[Congressional Record: February 14, 2011 (House)]
[Page H731-H745]
EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 79,
I call up 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the bill is
considered read.
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. The bill shall be debated for 1 hour, with
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these three provisions of
the Patriot Act. I think it's very important that we extend them for a
variety of reasons. The lone wolf provision, roving wiretaps, which
have been in place for some time, we're not breaking any new ground
here. Roving wiretaps have been used by local law enforcement for years
in terms of dealing with drug dealers, organized crime. We're simply
allowing those roving wiretaps to be extended to those who may be
engaged in terrorist activities. Again, not new ground.
Also, importantly, that roving wiretap provision allows us to follow
the person, as opposed to the device. Because of the changing
technology, somebody can use a cell phone and pitch it and then pick up
another one. So rather than having to run back to the court every time,
it's much easier to just simply get the warrant for that individual.
Also, the business records provision is something that is extremely
important, something that has often been the subject of a great deal of
demagoguery, to be perfectly candid, where we have seen folks talk
about this as a library provision. It should be noted that many of the
9/11 terrorists used public library or university library computers to
make their plane reservations or to confirm those reservations.
The whole point of the Patriot Act is to allow for sharing of
information and intelligence between local law enforcement, as well as
our intelligence community. That's the point. We want to take down
these terrorist cells and operations before they become operational.
Many folks have said that we should not use our military to deal with
terrorist threats, that this should be the function of local law
enforcement. But many of those same people then will deny the very
tools necessary to local law enforcement to take down these terrorist
cells.
That's why it's essential that we take the time today to reauthorize
these three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. It is the right
thing to do.
And one other thing I wanted to mention about the lone wolf. These
lone wolves are a real threat; and allowing us to continue to go after
the lone wolf, even if they may not be part of a terrorist
organization--we're usually talking about people who are not U.S.
persons here--we need to make sure that our intelligence agencies, law
enforcement can go after those lone wolves.
We've seen lone wolves. Even though Major Hassan was a U.S. person,
that's
[[Page H732]]
the type of person we are concerned about. And we see more of that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to rise to address H.R. 514, a bill that would
reauthorize three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act until December
of this year, just 10 months from now.
Like the administration, I would like to see a 3-year extension of
these authorities until 2013, similar to Senate bill 289 currently
pending in the Senate. This longer term would give our Nation's
intelligence and law enforcement agencies the predictability and
certainty they need to keep our country safe in getting the politics
out of intelligence.
I believe there's no place for politics when it comes to protecting
our country and our very way of life. It must be U.S.A. first. A 3-year
extension of these authorities would keep the debate about the Patriot
Act out of the heart of the election cycle.
I believe including a sunset in the legislation provides the proper
checks and balances necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to
protect Americans, while also protecting Americans' constitutional
rights.
There will be people in my party who will be on both sides of this
issue. Everyone deserves a voice when it comes to national security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 514.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished military veteran, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 514, an extension of these provisions.
The most important job of the Federal Government is to protect our
country and to protect its people. My most important job in Congress is
to ensure that I am giving the law enforcement community, within the
bounds of the Constitution, the tools that they need to make sure that
we stay secure, to make sure that we stay protected.
{time} 1720
That is what I consider the utmost call in Members of Congress and
the utmost call in members in the military and the law enforcement
community.
You are going to hear throughout this debate and you have already
heard from so many people that have used these tools in the practice
and in implementation in taking out terrorists and taking out organized
crime units.
Let me just say, I'm an Air Force pilot. I have been overseas, and I
understand the enemy that we face and the determination that they have
to bring what we saw on 9/11, to bring that back to the shores of the
United States. I also understand that the only thing standing between
another 9/11 and a peaceful country like we have been feeling for about
the last 10 years is our law enforcement community and our United
States military. That makes it essential to listen to those individuals
and understand what we need to ensure that we are bringing down
terrorist cells where they exist in the United States, and we are
continuing to protect ourselves from infiltration overseas.
On the tragic day on 9/11, Americans were united in our understanding
that we must work together as a Nation to defeat those who would
destroy our way of life. Now it is essential that, even though we
haven't been attacked, that we understand that sometimes in the quiet
lies the biggest threat, and we never forget that this threat is very,
very real.
So I ask my colleagues to rise and join me. I ask my colleagues to
ask themselves, which side do they want to be on? Do they want to be on
the side that doesn't necessarily understand and recognize that we are
going to continue to be assaulted for generations from a group overseas
that wants to destroy and harm our way of life? So I ask for your
support.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 514, which
reauthorizes and extends provisions in the Patriot Act that I strongly
disagree with. I opposed the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 for the
very same reasons that I rise today.
As a proud member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that
we can protect our citizens and do it without treading on their rights.
Among the provisions extended in this bill is section 215, which
allows the government to gain access to anyone's private, confidential
records, including their medical, financial, library, and bookstore
records, without first presenting evidence linking those records to a
suspected terrorist or spy. It also fails to allow for court oversight
of these secret orders, and prohibits the recipient of such orders from
challenging the legality of the order for a year.
I think that the challenge here today is, how do we balance the
security of our country with protecting the rights of ordinary
citizens? I know that we can do better than we do in this legislation,
and so I urge each of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 514. Instead,
I think we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence
community the tools that it requires while protecting the rights and
liberties of all Americans.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), member of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Michigan, for allowing me to speak on the extension of this critical
bill to our national security.
Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11 cast a bright light on our
woefully out-of-date intelligence laws. While many of our domestic
crime-fighting laws have been made to adapt to social changes and new
technology, our intelligence laws sit on the bookshelf gathering dust
for decades. For that reason, I rise today in support of H.R. 514,
which will extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act through
December 8, 2011.
I know I have heard some complaints about civil liberties, but the
provisions in the short-term extension are the same tools that have
been used by U.S. officials for investigating child molesters,
murderers, drug dealers and other organized crime figures for decades.
All this bill does is extend these same tools to intelligence agencies
fighting terrorism.
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider that this is a short-term
extension to give the Intelligence Committee an opportunity to work on
these so that we can get a broad agreement on it. It gives the
gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Maryland an opportunity
to work together, and for all of us to work in a way that will provide
the security that all of us want for this Nation and still allow us to
have all the personal freedoms that we enjoy.
So I would invite and encourage all my friends to vote ``yes'' for
this simple extension until December to give us time to do what this
country desperately needs for us to do.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. It is difficult to debate an issue of such importance
and have very good friends who are taking an opposite position. But I
think that, in this case, we have to look very squarely at the literal
reading of the Constitution.
The First and Fourth Amendment literal reading makes it very clear
that the Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of constitutional
principles. There are extraordinary powers being given by the
government, and it contravenes not just principles of the Constitution
but our own oath to defend the Constitution.
I want to speak to the provisions that are set for reauthorization
here.
[[Page H733]]
Two of the provisions are contained in the Patriot Act, legislation
that I opposed when it first came up because I believed that it was
over-infringement on basic civil liberties, including freedom of
speech.
The first one, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the
FBI to obtain an order from the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or
their device, and I challenged the constitutionality because I believe
this provision severely undermines the Fourth Amendment, which requires
warrants to describe the place to be searched and the person or things
to be seized. This provision of the Patriot Act requires neither the
target nor device to be identified.
The second provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the
business records provision, allows the FBI to order any person or
business to turn over any tangible things, as long as it specifies it
is for an authorized investigation. Orders executed under section 215
constitute a serious challenge to the Fourth and First Amendment rights
by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated
with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library records or
medical records.
The third provision, section 6001, known as the lone wolf
surveillance provision, is contained in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that authorized the government to
conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected with
foreign power or terrorist groups, but effectively allows the
government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain
electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, first, it's important that we hear
all points of view from my colleagues when it comes to the
reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions.
