[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 23 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H731-H745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 79, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA 
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to 
business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, 
and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the bill is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 514

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSETS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO 
                   ACCESS TO BUSINESS RECORDS, INDIVIDUAL 
                   TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS, AND 
                   ROVING WIRETAPS.

       (a) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C. 
     1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is 
     amended by striking ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``December 8, 2011''.
       (b) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004.--Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 
     Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking 
     ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``December 8, 2011''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debated for 1 hour, with 
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these three provisions of 
the Patriot Act. I think it's very important that we extend them for a 
variety of reasons. The lone wolf provision, roving wiretaps, which 
have been in place for some time, we're not breaking any new ground 
here. Roving wiretaps have been used by local law enforcement for years 
in terms of dealing with drug dealers, organized crime. We're simply 
allowing those roving wiretaps to be extended to those who may be 
engaged in terrorist activities. Again, not new ground.
  Also, importantly, that roving wiretap provision allows us to follow 
the person, as opposed to the device. Because of the changing 
technology, somebody can use a cell phone and pitch it and then pick up 
another one. So rather than having to run back to the court every time, 
it's much easier to just simply get the warrant for that individual.
  Also, the business records provision is something that is extremely 
important, something that has often been the subject of a great deal of 
demagoguery, to be perfectly candid, where we have seen folks talk 
about this as a library provision. It should be noted that many of the 
9/11 terrorists used public library or university library computers to 
make their plane reservations or to confirm those reservations.
  The whole point of the Patriot Act is to allow for sharing of 
information and intelligence between local law enforcement, as well as 
our intelligence community. That's the point. We want to take down 
these terrorist cells and operations before they become operational.
  Many folks have said that we should not use our military to deal with 
terrorist threats, that this should be the function of local law 
enforcement. But many of those same people then will deny the very 
tools necessary to local law enforcement to take down these terrorist 
cells.
  That's why it's essential that we take the time today to reauthorize 
these three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. It is the right 
thing to do.
  And one other thing I wanted to mention about the lone wolf. These 
lone wolves are a real threat; and allowing us to continue to go after 
the lone wolf, even if they may not be part of a terrorist 
organization--we're usually talking about people who are not U.S. 
persons here--we need to make sure that our intelligence agencies, law 
enforcement can go after those lone wolves.
  We've seen lone wolves. Even though Major Hassan was a U.S. person, 
that's

[[Page H732]]

the type of person we are concerned about. And we see more of that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to rise to address H.R. 514, a bill that would 
reauthorize three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act until December 
of this year, just 10 months from now.
  Like the administration, I would like to see a 3-year extension of 
these authorities until 2013, similar to Senate bill 289 currently 
pending in the Senate. This longer term would give our Nation's 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies the predictability and 
certainty they need to keep our country safe in getting the politics 
out of intelligence.
  I believe there's no place for politics when it comes to protecting 
our country and our very way of life. It must be U.S.A. first. A 3-year 
extension of these authorities would keep the debate about the Patriot 
Act out of the heart of the election cycle.
  I believe including a sunset in the legislation provides the proper 
checks and balances necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to 
protect Americans, while also protecting Americans' constitutional 
rights.
  There will be people in my party who will be on both sides of this 
issue. Everyone deserves a voice when it comes to national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 514.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished military veteran, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 514, an extension of these provisions.
  The most important job of the Federal Government is to protect our 
country and to protect its people. My most important job in Congress is 
to ensure that I am giving the law enforcement community, within the 
bounds of the Constitution, the tools that they need to make sure that 
we stay secure, to make sure that we stay protected.

                              {time}  1720

  That is what I consider the utmost call in Members of Congress and 
the utmost call in members in the military and the law enforcement 
community.
  You are going to hear throughout this debate and you have already 
heard from so many people that have used these tools in the practice 
and in implementation in taking out terrorists and taking out organized 
crime units.
  Let me just say, I'm an Air Force pilot. I have been overseas, and I 
understand the enemy that we face and the determination that they have 
to bring what we saw on 9/11, to bring that back to the shores of the 
United States. I also understand that the only thing standing between 
another 9/11 and a peaceful country like we have been feeling for about 
the last 10 years is our law enforcement community and our United 
States military. That makes it essential to listen to those individuals 
and understand what we need to ensure that we are bringing down 
terrorist cells where they exist in the United States, and we are 
continuing to protect ourselves from infiltration overseas.
  On the tragic day on 9/11, Americans were united in our understanding 
that we must work together as a Nation to defeat those who would 
destroy our way of life. Now it is essential that, even though we 
haven't been attacked, that we understand that sometimes in the quiet 
lies the biggest threat, and we never forget that this threat is very, 
very real.
  So I ask my colleagues to rise and join me. I ask my colleagues to 
ask themselves, which side do they want to be on? Do they want to be on 
the side that doesn't necessarily understand and recognize that we are 
going to continue to be assaulted for generations from a group overseas 
that wants to destroy and harm our way of life? So I ask for your 
support.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 514, which 
reauthorizes and extends provisions in the Patriot Act that I strongly 
disagree with. I opposed the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 for the 
very same reasons that I rise today.
  As a proud member of the Intelligence Committee, I am confident that 
we can protect our citizens and do it without treading on their rights.
  Among the provisions extended in this bill is section 215, which 
allows the government to gain access to anyone's private, confidential 
records, including their medical, financial, library, and bookstore 
records, without first presenting evidence linking those records to a 
suspected terrorist or spy. It also fails to allow for court oversight 
of these secret orders, and prohibits the recipient of such orders from 
challenging the legality of the order for a year.
  I think that the challenge here today is, how do we balance the 
security of our country with protecting the rights of ordinary 
citizens? I know that we can do better than we do in this legislation, 
and so I urge each of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 514. Instead, 
I think we should pass legislation that grants the intelligence 
community the tools that it requires while protecting the rights and 
liberties of all Americans.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan, for allowing me to speak on the extension of this critical 
bill to our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11 cast a bright light on our 
woefully out-of-date intelligence laws. While many of our domestic 
crime-fighting laws have been made to adapt to social changes and new 
technology, our intelligence laws sit on the bookshelf gathering dust 
for decades. For that reason, I rise today in support of H.R. 514, 
which will extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act through 
December 8, 2011.
  I know I have heard some complaints about civil liberties, but the 
provisions in the short-term extension are the same tools that have 
been used by U.S. officials for investigating child molesters, 
murderers, drug dealers and other organized crime figures for decades. 
All this bill does is extend these same tools to intelligence agencies 
fighting terrorism.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to consider that this is a short-term 
extension to give the Intelligence Committee an opportunity to work on 
these so that we can get a broad agreement on it. It gives the 
gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Maryland an opportunity 
to work together, and for all of us to work in a way that will provide 
the security that all of us want for this Nation and still allow us to 
have all the personal freedoms that we enjoy.
  So I would invite and encourage all my friends to vote ``yes'' for 
this simple extension until December to give us time to do what this 
country desperately needs for us to do.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. It is difficult to debate an issue of such importance 
and have very good friends who are taking an opposite position. But I 
think that, in this case, we have to look very squarely at the literal 
reading of the Constitution.
  The First and Fourth Amendment literal reading makes it very clear 
that the Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of constitutional 
principles. There are extraordinary powers being given by the 
government, and it contravenes not just principles of the Constitution 
but our own oath to defend the Constitution.
  I want to speak to the provisions that are set for reauthorization 
here.

