[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H845-H848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3961, MEDICARE 
                  PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REFORM ACT OF 2009

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1109 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1109

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3961) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
     reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians and to 
     reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of 
     budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending 
     legislation, enforced by the threat of annual, automatic 
     sequestration, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a 
     single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendments. The Senate amendments shall be considered as 
     read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the resolution?

[[Page H846]]

  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
House agreed to consider the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1109.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1109 provides for 
consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3961, extending expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act.
  The rule makes in order a single motion by the chair of the Committee 
on the Judiciary to concur in the Senate amendments. The rule waives 
all points of order against consideration of the motion except clause 
10 of rule XXI, and provides that the Senate amendments shall be 
considered as read.
  Finally, the rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The Senate amendments to H.R. 3961 extend for 1 year several expiring 
provisions essential to our fight against terrorism. One of these 
provisions allows authorities to seek court orders for business records 
or any intangible thing related to a terrorism investigation. Another 
expiring provision reauthorizes wiretaps on terrorism suspects so that 
law enforcement officials do not have to file multiple applications 
when a terrorist disposes of phone after phone or shifts from one 
communication device to another. Otherwise, terrorists could use 
multiple devices or frequently change cell phone numbers or carriers, 
with the aim of interfering with surveillance efforts under FISA.
  The Justice Department has said that this provision has proven an 
important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset 
of FISA electronic surveillance orders. The government cannot use this 
authority lightly. It must provide specific information that the 
suspect may employ countersurveillance activities.
  Finally, the Senate amendments we are considering today will extend 
for 1 year a provision first enacted in 2004 that allows the government 
to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, the FISA 
court, for surveillance orders involving suspected lone wolf targets. 
These are suspects who are engaging in or preparing for international 
terrorism activities, but don't necessarily have ties to a larger 
organization, such as a terrorist group or a foreign nation. The 
provision does not apply to any U.S. citizen or illegal immigrant. 
These three programs are vital tools our Nation cannot let expire.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado 
for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill that is with us 
today. The safety of this Nation, protecting America from terrorists, 
is of high and vital concern not only to this Member, but I think every 
single Member, as we have been reminded time after time that we cannot 
take our eye off the ball, that the security of this country is a job 
that must be done all day, every day, by a group of savvy professionals 
that I believe we presently have in this country. It is a combined 
effort of not only law enforcement and intelligence, but also it 
involves bright minds from this body also.
  Today what we are here to do is to consider reauthorization of the 
USA PATRIOT Act. This act was done 9 years ago, 9 years ago when our 
Nation was struck. It was crafted in such a way that there were 
provisions, ideas, thoughts that we did at the time where we said we 
need to make sure they are reauthorized, that these ideas are looked 
at, where we go through the processes and see what happens not only 
with our own effectiveness with the law, but also how our intelligence 
agencies are nimble enough to adapt themselves to make these changes.
  At the same time I say I am for this, it is unfortunate that my 
friends on the Rules Committee, my Democratic colleagues, continue to 
deny the minority due process by not allowing us to offer a motion to 
recommit. Time and time again Republicans are shut out of the amendment 
process, forcing us to simply accept what comes forward.

                              {time}  1145

  I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop 
restricting this process in the House.
  Almost 9 years ago, as I stated, Congress passed this PATRIOT Act, 
bipartisan support, at a time that was very difficult not only for us 
to see that enemy that was at us, but also for us to understand more 
clearly how we should respond, and this Nation did respond. We 
responded with a PATRIOT Act that was specific in nature that allowed 
intelligence agencies to stand a chance to fight those against us.
  This legislation was and still is vital to our intelligence capacity 
and our desire to show the enemy that we're willing to fight, that 
we're willing to stand up and protect this country, that we're willing 
to go to the lengths that are expected of anybody who wants to protect 
their own homeland.
  Earlier this week, Ranking Member Lamar Smith of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas, urged Democrat 
leaders, as we did not know whether this bill would come forward, to 
extend those expiring provisions, stating: ``Congress has a duty to 
protect the American people. Failing to reauthorize our national 
security laws in a time of heightened threat is reckless.''
  These were the types of public comments that Republicans are making 
about the need to make sure that we press this body to get done its job 
with those processes.
  Yesterday, up in the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mac Thornberry, 
also from Clarendon, Texas, testified in the Rules Committee about the 
importance of extending the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions at the time 
we were debating the Intelligence bill. I thought that Mr. Thornberry 
was well on point, was thoughtful, was articulate about the 
significance of providing the necessary debate on important issues and 
amendments.
  I think we just had a debate here on the floor where we went through 
how these issues need to be talked about in this body and every single 
Member needs to understand them as a result of their constitutional 
duty to protect and defend, not just our Constitution, but this 
country. And I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment when he said we 
need to provide the intelligence community with the appropriate tools 
to protect this Nation.
  Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by voice vote; 
confirming the importance of acting immediately. Look, I'm just for 
getting it done. I'm just for getting it done. If the Senate wants to 
do it by voice vote, that's fine.
  Today we are here on the floor to talk about the three provisions 
that were set to expire. They were set to expire because the previous 
Congresses have said we needed to have an active debate on these 
issues, like to talk about them, allowing the government to seek court 
orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes 
of communication.
  Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing we learned, the enemy is smart and 
nimble and quick. They adapt themselves to the way we do business. We 
need to give our intelligence agencies the ability to be nimble, quick 
and to adapt themselves also. Glad this is being redone just in time.
  To allow investigators to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act court order to procure certain records in national security 
investigations, you've heard this said for a long time. The people who 
are trying to protect this country are few in number, and the cases 
against them are very large. The number of people who are seeking to 
turn our country into another war

