[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H895-H901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REFORM ACT OF 2009

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1109, I call 
up 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, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendments.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSETS.

       (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, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``February 28, 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, 2010'' and inserting ``February 28, 2011''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to extend expiring 
     provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
     Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
     Act of 2004 until February 28, 2011.''.

                     Motion Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendments to H.R. 3961.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1109, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous material on this matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, this measure before us will extend three 
provisions of our foreign intelligence surveillance laws for 1 year. 
The provisions are section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, governing roving 
wiretaps; section 215, which addresses the collection of business 
records; and the so-called ``lone wolf surveillance law.''

                              {time}  1630

  Without extension, these provisions will expire on Sunday coming.
  As we consider this short-term extension, I make these observations:
  As one who has found that the USA PATRIOT Act needs a great deal of 
improvement and that there have been many excesses and sometimes abuses 
of these broad powers over the years, I have found that too little 
consideration of the impact of this type of surveillance on our civil 
liberties has been looked into. And that's why the Judiciary Committee 
has undergone an extensive process over the past year and reported out 
a bill that attempts to reform these provisions and enhance 
congressional oversight. In the other body, the Judiciary Committee has 
also passed out a bill that improves, in my view, the PATRIOT Act. So 
we're very close to real reform.
  The House bill has new protections for library and bookseller 
records. It clarifies the reach of roving authority to prevent ``John 
Doe'' blanket wiretaps. It tightens the standards for national security 
letters that have been abused in the past. It has extensive new 
reporting oversight and sunset provisions to greatly strengthen 
congressional oversight and makes other changes to the related 
provisions of law.
  Please understand, Members, that this extension is not the final word 
on the PATRIOT Act, and what we will do is use the time between now and 
the year that will elapse to improve and pass real reform.
  Now, while I would prefer to do this now, it is not to me 
strategically wise nor logistically possible to accomplish this at this 
time. And with the provisions expiring in a matter of 3 days, the other 
body has sent us this extension bill, so there is no reasonable 
possibility that they could pass a broader measure such as a Judiciary-
passed bill at this time.
  In other words, we have no other choice but to go along with this 
extension because there isn't sufficient time. Well, tomorrow is the 
last day of the week. It's physically impossible. So under these 
circumstances, it seems to me the best course is to merely maintain the 
status quo and work with the other body and the administration towards 
some improvements that I have in mind. I can announce we've made 
progress towards reaching common ground, and I believe an orderly path 
forward between now and during the next year will lead us to a much 
better result.
  Now, although this extension doesn't reform underlying law, we 
recognize there's some value in a process that brings us quickly to 
another sunset date. Experience has taught that there's nothing like an 
approaching sunset to bring both the executive branch and the other 
body to the table with the will to see this resolved. So while I'd 
rather pass the Judiciary Committee bill out and truly make the reforms 
that I think are necessary, because of the time constraints that we 
find, I recommend that we take the next year and continue the process.
  I urge your careful consideration of this very important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the war on terror is real, and it's all around us. 
Despite multiple attempted terror attacks and a warning of an imminent 
attack from our national security experts, apparently the best this 
Congress can do is a 1-year extension of our most critical national 
security laws.
  On Christmas Day Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to murder 288 
innocent civilians by trying to set off an explosion aboard a Northwest 
flight bound for Detroit. Thankfully, he failed in his attempt at mass 
murder, not because of our national security procedures but because of 
his own ineptness and the quick response from passengers and crew. But 
we may not be so fortunate the next time.
  Last November in my home State of Texas, Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 
and wounded 30 others when he opened fire at the Fort Hood Army Base. 
In September three terrorist plots were successfully thwarted in New 
York City, Springfield, Illinois, and Dallas, Texas. And now 
intelligence experts warn us that another terrorist attack may be 
imminent. Yet after all those near misses, the House majority refuses 
to pass a long-term extension of three essential PATRIOT Act 
provisions.
  The PATRIOT Act works. It has proven effective time and time again in 
preventing terrorist attacks and keeping Americans safe. The expiring 
provisions give national security investigators the authority to 
conduct roving wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to 
gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not necessarily 
affiliated with a specific terrorist group.
  We cannot afford to play dice with the security of the American 
people. We must continue these intelligence-gathering measures to win 
our fight against terrorists. The Obama administration recognized this 
last year when it called for Congress to authorize the expiring 
provisions without any

[[Page H896]]