I think the 3-year extension outlined in S. 289 will take politics
out of this debate. I am pleased that this bill contains a sunset
provision. It is important that these authorities have sunset dates so
that Congress may evaluate the effectiveness of these tools on an
ongoing basis.
Only with rigorous oversight can we ensure that the privacy rights of
Americans are protected. As ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee, I will ensure that the committee conducts effective
oversight of these provisions. I hope, in subsequent reauthorizations
of the Patriot Act, that Congress continues to use sunset dates which
will keep Congress in the business of oversight on these important
authorities.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1730
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate the way the ranking member has approached this issue.
There are people who have differences of opinion, strong, passionate
opinions on this. I am shocked and a bit amazed at the misinformation
that is in and about the Patriot Act.
If you believe that roving wiretaps through a court order is bad,
then we should stop investigating today organized criminals and drug
dealers and child pornographers and kidnappers.
If you believe today that going in and trying to get someone's
business records to prove that they were at a place, with a subpoena
from a grand jury, is a bad idea, then we should stop doing it. Today
you can do it. You can go to the library and get someone's records.
As a matter of fact, during the first part of this debate someone
talked about how they went in and got all this information on whoever
checked out a book on Osama bin Laden and what a horrible thing it was.
That wasn't even a FISA warrant. It was a criminal warrant. That
happened under the criminal code. That can happen tomorrow. And when
this expires at the end of this month, they will still continue to be
able to do that. But you will not be able to go to a FISA court and get
a roving wiretap or a court order, by the way, to get records that will
help in an ongoing terrorism investigation. It really is mind-boggling.
Let me give you what I think is the greatest example, the Times
Square bomber. If we would have known early in that particular
arrangement, they could have gone and figured out, listen, we need a
court order. We go to the FISA court. There are two courts here: a
criminal court and a FISA court. We go to the FISA court, because we
don't know how big this is; we don't know who all is involved. We don't
necessarily want to arrest him; we want to arrest everybody that is
involved.
So let's go to the judge and prove to the judge that if we can figure
out that he bought materials from a hardware store to build a bomb,
that we might be able to prevent this thing in the future. So they go
and get a court order. This is hypothetical. They get a court order,
which is a pretty high standard in any investigation.
Or the other option is the bomb goes off, it kills hundreds if not
thousands of people, and that very same FBI agent takes it with a
criminal warrant and gets the very same information after the bomb has
gone off. That is what we are talking about. That is the difference.
This notion that somehow you don't have to go to a court to get an
order is wrong. Trust me, you are not going to be able to go through
somebody's underwear drawer because you want to. It is not going to
happen.
If you believe in the process that we have in our criminal courts, to
have to go and get an order by a third-party adjudicator, then you
should also believe that this is a really good idea to be able to do it
in these broad, hard-to-do investigations into terrorism and spying. It
is difficult.
Remember the Russian spy ring that was just broken up recently. They
had a FISA court order warrant for a very long time because they needed
to figure out everything that was going on before they brought this
thing to a head.
The same with a terrorism investigation. Think about how global it is
now. They planned the attacks in Afghanistan to attack New York and it
went through Pakistan and other places, Saudi Arabia, and they had
multiple states involved when they brought this plot together. It is
big. It is complicated.
To take away, at the end of this month, our ability to get a roving
wiretap that, by the way, on the very next day after you stop our
ability to go to a FISA court to get one, you can still get one in a
criminal case against organized crime or a drug dealer here in the
United States, why, why would we do that to ourselves, Mr. Speaker? It
makes no sense.
The work that goes into putting these things together for the brief,
to go to the court, is significant. I will tell you right now there are
very brave Americans who are working cases right now hoping to get
their brief done so they can walk into a judge and get an order that
might pertain to business records, or it might be a roving wiretap to
keep America safe. If it expires, they won't be able to do it. There is
no difference. As a matter of fact, the standard in the FISA court is
higher.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge this body's support of what we
know is working and has kept America safe since its inception.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, since its enactment in 2001, the Patriot Act has been
the object of so many false allegations and exaggerations that the
myths have overshadowed the truth. It is time to dispel the myths once
and for all.
Let's begin with the myth that national security officials do not
need these provisions to protect us from terrorist attacks. This is
demonstrably untrue. Numerous terrorist attempts in the last 10 years
have been thwarted thanks to the intelligence gathering tools provided
in the Patriot Act and other national security laws, and if Congress
fails to extend these provisions set to expire on February 28, it will
be on our shoulders if the intelligence needed to stop the next attack
is not collected.
Opponents claim that these expiring provisions of the Patriot Act
violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This, too, is false.
Each of the provisions at issue amends the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or
[[Page H734]]
FISA. Enacted in 1978, FISA sets forth specific intelligence gathering
procedures that do comply with constitutional protections and have been
consistently upheld by the courts.
Let's also dispel the myth that these provisions grant broad-
sweeping, unchecked authority for the government to collect information
on innocent Americans. Again, this is absolutely untrue. These types of
provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for
years to apprehend typical criminals. Roving wiretaps are nothing new.
Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving authority for
criminal investigations since 1986.
Section 215, business records, have more strict requirements than the
grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. It makes no sense
to let law enforcement officials use a tool to investigate a drug
dealer, but then deny that same authority to intelligence officials
investigating terrorists.
And contrary to claims by critics, there is oversight of these
provisions. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215,
business record requests, must be approved by a FISA judge. Both
section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, also
are subject to rigorous minimization procedures. These procedures, also
approved by a FISA judge, assure that only information that pertains to
the investigation is actually collected. Finally, both section 206,
roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, prohibit the
government from gathering intelligence on a U.S. citizen or legal
resident who is exercising his First Amendment rights.
The third provision set to expire is the so-called lone wolf
definition. As originally enacted, FISA authorized intelligence
gathering only on foreign governments, terrorist groups or their
agents. FISA did not allow the government to collect intelligence
against individual terrorists. The lone wolf provision amended the
definition of ``agent of a foreign power'' to close this gap.
An increasing number of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. are
being carried out by self-radicalized jihadists who adopt an agenda as
equally hateful and destructive as any terrorist group. The lone wolf
definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st
century to allow our intelligence officials to respond to the modern-
day terrorist threat. The lone wolf authority cannot be used against a
U.S. citizen.
This temporary extension ensures that there are no gaps in our
intelligence collection. Without an extension of these authorities, we
will forfeit our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. A temporary
extension of these provisions is the only way to provide House Members
the time to study the law, hold hearings, consider amendments and
conduct markups. We need to approve this temporary extension today, or
we will make it harder to prevent terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Last Tuesday on February 8
when this measure came up, it was defeated. It was a bipartisan vote.
There was a full and fair discussion. Twenty-six Members on the other
side joined with us to make sure that this measure was adequately
examined for the flaws.
{time} 1740
It's not that the Patriot Act isn't important or needed. It's just
that it's flawed. The most flawed provision of the three provisions is
the one I want to comment on briefly, and that is the so-called ``lone
wolf'' provision--someone operating on his own and not particularly
attached to anyone. This provision allows our full national security
surveillance powers, which are designed to be used against enemy
governments, to be used against a single individual who is unaffiliated
with any foreign power or terrorist group.
Now, it is widely known that this provision has never been used. It
hasn't been used because there are no terrorists; it hasn't been used
because it doesn't have to be used. The Department of Justice, by its
own admission, has other powers to go after these individuals. And
that's why it hasn't been used. And because we got a closed rule from
the Rules Committee, we weren't able to work out an agreement to take
it out. Therefore, I come before you today to urge that we do not
accept this measure. It is way too broad. And under the statutory
definition, virtually any evildoer can be declared a ``lone wolf.''
