[Congressional Record: May 26, 2011 (House)]
[Page H3738-H3746]
PATRIOT SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 281
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall
be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S.
990) to provide for an additional temporary extension of
programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment. The Senate amendment shall
be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
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 previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a hard-fought compromise
for a 4-year extension of the Patriot Act. We know that there are two
priority items that need to be addressed here: Number one, ensuring
that we do not face another terrorist attack against the United States
or our interests; and number two--equally important--to preserve the
civil liberties and the constitutional protections that the American
people have. This compromise does just that.
{time} 1850
We had a 3-month extension, the House Judiciary Committee, and
specifically Mr. Sensenbrenner's subcommittee, had three hearings. We
see a bipartisan and bicameral compromise before us, and I urge my
colleagues to
[[Page H3739]]
support the rule and the underlying legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a major development in the war on terror
in the last few weeks with the successful defeat of Osama bin Laden,
striking a major blow to al Qaeda. At a time like this, we should
reexamine the restoration of our constitutional protections. There's no
reason to continually extend these Patriot Act provisions without
taking a close look at them.
My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) put forward an excellent
proposal that's an example of the many thoughtful bipartisan proposals
that would improve the Patriot Act, keep the American people safe, and
protect our constitutional rights. Unfortunately, discussion of that
proposal and debate, and a vote on that proposal, is not allowed under
this rule. Therefore, I'm opposed to the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would specifically reauthorize three
provisions: sections 215, 206, and 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act.
Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that
might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That could include
medical records, your diary, even what books you've checked out at a
library. Now, in the past, these orders were limited to narrow classes
of businesses and records, but the Patriot Act has stripped away these
basic requirements and continues to violate a basic American principle
of privacy.
Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government
to conduct roving wiretaps. This allows the government to obtain
surveillance warrants that don't specify the person or the object to be
tapped. It could be an entire neighborhood. So much for the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution, which states that warrants must specify
the person and place to be seized and searched with ``particularity.''
This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have the unfettered
powers that this version of the Patriot Act would continue to give them
for 4 years.
The final section that would be reauthorized under this bill, section
6001, deals with the ``lone wolf'' provision. This allows secret
surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. even if they're not connected
to any terrorist group or foreign power. This authority is only granted
in secret courts and threatens our understanding of the limits of our
own government's investigatory powers within our own country's borders.
Now, we're told that government has never used this power, so I ask
my colleagues, why should we reauthorize? If it hasn't even been used,
shouldn't it be allowed to expire, particularly in light of our recent
successes in the war on terror and the defeat of Osama bin Laden?
My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about
the growth of the government. Yet in spite of the rhetoric, this bill
grows government and takes away privacy and respect for our private
lives. This is the type of government intrusion which the Bill of
Rights was designed to prevent.
The provisions in the Patriot Act continue to be an affront to our
most basic liberties as American citizens. I urge anyone who's worried
about the unchecked growth of the State to think twice about this bill,
perhaps look at a short-term extension, and have a real discussion of
restoring the balance between individual rights and security. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say that this is a hard-fought compromise. This is a 4-year
extension. We've had exhaustive hearings on this issue. We need to
ensure our security, number one, and we also need to ensure our civil
liberties, and I believe that this measure does just that. It passed
the Senate by a vote of 72-23. I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I
call up the bill (S. 990) to provide for an additional temporary
extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and I have a motion at
the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendment to the House amendment.
The text of the Senate amendment to the House amendment is as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``PATRIOT Sunsets Extension
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. SUNSET EXTENSIONS.
(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 ``May 27, 2011'' and inserting ``June 1,
2015''.
(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; 50
U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ``May 27, 2011'' and
inserting ``June 1, 2015''.
Motion to Concur
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 990.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 281, 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 New York
(Mr. Nadler) 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. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on S. 990.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, 4 months from now, America will mark the 10-year
anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Tonight at
midnight, three national security provisions that have helped prevent
another 9/11 attack will expire. Congress must do its job and approve
this legislation to reauthorize them before time runs out.
Some argue that since we haven't had a major terrorist attack since
September 11, we no longer need these laws. Others argue that the death
of Osama bin Laden brought an end to al Qaeda and the war on terror,
but both of these claims lack merit.
The Patriot Act provisions continue to play a vital role in America's
counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large-scale attack
but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots.
Earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia was
arrested in my home State of Texas for attempting to use weapons of
mass destruction. Khalid Aldawsari attempted to purchase chemicals to
construct a bomb against targets including the Dallas residence of
former President George W. Bush, several dams in Colorado and
California, and the homes of three former military guards who served in
Iraq. Information obtained through a section 215 business records order
was essential in thwarting this plot.
Make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. These
provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations, and they are
effective.
[[Page H3740]]
{time} 1900
We also have heard repeatedly from the Obama administration about the
critical importance of extending these laws. S. 990, the Patriot
Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to
reauthorize the existing Patriot Act provisions for another 4 years. By
doing so, Congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be
collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted.
In February, Congress approved a 90-day extension of these
provisions. During the last 3 months, the House Judiciary Committee has
thoroughly reviewed the Patriot Act and how its provisions are used in
national security investigations. The Crime Subcommittee has held three
hearings specifically on the Patriot Act, the full committee held
oversight hearings of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and all
committee members were provided a classified briefing by the
administration. Attorney General Eric Holder told the committee that he
supports these provisions and encouraged Congress to reauthorize them
for as long of a period of time as possible.
The roving wiretap provision allows intelligence officials, after
receiving approval from a Federal court, to conduct surveillance on
terrorist suspects, regardless of how many communication devices they
may use. We know terrorists use many forms of communication to conceal
their plots, including disposable cell phones and free email accounts.
Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have
had roving wiretaps for criminal investigations since 1986. If we can
use roving wiretaps to track down a drug trafficker, why shouldn't we
also use it to prevent a terrorist attack?
The business records provision allows the FBI to access third-party
business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and
espionage cases. Again, this provision requires the approval of a
Federal judge. That means the FBI must prove to a Federal judge that
the documents are needed as part of a legitimate national security
investigation. These two provisions have been effectively used for the
last 10 years without any evidence of misuse or abuse.
Our national security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign
governments, terrorist groups, and their agents. But what about a
foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied
to a terrorist organization? The lone wolf definition simply brings our
national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence
officials to answer the modern-day terrorist threat.
Since 9/11, we have seen terrorist tactics change. In addition to
coordinated attacks by al Qaeda and other groups, we face the threat of
self-radicalized terrorists who are motivated by al Qaeda but may not
be directly affiliated with such groups. The lone wolf definition
ensures that our laws cover rogue terrorists even if they aren't a
card-carrying member of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization.
The terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight and neither should
our national security laws. The Patriot Act is an integral part of our
offensive against terrorists and has proved effective at keeping
Americans safe from terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this extension of the
three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. When we last considered these
expiring provisions, it was to extend them temporarily so that the
House could review them and consider whether to improve them or allow
them to expire. Many Members on both sides of the aisle objected to
extending these provisions without so much as a hearing or an
opportunity to debate changes to the law. In fact, the extension was
rejected the first time with the votes of both Democrats and
Republicans.
Since that debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner did in fact hold a series
of hearings in which members of the Judiciary Committee were able to
consider the issues and hear from many thoughtful experts who were able
to make helpful suggestions. These three provisions dealing with roving
wiretap authority, expansion of the definition of an agent of a foreign
power to include so-called lone wolfs, and section 215, which allows
the government to obtain business and library records using an order
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instead of the normal
methods have aroused a great deal of controversy and concern, and
rightly so.
Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible
thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no
showing that the thing pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist
activities. Section 215 is sweeping in its scope, and the government is
not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy.
Congress should either ensure that things collected with this power
have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or should allow
this provision to expire.
Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps, which permit the government
to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the
person to be tapped nor the facility to be tapped. There is virtually
no particularity required. This seems a clear violation of the Fourth
Amendment. There are almost no limits on this authority and no
requirement that the government name a specific target, either a person
or a location.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence
surveillance of non-U.S. persons who are not affiliated with a foreign
government or organization. According to government testimony, this
provision has never been used; yet we are told it is vital that it
remain on the books.
Surveillance of an individual who concededly is not working with a
foreign government or with a terrorist organization is not normally
what we understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good
reasons for government to keep tabs on such an individual, but there is
no reason to suspend all our normal laws under the pretext that this is
a foreign intelligence operation.
We are now told we must simply punt for a few years. No need, we have
been told, to consider any of the many improvements that many Members
believe are important. No need, in fact, even to have a debate or a
vote on those changes. It's another ``my way or the highway'' vote.
That is no way to protect our Nation from terrorism while protecting
our fundamental liberties from government intrusion.
