made
permanent 14 of the 16 intelligence provisions. The act extended the
sunset on section 206 FISA roving wiretaps, section 215 FISA business
records, and the lone wolf definition until the end of 2009.
But the three remaining temporary provisions were not reauthorized
before that deadline. Instead, the then-Democratic majority chose twice
to extend the provisions, first for 2 months and then for a year,
without ever bringing a reauthorization bill to the floor.
This Congress, things will be different. We must approve a temporary
extension today to keep these critical national security tools in
place. This extension will afford Congress sufficient time to hold
hearings and markups, then adopt a permanent reauthorization of these
provisions this year, which I intend to introduce soon.
The time for multiple temporary extensions is over. The terrorist
threat has not subsided and will not expire, and neither should our
national security laws.
It is equally important that Congress make permanent the lone wolf
definition. This provision closes the gap in the FISA act and, if
allowed to expire, could permit an individual terrorist to slip through
the cracks and carry out his plot undetected. When FISA was originally
enacted in 1978, terrorists were believed to be members of an
identified group. That's not the case today.
Today, more than ever, we are confronted with threats from loosely
organized terrorist groups or individuals who may subscribe to a
movement or certain beliefs but do not belong to or identify themselves
with a specific terrorist group. Without the lone wolf definition, our
surveillance tools will be powerless to act against this growing threat
to America's security.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizes the use of roving or
multipoint wiretaps for national security and intelligence
investigations. This allows the government to use a single wiretap
order to cover any communications device that the target uses or may
use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to
seek a new court order each time they need to change the location,
phone, or computer that needs to be monitored.
Section 215 of the act allows the FISA court to issue orders granting
the government access to business records in foreign intelligence,
international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. The 2005
act expanded the safeguards against potential abuse of section 215
authority and included additional congressional oversight, procedural
protections, application requirements, and judicial review. Each of
these provisions are integral to defending America's national security
and must be kept intact.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 514.
[[Page H522]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, who has been the chairman of
the Constitution Subcommittee longer than any Member in the Congress.
{time} 1440
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this extension of the expiring provisions of
the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act.
I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to
consider these provisions, or possible reforms, or even to hold a
hearing or a markup. While in the past, Members have had the
opportunity to receive classified briefings, we have dozens of new
Members who have received no such briefings.
Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible
thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no
showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or
terrorist activities. It is sweeping in scope, and the government is
not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before
undertaking investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy,
including the records of what he has read in the library. Congress
should either ensure that things collected with this power have a
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or allow the provision
to expire.
Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government
to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the
person nor the facility to be tapped. This is supposedly to update the
law to deal with portable cell phones and the like and other modern
technology, but it goes too far. Without the necessity to specify
either the person or the facility to be tapped, this is, for all
practical purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone and
anywhere the government wants. There are almost no limits to this
authority and no requirement that the government name a specific
target. This is very akin to the old British general Writs of
Assistance which engendered the first colonial outrage that led to the
American Revolution.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence
surveillance of non-U.S. persons whose are concededly not affiliated
with a foreign government or organization. According to government
testimony, this provision has never been used, yet it remains on the
books. It has never been used because there is ample other authority to
do that in any event.
Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign
government or organization is not what we normally understand as
foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to
keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws
under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation.
While some have argued that each of these authorities remain
necessary tools in the fight against terrorism and that they must be
extended without any modifications, others have counseled careful
review and modification. Some have even urged that we allow some or all
of these authorities to sunset. I believe we should not miss the
opportunity to review the act in its entirety, to examine how it is
working, where it has been successful, where it has failed, where it
goes too far, and where it may need improvement. That is the purpose of
sunsets, and to extend it without review undermines that purpose.
I have also introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act,
which would make vital improvements to the current law in order to
better protect civil liberties while ensuring that NSLs remain a useful
tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike
that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of
the abuse of the NSL authority is too great for the Congress to ignore.
I realize the majority has the votes to extend these provisions. I
hope we will be able, after this vote, to examine carefully the way
these provisions have been used or abused, and to look at ways to
reform the law in light of experience. That was the purpose of sunsets,
and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes. The
gentleman from Michigan has 15 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I was
opposed to the Patriot Act in 2001, and do not believe now that it is a
good idea to extend it.
The Fourth Amendment is rather clear. It says that we should be
secure in our papers, our persons, our homes, and our effects; and,
that if warrants are to be issued, we have to do it with probable
cause, and describe in particular the places, the people, and the
things that we are going to look at.