[[Page H733]]

Two of the provisions are contained in the Patriot Act, legislation 
that I opposed when it first came up because I believed that it was 
over-infringement on basic civil liberties, including freedom of 
speech.
  The first one, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the 
FBI to obtain an order from the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court, to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or 
their device, and I challenged the constitutionality because I believe 
this provision severely undermines the Fourth Amendment, which requires 
warrants to describe the place to be searched and the person or things 
to be seized. This provision of the Patriot Act requires neither the 
target nor device to be identified.
  The second provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the 
business records provision, allows the FBI to order any person or 
business to turn over any tangible things, as long as it specifies it 
is for an authorized investigation. Orders executed under section 215 
constitute a serious challenge to the Fourth and First Amendment rights 
by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated 
with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library records or 
medical records.
  The third provision, section 6001, known as the lone wolf 
surveillance provision, is contained in the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that authorized the government to 
conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected with 
foreign power or terrorist groups, but effectively allows the 
government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain 
electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, first, it's important that we hear 
all points of view from my colleagues when it comes to the 
reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions.
  I think the 3-year extension outlined in S. 289 will take politics 
out of this debate. I am pleased that this bill contains a sunset 
provision. It is important that these authorities have sunset dates so 
that Congress may evaluate the effectiveness of these tools on an 
ongoing basis.
  Only with rigorous oversight can we ensure that the privacy rights of 
Americans are protected. As ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee, I will ensure that the committee conducts effective 
oversight of these provisions. I hope, in subsequent reauthorizations 
of the Patriot Act, that Congress continues to use sunset dates which 
will keep Congress in the business of oversight on these important 
authorities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the way the ranking member has approached this issue. 
There are people who have differences of opinion, strong, passionate 
opinions on this. I am shocked and a bit amazed at the misinformation 
that is in and about the Patriot Act.
  If you believe that roving wiretaps through a court order is bad, 
then we should stop investigating today organized criminals and drug 
dealers and child pornographers and kidnappers.
  If you believe today that going in and trying to get someone's 
business records to prove that they were at a place, with a subpoena 
from a grand jury, is a bad idea, then we should stop doing it. Today 
you can do it. You can go to the library and get someone's records.
  As a matter of fact, during the first part of this debate someone 
talked about how they went in and got all this information on whoever 
checked out a book on Osama bin Laden and what a horrible thing it was. 
That wasn't even a FISA warrant. It was a criminal warrant. That 
happened under the criminal code. That can happen tomorrow. And when 
this expires at the end of this month, they will still continue to be 
able to do that. But you will not be able to go to a FISA court and get 
a roving wiretap or a court order, by the way, to get records that will 
help in an ongoing terrorism investigation. It really is mind-boggling.
  Let me give you what I think is the greatest example, the Times 
Square bomber. If we would have known early in that particular 
arrangement, they could have gone and figured out, listen, we need a 
court order. We go to the FISA court. There are two courts here: a 
criminal court and a FISA court. We go to the FISA court, because we 
don't know how big this is; we don't know who all is involved. We don't 
necessarily want to arrest him; we want to arrest everybody that is 
involved.
  So let's go to the judge and prove to the judge that if we can figure 
out that he bought materials from a hardware store to build a bomb, 
that we might be able to prevent this thing in the future. So they go 
and get a court order. This is hypothetical. They get a court order, 
which is a pretty high standard in any investigation.
  Or the other option is the bomb goes off, it kills hundreds if not 
thousands of people, and that very same FBI agent takes it with a 
criminal warrant and gets the very same information after the bomb has 
gone off. That is what we are talking about. That is the difference.
  This notion that somehow you don't have to go to a court to get an 
order is wrong. Trust me, you are not going to be able to go through 
somebody's underwear drawer because you want to. It is not going to 
happen.
  If you believe in the process that we have in our criminal courts, to 
have to go and get an order by a third-party adjudicator, then you 
should also believe that this is a really good idea to be able to do it 
in these broad, hard-to-do investigations into terrorism and spying. It 
is difficult.
  Remember the Russian spy ring that was just broken up recently. They 
had a FISA court order warrant for a very long time because they needed 
to figure out everything that was going on before they brought this 
thing to a head.
  The same with a terrorism investigation. Think about how global it is 
now. They planned the attacks in Afghanistan to attack New York and it 
went through Pakistan and other places, Saudi Arabia, and they had 
multiple states involved when they brought this plot together. It is 
big. It is complicated.
  To take away, at the end of this month, our ability to get a roving 
wiretap that, by the way, on the very next day after you stop our 
ability to go to a FISA court to get one, you can still get one in a 
criminal case against organized crime or a drug dealer here in the 
United States, why, why would we do that to ourselves, Mr. Speaker? It 
makes no sense.
  The work that goes into putting these things together for the brief, 
to go to the court, is significant. I will tell you right now there are 
very brave Americans who are working cases right now hoping to get 
their brief done so they can walk into a judge and get an order that 
might pertain to business records, or it might be a roving wiretap to 
keep America safe. If it expires, they won't be able to do it. There is 
no difference. As a matter of fact, the standard in the FISA court is 
higher.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge this body's support of what we 
know is working and has kept America safe since its inception.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since its enactment in 2001, the Patriot Act has been 
the object of so many false allegations and exaggerations that the 
myths have overshadowed the truth. It is time to dispel the myths once 
and for all.
  Let's begin with the myth that national security officials do not 
need these provisions to protect us from terrorist attacks. This is 
demonstrably untrue. Numerous terrorist attempts in the last 10 years 
have been thwarted thanks to the intelligence gathering tools provided 
in the Patriot Act and other national security laws, and if Congress 
fails to extend these provisions set to expire on February 28, it will 
be on our shoulders if the intelligence needed to stop the next attack 
is not collected.
  Opponents claim that these expiring provisions of the Patriot Act 
violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This, too, is false. 
Each of the provisions at issue amends the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, or

[[Page H734]]