changes that undermine their effectiveness. Instead of working with the 
administration and listening to national security experts, the House 
majority is only offering another short-term extension.
  The majority may think that by pushing the reauthorization until 
after the election, they will then be able to pursue legislation to 
water down these provisions a year from now. But if so, they are 
playing with fire and innocent Americans are the ones who will get 
burned.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he 
may consume to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. 
Sylvestre Reyes, who has served on this committee for 10 years.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the chairman for his work on this very important 
and vital issue and also for the opportunity to speak on an issue that 
is of such great importance to our country and to our country's 
national security.
  It is important that we reauthorize the expiring PATRIOT Act and the 
provisions that the brave men and women of the intelligence community 
continue to utilize and to have these tools that they need to keep us 
all safe.
  This 1-year extension will provide Congress the opportunity to 
examine important aspects of the PATRIOT Act and to make substantive 
changes that strike the right balance between protecting the rights of 
Americans and protecting our national security.
  Recently, I introduced H.R. 3969, the Counterterrorism Authorities 
Improvements Act of 2009. This bill makes improvements to the PATRIOT 
Act which will strengthen the tools used to combat terrorism and to 
enhance at the same time the privacy and the rights of Americans.
  Additionally, both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees have 
passed PATRIOT Act reauthorization bills that would make important 
improvements in the law that will increase oversight while at the same 
time preserving critical intelligence authorities.
  Some of the more important changes proposed by the House and the 
Senate include: one, modifying the FISA standard for obtaining business 
records to ensure that the government is required to show a connection 
to terrorism; two, requiring a higher standard to obtain library or 
bookseller records; three, increasing public reporting on the use of 
national security letters and FISA, including their impact on the 
privacy of Americans, a right that we all cherish; and, finally, number 
four, requiring the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to 
conduct regular audits of the use of these authorities. I am confident 
that a 1-year extension will provide Congress with sufficient time to 
make these important changes.
  As always, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you, 
especially in the coming year as we look at ways to make sure that we 
draw that balance between giving the men and women that keep us safe 
the ability to utilize essential and vital tools and also at the same 
time ensuring that the rights and the privacy of all Americans are 
protected.
  With that, I thank you for yielding.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman 
emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation 
to extend three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to 
expire on Sunday.
  The attacks of September 11, 2001, tragically affirmed the urgency of 
updating our laws to address the clear and present danger presented by 
international terrorism. Although the memories of this day may have 
faded in the minds of some Americans, including some of my colleagues, 
the danger we face from terrorists and terrorist organizations has not 
faded. We continue to face an imminent danger, made clear by the 
attempted Christmas Day attack.
  The three provisions scheduled to expire are, first, section 206, the 
roving wiretap provisions of the PATRIOT Act; second, section 215, the 
business record provisions of the PATRIOT Act; and, third, section 
6001, the ``lone wolf'' provision of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act.
  Of particular importance is the lone wolf provision, which closes the 
gap in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that, if allowed to 
expire, could allow an individual terrorist to slip through the cracks 
and endanger thousands of innocent lives. When FISA was originally 
enacted in the 1970s, terrorists were believed to be members of an 
identified group. That's not the case today, and we need to respond 
accordingly.
  Many modern-day terrorists may subscribe to a movement or certain 
beliefs but do not belong to or identify themselves with a specific 
terrorist group. Allowing the lone wolf provision to expire could 
impede our ability to gather intelligence about perhaps the most 
dangerous terrorists operating today. Regarding the lone wolf 
provision, FBI Director Mueller stated that ``while we have not used it 
with regard to an indictment, it continues to be available for that 
individual whom we lack evidence to put with a particular terrorist 
group but does present a threat as an international terrorist.''
  The close call we had on Christmas Day demonstrates the need for 
tough laws like the PATRIOT Act. Terrorist organizations appear to be 
stepping up their efforts against us, and we cannot let this happen. 
Our national security is at stake and so are the lives of thousands of 
innocent people, both Americans and visitors to our country. Our law 
enforcement officials must be provided with the needed tools to keep us 
safe, and we in Congress cannot drop the ball on our national security. 
We must reauthorize these provisions now.
  For too long opponents of the PATRIOT Act have transformed it into a 
grossly distorted caricature that bears no relationship whatsoever to 
the legislation itself. The PATRIOT Act has been misused by some as a 
springboard to launch limitless allegations that are not only 
unsubstantiated but are also false and irresponsible.

                              {time}  1645

  The fact remains that the USA PATRIOT Act is vital to maintaining 
America's safety. The White House and Attorney General have called for 
extension of the three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and I 
commend the administration for recognizing the value of these important 
national security tools and for rightly urging the Congress to 
reauthorize each of them. This is your administration, Mr. Speaker and 
majority Democrats, not our administration, and they have recognized 
the reason for that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of reauthorizing these 
provisions before they expire.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he 
may consume to the chair of the Constitution Subcommittee on the House 
Judiciary, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to concur in the 
Senate amendment, which would extend for a period of 1 year the sunset 
of three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. I very much regret that we 
have to be here today in this situation and that I have to oppose this 
legislation. I understand we are facing a deadline of this weekend, but 
I also believe that we have an obligation to do more than punt. That is 
effectively what we are doing today. We are punting this question to 
the next Congress.
  Both the House and the Senate have worked hard to examine not just 
these three provisions, but the entire PATRIOT Act, and to craft 
legislation that would improve its effectiveness, and that would better 
protect the civil liberties of all Americans. That process should be 
allowed to continue. Today, with this vote, that process effectively 
ends.
  The PATRIOT Act was passed at a time of panic, and in an extremely 
rushed manner. Many of its provisions were not well thought out, which 
is why Congress decided that certain parts of the PATRIOT Act should be 
enacted on a temporary basis so that we could revisit them after we had 
time to see how they worked.
  The original passage of the bill in 2001 was hijacked at the last 
minute in a way that should have stood as an embarrassment to the 
House. The Judiciary Committee back then reported the