I think what has happened, though, over the years has been that we
have diluted the Fourth Amendment. It was greatly diluted in 2001, but
it started a lot earlier than that. When the FISA law was originally
written in 1978, that really introduced the notion that the Fourth
Amendment was relative and not absolute. Later on, it was further
weakened in 1998, and then of course in 2001.
I think our reaction to the horrors of 9/11--we can understand the
concern and the fear that was developed, but I think the reaction took
us in the wrong direction, because the assumption was made of course
that we weren't spending enough money on surveillance. Even though then
our intelligence agencies received $40 billion, that didn't give us the
right information. So now we are spending $80 billion. But it also
looks like the conclusion was that the American people had too much
privacy, and if we undermine the American people's privacy, somehow or
another we are going to be safer.
I think another thing that has come up lately has been that the
purpose of government is to make us perfectly safe. Now, it is good to
be safe, but governments can't make us safe. I question whether or not
we have been made safer by the Patriot Act. But let's say a law makes
us somewhat safer. Is that a justification for the government to do
anything they want?
For instance, if you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and
wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our
houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer
this way. But what would you be giving up?
So perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from
government is to enforce the law and to protect our liberties.
This, to me, has been, especially since 9/11, a classical example of
sacrificing liberty for safety and security. Now, I didn't invent those
terms. They have been around a long time. And it is easily justified,
and I can understand it, because I was here in 2001 when this came up,
and people become frightened, and the American people want something
done. But I think this is misdirected, and it doesn't serve our
benefits.
I think at this time we should really question why we are extending
this. We are extending the three worst parts. Why were these sunsetted?
Because people had concern about them. They weren't sure they were good
pieces and maybe they were overkill, and, therefore, they were saying
we had better reassess it.
So what have we done? We have already extended it twice, and here we
are going to do it again, with the intent, I think, in a year to
reassess this. But this bill doesn't make things worse, it doesn't make
anything better, but it does extend what I consider and others consider
bad legislation. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak
on this very important issue, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
For a variety of reasons, we need to reauthorize this bill.
[[Page H523]]
First and foremost, there are three provisions I think we are all
very familiar with. It's the lone wolf provision, it's the roving
wiretaps of course, which is something else that we very much need to
do, and also the business records provision.
With respect to roving wiretaps, I believe it has already been stated
on this floor, but it should be stated once again: Law enforcement has
been using roving wiretaps for years against drug dealers and organized
crime, I believe since 1986. Extending that roving wiretap provision to
terrorists makes good sense. We have been doing it. We need to give law
enforcement and our intelligence services the tools they need to take
down these terror plots before they become operational. That is why
this extension is needed.
The lone wolf provision, it should be noted, is also important. Many
of the types of plots we are trying to foil now are being carried out
by lone wolves. Major Hasan is a good example. Jihad Jane and others
are lone wolves, and we need this capacity so that we can pursue these
lone wolves just as we would individuals or terrorists who are part of
a terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power. So that is
absolutely essential.
With respect to the issue of the business records, often people would
say that we are somehow trying to examine one's library records, what
books they are reading. That's really not the case. We know that 9/11
terrorists were using public library computers. We knew that they were
also using university library computers to make plane reservations as
well as to confirm those reservations. So the idea is to be able to
access one's business records. That's what we are after, to make sure
that we cannot only apprehend or go after that individual who is
planning an attack but also that cell or that network of individuals
with whom that individual may be working. That is why we need this
issue of business records contained in this reauthorization.
In fact, I am not even certain that the word ``library'' appears
anywhere in the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, this has been dubbed the
library provision, which really it is not.
For all of these reasons, I think it is critically important that we
continue to provide our law enforcement with the tools they need, our
intelligence services with the tools they need to stop terrorism. We
cannot tie the hands of local law enforcement. We are asking them to do
more and more.
The critics of this legislation often say we need to let law
enforcement fight these battles. This gives them the tools. I urge
passage and support for this reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
{time} 1450
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been the
chair of the Subcommittee on Crime in the Judiciary Committee for 4
years.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514,
which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our
lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the
2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight demonstrating that
these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these
provisions for one full year, or for any period of time, for that
matter; and I therefore oppose the bill.
I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that in
order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and
freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the
formation of our Nation that ``they who give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the
Patriot Act that gives the government power to secretly invade our
private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely
alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, but
without having to show that the seized material is in connection with
any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. There is no
requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of
being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore there is no
meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is in fact
necessary.
Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act,
which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It
gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without
having to show which phone will be used or even who will be using it
and without requiring a court order for the specific roving tap.