FISA. Enacted in 1978, FISA sets forth specific intelligence gathering 
procedures that do comply with constitutional protections and have been 
consistently upheld by the courts.
  Let's also dispel the myth that these provisions grant broad-
sweeping, unchecked authority for the government to collect information 
on innocent Americans. Again, this is absolutely untrue. These types of 
provisions have been used by domestic law enforcement agencies for 
years to apprehend typical criminals. Roving wiretaps are nothing new. 
Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving authority for 
criminal investigations since 1986.
  Section 215, business records, have more strict requirements than the 
grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. It makes no sense 
to let law enforcement officials use a tool to investigate a drug 
dealer, but then deny that same authority to intelligence officials 
investigating terrorists.
  And contrary to claims by critics, there is oversight of these 
provisions. Both section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, 
business record requests, must be approved by a FISA judge. Both 
section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, also 
are subject to rigorous minimization procedures. These procedures, also 
approved by a FISA judge, assure that only information that pertains to 
the investigation is actually collected. Finally, both section 206, 
roving wiretaps, and section 215, business records, prohibit the 
government from gathering intelligence on a U.S. citizen or legal 
resident who is exercising his First Amendment rights.
  The third provision set to expire is the so-called lone wolf 
definition. As originally enacted, FISA authorized intelligence 
gathering only on foreign governments, terrorist groups or their 
agents. FISA did not allow the government to collect intelligence 
against individual terrorists. The lone wolf provision amended the 
definition of ``agent of a foreign power'' to close this gap.
  An increasing number of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. are 
being carried out by self-radicalized jihadists who adopt an agenda as 
equally hateful and destructive as any terrorist group. The lone wolf 
definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st 
century to allow our intelligence officials to respond to the modern-
day terrorist threat. The lone wolf authority cannot be used against a 
U.S. citizen.
  This temporary extension ensures that there are no gaps in our 
intelligence collection. Without an extension of these authorities, we 
will forfeit our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. A temporary 
extension of these provisions is the only way to provide House Members 
the time to study the law, hold hearings, consider amendments and 
conduct markups. We need to approve this temporary extension today, or 
we will make it harder to prevent terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Last Tuesday on February 8 
when this measure came up, it was defeated. It was a bipartisan vote. 
There was a full and fair discussion. Twenty-six Members on the other 
side joined with us to make sure that this measure was adequately 
examined for the flaws.

                              {time}  1740

  It's not that the Patriot Act isn't important or needed. It's just 
that it's flawed. The most flawed provision of the three provisions is 
the one I want to comment on briefly, and that is the so-called ``lone 
wolf'' provision--someone operating on his own and not particularly 
attached to anyone. This provision allows our full national security 
surveillance powers, which are designed to be used against enemy 
governments, to be used against a single individual who is unaffiliated 
with any foreign power or terrorist group.
  Now, it is widely known that this provision has never been used. It 
hasn't been used because there are no terrorists; it hasn't been used 
because it doesn't have to be used. The Department of Justice, by its 
own admission, has other powers to go after these individuals. And 
that's why it hasn't been used. And because we got a closed rule from 
the Rules Committee, we weren't able to work out an agreement to take 
it out. Therefore, I come before you today to urge that we do not 
accept this measure. It is way too broad. And under the statutory 
definition, virtually any evildoer can be declared a ``lone wolf.''
  So, ladies and gentlemen, let's be tough on terrorists. But let's 
describe this in a way that it will not be used in a way that will 
create fears that if we drop the lone wolf provision, the world may 
come to an end. I urge that this one provision is sufficient reason for 
us not to agree to the measure before us today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime and 
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Judiciary chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, 122 Democrats rejected legislation to 
temporarily extend the three expiring Patriot Act provisions, including 
36 who supported a 1-year extension last year. The House then adopted a 
rule to bring the bill back to the floor today, and the vast majority 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed that, too. 
These votes are nothing but the minority party playing politics with 
national security, and their arguments ring hollow.
  The Democrats' 1-year extension last February successfully achieved 
their goal of delaying Patriot reauthorization until after the midterm 
elections. But it left very little time for the new Congress to 
complete a reauthorization bill before the February 28 sunset. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle now profess concerns with the 
expiring provisions. If they were so concerned about the law, they 
could have easily brought a reauthorization bill to the floor last 
Congress making changes to these provisions, but they did not.
  They also take issue with the process used to achieve this much-
needed extension, criticizing the absence of hearings or a markup. But 
they gloss over the fact that their 1-year extension was brought 
straight to the floor with no hearings, no markup, and no opportunity 
to offer amendments--the same circumstances that a year later they now 
claim to dislike.
  Since this law was enacted, these provisions have been scrutinized to 
the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or 
found constitutional. The lone wolf definition has never been 
challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been challenged. But 
Members should know that, in 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--
and that's the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal in the country--upheld 
criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth Amendment to the 
Constitution. Section 215 business records were challenged, but after 
Congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, 
which I sponsored, the lawsuit was withdrawn. These three provisions 
have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in 
helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to 
keep our country and its people safe.
  Opponents of these provisions argue that we can simply use criminal 
laws to gather the information we need. But this argument ignores the 
most important distinction between criminal investigations 
and intelligence gathering. Criminal investigations only occur after 
the fact--after a murder has been committed or a home has been 
burglarized. The entire purpose of intelligence gathering is 
prevention--to stop the terrorist attack before it happens. We cannot 
rely on criminal tools to identify and apprehend those who are plotting 
to attack us.

  As the Democrats choose to play politics rather than worry about the 
safety of our country, we're now under a time crunch. Only 4 
legislative days, including today, remain for the House to extend these 
provisions before they expire and our Nation is placed at a greater 
security risk. We can't let our guard down. These are needed provisions 
to keep America safe, and I urge the House to approve this bill today 
and urge the other body to act quickly to reauthorize these provisions.
  It's time to put politics aside and do what's right for America's 
national security. I urge passage of the bill.

[[Page H735]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to remind the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, that we are not playing politics. And 
merely accusing us of that and of not having hearings doesn't help the 
debate much.
  On September 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the 
Judiciary Committee held hearings; and on October 29, 2009, the full 
committee held hearings and reported out a bill, I would say to my 
friend from Wisconsin. On November 4 and 5 of 2009, I say to the 
distinguished gentleman, we had a 2-day markup in Judiciary with record 
votes on 10 amendments offered by members of both parties and we 
reported out a compromise measure by voice vote. And so to say that we 
didn't hold hearings when we were in control is inaccurate, and I am 
not made happy by this misrepresentation.
  To say that this is a minority party tactic misses the point, again. 
The gentleman was awake and on the floor last Tuesday. Twenty-six of 
your members voted with us. That's not partisan politics. And so I am 
very sorry that this discussion is getting off with so much 
misinformation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration 
Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be reminded of what the 9/11 Commission report 
observed. That report said the choice between security and liberty is a 
false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties 
than the success of a terrorist attack at home. In this case, freedom 
presupposes security. That's what we're talking about here.
  The distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
basically has called into question the lone wolf terrorist provision. 
He says it's never been used. I heard this same argument on the floor 
last year before we had the domestic lone wolf known as Major Hasan. I 
heard the same argument on this floor last year before we saw the 
consequence of a loan wolf action in Times Square.