[[Page H847]]

zone where civilians are killed, where planes are blown up out of the 
sky, where we have inundation of our national security efforts, as well 
as cybersecurity, are numerous. We need to make sure our investigators 
have a clear understanding about the rules and are able to receive 
information in a legal process.
  Lastly, to allow the government to apply special court surveillance 
orders involving suspected terrorists that are called ``lone wolf'' 
terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to larger organizations.
  I think the gentleman, Mr. Rogers, made a point here from the 
Intelligence Committee that our ability to be able to see this for what 
it is, whether it's a part of a larger terrorist group or whether it's 
a lone wolf acting on his own, that we need to be able to make sure 
that we can fully vet these individuals before shutting them down and 
allowing them just to be treated as a person who's committed a crime. 
We need to be able to see that which is aimed at this country and to 
fully vet them.
  When people who are overseas terrorists come into this country by 
lying to us about why they would be coming and their intents, we need 
to be smart enough and nimble enough to pick these up.
  Each of these provisions are used by law enforcement officials and 
intelligence agents to prevent terrorist attacks. By reauthorizing 
these provisions today, which my party, the Republican Party, fully 
supports, we believe, for an additional year, will provide the 
appropriate defense and intelligence measures to protect Americans from 
another event like 9/11.
  If I offered some comments, Republicans would have been in favor of 
making these permanent in law. Of course, we need to make sure that 
we're re-evaluating these, but these should be made permanent law so 
that our law enforcement agencies set themselves in a position to be 
nimble enough to see the attack against us.
  I think 9 years' worth of effort has told us we need to give our law 
enforcement every single tool that we believe is reasonable. I think 
we've done it today. I wish we'd done it for more than a year, because 
here we are, we will be here a year from now, perhaps struggling with 
the same issue.
  Let's make these permanent additions to the Homeland Security PATRIOT 
Act. This country is under a constant threat of violence and terrorism, 
and that's why it's necessary to make sure that all of our intelligence 
and law enforcement have the appropriate tools to defeat those who 
would wish to do us harm.
  We don't need to look back very far to Christmas Day; but I would say 
to us that after that, we still had warnings that came from our 
intelligence community that said, and expect more, and expect more; 
which is the reason why we should be making these issues that we talked 
about today, not extending them for one more year, but to make them 
permanent to give our guys, our team, our men and women who are engaged 
in the professional aspect of protecting this country, the tools which 
they need to protect this country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with my friend from 
Texas that this rule ought to be passed and we ought to move forward 
right now. So I don't have any other speakers. I'm going to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  I'd ask my friend from Texas how many people he expects to have 
speaking on his side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would appreciate that. And in a colloquy, if the 
gentleman would allow me the time since he has indicated he has no 
further speakers, I will go ahead and consume my time with the 
knowledge that he would then be ending very quickly. And I thank the 
gentleman very, very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to go ahead and proceed using up all my time 
at this time with the knowledge that he will be through.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time we have the gentleman from Gold River, 
California, a gentleman, Mr. Lungren, who has served as not only a 
Member of this body, then went back to California, served as the 
Attorney General from the State of California. He's a very thoughtful 
Member. He sees very clearly the laws of this country and the 
Constitution of this country, but he also sees the need for us to be 
nimble enough to see the attack that's against us, to be able to 
respond and to give our men and women who are on the front line all the 
assets and resources only that are necessary, but the laws and the 
underpinning of being able to make sure that we can fully protect this 
country.
  And I will yield to the gentleman 6 minutes at this time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the 
generous provision of time.
  Mr. Speaker, when we were reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act in 2005, or 
extending it, I authored in committee the sunset provisions that 
subjected these three provisions of the PATRIOT Act to further 
consideration by the House. That sunset was up last year. And so, 
rather than seriously consider it and thoughtfully proceed as to 
whether it ought to be permanent or not, we kicked the can down the 
road by extending it a year. And then we came just before Christmas up 
against it, once again, and we extended it for 2 months. And now, here 
we are, 3 days before the expiration of these provisions, and we are 
going to have a temporary extension, a year, not 2 months, but just a 
year.
  I would hope that we would consider an issue such as this as an 
important primary issue. It's almost as an afterthought. Just before we 
leave for Christmas, we extend it for 2 months. Now, we're within 3 
days of it expiring, we extend it for a year. Forgive me, but it almost 
sounds like we're treating it like a burp after a big meal, something 
we're kind of embarrassed about, something that happened, sort of 
involuntarily, as if we don't have control of this.
  I've said on this floor before that we're certainly making sure that 
no post office in America goes unnamed or un-renamed. But at the same 
time, we deal with this issue, which is crucially important.
  Our Judiciary Committee considered the reauthorization of these 
provisions; and we reauthorized, by our bill, the business records 
section. We reauthorized the roving wiretap provision, although we made 
some changes in that from current law, which I did not support, but 
nonetheless, that was it. But we failed to extend the lone wolf 
provision. And let me tell you the thinking on that.
  The argument was, we didn't need the lone wolf provision because it 
had never been used. What's the lone wolf provision? It allows us to 
apply the intelligence-gathering authorities that we have in the 
overall law to individuals that we cannot, at that point in time, 
determine are actually involved with a foreign country, that is, 
associated with a foreign country, or with a known terrorist 
organization. And so they said it had never come up before. So we 
failed to vote it out of Judiciary Committee. That was in the morning, 
about 12:30, just after noon.
  What happened later that day? The massacre at Fort Hood. A lone wolf. 
Now, admittedly not someone who would be under the PATRIOT Act because 
he's an American citizen, but my point is, we have to be concerned 
about lone wolves.
  And what about Mr. Abdulmutallab?
  If we had had information and been able to connect some of the dots 
early on, we would have not been able to prove initially that he was 
necessarily associated with any other group, maybe inspired by another 
group. He would actually come under the definition of a lone wolf.
  And yet the Judiciary Committee said, well, we're going to deprive 
our intelligence community of the powers under the law for those who 
are lone wolves.
  That's why I say this needs full and vigorous debate. We need to 
consider the essence of these provisions, and we need to determine 
whether we believe it needs more than an extension of a single year. 
Does anybody on this floor truly believe that al Qaeda will give up in 
a year? Does anybody believe that those who are out there with the idea 
that they want to do harm to the United States, utilizing terror 
inspired by al Qaeda or others, are going to quit after this year? I 
would hope they would. I would hope we would defeat