So, ladies and gentlemen, let's be tough on terrorists. But let's
describe this in a way that it will not be used in a way that will
create fears that if we drop the lone wolf provision, the world may
come to an end. I urge that this one provision is sufficient reason for
us not to agree to the measure before us today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime and
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Judiciary chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, last week, 122 Democrats rejected legislation to
temporarily extend the three expiring Patriot Act provisions, including
36 who supported a 1-year extension last year. The House then adopted a
rule to bring the bill back to the floor today, and the vast majority
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed that, too.
These votes are nothing but the minority party playing politics with
national security, and their arguments ring hollow.
The Democrats' 1-year extension last February successfully achieved
their goal of delaying Patriot reauthorization until after the midterm
elections. But it left very little time for the new Congress to
complete a reauthorization bill before the February 28 sunset. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle now profess concerns with the
expiring provisions. If they were so concerned about the law, they
could have easily brought a reauthorization bill to the floor last
Congress making changes to these provisions, but they did not.
They also take issue with the process used to achieve this much-
needed extension, criticizing the absence of hearings or a markup. But
they gloss over the fact that their 1-year extension was brought
straight to the floor with no hearings, no markup, and no opportunity
to offer amendments--the same circumstances that a year later they now
claim to dislike.
Since this law was enacted, these provisions have been scrutinized to
the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or
found constitutional. The lone wolf definition has never been
challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been challenged. But
Members should know that, in 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--
and that's the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal in the country--upheld
criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution. Section 215 business records were challenged, but after
Congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization,
which I sponsored, the lawsuit was withdrawn. These three provisions
have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in
helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to
keep our country and its people safe.
Opponents of these provisions argue that we can simply use criminal
laws to gather the information we need. But this argument ignores the
most important distinction between criminal investigations
and intelligence gathering. Criminal investigations only occur after
the fact--after a murder has been committed or a home has been
burglarized. The entire purpose of intelligence gathering is
prevention--to stop the terrorist attack before it happens. We cannot
rely on criminal tools to identify and apprehend those who are plotting
to attack us.
As the Democrats choose to play politics rather than worry about the
safety of our country, we're now under a time crunch. Only 4
legislative days, including today, remain for the House to extend these
provisions before they expire and our Nation is placed at a greater
security risk. We can't let our guard down. These are needed provisions
to keep America safe, and I urge the House to approve this bill today
and urge the other body to act quickly to reauthorize these provisions.
It's time to put politics aside and do what's right for America's
national security. I urge passage of the bill.
[[Page H735]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I would like to remind the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, that we are not playing politics. And
merely accusing us of that and of not having hearings doesn't help the
debate much.
On September 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Judiciary Committee held hearings; and on October 29, 2009, the full
committee held hearings and reported out a bill, I would say to my
friend from Wisconsin. On November 4 and 5 of 2009, I say to the
distinguished gentleman, we had a 2-day markup in Judiciary with record
votes on 10 amendments offered by members of both parties and we
reported out a compromise measure by voice vote. And so to say that we
didn't hold hearings when we were in control is inaccurate, and I am
not made happy by this misrepresentation.
To say that this is a minority party tactic misses the point, again.
The gentleman was awake and on the floor last Tuesday. Twenty-six of
your members voted with us. That's not partisan politics. And so I am
very sorry that this discussion is getting off with so much
misinformation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration
Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's be reminded of what the 9/11 Commission report
observed. That report said the choice between security and liberty is a
false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties
than the success of a terrorist attack at home. In this case, freedom
presupposes security. That's what we're talking about here.
The distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee
basically has called into question the lone wolf terrorist provision.
He says it's never been used. I heard this same argument on the floor
last year before we had the domestic lone wolf known as Major Hasan. I
heard the same argument on this floor last year before we saw the
consequence of a loan wolf action in Times Square.
{time} 1750
I heard the same argument last year before we saw the lone wolf
action of the Christmas Day bomber. I heard the same argument 2 years
ago before we heard that.
The fact of the matter is and the greater concern that we have today,
as expressed just this last week by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
is that the level of the threat is as high today as it has ever been
since 9/11. When asked about it, she explained, as did the co-chairs of
the 9/11 Commission, that it is the less consequential attacks done by
those who are not directly associated with al Qaeda or with affiliate
organizations, i.e., lone wolves, that cause them to be of greater
concern today.
CIA Director Leon Panetta, who is of this administration, has warned
that it is the lone wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention
to as the main threat to this country. The gentleman from Michigan
would have us wait until that threat is carried out before we then say,
well, maybe now we have a reason to have the lone wolf provision.
Professor Robert Turner of the Center for National Security Law has
written as to how the absence of authority to conduct surveillance of a
lone wolf terrorist undermined the FBI's effort to gain access to the
content of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer and how it materially
impeded a critically important investigation that in the absence of
FISA might well have helped prevent the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Now, the distinguished former chairman of the committee has said this
allows us to use this provision against anybody. Not true. It has to be
someone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of the United
States who is engaged in international terrorism but who may not be
linked to a foreign power or terrorist organization.
Today, in the age of the Internet, when someone is incited or
inspired by one of these individuals from a foreign country and then
carries out a terrorist act, that is the definition of a ``lone wolf.''
The gentleman from Michigan would have us shackle ourselves so as not
to be able to deal with this, as was explained by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former agent of the FBI.
These are antiterrorism cases, not criminal investigations. What we
are trying to do is not collect the body parts after a successful
attack and then try and find those who caused it and try and bring them
to justice. No, we are trying to stop the attack in the first place and
protect Americans. That's why you have the FISA court. That's why you
have some of these different definitions. What we have done within the
ambit of those definitions is try and protect the civil liberties of
Americans while at the same time allowing us to take reasonable,
responsible and, yes, proactive actions against those who would murder
Americans.
There is a difference between a criminal investigation and a
counterterrorism effort. It is the difference between trying to
prosecute someone for a crime that has already been committed as
opposed to trying to prevent the death and destruction that would be
rained upon the United States by these terrorists.
I am the author of the sunset provisions. I brought this because I
thought it required us to look at these three provisions because, yes,
they were the most controversial; but I am convinced after looking at
it in these years that these provisions have not been abused.
At the same time, I am going to be working with the gentleman from
Wisconsin and others to have rapid, intensive, active oversight of
these provisions to ensure that we do not have some deprivation of
civil liberties as we carry out these necessary functions.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my dear
friend from California that the provisions in lone wolf do not apply to
Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Hassan was an American, and we have not yet used the terrorist
provisions of lone wolf.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I would hope that my good friend from California, in
his very passionate defense of the Patriot Act, did not mean to imply
that the distinguished Mr. Conyers in some way would suborn terrorism,
because he chooses to point out that the standards that are required to
obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts are really
being circumvented under section 601.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I did not question the
motivation of the gentleman from Michigan, nor would I; but I would
question his conclusions and the impact of his decisions.
Mr. KUCINICH. I think it is fair for us to debate this. I think we
have to just be cautious about how far we draw conclusions about the
motivations of each other in taking the positions that we do.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting for those of us who
don't have a law degree to come down and listen and sometimes, like
myself today, to have a few minutes to share my thoughts on this,
because I think the majority of people in my district are God-fearing,
constitutional-loving Americans like people in anybody else's district
across this Nation.
I regret and will always regret that I was too weak to vote my
conscience when we had the Patriot Act up the first time. I did not
feel good about it. As a non-attorney and as an American who loves the
Constitution and who believes in the civil liberties that are
guaranteed, this country too many times has sold itself to the Federal
Government to take care of it.
[[Page H736]]
I make reference, Mr. Speaker, to a book that was written by Judge
Andrew Napolitano. He is a well-known constitutional lawyer who is on
Fox News from time to time. The title of the book is ``A Nation of
Sheep.'' He actually wrote this book in 2007, years after we passed the
Patriot Act. He goes through every aspect of the Patriot Act, which he
believes sincerely is a serious violation of the civil liberties of the
American people. In fact, I would like to share just a couple of his
comments.