                              {time}  1750

  I heard the same argument last year before we saw the lone wolf 
action of the Christmas Day bomber. I heard the same argument 2 years 
ago before we heard that.
  The fact of the matter is and the greater concern that we have today, 
as expressed just this last week by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
is that the level of the threat is as high today as it has ever been 
since 9/11. When asked about it, she explained, as did the co-chairs of 
the 9/11 Commission, that it is the less consequential attacks done by 
those who are not directly associated with al Qaeda or with affiliate 
organizations, i.e., lone wolves, that cause them to be of greater 
concern today.
  CIA Director Leon Panetta, who is of this administration, has warned 
that it is the lone wolf strategy that I think we have to pay attention 
to as the main threat to this country. The gentleman from Michigan 
would have us wait until that threat is carried out before we then say, 
well, maybe now we have a reason to have the lone wolf provision.
  Professor Robert Turner of the Center for National Security Law has 
written as to how the absence of authority to conduct surveillance of a 
lone wolf terrorist undermined the FBI's effort to gain access to the 
content of Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer and how it materially 
impeded a critically important investigation that in the absence of 
FISA might well have helped prevent the attacks on September 11, 2001.
  Now, the distinguished former chairman of the committee has said this 
allows us to use this provision against anybody. Not true. It has to be 
someone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident of the United 
States who is engaged in international terrorism but who may not be 
linked to a foreign power or terrorist organization.
  Today, in the age of the Internet, when someone is incited or 
inspired by one of these individuals from a foreign country and then 
carries out a terrorist act, that is the definition of a ``lone wolf.'' 
The gentleman from Michigan would have us shackle ourselves so as not 
to be able to deal with this, as was explained by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former agent of the FBI.
  These are antiterrorism cases, not criminal investigations. What we 
are trying to do is not collect the body parts after a successful 
attack and then try and find those who caused it and try and bring them 
to justice. No, we are trying to stop the attack in the first place and 
protect Americans. That's why you have the FISA court. That's why you 
have some of these different definitions. What we have done within the 
ambit of those definitions is try and protect the civil liberties of 
Americans while at the same time allowing us to take reasonable, 
responsible and, yes, proactive actions against those who would murder 
Americans.
  There is a difference between a criminal investigation and a 
counterterrorism effort. It is the difference between trying to 
prosecute someone for a crime that has already been committed as 
opposed to trying to prevent the death and destruction that would be 
rained upon the United States by these terrorists.
  I am the author of the sunset provisions. I brought this because I 
thought it required us to look at these three provisions because, yes, 
they were the most controversial; but I am convinced after looking at 
it in these years that these provisions have not been abused.
  At the same time, I am going to be working with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and others to have rapid, intensive, active oversight of 
these provisions to ensure that we do not have some deprivation of 
civil liberties as we carry out these necessary functions.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my dear 
friend from California that the provisions in lone wolf do not apply to 
Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  Hassan was an American, and we have not yet used the terrorist 
provisions of lone wolf.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I would hope that my good friend from California, in 
his very passionate defense of the Patriot Act, did not mean to imply 
that the distinguished Mr. Conyers in some way would suborn terrorism, 
because he chooses to point out that the standards that are required to 
obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts are really 
being circumvented under section 601.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I did not question the 
motivation of the gentleman from Michigan, nor would I; but I would 
question his conclusions and the impact of his decisions.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I think it is fair for us to debate this. I think we 
have to just be cautious about how far we draw conclusions about the 
motivations of each other in taking the positions that we do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting for those of us who 
don't have a law degree to come down and listen and sometimes, like 
myself today, to have a few minutes to share my thoughts on this, 
because I think the majority of people in my district are God-fearing, 
constitutional-loving Americans like people in anybody else's district 
across this Nation.
  I regret and will always regret that I was too weak to vote my 
conscience when we had the Patriot Act up the first time. I did not 
feel good about it. As a non-attorney and as an American who loves the 
Constitution and who believes in the civil liberties that are 
guaranteed, this country too many times has sold itself to the Federal 
Government to take care of it.

[[Page H736]]

  I make reference, Mr. Speaker, to a book that was written by Judge 
Andrew Napolitano. He is a well-known constitutional lawyer who is on 
Fox News from time to time. The title of the book is ``A Nation of 
Sheep.'' He actually wrote this book in 2007, years after we passed the 
Patriot Act. He goes through every aspect of the Patriot Act, which he 
believes sincerely is a serious violation of the civil liberties of the 
American people. In fact, I would like to share just a couple of his 
comments.
  He said: ``The gravest dangers to our freedoms lie hidden in a 
government that has seized them from us, and that vigilance and natural 
law can save us from the power-hungry bureaucrats who run the 
government today.''
  He further stated in the book ``A Nation of Sheep'': ``An unalienable 
right comes from God and is an element of humanity that cannot be given 
up or legislated away.''
  Let us not legislate away our God-given right to liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues who voted against this when it 
was on suspension will again today vote ``no'' on this reauthorization, 
because it should go to a hearing. We should be very careful. And I 
hope and pray that maybe we will be able to defeat this tonight, but I 
know the odds are against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will ask God to continue to bless America and to 
continue to bless the Constitution. As Andrew Napolitano says, let's 
not be a Nation of sheep.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield such time as he 
may consume to a senior member of the committee, the gentleman from 
Virginia, Bobby Scott, a former chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee 
on Crime.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, which would extend for 
1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that 
were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2004 Intelligence Act. 
Without meaningful oversight and committee deliberations demonstrating 
that these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these 
provisions for one full year, or for any period of time for that 
matter, and I therefore oppose the bill.
  I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that, in 
order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and 
freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the 
formation of our Nation: ``They who give up essential liberty to obtain 
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
  One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the 
Patriot Act, which gives the government power to secretly invade our 
private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely 
alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation but 
without having to show that the seized material is in connection with 
any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities.

                              {time}  1800

  There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable 
suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and 
therefore, there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the 
material is, in fact, necessary.
  Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act which 
is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It gives 
the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without having 
to show which phone will be tapped or even who will be using it, and 
without requiring a court order for a specific roving tap.
  The third provision is Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the lone wolf 
provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in 
the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident 
aliens, even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any 
terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those 
targeted had any interaction with an American citizen, then that 
American citizen is spied upon as well.
  We have already allowed spying on such noncitizens outside of the 
United States or even in the United States where there is probable 
cause, only that they are agents of a foreign government or members of 
a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power that 
can envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting 
with a targeted person, even while in the United States.
  The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy 
even when there is no probable cause, nor even reasonable suspicion or 
credible evidence of any wrongdoing, and without allowing the kind of 
detached oversight such as a court warrant, which is generally called 
upon when such power over individuals is extended. And it is important 
to note that in cases of emergencies, warrants can be obtained after 
the fact. Law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and searches 
in emergency situations and then get a warrant.
  So, Mr. Speaker, absent oversight protections, even when after the 
fact warrants are available, all three of these provisions should be 
allowed to expire unless we demonstrate in oversight hearings and 
committee deliberations that these powers are necessary and narrowly 
tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. These 
freedoms and protections that these provisions take away are the very 
core of our values and liberties. So these protections should not be 
legislated away without committee deliberations guaranteeing rigorous 
oversight to protect against abuse.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me 2 minutes.
  What I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, is that with respect to 
roving wiretaps, it's only available after the government has been able 
to prove to the court that the target may engage in countersurveillance 
activity such as rapidly changing the cell phone number. It doesn't 
allow the government to make a general boilerplate application. It 
requires them, if they can't identify the individual, the very specific 
individual, to give some particularity in the request to identify that 
person as much as they possibly can.
  It is also a requirement we put in the law that once they have 
actually utilized this roving wiretap on different instruments of 
communication, they have to report to the court within 10 days as to 
what took place. So we have refined this as much as absolutely 
possible.
  What we're trying to do is keep up with technology. We know that some 
of these targets will buy 100 cell phones and use them for a single 
conversation and throw that cell phone away. You can't just think 
that's going to happen. You have to prove to the satisfaction of the 
court that there is a reason to believe that they are going to take 
these kinds of efforts to try and stop surveillance in these regards.