The third provision is section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the ``lone wolf''
provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in
the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident
aliens even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any
terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those
targeted have any interaction with an American citizen, then that U.S.
citizen is spied upon as well.
We already allow spying on such non-citizens outside of the United
States or even in the United States where there is probable cause that
they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist
organization, but this is an extension of that power which could
envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with
a targeted person even while we are in the United States.
The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy
even when there is no probable cause nor even reasonable suspicion or
credible evidence of any wrongdoing and without allowing the kind of
detached oversight such as a court warrant which is generally called
upon when such power over individuals is extended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Absent these oversight protections, even after
the fact in the case of emergencies, all three provisions should be
allowed to expire, unless we demonstrate in hearings and oversight
hearings that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to
achieve a compelling national security interest. The freedoms and
protections these provisions take away are the very core of our values
and liberties, so these protections should not be legislated away
without rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there has been some criticism today that section 215,
business records authority, gives national security agencies too much
access to confidential records, but section 215 has more strict
requirements than grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations.
Unlike a grand jury subpoena, which is not issued by a judge, a 215
order can only be used by a FISA court judge. Section 215 only grants
terrorism investigators the power to get records held by third parties,
such as a hotel or car rental records.
Also there has been criticism that section 215 violates Fourth
Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
However, a request for business records held by a third party is not a
search under the Fourth Amendment. The target of an investigation does
not own the records and therefore has no reasonable expectation of
privacy in them. Section 215 cannot be used to acquire records of U.S.
persons based solely on First Amendment protected activity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked more carefully on this
matter than Dennis Kucinich, the distinguished gentleman from
Cleveland.
I yield the gentleman 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. I certainly
appreciate that.
I will certainly never seek to impugn the feelings of those who say
that we have to have the PATRIOT Act in order to protect our country.
We are all patriots here, and we all want America to be protected; but
we have to recognize our constitutional experience here and the reason
why we have a Fourth Amendment that protects people not just from
unreasonable search and seizure, but from unwarranted intrusion by the
government into their lives.
[[Page H524]]
When we look at our constitutional experience and all of the efforts
that made it and built up to it, we didn't hear ``give my liberty or
give me a wiretap.'' We didn't hear ``don't tread on me, but it is okay
to spy.'' What we heard was a ringing declaration about freedom, and it
was enshrined in the Constitution.
I stood on the floor of the House way back when the Patriot Act came
forward, voted against it because I read it and understood that it
opened up the door for a broad reach and possibilities of broad reach
by the government into our daily lives.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, who is my friend, correctly pointed out
earlier the difference between National Security Letters and the
Patriot Act. But it also is true that section 505 of the Patriot Act
gave the government the ability to greatly expand who could issue a
national security letter, so much so that nearly 50,000 national
security letters were issued by the FBI in 2006, I think the year was.
They don't have to use section 215 of the Patriot Act. They can just
invoke the national security letter authority and reach into people's
financial records, their medical letters, their reading material.
What is happening to our country? Why are we giving up our basic
liberties? We need to take a stand here, and this is as good a day as
any to take a stand. Many Members of Congress, including those
supported by my friends in the tea party, maintain their goal is to get
rid of big government, get government out of their lives. Well, how
about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest
reach of government into our daily lives? Shouldn't we be thinking
about that?
Some want to get government out of health care. Some want to get
government out of retirement security. How about getting government out
of people's bedrooms, out of people's financial records, out of
people's medical records?
Vote ``no'' on extending the Patriot Act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about
national security letters. The authority for them was made permanent in
2006. It is not a part of this bill, so we ought to completely forget
about the complaints about national security letters.
What I will say is that in the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot
Act there were provisions in it to give recipients of a national
security letter the right to obtain judicial review; and I am proud of
that fact because I think whatever constitutional infirmities there
were in this part of the Patriot Act, they were solved.
Now, we hear an awful lot about no oversight. The people on the other
side of the aisle who are complaining about this had the authority to
have oversight hearings. There was only one of them in the last
Congress. Compare that to the nine subcommittee hearings, three full
committee hearings, and the full markup that we had in 2006 when this
side of the aisle had the majority. The people who have been doing the
oversight have been the Republicans, not the Democrats. The people who
know this law is making Americans safer are the Republicans, and the
Democrats once again are complaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
{time} 1500
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the
most important powers of government, but also the most fearsome. They
must be wielded very, very carefully. For decades, our government
routinely has collected information on potential foreign threats
through various forms of surveillance. These collection activities
enjoy broad bipartisan support in our country because of their value in
helping to protect American citizens and interests.