He said: ``The gravest dangers to our freedoms lie hidden in a
government that has seized them from us, and that vigilance and natural
law can save us from the power-hungry bureaucrats who run the
government today.''
He further stated in the book ``A Nation of Sheep'': ``An unalienable
right comes from God and is an element of humanity that cannot be given
up or legislated away.''
Let us not legislate away our God-given right to liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues who voted against this when it
was on suspension will again today vote ``no'' on this reauthorization,
because it should go to a hearing. We should be very careful. And I
hope and pray that maybe we will be able to defeat this tonight, but I
know the odds are against it.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask God to continue to bless America and to
continue to bless the Constitution. As Andrew Napolitano says, let's
not be a Nation of sheep.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield such time as he
may consume to a senior member of the committee, the gentleman from
Virginia, Bobby Scott, a former chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Crime.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
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 and committee deliberations 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: ``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, which 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.
{time} 1800
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 tapped or even who will be using it, and
without requiring a court order for a 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 had any interaction with an American citizen, then that
American citizen is spied upon as well.
We have already allowed spying on such noncitizens outside of the
United States or even in the United States where there is probable
cause, only that they are agents of a foreign government or members of
a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power that
can envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting
with a targeted person, even while 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. And it is important
to note that in cases of emergencies, warrants can be obtained after
the fact. Law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and searches
in emergency situations and then get a warrant.
So, Mr. Speaker, absent oversight protections, even when after the
fact warrants are available, all three of these provisions should be
allowed to expire unless we demonstrate in oversight hearings and
committee deliberations that these powers are necessary and narrowly
tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. These
freedoms and protections that these provisions take away are the very
core of our values and liberties. So these protections should not be
legislated away without committee deliberations guaranteeing rigorous
oversight to protect against abuse.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding me 2 minutes.
What I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that with respect to
roving wiretaps, it's only available after the government has been able
to prove to the court that the target may engage in countersurveillance
activity such as rapidly changing the cell phone number. It doesn't
allow the government to make a general boilerplate application. It
requires them, if they can't identify the individual, the very specific
individual, to give some particularity in the request to identify that
person as much as they possibly can.
It is also a requirement we put in the law that once they have
actually utilized this roving wiretap on different instruments of
communication, they have to report to the court within 10 days as to
what took place. So we have refined this as much as absolutely
possible.
What we're trying to do is keep up with technology. We know that some
of these targets will buy 100 cell phones and use them for a single
conversation and throw that cell phone away. You can't just think
that's going to happen. You have to prove to the satisfaction of the
court that there is a reason to believe that they are going to take
these kinds of efforts to try and stop surveillance in these regards.
Again, this is before the FISA court, and it only deals with these
kinds of cases. This is not regular criminal cases. So the gentleman's
concerns have been raised before, and we met those concerns in our
prior treatment of this law. So it is a careful balance that we created
here, to take into consideration the new techniques utilized by those
who would threaten us and at the same time try and provide for a third
party, a court, a Federal court made up of Federal judges, to look at
this. We have to report before, and we would have to, that is, our
agency activists, would have to report afterwards, within 10 days.
I believe that's about as much protection as you can give and still
be effective in this environment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished Member of this body, Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001 in the
aftermath of 9/11, we mandated sunsets on the provisions that
dramatically expanded Federal investigative and enforcement powers,
especially those that could infringe on the freedom of American
citizens. Sunsets meant that Congress would have to specifically extend
the time on those powers or they
[[Page H737]]
would expire. Five years ago, the last time around, the Bush
administration attempted to make permanent this crisis-related
expansion of authority by removing the sunsets.
Let me congratulate my friend from California who spent so much time
trying to make sure the sunsets were in, and Dan, we know that you
worked really hard to make sure those sunsets were put in, but not all
of them were.
This power grab on the part of the Bush administration was thwarted
by good Members like Dan Lungren who are with us today in this debate.
Today, a few controversial sections are still scheduled to periodically
sunset. The congressional action to extend these provisions deserves
hearings, adequate debate, and the right to amend, thus ensuring
accountability and transparency on such a significant issue. We have
not met this standard this time around.
The Republican leadership has committed to a more acceptable process
by December, when the extension of this bill comes up for a vote again.
I hope I will be able to vote ``yes'' at that time. Until then, it is
``no.''
And let us note about the accusations of politics in this. I believe
the American people have a legitimate fear of out-of-control
government. They have a legitimate fear of out-of-control spending and
out-of-control bureaucracy, and yes, they have a legitimate fear of
out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks. Let's make
sure we stand for freedom here. That's not political.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my friend from
California and other Members a little history lesson.
When the Patriot Act was drafted in 2001, I insisted on the sunset
and the then-Republican-controlled House prevailed on that issue
against the then-Democrat-controlled Senate. I resisted repeal of the
sunset prematurely, and in 2005, the Judiciary Committee, when I was
chairman, had hearings on each of the 17 provisions. There was no
controversy about 14 of those provisions. Even the ACLU testified in
behalf, that those provisions have not been abused. So 14 of the
provisions were made permanent. This law has not trampled on anybody's
civil rights.
Where there was a constitutional problem with section 215, it was
fixed in the reauthorization, and I'm getting a little bit irritated at
the scare-mongering that has been going on about this law when no
provision has been held unconstitutional by a court.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, former chair
of the Constitutional Subcommittee.
{time} 1810
Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the extension
of these provisions when the House has done nothing to consider them or
to consider possible reforms or even to hold a hearing or a markup.
The three sections scheduled to sunset are all troubling, and I hope
that we will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they
come before the House again.
Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible
thing,'' such as library or business or medical records, if ``there are
reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant'' to a foreign
intelligence or international terrorism investigation. Before the
enactment of section 215, the government had to show ``specific and
articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the
records pertain'' is a foreign agent or a terrorist. Section 215 allows
the government to delve into the personal records of someone even if
there is no reason to believe that that person has anything to do with
terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most
sensitive areas of our lives, with little restraint on the government.
Section 206 provides for roving wiretap orders, supposedly to catch
up with technology, but these orders identify neither the person to be
tapped nor the facility to be tapped. This is, for all practical
purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone anywhere that
the government wants. They should either have to identify either the
person or, because of modern technology, the facility. But one or the
other. There are almost no limits to this authority and no requirement
that the government name a specific target. This is akin--very
similar--to the British general writs of assistance which engendered
the first colonial outrage that led to the American Revolution. Here we
are coming full circle.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret
intelligence surveillance of people who are concededly not affiliated
with a foreign government or organization. It provides the government
with the ability to use secret courts and other investigative tools
that are unacceptable in a domestic criminal investigation, as if we
were dealing with a foreign government or entity. According to
government testimony, this provision has never been used because you
can use the normal criminal provisions if you suspect someone of
planning mayhem or terrorism or anything else. Surveillance of an
individual who is not working with a foreign government or organization
is not what we normally consider or understand as foreign intelligence.
There may be good reasons for the government to keep tabs on such
people, but that is no reason to suspend all of our laws under the
pretext that it is a foreign intelligence operation.
While some have argued that each of these authorities remain
necessary tools in the fight against terrorism, I believe we should not
miss the opportunity to review the Patriot Act in its entirety,
including the 14 sections that were sunsetted that are now permanent
that many of us opposed making permanent at the time and thought should
continue to be sunsetted so we could review them from time to time. We
should examine the act to see how it's working, where it's been
successful, where it's failed, where it goes too far, and where it
poses threats to our liberties. That's the perfect of sunsets; and to
extend the sunsets without review undermines that purpose.