  Again, this is before the FISA court, and it only deals with these 
kinds of cases. This is not regular criminal cases. So the gentleman's 
concerns have been raised before, and we met those concerns in our 
prior treatment of this law. So it is a careful balance that we created 
here, to take into consideration the new techniques utilized by those 
who would threaten us and at the same time try and provide for a third 
party, a court, a Federal court made up of Federal judges, to look at 
this. We have to report before, and we would have to, that is, our 
agency activists, would have to report afterwards, within 10 days.
  I believe that's about as much protection as you can give and still 
be effective in this environment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished Member of this body, Dana Rohrabacher of California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001 in the 
aftermath of 9/11, we mandated sunsets on the provisions that 
dramatically expanded Federal investigative and enforcement powers, 
especially those that could infringe on the freedom of American 
citizens. Sunsets meant that Congress would have to specifically extend 
the time on those powers or they

[[Page H737]]

would expire. Five years ago, the last time around, the Bush 
administration attempted to make permanent this crisis-related 
expansion of authority by removing the sunsets.
  Let me congratulate my friend from California who spent so much time 
trying to make sure the sunsets were in, and Dan, we know that you 
worked really hard to make sure those sunsets were put in, but not all 
of them were.
  This power grab on the part of the Bush administration was thwarted 
by good Members like Dan Lungren who are with us today in this debate. 
Today, a few controversial sections are still scheduled to periodically 
sunset. The congressional action to extend these provisions deserves 
hearings, adequate debate, and the right to amend, thus ensuring 
accountability and transparency on such a significant issue. We have 
not met this standard this time around.
  The Republican leadership has committed to a more acceptable process 
by December, when the extension of this bill comes up for a vote again. 
I hope I will be able to vote ``yes'' at that time. Until then, it is 
``no.''
  And let us note about the accusations of politics in this. I believe 
the American people have a legitimate fear of out-of-control 
government. They have a legitimate fear of out-of-control spending and 
out-of-control bureaucracy, and yes, they have a legitimate fear of 
out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks. Let's make 
sure we stand for freedom here. That's not political.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my friend from 
California and other Members a little history lesson.
  When the Patriot Act was drafted in 2001, I insisted on the sunset 
and the then-Republican-controlled House prevailed on that issue 
against the then-Democrat-controlled Senate. I resisted repeal of the 
sunset prematurely, and in 2005, the Judiciary Committee, when I was 
chairman, had hearings on each of the 17 provisions. There was no 
controversy about 14 of those provisions. Even the ACLU testified in 
behalf, that those provisions have not been abused. So 14 of the 
provisions were made permanent. This law has not trampled on anybody's 
civil rights.
  Where there was a constitutional problem with section 215, it was 
fixed in the reauthorization, and I'm getting a little bit irritated at 
the scare-mongering that has been going on about this law when no 
provision has been held unconstitutional by a court.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, former chair 
of the Constitutional Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the extension 
of these provisions when the House has done nothing to consider them or 
to consider possible reforms or even to hold a hearing or a markup.
  The three sections scheduled to sunset are all troubling, and I hope 
that we will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they 
come before the House again.
  Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible 
thing,'' such as library or business or medical records, if ``there are 
reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant'' to a foreign 
intelligence or international terrorism investigation. Before the 
enactment of section 215, the government had to show ``specific and 
articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the 
records pertain'' is a foreign agent or a terrorist. Section 215 allows 
the government to delve into the personal records of someone even if 
there is no reason to believe that that person has anything to do with 
terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most 
sensitive areas of our lives, with little restraint on the government.
  Section 206 provides for roving wiretap orders, supposedly to catch 
up with technology, but these orders identify neither the person to be 
tapped nor the facility to be tapped. This is, for all practical 
purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone anywhere that 
the government wants. They should either have to identify either the 
person or, because of modern technology, the facility. But one or the 
other. There are almost no limits to this authority and no requirement 
that the government name a specific target. This is akin--very 
similar--to the British general writs of assistance which engendered 
the first colonial outrage that led to the American Revolution. Here we 
are coming full circle.
  Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret 
intelligence surveillance of people who are concededly not affiliated 
with a foreign government or organization. It provides the government 
with the ability to use secret courts and other investigative tools 
that are unacceptable in a domestic criminal investigation, as if we 
were dealing with a foreign government or entity. According to 
government testimony, this provision has never been used because you 
can use the normal criminal provisions if you suspect someone of 
planning mayhem or terrorism or anything else. Surveillance of an 
individual who is not working with a foreign government or organization 
is not what we normally consider or understand as foreign intelligence. 
There may be good reasons for the government to keep tabs on such 
people, but that is no reason to suspend all of our laws under the 
pretext that it is a foreign intelligence operation.
  While some have argued that each of these authorities remain 
necessary tools in the fight against terrorism, I believe we should not 
miss the opportunity to review the Patriot Act in its entirety, 
including the 14 sections that were sunsetted that are now permanent 
that many of us opposed making permanent at the time and thought should 
continue to be sunsetted so we could review them from time to time. We 
should examine the act to see how it's working, where it's been 
successful, where it's failed, where it goes too far, and where it 
poses threats to our liberties. That's the perfect of sunsets; and to 
extend the sunsets without review undermines that purpose.
  There is another law that is allied to this that also deserves 
careful review, the National Securities Letters Reform Act. I have 
introduced legislation which would better protect civil liberties while 
ensuring that NSLs remain a useful tool in national security 
investigations. I hope we can work to strike that balance in a 
responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of the 
NSL authority is too great for the Congress to ignore. I was encouraged 
to see some of my Republican colleagues across the aisle last week vote 
``no'' on the extension. It shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained 
government power to spy on people in the United States. That is the 
essence of opposition to unchecked government power. That value should 
not be a partisan one. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to restore our traditional respect for the right of people 
to be secure from unchecked government intrusion. That's why we have 
the Fourth Amendment. I hope we will be able, after this vote, to 
examine carefully the way these provisions have been used or abused and 
to look at ways to reform the law in light of experience. That was the 
purpose of sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that 
opportunity.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Does my friend from Texas have in his heart any 
generosity to yield a couple of minutes?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend 
from Michigan and say, I believe I could find the time if he could find 
a way to give us a copy of the motion to recommit at this time.
  Mr. CONYERS. That is up to the leader. That is not up to me.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of a good-faith 
effort to consider that proposal by the gentleman from Michigan, I 
yield the gentleman 2 minutes of my time for his control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan will control 2 additional minutes.