[[Page H897]]

bill unanimously, with support from the most conservative to the most 
liberal members. We did business the way the American people have 
always said they wanted us to do business, through negotiation and 
compromise in open committee meetings. That was the high point. The low 
point came in the dead of night. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft 
objected to the bill, and so with the cooperation of the then-
Republican leadership that bill was junked, and the bill that came to 
the floor was an entirely new bill written behind closed doors and not 
seen until shortly before we voted on it on the floor.
  The bill that recently passed the Judiciary Committee would have 
extended the expiring provisions, but would have improved them in 
response to the problems that experience has brought to light. With 
respect to roving wiretaps, for example, the committee extended the 
provision until 2013, and added language to clarify congressional 
intent that the government must describe its roving target with a 
sufficient degree of particularity to allow a judge to be able to 
distinguish the target from other potential users of places or 
facilities to be surveilled.
  Our bill would have allowed the ``lone wolf'' provision of FISA to 
sunset. This provision allows the issuance of a FISA warrant against 
individuals with no connection to a foreign power or other foreign 
entity or to a terrorist group. That is not the purpose of FISA, and in 
fact Todd Hinnen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice 
Department's National Security Division, testified in the hearing 
before my subcommittee that this provision has never been used in the 8 
years in which it has been enforced. There is no reason why a so-called 
``lone wolf,'' concededly unconnected, not connected to a foreign 
power, not connected, concededly, to a terrorist group--otherwise he 
wouldn't be a lone wolf--there is no reason why such a person could not 
be subject to a normal Title III wiretap warrant. That is why the 
committee voted to let this provision sunset.
  We also added some procedural protections to section 215 orders which 
allow the government to seize all sorts of information concerning what 
an individual has been reading without a warrant. The bill would have 
required the President to report to Congress on whether the procedures 
for sensitive collections could be further modified so as to enhance 
civil liberties protections without undermining national security 
objectives. This provision was also extended to the end of 2013 in the 
legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  My bill controlling the use of the much-abused National Security 
Letters was included in this bill as well. These letters, issued with 
no court oversight, have been used to obtain all sorts of material, and 
have been joined with gag orders on the recipients, gag orders that 
were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. The 
Justice Department's Office of Inspector General has issued some 
damning reports on the misuse of these letters, and the section is in 
dire need of reform. These reforms, which were a part of the bill 
reported by the Judiciary Committee, should be part of any legislative 
action extending these provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
  I regret that we are not going to continue this process of improving 
the PATRIOT Act. I regret we do not have before us a very short-term 
extension designed to give us more time to finish this work in the 
balance of this Congress. But we are punting to the next Congress, 
which for all practical purposes means that we are extending the 
PATRIOT Act unchanged for the indefinite future. I believe that our 
Nation and our liberties will suffer as a result of this. I hope that 
this vote today, contrary to what I expect, will not stop my colleagues 
from continuing to improve our intelligence-gathering laws, and 
specifically continuing to examine and improve the PATRIOT Act in a 
timely manner.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior member of both the Judiciary 
Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is probably the highest honor of my life is to serve 
in this House, and as a part of that to serve on the Judiciary 
Committee. I have great respect for the members of that committee and 
the work that we do. But in some ways, I would echo the comments of the 
gentleman from New York, although I would not agree with his 
conclusions, of the disappointment that this primary obligation of the 
Judiciary Committee, that is to deal with legislation that goes to the 
common defense of this Nation, would be viewed in the legislative 
agenda as an afterthought.
  I am the author of the sunset provisions from the 2005 extension of 
the PATRIOT Act. I put those sunset provisions in, or I offered them 
and got the support of Members on both sides of the aisle precisely 
because I understood there was some controversy about those three, and 
that there was a need for us to take a serious look at it.
  Unfortunately, while we have established other priorities in this 
Congress, in this House, it does not appear that the PATRIOT Act has 
been one of them. Because if it were otherwise, we would be spending 
hours, if not days, on this floor talking about the implications of the 
PATRIOT Act. And in the context of that debate, I am absolutely assured 
that the vast majority of this House would support the continuation of 
these provisions, as is the conclusion of this administration.
  These three provisions provide tools for our intelligence community 
to not only connect the dots, but gather the dots. There seems to be a 
misunderstanding at times that if we were to take some of these 
provisions and establish a higher degree of proof, or a higher degree 
of suspicion that somehow that would make these tools more available. 
That I believe is a misunderstanding of some of these tools. These 
tools allow to us start the search. You don't know if someone is 
involved with a terrorist group under some circumstances.
  Someone like Abdulmutallab, having his father come to the embassy and 
just report his suspicions about his son would not be sufficient for us 
to believe that he was necessarily allied with some terrorist group. In 
fact, you would believe that by the terms of the lone wolf provision, 
he would be right squarely in the middle of that provision. And yet 
what did our committee do? Our committee decided that because it had 
not been used before, we should reject it. Well, you know, we were 
never hit by airplanes with unbelievable amounts of fuel and human 
beings into towers in New York until it happened. Now, the argument 
that, well, it never happened before so we shouldn't have been prepared 
for it doesn't ring true.
  And so while I believe that we did take a look at these three 
provisions in our committee, I was extremely disappointed by the 
resolution of that review. And we could, it seems to me, if we had this 
as a priority, bring this bill to the floor, look at it and say if it 
is important enough for us to have these tools against al Qaeda and 
similarly situated terrorist groups and individuals, then maybe we 
ought to extend it for more than a year. Does anybody on this floor, 
does anybody within the reach of my voice believe that al Qaeda is 
going to stop 1 year from the 28th of this month?
  Maybe we have a new 72-hour rule. We have been talking about a 72-
hour rule meaning we should have bills on the floor for 72 hours. Here 
we have the fact that we wait until we are within 72 hours of the 
expiration of key parts of the law which allow us to protect ourselves 
against terrorists before we act. The American people must be 
scratching their heads and saying, This is the leadership we look for? 
These are the people who take an oath to the Constitution and to give 
us the ability to defend ourselves against enemies?
  Mr. Speaker, I guess I would say as proud as I am of my service on 
the Judiciary Committee, I am profoundly disappointed that this bill is 
being brought forward with just a single year, within a 72-hour space, 
and we still have not had an examination on this floor of the 
seriousness of the profound protections of civil liberties contained in 
these provisions of the law. This is in fact a good law. These are good 
provisions of that law being utilized by our intelligence community.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H898]]