There is another law that is allied to this that also deserves
careful review, the National Securities Letters Reform Act. I have
introduced legislation which would 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 was encouraged
to see some of my Republican colleagues across the aisle last week vote
``no'' on the extension. It shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained
government power to spy on people in the United States. That is the
essence of opposition to unchecked government power. That value should
not be a partisan one. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to restore our traditional respect for the right of people
to be secure from unchecked government intrusion. That's why we have
the Fourth Amendment. 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, I have no further requests for time,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Does my friend from Texas have in his heart any
generosity to yield a couple of minutes?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend
from Michigan and say, I believe I could find the time if he could find
a way to give us a copy of the motion to recommit at this time.
Mr. CONYERS. That is up to the leader. That is not up to me.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of a good-faith
effort to consider that proposal by the gentleman from Michigan, I
yield the gentleman 2 minutes of my time for his control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Michigan will control 2 additional minutes.
[[Page H738]]
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Lamar Smith, the
chairman, for his generosity.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson
Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my
appreciation to the chairman, my colleague from Texas, for the time and
to the ranking member as well.
All of the issues have been laid out as to the three elements. So I
just simply want to pose a question to my colleagues: We know that we
have a problem with the three remaining intrusive and, I believe,
unconstitutional provisions.
We know that Ranking Member Conyers has explained that we were not
absent; we did not have the lights out under his jurisdiction. We
actually pursued this. We couldn't get an agreement. We couldn't move
toward the floor. So the question now is, we realize that a roving
wiretap is intrusive. We realize that the ``lone wolf'' provides a
problem. So the question is, how do we fix it for the American public?
How do we ensure the Constitution is intact?
Let me be very clear: It is well documented that human intelligence
is the best. Why? Because most of us were surprised when I say that in
the intelligence community--at least they have not articulated about
what is going on in the Mideast, both in Egypt and Yemen and
otherwise--we were surprised. Did any of that help us? This is an
intrusion on the American public.
We are not in any way nonpatriots. We are patriots. We believe in the
Founding Fathers. We understand that they came together to give you,
Americans, the right to your freedom. We ask for the Fourth Amendment
to be sacrosanct, to indicate that you are not subject to unreasonable
search and seizure. That is my question to my colleagues: When will you
engage in the hearings and the ability to mark something up to address
these infringements? How quickly will you move? December of 2011 is too
long. Let us work together to uphold the Constitution.
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.
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.
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.
The first 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.
The second 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.
Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it 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.
The three provisions I have just mentioned, as well as the issues
surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past
Congresses, 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.
Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to
us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act
was introduced. In 2005, the PATRIOT Act was examined in the Judiciary
Committee. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like
Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only
addressed the three provisions in H.R. 514, but also National Security
Letters and the lax standards of intent.
Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I
stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, FISA, another piece of law used in conjunction with
the PATRIOT Act and 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.
Furthermore, this very 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 who were on the
Judiciary Committee at that time, 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.
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
[[Page H739]]
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.
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.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman
from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for
1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to first thank the ranking member, and I want to
thank the gentleman from Texas for the amicable manner of comity that
you have extended here. It is very much appreciated. I also want to
say, as I have listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
speak in defense of this, I am aware that you love this country, that
you want America to be safe, and you want America to continue to be
free. And the great thing about this Congress is that we have different
ways of viewing how we can go about that. But I have great respect for
each of the speakers who has come forward.
I want to say that since Congress first passed the Patriot Act in
2001 that we have been continually challenged on this question of our
constitutional duties to act as a coequal branch of government and that
it is my belief that we have failed to conduct checks and balances over
government power. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in that regard and that we
have failed to conduct robust and effective oversight. And in
connection with the gentleman from Wisconsin, some of the remarks that
you have made about what we needed to do, I think you have made some
good points on that. I also think that we have a responsibility here to
protect the American people from overt infringements on their most
basic civil liberties, and I see this continuing extension as being a
challenge to that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 514.
Since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we have
continually abdicated our constitutional duties to act as a co-equal
branch of government by failing to conduct checks and balances over
government power, failing to conduct robust and effective oversight,
and ultimately, failing to protect the American people from overt
infringements on their most basic civil liberties by continuing to
extend these provisions without any meaningful reforms.
These three provisions were passed in the wake of 9/11, and given
sunsets in recognition of their far reaching and unprecedented powers
that effectively allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance
and demand material from people not connected to any terrorism
investigation, including librarians and peace groups. Yet they have
been extended Congress after Congress without any reform.
Perhaps even more troubling is that we are extending these provisions
through the end of the year without addressing the PATRIOT Act as a
whole.
In a 2007 article by the Washington Post, then Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) assistant director stated that he is ``not even
sure such an example exists'' that would demonstrate how expanded
surveillance has made a difference in our national security.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the type of information the
government could request from targets, while at the same time, lowering
the standard required to obtain an order to request private records
from targets. This means that the government can obtain orders for
private records or items from people who are not connected to any
investigation, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Orders
executed under this provision constitute a serious violation of First
and Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access
to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment
rights, such as library or medical records.
National Security Letters (NSLs), which can be issued under Section
215 of the PATRIOT Act, allow the government to obtain private
information from telecommunication companies, internet and email, and
health care providers without judicial warrants or oversight. They can
be issued to people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing and are
often accompanied by gag orders.
According to an article in the Washington Post from 2005, NSLs ``do
not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They
receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or
Congress.'' The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution requires prior
judicial review and allows warrants to be issued only with probable
cause.
The government has used NSLs to demand records of patrons from
librarians across the country. A decision by a federal district court
rules in 2006 that the gag order enforced on librarians in Connecticut
violated the First Amendment, forcing the government to withdraw the
gag order and its demand for patron records.
Despite a successful challenge to the unconstitutionality of the
original PATRIOT Act's gag order provisions by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), 5% of all NSLs issued by the FBI in 2006
contained ``insufficient explanation to justify imposition of these
obligations,'' according to the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice.
The ability to demand records from Americans absent judicial review
and probable cause are certain to quell free speech and freedom of
association--rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution.
The ``material support'' statute, also contained in the PATRIOT Act,
criminalized the act of providing ``material support'' to any foreign
organization designated as terrorist by the Secretary of State.
``Material support'' is defined so broadly that it can refer to almost
any kind of support, including support that does not further terrorism.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Court ruled in 2000
that criminal bans on ``providing `personnel' and `training' to groups
designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the government are
unconstitutionally vague and could criminalize free speech as protected
by the First Amendment,'' to include human rights advocacy training,
humanitarian aid in conflict zones, or even writing an op-ed. A number
of the cases brought forth by the government using this statute have
been dismissed or ended in mistrial.
According to the ACLU, the material support provisions
``impermissibly criminalize a broad range of First Amendment-protected
activity, both as a result of their sweeping, vague terms and because
they do not require the government to show that a defendant intends to
support the criminal activity of a foreign terrorist organization.''
Despite years of documentation by the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice and respected human rights organizations of abuse
by the government of these provisions, we have failed to hold agencies
accountable for abusing the far reaching powers allowed under the
PATRIOT Act.
As Members of Congress, we are sworn to protect the rights and civil
liberties afforded to us by the Constitution. We have a responsibility
to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the
PATRIOT Act to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all
Americans are fully protected.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2007]
FBI Audit Prompts Calls for Reform--Some Lawmakers Suggest Limits On
Patriot Act
(By Dan Eggen and John Solomon)
Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on
antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report
that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs,
[[Page H740]]
banking records and other personal information on thousands
of Americans.
The audit by the department's inspector general detailed
widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to seize personal
details about tens of thousands of people without court
oversight through the use of national security letters.
It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with
telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for
information on more than 3,000 phone numbers--often without a
subpoena, without an emergency or even without an
investigative case. In 2006, the FBI then issued blanket
letters authorizing many of the requests retroactively,
according to agency officials and congressional aides briefed
on the effort.
