[Congressional Record: February 17, 2011 (House)]
[Page H1075-H1080]
EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 93, I
call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the U.S.A.
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, with the Senate amendment
thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The Clerk will
designate the Senate amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``FISA Sunsets Extension Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. 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 ``May
27, 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 ``May 27, 2011''.
Motion to Concur
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves that the House concur in the
Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 93, the motion
shall be debatable 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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include other materials on H.R. 514.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 extends the three
expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for only 90 days. I am
disappointed that the Senate refused to agree to the 10-month extension
approved by the House earlier this week. Repeated short-term extensions
of these authorities create uncertainty for our intelligence agencies.
They don't know if the tools they rely on to keep America safe today
will be available to them tomorrow. That is why the House sought a 10-
month extension, to allow sufficient time to reauthorize the law while
providing greater certainty to the intelligence community.
With adoption of this amendment, the House and Senate will now have
to move expeditiously to approve a Patriot reauthorization bill so we
can avoid the need for another short-term extension. It is important
that the House approves this 90-day extension today to keep the
expiring intelligence-gathering provisions in place.
In a recent letter to Congress, Director of National Intelligence
Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder said that ``it is essential
that these intelligence tools be reauthorized before they expire'' and
they ``have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence
collection operations.''
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that
``the terrorist threat . . . is at its most heightened state since the
9/11 terrorist attacks.''
Just this week, the FBI announced that the probability that the U.S.
will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction at some point is 100
percent. The head of the FBI's WMD Directorate said that the type of
attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by a so-called ``lone
wolf.''
With the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100
percent, we cannot afford to leave our intelligence officials without
the tools they need to keep America safe. The war on terror is not
over, but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. We must fully
arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent
another devastating and deadly terrorist attack.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to concur in the Senate amendment, which will have the effect of
passing the extension of the expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT
Act and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
giving me the chance to go early. I particularly want to speak now
because when we voted the second time on the Patriot Act, the first
time I did vote against the extension, but the second time I missed the
vote--my fault--but
[[Page H1076]]
I want to make clear my opposition not to an extension of the basis of
self-defense that we have here but of passing it unchanged and of
failure of the legislative process.
{time} 0920
We knew this date was coming. To extend this now--and the gentleman
from Texas laments the fact that we were unable to do it indefinitely
without a chance to amend it. When the bill came up twice before, there
was in neither case a chance to offer amendments. There isn't today;
twice on suspension, once in a closed rule. To be presented with
either/or on this is a bad idea. There are things that could be
improved. There are areas where there are excesses.
We have gone through a lot of symbolic activity in the legislative
process this year--the vote to repeal the health care bill, a vote
reaffirming that we would do oversight, which we have been doing and
which is our duty--time that could have been spent in committee,
working on a process, offering people a chance to amend so we could--
would not, for the third time, be confronted by the majority with up-
or-down, an unchanged Patriot Act.
Of course we are supportive of continuing our ability to defend
ourselves but not without some refinement, not without some look and
say, yes, there are ways we could do this that are more respectful of
the liberties of the average American but would not endanger in any way
our national security. For the third time, we are being denied a chance
to do this; and I, therefore, will join my colleagues in opposing this,
not because we don't want to see any extension at all but because we
want a chance to work on it so we can do an extension of much of this
act but with some improvements.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Although the Senate has rejected the House version of the bill with a
1-year extension and has amended the bill to provide only a 90-day
extension, which will provide us a more accelerated opportunity to
actually deal with the issues involved, the reservations that I have
previously stated on the floor remain the same. I still oppose any
extension.
I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to
consider these provisions of possible reform, even to hold a hearing or
markup. While in the past, Members have had the opportunity to receive
classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members, many on the
Judiciary Committee, who have received no such briefings. The three
sections scheduled to sunset are deeply 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'' so long as the government provided a ``statement of facts
showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible
things are relevant to a foreign intelligence, international terrorism,
or espionage investigation.'' That would include business records,
library records, tax records, educational records, medical records, or
anything else. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types
of records were subject to FISA orders, and the government had to show
``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the
person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power.''
This dragnet approach allows the government to review personal
records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual
involved had anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to
individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little
restraint on government. Congress should either ensure that the things
collected with this power have a meaningful connection to suspected
terrorism activity or allow the provision to expire.
Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government
to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the
person nor the facility to be tapped. Without the necessity to specify
the person and the facility to be tapped, you have a situation where
the tap could be on a particular phone. And without specifically
designating the person to be listened into, that means anybody using
that pay phone, for example, can be listened into, or a roving wiretap
on a person could result in any phone that that person might use being
tapped, even if others use that phone, too.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret
intelligence of non-U.S. persons who are known to be not affiliated
with any foreign government or organization. It provides the government
with the ability to use secret courts or other investigatory tools that
are acceptable in a domestic criminal investigation as long as we are
dealing with a foreign government or an entity. According to government
testimony, the lone wolf provision has never been used. Given the risk
of this provision being used to circumvent existing protections against
government intrusion, the government should explain why it should
remain on the books. Surveillance of an individual who is not working
with a foreign government or foreign organization is not what we
usually understand as foreign intelligence. There may be good reason
for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to
suspend all our laws under the pretext that it is a foreign
intelligence operation.
While some have argued that these authorities remain necessary tools
to fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without
modification, others have counseled careful review and modification.
Some have even urged that we allow some of those provisions to sunset;
and if they are needed, they can be reinstated. I believe that we
should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety and
examine how it is working, where it has been successful, where it has
failed, where it has gone too far, or where it may need improvement.
That's the purpose of sunsets; and to extend it without review
undermines that purpose.
There are other authorities that deserve careful review. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the National
Security Letters Reform Act which would make vital improvements to the
current law to better protect civil liberties while ensuring that those
letters 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 authority in those letters
is too great for the Congress to ignore.
It is encouraging that there was significant bipartisan opposition
last week to the extension of the Patriot Act. It shows a healthy
skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the
United States. We need to restore our traditional respect for the right
of every individual to be secure from unchecked government intrusion,
and I hope that we will be able, after this vote, to carefully examine
the ways these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways
to reform the law in light of that experience. That's the purpose of
sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close; so I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem,
and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and
not for 1 year. With that in mind, however, it's important to note that
we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to
the opportunity for Members of this Congress to, in fact, review
closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some
of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may
have on the constitutional rights of our citizens.
Yesterday in a markup, I offered an amendment to affirm that the
legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at
least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and
adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the
[[Page H1077]]
Democratic Members who were there and present voted ``yes,'' and all
the Republicans voted ``no.'' I think adhering to the Constitution and
ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important
concept. In this instance, we have not had the chance for a full
hearing. And I am very glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the 111th
Congress, we did; but unfortunately, even the amendments that were
passed in that Congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this
initiative that was passed by the House.
I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section
215, where library records could be in question, if you read certain
books. And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. 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.
As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress,
as I indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the 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. As a member of the Homeland
Security Committee, I, as well, am very, very convinced that we do need
to secure our homeland; but human intelligence is a very large part of
that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the
care that it deserves.
{time} 0930
In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would
allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced
protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of
those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time
have been included in this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. None of the privacy concerns or civil
liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have
even been addressed. I'm 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.
Therefore, I would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how
fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same faults. And I simply
say that the Fourth Amendment does say that it is the right of people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable search and seizures.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this and begin our
work as quickly as we can. But even with this provision passing, as I
expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the American people,
both in terms of homeland security and their constitutional right of
privacy.
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 a foul 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-US
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 mentions, 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 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.
[[Page H1078]]
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 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. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the 90-day extension in this bill is significantly more
appropriate than the 10-month extension that the House has previously
passed. If the bill is passed, I look forward to working with the
leadership on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee in the
past has been able to work constructively on this issue. In fact, when
the Patriot Act was originally reported out of the Judiciary Committee,
it was reported on a unanimous vote. That is very unusual. The
Judiciary Committee is usually one of the more contentious committees
in the entire Congress. But we can work together, and I look forward to
working with the leadership of the committee as we deal with the
possible extension of many of these provisions.
I hope we will oppose the extension.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman
of the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief today. I will just
make several points but not extensively because this is the fifth
debate we've had on this subject in 10 days and I think everything has
been said.
First of all, I have pledged in the past and I will pledge again
today on this House floor that there will be hearings on a
reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, as well
as an oversight hearing on the Patriot Act as a whole.
The three provisions that are up for reauthorization are important
provisions to keep America safe, and I want to dispel some of the
misinformation that has again been placed in the Record on the floor of
the House today.
First of all, section 215, which is the business records provision,
has more strict standards for the issuance of a FISA warrant than the
issuance of a Grand Jury subpoena in a criminal record. And only
business records can be obtained. That means that it is not subject to
the Fourth Amendment because it's not a search and seizure under the
Fourth Amendment.
The reauthorization in 2005, which I authored, provided procedures
for recipients of section 215 warrants to seek judicial review of those
orders compelling the production of business records. So people can
have their day in court to have the warrant quashed.
With respect to roving wiretaps, they're nothing new. We have had
roving wiretaps for decades over criminal investigations such as
racketeering and drug pushing.