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 
2 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the 
additional time.
  So these are individual parts of a law that has served us well. 
Ironic it is that on the very day that our committee considered the 
lone wolf provision and decided because it had not been used before we 
should withdraw it, we had the terrible I won't call it a tragedy, I 
will call it a terrible terrorist attack at Fort Hood. Within hours of 
us rejecting the notion that we needed a lone wolf provision, we had a 
domestic lone wolf. Now, of course the PATRIOT Act does not apply to 
someone who is an American citizen. But my point is had we had such an 
attack before that attack took place, doesn't it seem a little 
nonsensical to say because it hadn't happened before we ought not to 
have some tools at our disposal which would help us fight it?
  Let me just underscore again, these provisions in the law allow our 
intelligence community to collect the dots. The 9/11 Commission 
criticized our government for a failure to connect the dots. You need 
to first have the dots. You need to first have the information. And 
that is what these tools allow us to provide to our intelligence 
community so that they can analyze those things.
  So Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation because it is 
a mere 1-year extension. It deprives us of the debate that should be 
front and center of this representative body. If we truly believe our 
first obligation is to protect the people we represent, we must provide 
for the common defense. The PATRIOT Act does this. These provisions do 
this. We should act on this with full knowledge, full debate, and full 
confidence in our intelligence communities that we can move forward and 
protect the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to an 
esteemed senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. I thank my friend from Texas, and thank him for elevating 
me to the esteemed status. I am not sure I deserve that.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be a prophet of gloom and doom, but 
there are many people in this world who every night retire, prior to 
sleeping, with one thought in mind, and that one thought is destroy 
America. The PATRIOT Act has served as a useful impediment to thwart 
that effort of destruction, and it must not be allowed to expire.
  The majority has had over a year to reauthorize the three expiring 
provisions, but we failed to do so. In 2005, Mr. Speaker, I chaired the 
Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary, and we oversaw nine hearings to 
thoroughly examine all of the intelligence-gathering provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. The Republican-led Judiciary Committee completed these and 
additional full committee hearings, a full committee markup, and floor 
consideration to reauthorize nearly one dozen provisions, all prior to 
the August recess.