The disclosures prompted a public apology from FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III and promises of reform from Attorney
General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was the focus of a new tide
of criticism from Democrats and Republicans already angry
about his handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
``I am the person responsible,'' Mueller said in a hastily
scheduled news conference. ``I am the person accountable, and
I am committed to ensuring that we correct these deficiencies
and live up to these responsibilities.''
Democrats and Republicans alike said Gonzales, Mueller and
the Bush administration did not properly monitor the FBI and
guard the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and legal
residents. The report came at the end of a difficult
political week for the Bush administration, after the
conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff
in the CIA leak case and damaging allegations by fired
federal prosecutors.
Top lawmakers raised the possibility that Congress would
seek to curb the Justice Department's powers, most likely by
placing restrictions on the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism
law.
``This goes above and beyond almost everything they've done
already,'' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among
a host of Democrats promising investigative hearings. ``It
shows just how this administration has no respect for checks
and balances.''
Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking
Republican, told reporters that Congress may ``impose
statutory requirements and perhaps take away some of the
authority which we've already given to the FBI, since they
appear not to be able to know how to use it.''
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has
been pressing for a review of national security letters since
2005, said the report ``confirms the American people's worst
fears about the Patriot Act.''
A national security letter is a type of administrative
subpoena that allows the FBI to demand records from banks,
credit-reporting agencies and other companies without the
supervision of a judge. The Patriot Act significantly
expanded the FBI's ability to use them, and a reauthorization
of the law last year required the audit that was issued
yesterday.
The findings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were so at
odds with previous assertions by the Bush administration that
Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters
from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements
in earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other
officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters
as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of
terrorist attacks.
One such retraction letter, sent to Specter by Acting
Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, sought to
correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story
about national security letters. ``We have determined that
certain statements in our November 23 letter need
clarification,'' Hertling wrote.
Fine's 199-page unclassified report found that the FBI's
records showed it issued more than 143,000 requests for
information on more than 52,000 people through national
security letters from 2003 to 2005. But not only did the
agency understate that number in required reports to
Congress, the number of requests it issued was much higher.
Nearly half the people targeted were U.S. citizens or legal
residents, and the proportion of such ``U.S. persons''
increased over the three-year period, the report said.
In examining a small sample of security letters issued by
four FBI offices, Fine discovered that the letters were
improperly issued about 16 percent of the time. In the sample
of 293 letters, the FBI had identified 26 potential
violations but missed 22 others, the report said.
The report also details how, after obtaining sweeping new
anti-terrorism powers under the Patriot Act in late 2001, the
FBI did not establish basic training and record-keeping
procedures to ensure that civil liberties were protected.
That kept the agency from giving Congress accurate numbers on
how often it used national security letters, the
investigation found.
``During the time period covered by this review, the FBI
had no policy or directive requiring the retention of signed
copies of the national security letters or any requirement to
upload national security letters to the FBI's case management
system,'' the report said.
The findings are reminiscent of those in previous reports,
including many by Fine's office, that have detailed the FBI's
chronic inability to keep track of items ranging from guns to
laptops to documents related to the Oklahoma City bombing
case. Fine determined that the latest violations were not
deliberate but that they could be widespread.
Gonzales described the problems as unacceptable and left
open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further
investigation.
``Once we get that information, we'll be in a better
position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken,''
Gonzales said after a speech to privacy officials. ``There is
no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are
going to make things right as quickly as possible.''
At the same time, Gonzales stressed that he thinks ``the
kinds of errors we saw here were due to questionable judgment
or lack of attention, not intentional wrongdoing.'' Mueller
said that ``the number of abuses is exceptionally small''
compared with the broad use of national security letters and
that ``no one has been damaged'' by the errors.
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union, which has sued the government over its use
of national security letters, said the report shows the need
for an independent investigation of the Justice Department's
antiterrorism tactics.
``It confirms our greatest suspicions about the abuse of
Patriot Act powers and, specifically, national security
letter powers,'' Romero said.
Aside from the findings about national security letters,
the report details for the first time a separate kind of
emergency letter used in ``exigent circumstances,'' modeled
on letters used by New York FBI agents after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks. The 739 emergency letters were issued as part
of an agreement with three unidentified telephone companies
and requested information with the promise of subpoenas,
which rarely materialized, the report said.
Mueller indicated that ``we stopped the use of these
letters'' in May 2006. An FBI official later clarified those
comments, saying emergency letters are still used but now
promise a national security letter rather than a subpoena
sometime in the future.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2007]
Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On--Records Collection Brought Internal
Questions but Little Scrutiny
(By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon)
FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed
procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records
during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers
were expressing escalating concerns about the practice,
according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and
documents.
FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October
2004 but did not closely scrutinize the practice until last
year, FBI officials acknowledged. They also did not
understand the scope of the problem until the Justice
Department launched an investigation, FBI officials said.
Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing,
counterterrorism agents last year wrote new letters to phone
companies demanding the information the bureau already
possessed. At least one senior FBI headquarters official--
whom the bureau declined to name--signed these ``national
security letters'' without including the required proof that
the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage
investigations, an FBI official said.
The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands
for records, called ``exigent circumstance'' letters, which
contained false or undocumented claims. They also included
national security letters that were issued without FBI rules
being followed. Both types of request were served on three
phone companies.
Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles
E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice
Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: ``It is . . .
difficult to imagine why there should not have been swift and
severe consequences for anyone who knowingly signed . . . a
letter containing false statements. Anyone at the FBI who
knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an obligation to put a
stop to it and report it immediately.''
A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use
of the exigency letters ``circumvented'' the law that governs
the FBI's access to personal information about U.S.
residents.
The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office
after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers
that the FBI needed information immediately and would follow
up with subpoenas later. There is no basis in the law to
compel phone companies to turn over information using such
letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents never followed
up with the promised subpoenas, he said.
But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent
efforts to legitimize those actions with improperly prepared
national security letters last year.
Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI,
prompting a news conference at which Director Robert S.
Mueller III took responsibility for the lapses. Some
lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.
In a letter to Fine that was released along with the March
9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's agents had
used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and
made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.
[[Page H741]]
Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such
letters this month, although he defended their value and
denied that the agency had intentionally violated the law.
Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but
said they involved procedural and documentation failures, not
intentional misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller
ordered a nationwide audit, which began Friday, to determine
if the inappropriate use of exigency letters went beyond one
headquarters unit.
``We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this
sooner, corrections had been made and the process was more
transparent,'' FBI Assistant Director John Miller said
yesterday.
Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office
used the exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and
2005 to obtain records related to 3,000 separate phone
numbers. FBI officials acknowledged that the process was so
flawed that they may have to destroy some phone records to
keep them from being used in the future, if the bureau does
not find proof they were gathered in connection with an
authorized investigation.
Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes
an internal audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview
at headquarters Friday.
Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI
in an effort to block some of its data requests, said that if
the bureau cannot prove a link between the letters and an
ongoing investigation, its requests were ``a total fishing
expedition.''
The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because of forthcoming House and
Senate hearings on the matter, would speak for the agency.
Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the
letters and why the department did not act more swiftly to
halt the practice. Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the
Senate Judiciary Committee copies of all FBI e-mails related
to the letters of demand, as well as transcripts of the
interviews Fine conducted on the issue.
The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with
Mueller as the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary
Committee intends to question Fine and FBI general counsel
Valerie Caproni.
FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the
letters at issue were drafted by the Communications Analysis
Unit (CAU), which comprises about a dozen people assigned to
analyze telephone records and other communications for
counterterrorism investigators. They sent the secret requests
to three companies--AT&T, Verizon and a third firm whose
identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of
supplying such records almost instantaneously in a form that
its agents can readily examine, according to the report and
the senior FBI official.