I realize that the Republican majority has the votes to extend these
expiring authorities, but I am proud to stand with my colleagues of
both parties in opposition to the flippant and reckless way in which
our liberties are being treated today.
I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous legislation and demand
that the House have a serious debate on the important issues impacted
by this legislation affecting our security and our liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
I rise today to support a 7-day extension, which means I believe that
we can fix these problems. And I am disappointed that we again, having
been given the responsibility of oversight, now rush for a two-page
document, a two-page document that is now the essence of the Patriot
Act, which in fact will provide some challenge to the civil liberties
of all Americans. I highlight just one or two.
The business records applies to citizens and noncitizens alike, where
law enforcement or government authorities can come and take items, no
matter what their relevance, if they think that they might have some
relevance to terrorism. Any tangible thing. Restaurants, where you are
going to a restaurant. They can ask for what you ate. A hotel, your
records. Libraries, your records.
Why couldn't we do this with a 7-day review time? Extend it for 7
days today and allow us from New Hampshire to Texas to California to be
able to say that we stand with our soldiers in securing the Nation, but
we also believe in civil liberties.
[[Page H3741]]
Let me remind my colleagues, 9/11 and the terrorists that we were
shocked that could find their way to lift off and not take off, that
was a question of not connecting the dots. Not that we didn't have the
information; we didn't connect the dots of information that were
sitting on the desks of an agent in the Midwest and information that
was somewhere else. Intelligence, getting information, analyzing it is
part of securing the homeland, not violating the rights of Americans.
So here we go again. Business records with no restraint, not adding
the civil liberties and oversight provisions that were found in John
Conyers' legislation, the ranking member on Judiciary, and as well the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Senator Leahy.
What is the rush to protect those who are in fact citizens of the
United States--what is the rush not to protect them? Support a 7-day
extension. Don't vote for legislation that violates the civil liberties
of Americans.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the
importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we
strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. I appreciate the
need to ensure that the law enforcement and intelligence communities
are equipped with the tools necessary to carry out investigations. And
with certain improvements to protect individuals' privacy rights and
civil liberties, I believe the PATRIOT Act can continue to achieve that
goal.
However, as members of Congress, we have the role of oversight, and I
am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of
being infringed upon, even if it is in the name of national security.
This bill would extend three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act,
commonly known as the business records, lone wolf, and John Doe roving
wiretap provisions, for four years to June 1, 2015, with no changes,
alterations, or considerations of the constant concerns about privacy
rights and civil liberties.
This bill is reflective of a deal between Senate Leadership and
Republican House Leadership, however, it does not contain any of the
considerations and meaningful improvements which were included Senator
Leahy's version of the PATRIOT Act Sunset extension bill that passed
the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and the backing
of the intelligence community. It makes no improvements to the PATRIOT
Act. It includes no new protections for privacy. It requires no
reporting to Congress.
Nor does this bill take into account any of the meaningful
improvements or additions which were included in H.R. 1805,
Representative Conyers' House counterpart to Senator Leahy's Senate
Bill.
The proposals introduced by Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers
make meaningful improvements to the PATRIOT Act and related
authorities, and have the support of the Obama Administration and the
intelligence community.
They reauthorize the Business Records, Lone Wolf, and Roving Wiretaps
provisions for two and a half years--until December 2013--allowing for
greater Congressional oversight, which was the original intent of
Congress when it originally included sunsets in these provisions. For
the first time, a sunset was included on the use of National Security
Letters. Finally, it moves the sunset on the FISA Amendments Act from
the end of 2012 to 2013 so that all these inter-related surveillance
authorities can be considered together in a non-election year to avoid
reconsideration in the midst of a politicized environment.
This proposal modifies the standard for obtaining a FISA court order
to obtain business records by eliminating the overbroad presumption of
relevance in these cases, and requires the Government to provide a
written statement of the facts and circumstances that justify the
applicant's belief that the tangible things sought are relevant.
Furthermore, these bills contain additional protections for bookseller
or library records.
Additionally, these proposals would have made a number of changes to
NSL practices and procedures, in response to the numerous abuses of
this tool, including clarifying the standards for including a gag
order, significantly improving the process for challenging gag orders,
and adding a factual basis requirement.
Furthermore, the Leahy and Conyers bill would have eased the concerns
of many Americans by enhancing public reporting and requiring audits.
The bill before us now, which was rushed through at the final hour
despite multiple extensions, includes none of the thoughtful
enhancements and improvements which have been carefully considered and
crafted over the past several months. It ignores the results of
countless oversight hearings, legislative hearings, and committee
markups. It completely ignores the concerns that many Americans have
voiced and continue to raise.