However, in the 1960s and 1970s, these collection capabilities were
turned on the American people and executive branch agencies engaged in
spying on the American public, sometimes even for political purposes.
The ensuing public backlash triggered the adoption of legal reforms
that gave us laws to help prevent a repeat of these abuses.
Subsequently, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, gave proponents of
extended domestic surveillance a powerful political and rhetorical
weapon, which they used to reduce constitutional protections against
surveillance and seizures without appropriate warrants.
When the Congress passed the Patriot Act in March of 2006, it
included sunset requirements of three provisions that you've heard
about today. Since 2005, I've voted against extending these and other
provisions because these provisions are overly broad and frequently
abused while still not improving truly the security of the American
people. My concerns are supported by the revelations of abuses of those
authorities during hearings of the House Judiciary Committee in 2009
and in multiple reports issued by the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice.
The bill before us today does nothing to fix these problems or
prevent future abuses. This bill does not raise the standards for
intelligence collection to ensure that the right people are targeted in
the first place. The law was not meant to sunset so that we could
periodically reauthorize it, unchanged. We're now on the verge of the
third ``temporary'' extension, with no remedies for the flaws
identified by this body and the Department of Justice Inspector
General.
For all of these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to yield 2 minutes to a
senior member of the committee from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson
Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and the
ranking member of this committee.
I want to remind my colleagues of a singly important moment when
those of us who were Republican and Democrat came together after 9/11,
and out of this Judiciary Committee came a singular initiative that
dealt with the crisis which we are facing.
I have in my hand the Constitution; and I am reminded that when the
Founding Fathers came together and declared that we all were created
equal, they, too, were concerned about treason, spying, the undermining
of government, and maybe even the threat of violence. As we well know
how this country came into being, we had to fight a war; yet they had
in this Constitution the rights of the Fourth Amendment that we would
be protected against unreasonable search and seizure; a Fifth Amendment
of due process; and they believed that Americans should be protected.
This bill, however, comes to the floor again without amendments. And
I'm very proud to say that over the series of my tenure on the
Judiciary Committee I have submitted very vital and important
amendments to protect the civil liberties of Americans, as well as to
recognize the responsibility of all of us to secure this Nation.
I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I am not unmindful
of the everyday threats that we receive, but this bill would extend
provisions that were created in 2005, that also were included in the
intelligence reform bill. It extends a provision that allows for a
roving electronic surveillance authority and a provision revising the
definition of an ``agent of foreign power'' to include any non-U.S.
person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory
activities, also known as the ``lone wolf,'' without protections. As a
member of Homeland Security, I recognize that that is vital, but there
needs to be a variety of protections. The other provisions, of course,
are ones that invade privacy and create a lack of recognition that we
have a Constitution to abide by.
So I would ask my colleagues as we move on this legislation to
remember it has not been amended; remember we have lived under a
Constitution that protects civil liberties; and also remember it took a
lawsuit to allow someone to say they had gotten a national security
letter.
We must do things in a constitutional manner, Mr. Speaker; and I
would argue we're not doing it in this legislative initiative. I ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation; go back to the Judiciary
Committee and abide by the Constitution.
[[Page H525]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514,
``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and
individual terrorists as agents.''
This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision
that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision
revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include
any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or
preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It
also grants government access to business records relating to a
terrorist investigation.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and
appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we
face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However,
as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional
rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national
security.
To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the
founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which
enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills of Rights guarantee
certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government.
One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in
the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient.
While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect our
nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the democratic
principles that make this country the crown jewel of democracy. The
bill before us today, however, does not do that. In fact, even the
manner by which are even considering this bill, only days after
introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, circumvents
the process we have in place to allow for improvements and amendments
to be made.
Furthermore, this bill was considered last year in the 111th
Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up
in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan
amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill.
In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of
the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an
individual's privacy and civil liberties.
In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow
for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection
against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my
amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues, are included
in this legislation. None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty
infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been
addressed. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the
American people, without so much as a hearing.
We have been faced with this type of legislation before. On August 3,
2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, another piece of law essential to
combating the war on terror, but one that was in need of improvements
to protect Americans' constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. On
that day, I said that, ``we must ensure that our intelligence
professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation,
while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans,'' and I
stand firmly behind that notion today.
When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns
around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept
permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations
were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended
for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.
I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American
is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the
FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in
ensuring compliance with our Constitution. I stand here today urging my
colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act
that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this
legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other
legislative body.