In each letter, the FBI asserted that ``due to exigent
circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached
list of telephone numbers be provided.'' The bureau promised
in most of the letters that subpoenas for the same
information ``have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's
office who will process and serve them formally.''
But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of
the letters were ``not sent in exigent circumstances'' and
that ``there sometimes were no open or pending national
security investigations tied to the request,'' contrary to
what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had actually been
requested before the letters were sent. The phone companies
nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in
anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later,
FBI officials said.
The use of such letters was virtually ``uncontrolled,''
said an FBI official who was briefed on the issue in early
2005. By that fall, CAU agents had begun creating
spreadsheets to track phone records they had collected for a
year or more that were not covered by the appropriate
documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with
officials.
A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic,
referring questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter
Thonis, who would not confirm nor deny the existence of an
FBI contract with his firm, said that ``every day Verizon
subpoena units respond to emergency requests from federal,
state and local law enforcement for particular calling
records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI
emergency requests in terrorist matters, and we had every
reason to believe they were legitimate emergency
situations.''
The inspector general's report said that the wording of the
exigency letters was copied from a standard letter that the
FBI's New York office used to obtain urgently needed records
after the 2001 terrorist bombings. When officials from that
office were later reassigned to create the CAU in Washington,
the senior FBI official said, ``they brought their business
practices with them'' and continued to use the same letter
``for reasons that I cannot explain.''
But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make
such requests, and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field
offices to submit the promised legal follow-up documents. The
offices rarely did so speedily, and in many cases ignored the
request altogether.
``In practice, if you have already got the records, the
incentive to do the paperwork is reduced,'' the senior FBI
official said.
When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch,
Patrice Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal
justifications were frequently missing or extremely late, she
did not advise agents to ``change their process,'' the senior
official said. ``Our advice was instead to . . . use these
letters only in true emergencies'' and institute ``covering
practices.''
These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened
a related investigation and promptly sent a formal national
security letter to provide legal backing for the demand.
Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised
concerns about the tardy legal justifications shortly after
he was assigned to the job in early 2005, according to his
lawyer, Steve Kohn.
``He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he
reported that to his chain of command. They defended the
procedures and took no action,'' Kohn said, adding that
``their initial response was to deny the scope of the
problem.''
Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was
denied a promotion because of discrimination based on his
ethnicity.
Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a
meeting at headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau
considered a work-around: Its lawyers proposed creating
special, catch-all investigative files that could be used to
authorize quick phone-records seizures that did not involve
open field investigations.
But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that
genuine emergency requests for the records ``were few and far
between,'' according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting
that was reviewed by The Washington Post, and the idea was
never implemented. The account referred to efforts by one of
the bureau's top lawyers to brief ``higher ups'' in the
agency about the problem.
``At some point, they told us there were not that many such
letters'' still in use, the senior official said. ``We
believed the problem had resolved itself . . . in retrospect,
it never got resolved.''
One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is
that Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office
did not review until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent
circumstances letters sent to the phone companies from 2003
to 2005. As a result, they were unaware that some of the
letters contained false statements about forthcoming
subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.
Bureau officials ultimately decided to ``clean up'' the
problem by writing seven national security letters designed
to provide legal backing for all the telephone records
requests that still needed it, the senior FBI official said.
In every case, these requests in 2006 covered records already
in the FBI's possession and lacked the required cover memos
spelling out the investigative requirements for the requests.
At no time did senior FBI officials outside the
communications unit attempt to tally how often the exigent
circumstances letters had been used, with the result that
Mueller and others in senior management did not learn about
the scope of the problem until two months ago, when Fine
informed them, the senior official said.
{time} 1820
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we must act now to keep these national security laws in
place. Time is running out. We have only a few days left to do what we
need to do to keep America safe. These are commonsense provisions that
prevent terrorist attacks, protect the American people, and preserve
civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
commonsense extension.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I felt compelled to vote against
extending the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act that
continue to give the government sweeping authority to spy on
individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any
suspicion of wrongdoing. These intrusive and sweeping powers stand in
stark contrast to the fundamental individual privacy rights enshrined
in the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. All three surveillance
provisions are unnecessary, they do not protect us against terrorism,
and they should have been allowed to expire long ago. I am appalled by
the blatant disregard for the civil liberties of innocent Americans who
have absolutely no connection to the global war on terrorism, and I
look forward to a time when these provisions are no longer the law of
the land.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 514, a limited
bill to extend three Patriot Act counterterrorism authorities scheduled
to expire at the end of this month through December of this year. I do
so to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement communities continue
to have the tools they need to protect American citizens while Congress
works to reform this currently flawed law.
The authorities being extended in today's legislation include Section
6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act, also known
[[Page H742]]
as the ``lone wolf'' amendment, which allows surveillance of non-
citizens engaged in international terrorism apart from identified
terrorist groups; Section 206 of Patriot Act, which permits roving
surveillance of terrorism suspects who use multiple communication
devices to thwart detection; and Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which
compels production of business records and other tangible items upon
the approval of the FISA court.
Of these three authorities, the current construction of the Section
215 ``tangible items'' authority is the most problematic. Specifically,
the ``relevance'' standard that must be met under this authority is too
weak. Recipients of Section 215 orders are required to wait a year
before challenging a nondisclosure order. And the government can use
secret evidence to oppose judicial challenges to a Section 215 order.
I believe Section 215 and other Patriot Act authorities should be
reformed along the lines of Senator Patrick Leahy's USA Patriot Act
Sunset Extension Act. Additionally, the Justice Department and Congress
must exercise more oversight over the application of these authorities
to ensure that they are being exercised responsibly. It is critically
important that, in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans
cherish, we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to
protect.
Mr. PENCE. I rise in support of H.R. 514 to extend the three expiring
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Nearly
ten years removed from the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too
clear that America is still a nation at war and these expiring
provisions are still valuable tools in the Global War on Terror.
I was here at the Capitol on that day. I saw the evil of our enemies
written in the smoke rising above the Pentagon. We are reminded even
today that their desire to inflict such violence on our homeland and
that of our allies is real.
Just last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
testified that the ``threat continues to evolve'' and went on to say
that the risk of attack ``may be at its most heightened state'' since
that fateful day in 2001.
Because we are still a nation at war, I support the extension until
December 8, 2011 of the three provisions, set to expire on February 28,
2011.
The first, Section 206, authorizes the use of roving wiretaps by law
enforcement after approval from the FISA court. This allows for
terrorists or spies who throw away their cell phones and change
locations frequently to be tracked before they can execute an attack.
Roving wiretaps have been routinely used for decades by domestic law
enforcement in criminal cases. Quite simply, the USA PATRIOT Act gives
our national security and intelligence communities the same tools
provided to local law enforcement and it is an essential tool to fight
terrorism in the modem world.
Section 215 authorizes the FBI to ask FISA courts to issue an order
that allows the FBI to investigate business records related to
international terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities. With
this provision at their disposal, the FBI will have a greater
opportunity to obtain foreign intelligence information. Now some will
argue that this provision will allow the federal government to spy on
the business records, internet activities and library accounts of
ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That is not the case.
To use Section 215, national security agents need approval from the
FISA court. The government must demonstrate to the court that the
business records sought are ``not concerning a United States person,''
but in connection with international terrorism. The oversight
requirements of this provision are very stringent. Every six months,
the Attorney General must report to Congress on the number of times a
Section 215 order has been sought, granted, modified or denied.
The third provision, found in section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorist Protection Act, commonly known as the ``Lone Wolf''
provision, allows law enforcement to track those non-U.S. citizens who
seek to inflict terror under their own initiative, without affiliation
to common terrorist groups.