These three provisions of the PATRIOT Act extend overstep the bounds
of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution.
The ``roving wiretap'' provision allows a roving electronic
surveillance authority, allowing the government to obtain intelligence
surveillance orders with not particularity, that identify neither the
person nor the facility to be tapped.
The ``business records'' 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.
The ``lone wolf'' provision 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.
This bill fails to address National Security Letters (NSLs) all
together. 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.
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. It has been examined in the Judiciary Committee
numerous times. 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, but also National Security Letters
and the lax standards of intent.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the current chairman of the Crime
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
{time} 1910
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 990, to reauthorize the three
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act for 4 years. This legislation
provides much-needed certainty to our intelligence officials, who rely
on these tools to prevent terrorist attacks, monitor foreign spies, and
prevent espionage.
Unfortunately, this bill does not go as far as legislation reported
by the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. H.R. 1800, the bill I
sponsored along with Judiciary Chairman Smith, Intelligence Chairman
Rogers, and House Administration Chairman Lungren, permanently
reauthorizes the lone wolf definition and extends section 206 roving
authority and section 215 business records authority for 6 years.
The PATRIOT Act has been plagued by myths and misinformation for 10
years. We've heard some of those tonight, and we'll probably hear more.
In the last 3 months, myths have become
[[Page H3742]]
even more outlandish--claims of warrantless wiretapping, monitoring
entire neighborhoods, and blatant constitutional violations. Make no
mistake: Each and every one of these claims are patently false, and if
Congress fails to reauthorize these laws before they expire, America's
national security and that of its citizens will be the most vulnerable
in a decade.
The lone wolf definition closes a gap in FISA by allowing the
government to track a foreign national, not a U.S. person, who engages
in acts to prepare for a terrorist act against the United States but is
not affiliated, or cannot immediately be shown to be affiliated, with a
foreign terrorist organization. The lone wolf definition is in fact
quite narrow. It cannot be used to investigate U.S. persons and only
applies in cases of suspected international terrorism. The government
cannot use this provision to investigate domestic terrorism.
Although the lone wolf provision has yet to be used, it is an
important provision that recognizes the growing threat of individuals
who may subscribe to radical and violent beliefs, but do not clearly
belong to a specific terrorist group. The recent death of Osama bin
Laden only strengthens its importance, as the fear of individual
retaliatory acts increases.
Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes the use of ``roving'' or
multipoint wiretaps for national security and intelligence
investigations. This allows the government to use a single wiretap
order to cover any communications device that the target is using or is
about to use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators must seek
a new court order each time a terrorist or spy changes cell phones or
computers. In today's world of disposable cell phones, free e-mail
accounts, and prominent social media, roving authority is a crucial
tool.
Section 215 allows the FISA Court to issue orders granting the
government access to business records in foreign intelligence,
international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. This
authority is similar to the widely accepted grand jury subpoena in
criminal investigations.
There are numerous protections written into the law to ensure that
the authority is not misused. Under section 215, only an article III
FISA judge can issue an order for business records; an investigation of
a U.S. person cannot be based solely on activities protected by the
First Amendment; the records must be for a foreign intelligence or
international terrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must
be utilized.
In addition, requests for records of library circulation, book sales,
firearms sales, and the like must first be approved by the FBI
director, his deputy, or head of the FBI's national security division.
By contrast, a grand jury subpoena can obtain all of these records in a
criminal investigation with simply the signature of a line prosecutor.
Finally, business records, which by definition reside in the hands of a
third party, do not--and I repeat, do not--implicate the Fourth
Amendment.
Since this law was first enacted over 10 years ago, these provisions
have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have been
either unchallenged or found constitutional. The lone wolf definition
has never been challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been
challenged. But four appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit,
have upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth
Amendment.
Section 215 business records were challenged, but after Congress made
changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, which many
people who are complaining about this bill voted against, the lawsuit
was withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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
safe.