                              {time}  1700

  The current majority, Mr. Speaker, has conducted only one 
subcommittee hearing, a markup, but still hasn't brought a commonsense 
bill to the full House floor.
  Again, I don't want to promote gloom and doom, but time could be 
running out on us because one of these days, one of these people who 
retire with that, before they fall asleep with the one desire to 
destroy America, they may result in success. We need the impediment to 
stand thoroughly against this effort, and that impediment, among 
others, is the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to Sheila Jackson 
Lee, a senior member on the Judiciary Committee, who will be our 
closing speaker; and I will yield to her as much time as she may 
consume.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we come to the 
floor, Mr. Speaker, but we don't understand, really, the impetus and 
the importance of the work that is being done here.
  To my colleagues, what we are doing is securing the American people. 
We know that right now there is a major debate that is occurring with 
leadership dealing with health reform. We will also be addressing the 
question of jobs. But let it be very clear, nothing is going to stop us 
from addressing the question of national security.
  Chairman Conyers has been working on the reform and the refitting, if 
you will, of the PATRIOT Act to make sure that it provides more 
security for the American people.
  I just came from a hearing on Homeland Security of which I am a 
member, with the Secretary of Homeland Security, asking hard questions 
about the reinforcement of security, the provisions of support for 
personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, and the ability to 
give more resources so that the traveling public can be secure.
  In this instance, we are acting expeditiously and responsibly, 
because what is now occurring is that we are providing for the 
extension of the PATRIOT Act so we can, in fact, engage the other body 
and work constructively, one, to, with no doubt, commit ourselves, as 
the President has done, in committing to use every instrument of 
national power to fight terrorism, including intelligence and military 
operations, as well as the criminal justice system. That's the 
Judiciary Committee.
  There's never been a doubt about the commitment of the Obama 
administration or the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and our 
colleagues in the other body. But it is important for us to handle our 
business and to do our duty, and that is to look with a fine-toothed 
comb at the PATRIOT Act to ensure that it does not violate the rights 
of Americans. No matter what your political persuasion, you have a 
sense of understanding of the Constitution. You understand due process. 
You understand unreasonable search and seizure. And so it is our 
obligation to do so.
  As I listened to the debate on the Intelligence bill, I was struck by 
the efforts that have been made to shore up any of the missing links to 
provide us a pathway away from the Fort Hood incident or the Christmas 
Day bombing. And one of the things I want to emphasize is the 
importance for horizontal integration: Homeland Security, Department of 
Justice, Intelligence, the agencies dealing with national security as 
we attempted to do after 9/11. We must ramp up the coordination of 
information. There must be a focus not only on enhanced coordination, 
which is the premise of the PATRIOT Act, to get information and to 
ensure the obligation to ensure your civil liberties; but we must also 
be somewhat unique and distinct on how we assess who might be a threat.
  I have constantly asked that we consider this thing called human 
assessment and behavior. A lot of people will call for profiling and 
that that's the way to do it. And I can tell you, colleagues, that you 
can profile from this morning until the end of time, and you will miss 
someone who doesn't fit the caricature, if you will, of who you might 
think happens to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh didn't fit that 
profile.
  And so it is important for them to be developed human intelligence 
and human behavior assessment. That would have been an appropriate 
approach to the captain at Fort Hood. That's not profiling; it's 
assessing the behavior of interacting on the Internet, of speaking to 
the imam in Yemen, very conspicuous behavior that was assessed in 
Washington before he was transferred to Fort Hood, behavior that was 
not transmitted, if you will, in the right way.
  And then we can look at the Christmas Day bomber, which we hope will 
never happen again. We had the shoe bomber. And so behavior should send 
up a red flag.
  When we look at the premise of the PATRIOT Act, it is gathering 
information. And I know my colleagues would not want us to rush to 
judgment. And so what we have in place now is the opportunity for 
America to be protected, to use this cross-signal of information.
  Might I also mention the assessment of the actions of the Department 
of Justice. There's not been one moment of a decision that has 
jeopardized the American people. Yes, there's been a decision that 
initially was accepted by local officials, as we understand it, to try 
individuals in a particular area.

[[Page H899]]

There were provisions, obviously, to be made for that. That decision 
alone and whatever happens on the decision after about where that trial 
will be held has nothing to do with undermining America's security.
  We have Mirandized people before, and they have given us information 
and we've garnered that information to use for our security. We have 
tried people in the civilian courts under our legal system, and we have 
found them guilty on the basis of what they have done, and we've 
protected the American people.
  So I am concerned that there is some labeling going on, that there is 
not the convergence of resources in the Obama administration, there's 
not the work on behalf of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Chairman 
Conyers that steadily puts together building blocks to secure the 
American people.
  I hope that we will rise to vote for this extension of the PATRIOT 
Act to allow this Congress, bipartisan, to sit down and do its work. 
But in the meantime, would we not be irresponsible if we did not come 
to the floor today to protect the American people, just as we've done 
with an authorization of the Intelligence bill which has never been 
done for over a large number of years. We are now doing that because we 
believe in the security of the American people.
  I look forward to moving forward on this legislation. I look forward 
to pressing the intelligence community on human behavior assessment 
now, not tomorrow, but now; and I look forward to us going forward on 
securing the American people with the tools that the Obama 
administration is working on.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur in the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 3961--Extending Expiring Provisions of the USA 
PATRIOT Improvement and R. 2082. I support this motion to extend 
expiring amendments though I offered several amendments as we debated 
this issue in the Judiciary Committee that I believe would have made 
the existing provisions of the ACT more effective.
  H.R. 3961 extends for one year--through Feb. 28, 2011--three 
antiterrorism provisions which would otherwise expire on February 28, 
including the ``roving wiretap'' authority that allows the government 
to conduct surveillance on suspects who communicate on multiple 
devices, or repeatedly change their cell phone numbers or carriers; a 
provision that permits federal law enforcement authorities to seek a 
court order for ``any tangible thing'' they deem related to a terrorism 
investigation such as business records; and the ``lone wolf'' provision 
that allows for surveillance of terrorists who are not connected to 
terrorist groups.
  The measure also extends, for one year, a provision under current law 
that expanded authority to access records or ``any tangible item,'' 
including business and library records, through the use of Section 215 
orders. The provision has been one of the focal points of criticism of 
the PATRIOT Act, uniting liberals and libertarians who express concern 
that it was too broadly written and could have allowed the government 
to access a virtually unlimited range of records.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, court 
orders requested under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 
for access to business records had to assert that there were ``specific 
and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom 
the records pertain [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
power.'' The law limited these records to those of hotels, motels, car 
and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities.
  The provision in the USA PATRIOT Act modified requirements for a FISA 
court order to include ``any tangible things''--such as library or 
bookstore records--regardless of the business or individual holding the 
item, as long as law enforcement officials assert that the records are 
sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism 
investigation. An application for access to business records under this 
provision must provide a ``statement of facts'' proving that the 
information sought is ``relevant'' to the investigation.
  A September 2009 letter from the Justice Department reports that the 
FISA court had issued about 220 orders to produce business records over 
the period of 2004 to 2007. The letter noted that 173 of those orders 
were issued prior to 2006 in combination with FISA pen register orders 
``to address an anomaly in the statutory language that prevented the 
acquisition of subscriber identification information normally 
associated with pen register information.'' The 2006 reauthorization of 
the Patriot Act included language to clarify the law, and the Justice 
Department says the change made the use of the ``business records'' 
provision for such information unnecessary. The remaining business 
records orders were used to obtain transactional information that did 
not fall within the scope of other authorities.
  The department called on Congress to reauthorize this provision 
because there would ``continue to be instances in which FBI 
investigators need to obtain information that does not fall within the 
scope of national security letter authorities and are operating in an 
environment that precludes the use of less secure criminal 
authorities.''
  My amendment would have made an improvement to the public's oversight 
of the PATRIOT Act by extending the life of these intrusive government 
surveillance programs for two years rather than four years as proposed. 
Specifically, my amendment focused on Sections 102 and 202 of the 
underlying bill. The change to Section 102 would have extended the 
sunset dates of roving wiretaps and FISA business records to December 
31, 2011 rather than 2013. The change to Section 202 provides a sunset 
date of December 31, 2011 rather than December 31, 2013 for national 
security letters, with the effect of expediting the return of the 
relevant national security letter statutes to their statuses as they 
read on October 25, 2001.