The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would
extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set
forth in the Constitution. One provision authorizes the government to
obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation,
even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected
terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed
in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs afoul of the
traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government
to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy.
Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take
steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.
Another provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe wiretap,''
allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that
identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Like the
first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary Committee
during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional notions
of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with
particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision
were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be
done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit
roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.
The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf'
provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S.
persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type
of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to
abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the
government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United
States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has
never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this
provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be
allowed to expire.
All three of these provisions have been examined and amended in the
past because they were in dire need of improvements to protect the
rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in the
past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.
Finally, H.R. 514 fails to amend other portions of the PATRIOT act in
dire need of reform, specifically, those issues relating to the
issuance and use of national security letters, NSLs. NSLs permit the
government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of
anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person
is not suspected of unlawful behavior. I repeat, even if that person is
not suspected of unlawful behavior.
As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is
pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the
basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers
drafted the Constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in
Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience
such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in
the PATRIOT act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress
not included in the bill?
Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct
robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms
that will better protect private communications from overbroad
government surveillance.
There is nothing more important than providing the United States of
America, especially our military and national security personnel, the
right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on
terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is
the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure
America while preserving our way of life.
Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of
these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing
H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business
records, and individual terrorists as agents.
[From the American Civil Liberties Union, Aug. 10, 2010]
National Security Letter Recipient Can Speak Out for First Time Since
FBI Demanded Customer Records From Him
New York.--The FBI has partially lifted a gag it imposed on
American Civil Liberties Union client Nicholas Merrill in
2004 that prevented him from disclosing to anyone that he
received a national security letter (NSL) demanding private
customer records. Merrill, who received the NSL as the
president of an Internet service provider (ISP), can now
reveal his identity and speak about his experience for the
first time since receiving the NSL. The ACLU and New York
Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the NSL
statute and the gag order on behalf of Merrill (then called
John Doe) in April
[[Page H526]]
2004, which resulted in numerous court rulings finding the
NSL statute unconstitutional. Merrill was the first person
ever to challenge an NSL in court.
``After six long years of not being able to tell anyone at
all what happened to me--not even my family--I'm grateful to
finally be able to talk about my experience of being served
with a national security letter,'' said Merrill. ``Internet
users do not give up their privacy rights when they log on,
and the FBI should not have the power to secretly demand that
ISPs turn over constitutionally protected information about
their users without a court order. I hope my successful
challenge to the FBI's NSL gag power will empower others who
may have received NSLs to speak out.''
NSLs are secret record demands the FBI issues to obtain
access to personal customer records from ISPs, libraries,
financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without
court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing. Because the
FBI can gag NSL recipients to prohibit them from disclosing
anything about the record demands they receive, the FBI's use
and potential abuse of the NSL power has been shrouded in
excessive secrecy.
While the NSL served on Merrill stated that he was
prohibited from telling anyone about it, he decided to
challenge the demand in court because he believed that the
FBI was ordering him to turn over constitutionally protected
information about one of his clients. Because of the FBI-
imposed gag, Merrill was prohibited from talking about the
NSL or revealing his identity and role in the lawsuit until
today, even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records
from Merrill more than three years ago.
In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
ruling in Merrill's case, found that some of the NSL
statute's gag provisions were unconstitutional because they
wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to challenge gag
orders, narrowly limited judicial review of gag orders and
required courts to defer entirely to the executive branch.
The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and ordered the
government to justify the constitutionality of the gag on
Merrill. On July 30, the parties reached a settlement in the
case. As part of that settlement, the FBI agreed that Merrill
could now identify himself as the John Doe NSL recipient.
``We are thrilled that Nick will finally be able to speak
out about why he took the courageous step of challenging the
FBI's NSL power. Thanks to Nick's actions, courts have now
recognized the need for judicial oversight of the
government's dangerous NSL gag power,'' said Melissa Goodman,
staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. ``But
even though this case has resulted in significant
improvements to NSL procedures, innocent Americans' private
records remain too vulnerable to secret and warrantless data
collection by the FBI. At a minimum, the FBI should have to
show individual suspicion before it issues an NSL for an
individual's personal information and invades Americans'
right to privacy and free speech on the Internet.''
While misuse and abuse of the NSL power has been widely
documented, the Obama administration is now seeking to expand
the statute to allow the FBI to demand even more records
without court approval. In July, the Obama administration
proposed to expand the statute to allow the FBI to get
Americans' Internet activity records without court approval
or even suspicion of wrongdoing.