The death of Osama bin Laden proves that American intelligence
gathering is vital to our national security. The fight against
terrorism, however, did not die with bin Laden, and neither did the
need for the PATRIOT Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to another
abdication of our constitutional duty to conduct oversight and protect
our most basic civil liberties. This bill extends through June 1, 2015,
three provisions contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act and the USA PATRIOT Act that, at the time of their
passage, constituted an unprecedented expansion of government power and
infringement on the American people's privacy.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice released its annual
report on surveillance activities for 2010. The report reveals that the
government quadrupled its use of section 215 orders, named after one of
the provisions, poised to extend until 2015 with no reform. Section
215, also known as the business records provision, allows the FBI to
order any person, any business, to turn over any tangible things as
long as it specifies it's for an authorized investigation. Orders
executed under section 215 constitute a serious violation of Fourth
Amendment 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 other amendments to be extended include section 601, the lone
wolf surveillance provision, contained in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which authorizes the government to
conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected to any
foreign power or terrorist group. It effectively allows the government
to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain electronic
surveillance orders from criminal courts.
Lastly, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the FBI to
obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to
wiretap a target without having to specify the target or the device.
These provisions were given a sunset for a reason.
There's an abundance of evidence over the last 10 years that these
powers have given the government license to infringe on
constitutionally protected privacy of the American people with no
accountability. It's time we stop rubber-stamping these provisions,
reform the PATRIOT Act, and stop Big Government from reaching into
people's private lives.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the House is once again in an unexamined rush
to make semi-permanent the government's ability to seek all matter of
records on citizens without having to demonstrate to a court that
citizens under suspicion are actually engaged in terrorist activities.
The power of government for surveillance and enforcement are among
the most important but also the most fearsome. We know these
authorities and others have been abused, because the Department of
Justice Inspector General has told us so. I know it, because for 8
years I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Let me tell you, American freedom and security are not well-served by
the excessive secrecy imposed on our society and government by this
legislation.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is responsible for
approving government surveillance requests under the PATRIOT Act, is
the kind of court that should be used only rarely and in the most
special circumstances. Instead, it has become part of a kind of routine
clandestine government.
{time} 1920
Treating some Americans as above suspicion and others as suspect
without cause has made us a less just and also a less secure society.
[[Page H3743]]
The PATRIOT Act was originally passed at a time of high emotion in
this country. Nearly a decade at the PATRIOT Act enactment, the death
of Osama bin Laden has provided us with an opportunity to stop and
reflect on all that has transpired over the last 10 years. It is past
time for us to pause and reexamine the validity of the assumptions that
led to the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the validity of its current
application.
But, you say, we cannot debate the validity of its current
application because those applications are classified at a very high
level. That is precisely one of the points we should be debating
thoroughly before any reauthorization.
Sitting on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 8
years, let me tell you, that secrecy does not serve America well.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the House
Administration Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I know we want to
get to a vote very, very soon and normally I would refrain from
speaking on this except that because this is such an important issue
and some of the things that have been stated on the floor are so
patently untrue, there is an obligation for those of us who have been
working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the
public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the
floor.
Number one, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.
We have heard statements on this floor that are absolutely not true.
They are the same statements that were made the last time we had this
on the floor, the same statements that were made when we reauthorized
this a few years ago. And one of the most amazing things is there is a
continuation of this argument that we haven't done proper oversight. I
don't know where you have been, but many of us on this side of the
aisle have been in briefings and on hearings on these very issues
seeking out the truth on these things.
The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does
not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever. The suggestion that somehow
we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the
language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. And
the argument that somehow, since we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we
don't need this, is the most absurd at all.
One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against
Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long
range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you
the information that you need. It doesn't fall from heaven. It doesn't
come like manna. You have to go get it. We have carefully constructed
these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is necessary
not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has
occurred but, rather, to prevent these terrorist attacks.
One of the things people should keep in mind is that we have the
intervention of Federal judges in these three different areas of the
law. It is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go
unfettered into looking for this information. Rather, they must justify
it to an independent Federal court; and some say, oh my gosh, it is a
secret court. It is a secret court because, in fact, there are certain
secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save
this Nation and our citizens from those who would attack us.
One wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is
necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. The fact that
we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to
dismantle the means which allowed us to do that. It is, in fact, a
reason why we should continue this.
Any honest examination of the history of this Judiciary Committee and
the Crime Subcommittee will reveal that we have done the oversight
necessary to ensure that we have the tools to fight the threat of
terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of American
citizens.
To suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. To suggest it's
unconstitutional is to somehow ignore the decisions made by every
Federal court that has looked at this.
But you can continue to make these statements, you can continue to
confuse the public, you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought
not to be raised.
With all due respect, while everybody is entitled to their opinions,
they are not entitled to their own facts. They must take the facts as
they are. And the facts are this is constitutional, it is workable, it
is necessary. We have to do it, and we have to do it now.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 990. These
three provisions of the PATRIOT Act provide important tools that help
keep America safe.