  These proposed changes in those amendments that I offered in the 
Judiciary committee focused on the idea of increasing public oversight 
and transparency. These changes would have permitted Congress to review 
these sections in two years rather than four years. In two years, we 
may find that these tools are in fact unnecessary, or that new tools 
are required.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion also extends, for one year, a provision that 
allows law enforcement officials to pursue terrorists who use multiple 
devices, or change cell phone numbers or carriers repeatedly to thwart 
surveillance efforts under FISA. The law permits authorities to obtain 
multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps so that officials do not have to file 
multiple applications to continue their investigation.
  Under current law, applications for a wiretap do not have to include 
specific information on the location of the wiretap or the names of 
third parties who would be involved in assisting authorities with 
setting up the wiretap. Instead, court orders apply to the person or 
persons and not a particular device or location. Under prior law, the 
government would have to return to the FISA court for an order that 
named the new communications carrier, landlord, etc., before tapping 
the new device or location.
  The law requires the FISA court to base its finding on ``specific 
facts'' included in an application, and it requires court orders for 
roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in 
which the target's identity is unknown. In the cases when the location 
of surveillance was unknown at the time of a court order, investigators 
would be required to notify the court within 10 days of the start of 
surveillance at any new location. The court can extend this 
notification time to up to 60 days.
  According to a September 2009 letter from a Justice Department 
official, the provision has ``proven an important intelligence-
gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic 
surveillance orders.'' The letter noted that this authority is only 
available when the government is able to provide specific information 
that the target of surveillance may engage in counter-surveilance 
activities. The letter noted that the government has sought to use it 
``in a relatively small number of cases (on average, twenty-two 
applications per year).''
  Additionally, the measure extends by one year the so-called ``lone 
wolf'' provision that allows federal law enforcement officials to seek 
warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct 
surveillance on suspected individuals or ``targets'' who are engaging 
in international terrorism activities or preparation for such 
activities, but cannot be connected to terrorist groups or foreign 
nations. The provision applies only if the target is not a United 
States person, i.e., is not a citizen, legal immigrant or resident.
  Before 2004, national security officials had to show a court that a 
target was an agent of a foreign power, or acting on behalf of a 
foreign power, in order to get permission to monitor him or her, which 
some argued prevented monitoring a lone wolf operating as an 
individual. According to the Justice Department, the authority was 
aimed at situations in which information linking a target to an 
international group is absent or insufficient, but where the target's 
engagement in ``international terrorism'' has been sufficiently 
established. The department noted that in practice, the government 
``must know a great deal about the target,'' but must also be unable to 
connect that person to any group meeting the definition of ``foreign 
power'' under FISA.
  A Justice Department official, in a September 2009 letter, stated 
that the department had never filed a FISA application using this 
provision since it became law in 2004, but