Mr. Speaker, only weeks ago, Members of this body took the oath of
office and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States, against all enemies. We have the responsibility to uphold that
pledge, and in doing so, I believe we must equip law enforcement and
intelligence officials with the tools necessary to protect Americans
from terrorist attack.
There is no doubt about America's determination to protect itself and
this legislation will ensure that our intelligence community--those who
work tirelessly every day to protect us--have the tools they need to
prevent the horrors of September 11th from being brought to our soil
again.
We must also safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that
make our lives free and fulfilling. The PATRIOT Act includes strong
protections for the civil liberties of Americans and continues
extensive measures for oversight and review of the Department of
Justice and our intelligence agencies. As a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, I fully understand the need to strike a proper balance
between security and the rights of the American people, and I believe
that in extending these provisions, we will do just that.
I am confident this Congress will continue its oversight duties so
that we can ensure that every tool available to the intelligence
community is coupled with safeguards that ensure the civil liberties of
the American people.
Our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and safeguard
their civil liberties, and we will fulfill that duty by passing this
bill to extend, through December 8th of this year, these crucial
provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
I urge passage.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am opposed in its current form.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
514, to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of section 1, add the following new subsection:
(c) Compliance With Constitution.--
(1) Investigations must comply with constitution.--Each
investigation of a United States citizen conducted under an
extended authority shall be conducted in a manner that
complies with the Constitution of the United States,
including the first through tenth amendments to the
Constitution of the United States (commonly known as the
``Bill of Rights'').
(2) Expedited review of violations.--In any civil
proceeding before a Federal court that involves an alleged
violation of paragraph (1), such court shall expedite such
proceeding.
(3) Extended authority defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``extended authority'' means any authority available
under--
(A) an amendment to section 105(c)(2), 501, or 502 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1805(c)(2), 1861, 1862) that took effect after October 25,
2001; or
(B) section 101(b)(1)(C) of such Act, as amended by section
6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3742).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Act gave law
enforcement some necessary tools to keep up with technological advances
being used by those who would do harm to our country. It did not
abolish our responsibility to make sure that the constitutional rights
of law-abiding citizens are protected.
This motion to recommit will guarantee that the powers of the Patriot
Act being voted on today are not used to violate the constitutional
rights and freedoms of American citizens.
More specifically, this motion does two important things:
First, it states a fundamental truth, that even in secret national
security investigations, Patriot Act investigations of U.S. citizens
may not circumvent any provision of the United States Constitution. The
Patriot Act powers are used in secret. As a result, when ordinary
American citizens are ordered to turn over information to the
government under these expansive powers, they are prohibited from
discussing their case in public. The risk of government overreach is at
its greatest in matters such as these.
The second section states that if a U.S. citizen argues to a court
that government spying has violated their constitutional rights, that
the citizen's case must be expedited. The FISA laws
[[Page H743]]
currently require that when our government seeks a secret court order
to conduct surveillance of an American citizen, the government's
request must be expedited by the court. This provision is a basic
promise of fair and equal treatment, and that the government should not
have greater rights than the people.
We took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our
obligations to that oath and to the American people we represent are
put to their greatest test when we consider matters of national
security and government powers such as the ones before us today.
I urge all Members who support the freedoms guaranteed by our
Constitution to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is as straightforward as they come. The
Patriot Act should be enforced in a manner that doesn't violate
Americans' constitutional rights, and those who believe their
constitutional rights have been violated should receive fair and
equitable treatment by the courts.
I can't imagine any of my colleagues from either party voting against
this bedrock principle that the executive branch should respect the
Constitution when it comes to investigating American citizens. After
all, each of us took an oath of office last month to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. I know we all take that oath seriously. Indeed, we opened
this session of the Congress by reading through the U.S. Constitution
on this floor, an exercise in which I was pleased to participate.
It's in that same spirit that we offer this motion. For while we have
differing views on how best to protect our national security, while
upholding our cherished liberties, and in this case, on whether the
enhanced authorities in this underlying bill are still needed nearly a
decade after the September 11 attacks, we should all be able to agree
that the United States Constitution is our last line of defense in
cases where an American's civil liberties may be threatened. So, by
assuring that the exercise of these powers doesn't violate our basic
constitutional rights, this motion would provide a safety net to
protect Americans' civil liberties in the absence of a more
comprehensive review of the Patriot Act.
The second part of this motion states simply that Americans who
believe their constitutional rights may have been violated by the
government should receive the same expedited consideration by the
courts that the government already receives. How can anyone argue with
that? Why shouldn't our courts be equally responsive to the concerns of
American citizens as they are to the concerns of the government,
especially when an individual believes his constitutional rights have
been violated. A government of the people, by the people, for the
people has the utmost responsibility to protect the constitutional
rights of every individual, especially when it comes to matters of
national security.
So this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is simple, straightforward
and consistent with the bedrock principle of our Republic. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' regardless of their views on the underlying
bill, to vote ``yes'' as an affirmation of the support of this body for
our Constitution.
{time} 1830
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, again, I
urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit to
protect our Constitution and the civil rights and the civil liberties
of the American people, while at the same time making sure we are safe
from those who may wish harm to us.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise
in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, yielded the
Democrats 2 additional minutes, and asked for a copy of the motion to
recommit so that we could look at it. The gentleman extended that offer
in good faith.
We received a copy of this motion to recommit at the time the Clerk
started reading it, and our offer of good faith was responded to with
an attempted surprise.
Now, the underlying bill, H.R. 514, is very simple. All it does is
extend the authorizations that are about ready to expire until December
8. It doesn't add to the Patriot Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act.
It does not subtract from it. It gives the Judiciary Committee the time
to do the oversight, which is exactly the same thing that I did when I
was the chairman the last time the sunset expired.
But there is something else in here that I think is very important,
and that is that there is a provision that would cause the courts to
second-guess themselves every time a national security action asked
them for a business record order. And rather than expediting the
request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit
tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the United States
Government to get money damages under a provision that is in the
Patriot Act, and that tips it all on its head.
If the civil rights are violated, there is a provision in this
Patriot Act that allows people to file a lawsuit and to do all of the
discovery that needs to be done and to bring the case to trial, and
they don't need to be expedited. What needs to be expedited is going
after the terrorists with business records.
Now, there is a provision in the motion to recommit that says that
the Constitution has to be followed. We don't need to put things in the
statute book that says the Constitution needs to be followed. That's
the supreme law of the land. This is completely redundant. It is
unnecessary. And, frankly, the Constitution has been followed in the
Patriot Act, because there has been no finding of unconstitutionality
of any of the 17 provisions. Where there was a preliminary finding in
the business records section, we amended the law and the plaintiffs
dropped their suit. We fixed the problem, to the approval of the
plaintiffs who filed this suit.
So we ought to get on with this. We're going to have these hearings.
We are going to have the time to have these hearings. And all of the
gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have my commitment now, as
they did 9 years ago and as they did 5 and 6 years ago, that the
hearings will be thorough, they will be comprehensive, and they will
allow everybody to speak their piece.
Vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the
Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186,
nays 234, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 35]
YEAS--186
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
[[Page H744]]
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--234
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Berkley
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Clarke (NY)
Culberson
Giffords
Harman
Payne
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tierney
Woolsey
Young (FL)
{time} 1855
Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mrs. BIGGERT, and Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado and
JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALTMIRE, JONES, HINCHEY, Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. CLEAVER changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 275,
noes 144, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
AYES--275
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Butterfield
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
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
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
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
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
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
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
Posey
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)
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 (IN)
NOES--144
Amash
Andrews
Baldwin
Bartlett
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hultgren
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
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
[[Page H745]]
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Burton (IN)
Clarke (NY)
Culberson
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Harman
Johnson (GA)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tierney
Woolsey
Young (FL)
{time} 1903
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