[[Page H738]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Lamar Smith, the 
chairman, for his generosity.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my 
appreciation to the chairman, my colleague from Texas, for the time and 
to the ranking member as well.
  All of the issues have been laid out as to the three elements. So I 
just simply want to pose a question to my colleagues: We know that we 
have a problem with the three remaining intrusive and, I believe, 
unconstitutional provisions.
  We know that Ranking Member Conyers has explained that we were not 
absent; we did not have the lights out under his jurisdiction. We 
actually pursued this. We couldn't get an agreement. We couldn't move 
toward the floor. So the question now is, we realize that a roving 
wiretap is intrusive. We realize that the ``lone wolf'' provides a 
problem. So the question is, how do we fix it for the American public? 
How do we ensure the Constitution is intact?
  Let me be very clear: It is well documented that human intelligence 
is the best. Why? Because most of us were surprised when I say that in 
the intelligence community--at least they have not articulated about 
what is going on in the Mideast, both in Egypt and Yemen and 
otherwise--we were surprised. Did any of that help us? This is an 
intrusion on the American public.
  We are not in any way nonpatriots. We are patriots. We believe in the 
Founding Fathers. We understand that they came together to give you, 
Americans, the right to your freedom. We ask for the Fourth Amendment 
to be sacrosanct, to indicate that you are not subject to unreasonable 
search and seizure. That is my question to my colleagues: When will you 
engage in the hearings and the ability to mark something up to address 
these infringements? How quickly will you move? December of 2011 is too 
long. Let us work together to uphold the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, 
``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and 
individual terrorists as agents.''
  This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision 
that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision 
revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include 
any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or 
preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It 
also grants government access to business records relating to a 
terrorist investigation.
  While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect 
our Nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the 
democratic principles that make this country the crown jewel of 
democracy. The bill before us today, however, does not do that. In 
fact, even the manner by which are even considering this bill, only 
days after introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, 
circumvents the process we have in place to allow for improvements and 
amendments to be made.
  The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would 
extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set 
forth in the Constitution.
  The first provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any 
tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there 
is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or 
terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the 
Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs afoul of the 
traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government 
to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before 
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. 
Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a 
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take 
steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.
  The second provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe 
wiretap,'' allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance 
orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. 
Like the first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary 
Committee during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional 
notions of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with 
particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision 
were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be 
done so to mirror similar  and longstanding criminal laws that permit 
roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.

  The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf' 
provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. 
persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type 
of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to 
abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the 
government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United 
States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has 
never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this 
provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be 
allowed to expire.
  Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it fails to amend other 
portions of the PATRIOT Act in dire need of reform, specifically, those 
issues relating to the issuance and use of national security letters, 
NSLs. NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial 
and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism 
investigation, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful 
behavior. I repeat, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful 
behavior.
  The three provisions I have just mentioned, as well as the issues 
surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past 
Congresses, because they were in dire need of improvements to protect 
the rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in 
the past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.
  Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to 
us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act 
was introduced. In 2005, the PATRIOT Act was examined in the Judiciary 
Committee. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like 
Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only 
addressed the three provisions in H.R. 514, but also National Security 
Letters and the lax standards of intent.
  Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I 
stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, FISA, another piece of law used in conjunction with 
the PATRIOT Act and essential to combating the war on terror, but one 
that was in need of improvements to protect Americans' constitutionally 
enshrined civil liberties. On that day, I said that, ``we must ensure 
that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to 
protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding 
Americans,'' and I stand firmly behind that notion today.
  When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns 
around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept 
permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations 
were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended 
for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.

  I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American 
is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the 
FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in 
ensuring compliance with our constitution. I stand here today urging my 
colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act 
that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this 
legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other 
legislative body.
  Furthermore, this very bill was considered last year in the 111th 
Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up 
in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan 
amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill. 
In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of 
the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an 
individual's privacy and civil liberties.
  In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow 
for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection 
against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my 
amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues who were on the 
Judiciary Committee at that time, are included in this legislation.
  None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues 
that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I am 
deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people, 
without so much as a hearing.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and 
appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we 
face as we strive to protect our Nation from foreign threats. However, 
as an

[[Page H739]]

American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our constitutional rights 
run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national security.
  To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the 
founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which 
enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills of Rights guarantee 
certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. 
One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people 
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against 
unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the 
Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in the United States 
Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient.