[[Page H900]]

stated the department's support for reauthorizing the provision because 
of potential situations in which it could be the only avenue for 
surveillance.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important that we extend the 
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act and urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting the motion and work to restore civil liberties and 
secure America.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi, an active member of the Judiciary Committee and a 
former city prosecutor, Mr. Harper.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to keep 
suspected terrorists under surveillance in an attempt to prevent 
another attack on our country like we suffered on September 11, 2001. I 
believe that it has been successful, and I support its extension. I 
firmly believe that our safety for the nearly 8\1/2\ years since 9/11 
is due in part to the PATRIOT Act and the fine men and women who are 
able to use it each day to keep our country safe from harm.
  I particularly believe that the lone wolf provision which allows for 
the surveillance of individual terrorists who might not be part of a 
larger international terrorist group is very important, and I'm very 
happy to see its inclusion in this extension.
  I applaud those who worked in a bipartisan manner to pass this 
legislation in 2001, and I look forward to seeing that provisions of 
the PATRIOT Act continue to be used in an effort to keep Americans 
safe.
  While I wish that a bill with the intention of extending the PATRIOT 
Act for longer than a year would have been before the House, I support 
the legislation before us today. I hope that my colleagues will join 
with me in supporting the extension of this very important 
counterterrorism tool.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague 
from Texas, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. 
Thornberry.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished ranking 
member yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that we ensure that our 
intelligence professionals and our law enforcement professionals have 
the tools and the support they need to do their job. And we should 
never forget that their job is to protect us and prevent further 
terrorist attacks from killing Americans.
  Now, over the course of the day today, as we consider the 
Intelligence authorization bill, there have been a lot of words spoken 
in support of those intelligence and law enforcement professionals. But 
I would suggest that actions matter more than words. One of the actions 
we can take is to ensure that they have the tools they need to gather 
the information to stop terrorist plots. And these three expiring 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are being renewed for a year under 
this bill are some of the critical tools they need to gather that 
information and to protect us.
  Mr. Speaker, I count about eight plots or attempted terrorist attacks 
since last summer that have made the press, that have been stopped or 
thwarted in some way or another. One of them, unfortunately, was 
successful, and that was the attack at Fort Hood. One of them was 
stopped out of sheer luck and the awareness of passengers on the 
Christmas Day bombing attack over Detroit. But a number of the other 
attempted attacks or plots over the past few months and years have been 
stopped, I believe, because of the tools included in the PATRIOT Act 
that have helped prevent American casualties. And I would suggest we 
cannot afford a single day without those tools, including the three 
that are extended over the course of this bill.
  I would prefer, as others have said, that it were longer than a year. 
But it is absolutely critical that we not allow them to expire and that 
we put them at least on somewhat of a longer term basis so that these 
professionals can actually do their job.
  I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the tools, legal 
authorities, financial resources that are necessary for them to do 
their job to protect us, we also must provide these professionals in 
the intelligence community and the law enforcement community the 
support they need to do their job. And it is not supporting them, for 
example, to have a special prosecutor appointed by the Justice 
Department of this administration to re-investigate interrogators that 
have already been investigated. And it would not be supportive if we 
adopt the provision we've talked about earlier today, to establish new 
crimes against interrogators. They deserve the tools and support. Both 
can come today with the right votes.
  Mr. CONYERS. I'm pleased now to recognize a former senior member of 
the Intelligence Committee for over 10 years--she served as ranking 
member--and I yield now to Jane Harman as much time as she consumes.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank Mr. Conyers for yielding and commend him for his 
leadership of the Judiciary Committee. He has authored many bills which 
I am proud to cosponsor, one of which includes amendments to these 
three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
  I rise today because I think we are missing an opportunity. There are 
good ideas in this House about how to curb the abuses with national 
security letters, how to clarify that roving wiretaps are limited to a 
single identifiable target, and how to eliminate the lone wolf 
provision which has never been used and for which existing title III 
authority can suffice. Those ideas have been the subject of hearings in 
the Judiciary Committee, but they're not being debated on this floor.
  Instead, we hear that the only way to protect America is to extend 
the PATRIOT Act as is for another year. We could have extended it for a 
shorter period and fully debated how to amend the PATRIOT Act on this 
floor. I think this is a real missed opportunity. As one who was here 
when we first passed The PATRIOT Act, I recognize that my approach has 
been controversial.

                              {time}  1715

  I am one of very few Members who opposed initially rolling back the 
so-called library provision, which I agree was an overreach in the 
initial PATRIOT Act. But I opposed rolling it back because the 
amendment as initially drafted included eliminating access to Internet 
sites at libraries. And as one who studies the terrorism threat 
carefully, I know that terrorists use the Internet frequently as a way 
to communicate. So when the library provision was finally drafted to 
exclude Internet sites, I proudly voted for it.
  The PATRIOT Act is a valuable tool. Those who have spoken on the 
other side are right, we need it. But we have enough knowledge in this 
House to tweak it to be much more fair to innocent Americans who have 
inadvertently been caught up in its web.
  Let me also mention that under the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, 
we required that the White House establish a privacy and civil 
liberties commission to oversee the development and implementation of 
laws with respect to terrorism. That commission was never fully 
established in the last administration, and this administration has yet 
to name a chairman and a vice chairman.
  I urge the President again to fully implement the provisions of the 
2004 Intelligence Reform Act. Standing up that commission would send a 
message that we can protect our security, but we can also protect our 
liberty. This is not a zero-sum game.
  And let me finally address something we will hear as we close debate 
on the Intelligence authorization bill, and that is a view by some that 
we should bar trials or terrorist suspects in Article III courts.
  The prior administration tried virtually everyone charged with 
terrorism-related crimes in Federal court. Most of those people were 
convicted and are now incarcerated. There was a 90 percent conviction 
rate over hundreds of trials since 9/11. In contrast, military 
commissions convicted three people, two of whom are no longer serving.
  So if you just look at the conviction rate, we are safer if we use 
article III courts.
  In a letter from Secretary Gates and Attorney General Holder dated 
today to the leadership, they express their opposition to any 
legislation or amendments that would restrict the ability of the 
executive branch to effectively prosecute alleged terrorists in Federal 
courts or reformed military commissions in the United States.
  Their point, and my point, is we can have reformed military 
commissions--