I am pleased that this bill includes sunsets. Our Founding Fathers
created a system of government that included checks and balances among
the three branches of government: the legislative, executive and
judicial. Sunsets allow for the legislative branch to conduct
meaningful oversight on an ongoing basis.
I will support this extension because I believe that these provisions
are consistent with the Constitution and provide the tools the
government needs to keep us safe while protecting civil liberties.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we have heard all these arguments
before many times on this floor. It's hard for me to believe that a
proper investigation and proper procedures would not have been able to
improve these provisions in any way, that all the hearings, all the
suggestions that were made came to no changes at all.
I am not going to debate for the fifth time with Mr. Lungren his
statements. I do not believe they are accurate. He does not believe
what I said is accurate. We are on similar ground there.
Let me just say that I believe that these provisions should be
amended, they should be changed. They are an overbroad violation of our
rights and leave it at that and, therefore, I will oppose it.
Before we conclude, I want to recognize Judiciary Committee counsel
Sam Sokol, who is leaving the committee tomorrow for what I know is a
bright future. I know that I speak for every member of the committee in
thanking Sam for his wise counsel, his prodigious capacity for work,
and his friendship. He has been a valued member of our team, and we
will miss him greatly. We wish you the best of luck, Sam.
With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.
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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary
Committee Crime Subcommittee. He is also both a former U.S. Attorney
and district attorney.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, it's incredulous what I am hearing here
today from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I was a U.S.
Attorney and used the PATRIOT Act. I debated it, I lectured it, and I
put a terrorist away by using the PATRIOT Act.
I was also a district attorney, and it was easier for me to get a
warrant for documents as a district attorney than it was for me to get
documents pursuant to the PATRIOT Act.
I just could not sign a document and go get papers and have a
wiretap. I had to go through a FISA judge. It had to go through my
first assistant, myself, the Justice Department, a judge, and then back
to the office for a signature.
{time} 1930
There are absolutely no circumstances where I could get information
from a citizen who we believed to be a terrorist or to be involved in
terrorism by not getting a warrant.
An example is the roving wiretap. The roving wiretap was designed for
one specific reason. Wiretaps, when the wiretap law went into effect,
were based on a phone being on a wall in a particular location. Over
the years, because of cell phones, terrorists, criminals, and drug
dealers were buying--
[[Page H3744]]
and are still buying--cell phones in the 5, 10, and 20 batches, using
them for several minutes, dropping them, continuing the same crime, and
just switching to a new cell phone. The law allowed us not to have to
go after a new warrant for each cell phone. That was logical because
the phone was not attached to a wall in a particular location; they
were roving. It has done its job not only in drug work but terrorism
work as well.
The same thing for documents and information from business records
and bank records. In some instances, as a district attorney, I didn't
even need a warrant. All I had to do was subpoena those documents. That
is not possible under the Federal system. We have to go through a FISA
court to get those warrants. I've done that for 6 years as a U.S.
attorney and for 12 years as a district attorney. What we are hearing
from the other side is absolutely not true about warrantless searches.
Earlier today, the Senate approved Senate 990 by a vote of 72-23,
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is time for the House to do
the same thing. Time is of the essence. We have until midnight tonight
to help keep America safe because the terrorists are out there
continually working. They aren't taking breaks.
These are commonsense provisions that have worked effectively for 10
years to prevent terrorists attacks, protect the American people, and
preserve civil liberties. They need to be extended for another 4 years.
The terrorist threat we face as a Nation has not expired. Neither
should these important provisions that have helped keep us safe from
terrorist attacks.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical national
security bill.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we can defeat our enemies without
surrendering the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of our
republic.
Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to
defend the liberties that we hold dear. In light of their bravery and
commitment to the highest standards of human rights--even in war--we
must ask ourselves if, through this vote on S. 990, the PATRIOT Sunsets
Extension Act of 2011, we are willing to freely give up those very
rights for which they are willing to die.
The PATRIOT Act can be a law worth preserving. Many of its provisions
have enhanced our security. But several of its prescriptions would
undermine our cherished protections of civil liberties and American
freedom. That is not the American way.
As we approach Memorial Day, a day when we reflect on the sacrifices
made by our fallen warriors, let us give them and the defenders of our
security the legal tools they need to protect us all and to seek out
and descend upon those who would do us harm. But let us sensibly
discard those provisions of law which do not uphold those standards and
would instead give away the precious liberties which millions of
Americans have died defending throughout the history of our country.