[[Page H848]]

each and every one of them before the year's out. But that's 
unrealistic. Let's understand.
  So, why we're bringing this to the floor with only a single-year 
provision is beyond me. If we take seriously our obligation to provide 
for the common defense, in this environment of a nonconventional war, 
asymmetric, as they like to say, undefined, compared to previous 
conflicts, where the enemy does not seek territorial advancement, but 
seeks the destruction of who we are and what we are, our institutions, 
and how we, in fact, act.
  This is a different world. I've said on this floor before and I'll 
say it again, al Qaeda doesn't hate us and attack us because of 
Guantanamo. Al Qaeda hates us and attacks us because of the Statue of 
Liberty and everything it represents.

                              {time}  1200

  And so I would hope that at some point in time we would come to this 
floor and have a serious, full-throated debate on these three 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act as to whether they ought to be extended 
as a matter of permanent law or at least as a reasonable period of 
time--5 years, 10 years, not single year--and not treated as an 
accident of legislative action.
  So I rise in support of the bill and the rule that allows the bill 
but in great disappointment that we are not doing all we could do to 
advance the cause of freedom and protection of the American people. 
This is better than nothing, but it's not good enough.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we're talking about something that is real important 
today. We've been talking about something that is real important, and I 
think the point that's made today is that the Republican Party supports 
the extension of the PATRIOT Act that we're doing here today. These 
three provisions are very important.
  We're questioning why we have to move these on a piecemeal basis. We 
should move them. They should become permanent law. We believe that the 
enemy that is at our doorstep, that is all around this world, that is 
attacking our allies, our friends, people who love freedom, that that 
is not going to go away. We need to give our intelligence officials the 
ability to know that they are going to hard-code this in their books 
and their training and what they do instead of exceptions to, well, we 
might not want to do this in the future. Mr. Speaker, we need to give 
our team that's protecting us all of the tools that are available.
  We're going to vote for this today because we think it's the right 
thing, but we think it ought to be made permanent. We think it ought to 
be a provision that all of our law enforcement, all of our intelligence 
officials understand why we're doing this, and we want to send them a 
strong signal: Protecting this country is not something that should be 
taken lightly from a perspective of what might expire. We want to give 
them all of the tools that are necessary. We want to make it permanent. 
Let's put it in their permanent training manual, not in an exception 
rule that they have to follow up and retrain people about what the law 
is.
  Protecting this country should not be something that is related to 
whether we have an expiring provision or not. Let's make it permanent. 
Let's get that done. It would be my hope that the Intelligence 
Committee of this House would move to get that done as soon as we've 
passed this today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Texas and 
California for their comments, and their comments indicate that they 
support this rule.
  This rule allows for the passage, ultimately, of an extension of time 
on three important surveillance tools that we now have within our 
arsenal. There is no disagreement between the sides at all as to the 
need for the passage of this rule and the need to move forward. So, I 
would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  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.

                          ____________________