A roving wiretap order can only be issued by a judge. The law
enforcement agency must minimize roving wiretaps, which means that if
the target isn't on the phone at the time or they're not talking about
something under investigation, then the wiretap has got to be turned
off. And that provides for protections, and that has never been
challenged for its constitutionality since it was put in the Patriot
Act in 2001.
Finally, the lone wolf definition is very important because in order
to trigger Patriot Act surveillance or applications for Patriot Act
surveillance without the lone wolf, there has to be a demonstration
that the target is a member of a group like al Qaeda. And the way al
Qaeda has kind of sprung out or people who said that they're al Qaeda
when they really might not be al Qaeda, lone wolf becomes absolutely
vital.
It's important to note that the lone wolf authority cannot be used
against a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. It could be used
against an alien who is present in the United States on a nonpermanent
basis, meaning either a visa or as a visa overstay.
All of this has gone through constitutional scrutiny. It has passed
muster. I will give everybody a chance to speak their peace on the
Patriot Act. Believe me, these commitments have been made both myself
and by the committee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
We're going to do it. We're going to get it done. But we need to have
the extra time that was given to us by the Senate. So the motion that
has been made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is a good motion,
an essential motion, and it should be favored.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We've already had a lengthy debate on this legislation. There is
bipartisan consensus that these important tools for our Intelligence
Community cannot be allowed to lapse. The Senate amendment, which was
also supported by a wide bipartisan margin in the other body, will keep
these three needed priorities in place for the next 90 days, till May
27.
While I have strong concerns about the short-term extension and how
that will compress the time needed to have a full and complete debate
over the longer-term reauthorization, I will support the Senate
amendment in order to make sure that these tools remain available.
As I said earlier this week in this debate, it makes very little
sense to me why we would not have the tools like roving wiretap
authority and authority to obtain business records in terrorism and spy
cases when the same tools are readily available in criminal cases,
often with fewer protections for civil liberties.
[[Page H1079]]
Mr. Speaker, I have said before I think this is one of the most
misrepresented and misunderstood pieces of legislation I think I've
ever seen. The things that exist in the ability for an FBI agent to
conduct in criminal activities, including business records, including
roving wiretaps, are just being extended to the FISA court, or the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to go against terrorism
and espionage. That's the only difference here. It has been an
important tool to keep America safe the last 10 years.
I look forward to a thoughtful debate outside of the political
rhetoric about what people believe this act to do and what it really
does do to keep Americans safe. And if you believe that an FBI agent
should be able to get a subpoena for business records to solve a crime,
then clearly you believe that the same FBI agent should go to a FISA
court to get a court order, which is a higher standard, for business
records to prevent a terrorist attack. That's the only difference in
these two, I think, misunderstood provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0940
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to address the Senate amendment to H.R. 514, which would
reauthorize three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for an
additional 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, my position today remains the same as it was 3 days ago
when we passed H.R. 514. As I said then, I would like to see a 3-year
extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to S. 289, which is
currently pending in the Senate.
The President supports a 3-year extension, too, believing, as I do,
that a 3-year term would give our Nation's intelligence and law
enforcement agencies predictability and certainty in the conduct of
their critical work.
Setting a 3-year sunset would also take this debate out of the
political realm of an election season, which I think is the best way to
approach things. This should be a matter of what is best for America,
without regard to electoral politics.
I know that there are varying opinions on my side of the aisle, and
principled members feel strongly in both directions. That is why I
support reauthorization with a sunset, so we can take a second look at
the authorities in 3 years to make sure they are being used properly
and individual civil liberties are being protected--a critical
consideration as we move forward.
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.
I don't think anyone in this Chamber is happy with the position we
are in now. Some of us wanted a 3-year reauthorization, some wanted a
10-month reauthorization, and some wanted no reauthorization. And now,
here we are with 90 days, which ensures we will be back here having
this debate soon.
I hope that we can use the next 90 days to hear from all sides on how
we can improve the Patriot Act, and I hope that we can all decide to
set the sunsets in the future in such a way to minimize the impact of
politics so we can focus on getting the policy right.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 93, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279,
nays 143, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 66]
YEAS--279
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
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
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harman
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
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
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marino
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--143
Amash
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Heller
Himes
Hinchey
Holt
Hultgren
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
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
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--11
Clay
Costa
Giffords
Hinojosa
Hirono
Honda
Langevin
Lummis
Matheson
Wittman
Young (AK)
[[Page H1080]]
{time} 1010
Messrs. HOLT, HULTGREN, and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALEXANDER, CARNEY, HARPER, RYAN of Wisconsin, WHITFIELD, and
Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, I was at a constituent
meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