Mr. Speaker, today I vote against S. 990 because this Congress did
not move sensibly to amend the PATRIOT Act to bolster our security
while respecting our civil liberties and freedoms.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in February of this year, I voted to
support a three-month extension of the PATRIOT Act provisions in
today's underlying legislation in order to give Congress time to build
a consensus around necessary, common sense reform. Today, it is with
great reluctance that I must stand in opposition to an additional
extension of these provisions, as Congress has failed to make reforms
to safeguard civil liberties.
This is a missed opportunity. Senators Leahy and Paul offered a
bipartisan amendment that included a sunset date for National Security
Letters, enhanced oversight of PATRIOT Act authorities, and more
focused standards of relevance for business record requests--changes
that would provide meaningful improvements to the balance between
national security and civil liberties. However, this proposal was not
given a vote on the floor of the Senate.
I believe there are important provisions in this bill that should be
extended. However, there is also a clear need for improved oversight
and privacy protections. We must not be stampeded into continuing to
pass bad policy, especially when credible solutions are well within
reach. I voted to give Congress time to responsibly reform these
provisions. But I cannot in good conscience support a four-year
extension that makes no effort to ensure that the authorities under
this law are being exercised responsibly.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been prepared to support a balanced
PATRIOT Act that defends Americans without eroding our freedom.
Unfortunately, S. 990 is not that legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I do not support S. 990, which extends
three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions. There is a much better way
to safeguard our national security without jeopardizing the privacy and
civil liberties of American citizens. This legislation reauthorizes
these sections of the PATRIOT Act without making necessary
improvements, and it fails to even address other problematic practices,
including the use of National Security Letters.
Among the provisions included in this extension is Section 215, which
expands the government's ability to private, confidential records,
without showing probable cause or direct connection to a foreign power
or agent. This includes library, and bookstore records, as well as
highly personal information such as medical records.
In addition to my concerns about what is in this bill, I am concerned
about what is not in it. Instead of engaging in a real debate about
reforming the PATRIOT Act, we are simply continuing the bad policies of
the past. Tonight's bill fails to address the widespread use (and
abuse) of National Security Letters. The National Security Letters
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which drastically expand government
authority to demand private records without prior court approval, have
been used hundreds of thousands of times since 2001.
There is another way to protect our citizens, without treading on
their rights. Congressman Conyers has offered an alternative proposal,
H.R. 1805, laying out a compromise approach to improving the PATRIOT
Act. I am a cosponsor. Congressman Conyers' legislation, which has the
support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community, as
well as bipartisan Senate support, reauthorizes the three expiring
provisions for two and a half years, rather than the six-year extension
in S. 990. It makes critical improvements to prevent the abuse of
fundamental civil liberties, including tightening the requirements on
roving wiretaps (and eliminating the so-called ``John Doe Roving
Wiretap,'' under which the government can obtain surveillance orders
that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped).
In addition, for the first time, Congressman Conyers' bill sunsets
the use of National Security Letters (NSL) and makes a number of
changes to abusive NSL practices. H.R. 1805 strengthens the factual
basis required for use of an NSL, clarifies the standards for including
a gag order in an NSL, and improves public reporting on the number of
NSLs issued each year.
I do not believe that these invasive authorities should be extended
in the absence of real improvement in the civil liberties protections.
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that we can protect
our citizens without treading on their rights. We do not have to choose
between our security and our values. Instead, we should pass
legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools they
require while also protecting the rights and liberties of all
Americans.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against an extension
of the PATRIOT Act because Congress should be refining and narrowing
the scope of the Act, not extending it as-is, until 2015.
There are real concerns on both sides of the aisle about granting the
federal government too much power with little to no mechanisms for
oversight by Congress. We are missing an opportunity in the House for
bipartisan reform by rushing this extension to the floor. It's time for
a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our
national defense.
Our intelligence community has the tools necessary to keep us safe
without compromising our privacy. This hasty four-year extension is
disappointing because the Act could be more effective if it included
the auditing requirements for which many in Congress have advocated.
Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, deep within my heart I have a mistrust of the
Obama Administration when it comes to the PATRIOT Act. However, I do
have a greater trust in the law enforcement and judges on the FISA
court to keep Americans safe.
I support the work that law enforcement does around the nation each
and every day in order to protect our citizens and apprehend
individuals who want to kill innocent people and try to destroy our way
of life.
The PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after September 11 to deal with
the threat of international terrorism. Indeed, we are engaged in a
global conflict against radical Islam. Those who are captured on this
truly global battlefield should be treated as non-state, non-uniform
belligerents, not as common criminals.
As you are well aware, I spent 22 years in the United States Army--
the tip of the spear tasked with protecting the citizens of this great
nation. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I have taken an
oath to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the 22nd
Congressional District of Florida and all Americans.
[[Page H3745]]
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of our nation wrote ``They who
can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
For many weeks I have reflected on this quote as I have studied this
issue to make a decision on how I should cast my vote on the
reauthorization of provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I have spoken with
numerous individuals, including my fellow colleagues in the House of
Representatives, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Robert Mueller, and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Mike Rogers in order to try to understand the facts.
I have spoken to numerous constituents who are both experts on this
issue and constituents who, while not experts, have a concern about
these provisions. I reviewed testimony to Congressional Committees and
have studied many documents in order to determine the proper balance
between individual's rights and the responsibility of the Federal
Government to protect Americans.
I have done what I was sent to Capitol Hill to do, to make an
informed decision based on the facts and represent the people of the
22nd Congressional District of Florida. I have determined that the most
important constitutional right, one which I have taken an oath to
protect, is the right to life for all Americans. We must do whatever is
necessary to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil and how to do
this must be fully and openly debated.
When we killed Osama bin Laden, we may have killed the face of evil
and the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks, however, we face an
emboldened enemy who now operates on a 21st century battlefield. The
perpetrators of September 11th lived in South Florida and planned their
attacks upon our nation there. And just this month, individuals were
arrested in South Florida sending funds to terrorists in Pakistan.
The complexities of the 21st Century Battlefield require us to
reassess and redefine how we confront our enemy. The men and women who
serve in law enforcement throughout our country today face this non-
state, non-uniform belligerent who has no regard for international
borders or boundaries, to include our homeland. As we have seen by the
terrorist attacks in Little Rock and Fort Hood, our fight against
radical Islam is not just against the Taliban in Afghanistan or al
Qaida in Iraq, but against a global movement who has infiltrated our
borders.
We are at war with a radical ideology that has brought the fight to
us time and time again. From Fort Hood, Texas, to Little Rock,
Arkansas, Islamists have targeted American citizens. After each of
these brutal attacks, I, like many Americans, was shocked at how this
could happen on American soil. Political Correctness allowed Major
Nidal Hassan to have so-called ``spiritual conversations'' with a
radical element who preached and advocated violence against American
citizens. Under the protection of the First Amendment, Carlos Bledsoe
was able to travel overseas, become radicalized, return home to
purchase weapons, plan and execute an attack against a Little Rock Army
Recruiting Depot.
As I outlined to a letter I sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller
earlier this month, I believe the execution of these provisions should
be moved to the Counter Terrorism Division instead of the Criminal
Division. Further, I do not support the extension of these provisions
for four years and I am gravely disturbed that we did not allow an open
process to review the extension of these provisions.
We must clearly focus on the enemy, not permit political correctness
to drive our domestic security policy. No one recognizes the security
situation better than I. However, I have not been fully persuaded that
these provisions make us safe . . . as opposed to the illusion of
feeling safe.
Based upon my research, I shall not vote for extending these
provisions for four years. The most integral part of our focus on
security against radical Islamic terrorism is to recognize and confront
this enemy. And to do this we must openly debate the best way for this
to be accomplished.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 281, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered 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. NADLER. 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 250,
nays 153, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 376]
YEAS--250
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
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)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--153
Ackerman
Amash
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Richardson
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
West
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--28
Akin
Baca
Becerra
Berman
Bono Mack
Boustany
Buchanan
Castor (FL)
Conyers
Dingell
Filner
Flake
Giffords
Green, Gene
Hastings (WA)
Huelskamp
Jackson (IL)
Long
McCarthy (NY)
McKeon
Miller, George
Myrick
Olver
Owens
Pompeo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sires
Sullivan
[[Page H3746]]
{time} 1956
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. YODER, SCOTT of South Carolina, and POE of Texas 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 against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 376,
Consideration of PATRIOT Act Extension, had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on
rollcall vote 376.
Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``nay'' for
rollcall vote 376.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for
personal reasons, and missed a recorded vote for S. 990, the PATRIOT
Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. If present, I would have recorded my
vote as ``nay'' for rollcall vote 376.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 376, I was away from the Capital
region attending the Civil Rights Freedom Riders' 50th Anniversary
Celebration. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