[[Page H901]]

and I know that the President and many here are considering reforms 
which I may support--but we also must permit robust use of our Federal 
courts. I think it's disingenuous to claim that after 300 people have 
been sent to jail for long sentences, we can't safely try terrorists in 
U.S. courts under Federal law. I agree with Secretary of Defense Gates 
and Attorney General Holder that such an amendment would make us less 
safe by removing a critical tool from the Nation's arsenal, and that's 
the use of our Federal justice system.
  In conclusion, we must live our values. When we fail to do that, we 
offer a huge recruiting tool to those who would attack us. If we live 
our values by carefully amending expiring PATRIOT Act provisions, by 
standing up a privacy and civil liberties board and by saying that 
Federal Courts can try many of those we apprehend for terrorism-related 
crimes, we have the best chance of winning in this era of terror.
  Madam Speaker, I take a backseat to no one in the effort to defeat 
the terror threat against us. I take the threat very seriously. I read 
proposed legislation carefully. Today, we could have, as Mr. Nadler 
suggested, passed a short-term extension and then had a robust public 
debate about amendments to expiring PATRIOT Act provisions. This is a 
missed opportunity and I oppose the extension.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am prepared to close. I will reserve my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. How many minutes remain?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I reserve my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act 
will give our law enforcement officials and intelligence agents the 
authority they need to meet terrorists' threats. It is unfortunate, 
though, that some reject a long-term reauthorization. Refusing to 
reauthorize our national security laws for the long term signals 
weakness to our enemies. It says we are not serious about protecting 
American lives.
  Repeated extensions of this law create uncertainty for intelligence 
officials and increase the danger that intelligence is missed and 
threats unidentified. The PATRIOT Act is not broken. And if it isn't 
broken, we shouldn't try to fix it.
  Congress has already undertaken a sweeping review of the PATRIOT Act 
following extensive hearings in the Judiciary Committee. We approved a 
reauthorization in 2006 that made permanent all but three provisions 
and enhanced important civil liberty protections. The Obama 
administration, a bipartisan Senate, and House Republicans all support 
a long-term reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill, our national interests would 
have been better served if we had considered a long-term extension. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation even though a 
long-term piece of legislation would have been a much-improved 
situation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank Mr. Conyers.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 3961, legislation to extend the expired 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The three provisions being extended 
today include the ``roving wiretaps,'' which allow the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue secret orders to wiretap any 
target without having to specify the target or the device. This 
extension also includes the ``lone wolf'' surveillance provision, which 
allows intelligence agencies to conduct investigations of non-U.S. 
individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, a 
provision that the administration has never had to use. Finally, this 
legislation would extend section 215 powers of the PATRIOT Act, which 
allows the government to order any entity to turn over ``any tangible 
things'' as long as it specifies its for ``an authorized 
investigation.'' Section 215 orders constitute a serious violation of 
Fourth and First Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand 
access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment 
rights, such as library records.
  Through years of documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions 
during the Bush administration, the Department of Justice has failed to 
hold Bush administration officials accountable for illegal domestic 
spying by barring any lawsuits to be brought against those officials. 
Months into this administration, The New York Times reported that the 
National Security Agency had ``intercepted private e-mail messages and 
phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond 
the broad legal limits'' and that the practice was ``significant and 
systematic.''
  Passage of this legislation continues to make Congress complicit in 
the violations of constitutional rights.
  A letter written by the American Bar Association in 2005 to Congress 
expressed grave concern over ``inadequate congressional oversight of 
government investigations undertaken pursuant to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act'' . . . ``to assure that such 
investigations do not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth 
Amendments.''
  As Members of Congress swore to protect the rights and civil 
liberties afforded to us by the Constitution, we have a responsibility 
to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the 
PATRIOT Act, ensuring that the privacy and civil liberties of all 
Americans are fully protected. More than 8 years after the passage of 
the PATRIOT Act, we failed to do so. As National Journal correspondent 
Shane Harris recently put it, we've witnessed the rise of an ``American 
Surveillance State.'' We've come to love our fears more than we love 
our freedoms.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in 2001, I voted against the USA PATRIOT 
Act because it granted law enforcement powers too broad, too removed 
from oversight, and at the expense of Americans' civil rights. I am 
disappointed that H.R. 3961 simply extends three of these provisions 
without any additional protections or oversight.
  This is a missed opportunity to rebalance the need to pursue violent 
extremists with the need to respect our own citizens. Continuing to 
allow the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a 
terrorism investigation, including library records, is a disturbingly 
low bar. We can do better.
  Committees in the House and Senate have offered drafts to improve the 
PATRIOT Act, and I strongly suggest that we move forward immediately to 
amend this law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1109, the previous question is ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further proceedings on this 
motion are postponed.

                          ____________________