In 2009, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake
(R-AZ) reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act,
aimed at reigning in abuse of the power. The ACLU has called
on Congress to reform the remaining constitutional defects of
the NSL gag power and reject Obama proposals to expand the
NSL statute.
In addition to Goodman, attorneys on the case are Jameel
Jaffer of the national ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg of the
NYCLU.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
514, which would reauthorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act
without important modifications necessary to safeguard our civil
liberties. While the threat of terrorism is real, and law enforcement
must have the right tools to protect Americans, any counterterrorism
measure must have a solid constitutional footing and respect the
privacy and civil liberties of the American people.
This legislation fails to address shortcomings in the original
Patriot Act legislation, and for that reason I will vote against it.
One of the major problems with this bill is its failure to address the
issuance and use of national security letters. These letters permit the
government to obtain the communications of anyone deemed relevant to a
terrorism investigation, even if that person is not suspected of
unlawful behavior. If Congress reauthorizes these provisions with no
changes, Americans will remain subject to warrantless intrusions into
their personal affairs--a gross overreach of Federal investigative
authority that could be abused. It's just not how we do things in this
country.
Rather than taking the time to craft reforms that will better protect
private citizens' communications and privacy from overbroad government
surveillance, the Republican majority simply wants to cram this bill
through without providing any opportunity for anyone to offer
amendments that improve the bill. We all acknowledge that law
enforcement needs new tools to keep up with 21st century threats; but
surely it is the responsibility of Congress to reexamine legislation
that was hurriedly passed through Congress in the wake of 9/11 to make
sure it lives up to our national ideals.
Because this bill fails to contain any checks and balances to prevent
law enforcement abuse and protect civil liberties, I will be voting
against it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act
will ensure that America's law enforcement officials and intelligence
agents are equipped to identify terrorist threats and prevent terrorist
acts. The Patriot Act is an effective tool in the war on terror. As
terrorists show no signs of ending their plots, neither should our laws
that stop them be allowed to sunset. This temporary extension will
facilitate further review and reauthorization of these provisions.
Mr. Speaker, this extension is supported by the Obama administration.
I urge my colleagues to support this extension as well.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again oppose the
reauthorization of expiring provisions in the Patriot Act.
Last month, Republican leaders gave Members of Congress the chance to
read the Constitution on the floor of the House. Perhaps we skipped
over the Bill of Rights, because the provisions we're extending today
are a direct infringement on Americans' constitutional rights.
This legislation grants the federal government sweeping authority to
pry into the private lives of Americans. Federal authorities have the
power to access private records like library records or credit card
statements, even if it's not related to a terrorism investigation.
Authorities can receive wiretapping permits without specifying who or
what they're going to wiretap. Secret intelligence courts can authorize
law enforcement to spy on foreigners who are not connected to terrorist
groups.
Many of my colleagues were elected based on their rhetoric opposing
more power to the federal government. Today's vote gives them a chance
to put their money where their mouths are, and say no to giving
government the power to violate Americans' civil liberties. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act in 2001,
voted against its extension in 2005, and will again vote against it
again today. The PATRIOT Act was sold as a measure to ensure the safety
of the American people. Instead, the PATRIOT Act has served primarily
to subvert fundamental rights afforded to American citizens.
A plain extension of the PATRIOT Act, without revisiting its many
problems and abuses, is a huge mistake and missed opportunity to truly
protect our country against terrorism and do so in the confines of the
Constitution.
Freedom does not have to be compromised to defend liberty. Continuing
to weaken fundamental American principles will not leave us more
secure, but instead more vulnerable. Through mutual trust and
fearlessness, we can progress together.
It is time to stop extending the PATRIOT Act and restore full
American freedoms and liberty to our citizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 514.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
[[Page H527]]
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 8, 2011 (House)]
[Page H527-H528]
EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the
unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to
business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers,
and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011, on which the yeas and nays
were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277,
nays 148, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 26]
YEAS--277
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page H528]]
NAYS--148
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Heller
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hultgren
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Mack
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Butterfield
Crawford
Garrett
Giffords
Gutierrez
Hanna
Lamborn
Posey
Speier
{time} 1904
Messrs. BRALEY of Iowa, CLEAVER, CLYBURN, WAXMAN, GONZALEZ, NEAL,
ANDREWS, KINGSTON, HELLER, DEUTCH, ROE of Tennessee, CLARKE of
Michigan, KILDEE, HIMES, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Mr. CAMPBELL changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GRIFFITH of Virginia, MULVANEY, DUNCAN of South Carolina, and
SCOTT of South Carolina changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