  As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is 
pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the 
basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers 
drafted the Constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in 
Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience 
such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in 
the PATRIOT Act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress 
not included in the bill?
  Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct 
robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms 
that will better protect private communications from overbroad 
government surveillance.
  There is nothing more important than providing the United States of 
America, especially our military and national security personnel, the 
right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on 
terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is 
the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure 
America while preserving our way of life.
  Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of 
these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing 
H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business 
records, and individual terrorists as agents.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to first thank the ranking member, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Texas for the amicable manner of comity that 
you have extended here. It is very much appreciated. I also want to 
say, as I have listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
speak in defense of this, I am aware that you love this country, that 
you want America to be safe, and you want America to continue to be 
free. And the great thing about this Congress is that we have different 
ways of viewing how we can go about that. But I have great respect for 
each of the speakers who has come forward.
  I want to say that since Congress first passed the Patriot Act in 
2001 that we have been continually challenged on this question of our 
constitutional duties to act as a coequal branch of government and that 
it is my belief that we have failed to conduct checks and balances over 
government power. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in that regard and that we 
have failed to conduct robust and effective oversight. And in 
connection with the gentleman from Wisconsin, some of the remarks that 
you have made about what we needed to do, I think you have made some 
good points on that. I also think that we have a responsibility here to 
protect the American people from overt infringements on their most 
basic civil liberties, and I see this continuing extension as being a 
challenge to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 514.
  Since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we have 
continually abdicated our constitutional duties to act as a co-equal 
branch of government by failing to conduct checks and balances over 
government power, failing to conduct robust and effective oversight, 
and ultimately, failing to protect the American people from overt 
infringements on their most basic civil liberties by continuing to 
extend these provisions without any meaningful reforms.
  These three provisions were passed in the wake of 9/11, and given 
sunsets in recognition of their far reaching and unprecedented powers 
that effectively allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance 
and demand material from people not connected to any terrorism 
investigation, including librarians and peace groups. Yet they have 
been extended Congress after Congress without any reform.
  Perhaps even more troubling is that we are extending these provisions 
through the end of the year without addressing the PATRIOT Act as a 
whole.
  In a 2007 article by the Washington Post, then Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) assistant director stated that he is ``not even 
sure such an example exists'' that would demonstrate how expanded 
surveillance has made a difference in our national security.
  Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the type of information the 
government could request from targets, while at the same time, lowering 
the standard required to obtain an order to request private records 
from targets. This means that the government can obtain orders for 
private records or items from people who are not connected to any 
investigation, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Orders 
executed under this provision constitute a serious violation of First 
and Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access 
to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment 
rights, such as library or medical records.
  National Security Letters (NSLs), which can be issued under Section 
215 of the PATRIOT Act, allow the government to obtain private 
information from telecommunication companies, internet and email, and 
health care providers without judicial warrants or oversight. They can 
be issued to people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing and are 
often accompanied by gag orders.
  According to an article in the Washington Post from 2005, NSLs ``do 
not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They 
receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or 
Congress.'' The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution requires prior 
judicial review and allows warrants to be issued only with probable 
cause.
  The government has used NSLs to demand records of patrons from 
librarians across the country. A decision by a federal district court 
rules in 2006 that the gag order enforced on librarians in Connecticut 
violated the First Amendment, forcing the government to withdraw the 
gag order and its demand for patron records.
  Despite a successful challenge to the unconstitutionality of the 
original PATRIOT Act's gag order provisions by the American Civil 
Liberties Union (ACLU), 5% of all NSLs issued by the FBI in 2006 
contained ``insufficient explanation to justify imposition of these 
obligations,'' according to the Inspector General of the Department of 
Justice.
  The ability to demand records from Americans absent judicial review 
and probable cause are certain to quell free speech and freedom of 
association--rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution.
  The ``material support'' statute, also contained in the PATRIOT Act, 
criminalized the act of providing ``material support'' to any foreign 
organization designated as terrorist by the Secretary of State. 
``Material support'' is defined so broadly that it can refer to almost 
any kind of support, including support that does not further terrorism. 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Court ruled in 2000 
that criminal bans on ``providing `personnel' and `training' to groups 
designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the government are 
unconstitutionally vague and could criminalize free speech as protected 
by the First Amendment,'' to include human rights advocacy training, 
humanitarian aid in conflict zones, or even writing an op-ed. A number 
of the cases brought forth by the government using this statute have 
been dismissed or ended in mistrial.
  According to the ACLU, the material support provisions 
``impermissibly criminalize a broad range of First Amendment-protected 
activity, both as a result of their sweeping, vague terms and because 
they do not require the government to show that a defendant intends to 
support the criminal activity of a foreign terrorist organization.''
  Despite years of documentation by the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice and respected human rights organizations of abuse 
by the government of these provisions, we have failed to hold agencies 
accountable for abusing the far reaching powers allowed under the 
PATRIOT Act.
  As Members of Congress, we are sworn to protect the rights and civil 
liberties afforded to us by the Constitution. We have a responsibility 
to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the 
PATRIOT Act to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all 
Americans are fully protected.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2007]

 FBI Audit Prompts Calls for Reform--Some Lawmakers Suggest Limits On 
                              Patriot Act

                    (By Dan Eggen and John Solomon)

       Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on 
     antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report 
     that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs,

[[Page H740]]

     banking records and other personal information on thousands 
     of Americans.
       The audit by the department's inspector general detailed 
     widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to seize personal 
     details about tens of thousands of people without court 
     oversight through the use of national security letters.
       It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with 
     telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for 
     information on more than 3,000 phone numbers--often without a 
     subpoena, without an emergency or even without an 
     investigative case. In 2006, the FBI then issued blanket 
     letters authorizing many of the requests retroactively, 
     according to agency officials and congressional aides briefed 
     on the effort.
       The disclosures prompted a public apology from FBI Director 
     Robert S. Mueller III and promises of reform from Attorney 
     General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was the focus of a new tide 
     of criticism from Democrats and Republicans already angry 
     about his handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
       ``I am the person responsible,'' Mueller said in a hastily 
     scheduled news conference. ``I am the person accountable, and 
     I am committed to ensuring that we correct these deficiencies 
     and live up to these responsibilities.''
       Democrats and Republicans alike said Gonzales, Mueller and 
     the Bush administration did not properly monitor the FBI and 
     guard the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and legal 
     residents. The report came at the end of a difficult 
     political week for the Bush administration, after the 
     conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff 
     in the CIA leak case and damaging allegations by fired 
     federal prosecutors.
       Top lawmakers raised the possibility that Congress would 
     seek to curb the Justice Department's powers, most likely by 
     placing restrictions on the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism 
     law.
       ``This goes above and beyond almost everything they've done 
     already,'' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among 
     a host of Democrats promising investigative hearings. ``It 
     shows just how this administration has no respect for checks 
     and balances.''
       Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking 
     Republican, told reporters that Congress may ``impose 
     statutory requirements and perhaps take away some of the 
     authority which we've already given to the FBI, since they 
     appear not to be able to know how to use it.''
       Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has 
     been pressing for a review of national security letters since 
     2005, said the report ``confirms the American people's worst 
     fears about the Patriot Act.''
       A national security letter is a type of administrative 
     subpoena that allows the FBI to demand records from banks, 
     credit-reporting agencies and other companies without the 
     supervision of a judge. The Patriot Act significantly 
     expanded the FBI's ability to use them, and a reauthorization 
     of the law last year required the audit that was issued 
     yesterday.
       The findings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were so at 
     odds with previous assertions by the Bush administration that 
     Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters 
     from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements 
     in earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other 
     officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters 
     as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of 
     terrorist attacks.
       One such retraction letter, sent to Specter by Acting 
     Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, sought to 
     correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story 
     about national security letters. ``We have determined that 
     certain statements in our November 23 letter need 
     clarification,'' Hertling wrote.
       Fine's 199-page unclassified report found that the FBI's 
     records showed it issued more than 143,000 requests for 
     information on more than 52,000 people through national 
     security letters from 2003 to 2005. But not only did the 
     agency understate that number in required reports to 
     Congress, the number of requests it issued was much higher.
       Nearly half the people targeted were U.S. citizens or legal 
     residents, and the proportion of such ``U.S. persons'' 
     increased over the three-year period, the report said.
       In examining a small sample of security letters issued by 
     four FBI offices, Fine discovered that the letters were 
     improperly issued about 16 percent of the time. In the sample 
     of 293 letters, the FBI had identified 26 potential 
     violations but missed 22 others, the report said.
       The report also details how, after obtaining sweeping new 
     anti-terrorism powers under the Patriot Act in late 2001, the 
     FBI did not establish basic training and record-keeping 
     procedures to ensure that civil liberties were protected. 
     That kept the agency from giving Congress accurate numbers on 
     how often it used national security letters, the 
     investigation found.
       ``During the time period covered by this review, the FBI 
     had no policy or directive requiring the retention of signed 
     copies of the national security letters or any requirement to 
     upload national security letters to the FBI's case management 
     system,'' the report said.
       The findings are reminiscent of those in previous reports, 
     including many by Fine's office, that have detailed the FBI's 
     chronic inability to keep track of items ranging from guns to 
     laptops to documents related to the Oklahoma City bombing 
     case. Fine determined that the latest violations were not 
     deliberate but that they could be widespread.
       Gonzales described the problems as unacceptable and left 
     open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further 
     investigation.
       ``Once we get that information, we'll be in a better 
     position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken,'' 
     Gonzales said after a speech to privacy officials. ``There is 
     no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are 
     going to make things right as quickly as possible.''
       At the same time, Gonzales stressed that he thinks ``the 
     kinds of errors we saw here were due to questionable judgment 
     or lack of attention, not intentional wrongdoing.'' Mueller 
     said that ``the number of abuses is exceptionally small'' 
     compared with the broad use of national security letters and 
     that ``no one has been damaged'' by the errors.
       Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union, which has sued the government over its use 
     of national security letters, said the report shows the need 
     for an independent investigation of the Justice Department's 
     antiterrorism tactics.
       ``It confirms our greatest suspicions about the abuse of 
     Patriot Act powers and, specifically, national security 
     letter powers,'' Romero said.
       Aside from the findings about national security letters, 
     the report details for the first time a separate kind of 
     emergency letter used in ``exigent circumstances,'' modeled 
     on letters used by New York FBI agents after the Sept. 11, 
     2001, attacks. The 739 emergency letters were issued as part 
     of an agreement with three unidentified telephone companies 
     and requested information with the promise of subpoenas, 
     which rarely materialized, the report said.
       Mueller indicated that ``we stopped the use of these 
     letters'' in May 2006. An FBI official later clarified those 
     comments, saying emergency letters are still used but now 
     promise a national security letter rather than a subpoena 
     sometime in the future.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2007]

Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On--Records Collection Brought Internal 
                     Questions but Little Scrutiny

                 (By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon)

       FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed 
     procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records 
     during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers 
     were expressing escalating concerns about the practice, 
     according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and 
     documents.
       FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 
     2004 but did not closely scrutinize the practice until last 
     year, FBI officials acknowledged. They also did not 
     understand the scope of the problem until the Justice 
     Department launched an investigation, FBI officials said.
       Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, 
     counterterrorism agents last year wrote new letters to phone 
     companies demanding the information the bureau already 
     possessed. At least one senior FBI headquarters official--
     whom the bureau declined to name--signed these ``national 
     security letters'' without including the required proof that 
     the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage 
     investigations, an FBI official said.
       The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands 
     for records, called ``exigent circumstance'' letters, which 
     contained false or undocumented claims. They also included 
     national security letters that were issued without FBI rules 
     being followed. Both types of request were served on three 
     phone companies.
       Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles 
     E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice 
     Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: ``It is . . . 
     difficult to imagine why there should not have been swift and 
     severe consequences for anyone who knowingly signed . . . a 
     letter containing false statements. Anyone at the FBI who 
     knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an obligation to put a 
     stop to it and report it immediately.''
       A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use 
     of the exigency letters ``circumvented'' the law that governs 
     the FBI's access to personal information about U.S. 
     residents.
       The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office 
     after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers 
     that the FBI needed information immediately and would follow 
     up with subpoenas later. There is no basis in the law to 
     compel phone companies to turn over information using such 
     letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents never followed 
     up with the promised subpoenas, he said.
       But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent 
     efforts to legitimize those actions with improperly prepared 
     national security letters last year.
       Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, 
     prompting a news conference at which Director Robert S. 
     Mueller III took responsibility for the lapses. Some 
     lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's 
     expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.
       In a letter to Fine that was released along with the March 
     9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's agents had 
     used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and 
     made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.

[[Page H741]]

       Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such 
     letters this month, although he defended their value and 
     denied that the agency had intentionally violated the law.
       Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but 
     said they involved procedural and documentation failures, not 
     intentional misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller 
     ordered a nationwide audit, which began Friday, to determine 
     if the inappropriate use of exigency letters went beyond one 
     headquarters unit.
       ``We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this 
     sooner, corrections had been made and the process was more 
     transparent,'' FBI Assistant Director John Miller said 
     yesterday.
       Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office 
     used the exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 
     2005 to obtain records related to 3,000 separate phone 
     numbers. FBI officials acknowledged that the process was so 
     flawed that they may have to destroy some phone records to 
     keep them from being used in the future, if the bureau does 
     not find proof they were gathered in connection with an 
     authorized investigation.
       Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes 
     an internal audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview 
     at headquarters Friday.
       Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI 
     in an effort to block some of its data requests, said that if 
     the bureau cannot prove a link between the letters and an 
     ongoing investigation, its requests were ``a total fishing 
     expedition.''
       The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the 
     condition of anonymity because of forthcoming House and 
     Senate hearings on the matter, would speak for the agency.
       Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the 
     letters and why the department did not act more swiftly to 
     halt the practice. Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee copies of all FBI e-mails related 
     to the letters of demand, as well as transcripts of the 
     interviews Fine conducted on the issue.
       The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with 
     Mueller as the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary 
     Committee intends to question Fine and FBI general counsel 
     Valerie Caproni.
       FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the 
     letters at issue were drafted by the Communications Analysis 
     Unit (CAU), which comprises about a dozen people assigned to 
     analyze telephone records and other communications for 
     counterterrorism investigators. They sent the secret requests 
     to three companies--AT&T, Verizon and a third firm whose 
     identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist 
     attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of 
     supplying such records almost instantaneously in a form that 
     its agents can readily examine, according to the report and 
     the senior FBI official.
       In each letter, the FBI asserted that ``due to exigent 
     circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached 
     list of telephone numbers be provided.'' The bureau promised 
     in most of the letters that subpoenas for the same 
     information ``have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's 
     office who will process and serve them formally.''
       But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of 
     the letters were ``not sent in exigent circumstances'' and 
     that ``there sometimes were no open or pending national 
     security investigations tied to the request,'' contrary to 
     what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had actually been 
     requested before the letters were sent. The phone companies 
     nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in 
     anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, 
     FBI officials said.
       The use of such letters was virtually ``uncontrolled,'' 
     said an FBI official who was briefed on the issue in early 
     2005. By that fall, CAU agents had begun creating 
     spreadsheets to track phone records they had collected for a 
     year or more that were not covered by the appropriate 
     documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with 
     officials.
       A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, 
     referring questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter 
     Thonis, who would not confirm nor deny the existence of an 
     FBI contract with his firm, said that ``every day Verizon 
     subpoena units respond to emergency requests from federal, 
     state and local law enforcement for particular calling 
     records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI 
     emergency requests in terrorist matters, and we had every 
     reason to believe they were legitimate emergency 
     situations.''
       The inspector general's report said that the wording of the 
     exigency letters was copied from a standard letter that the 
     FBI's New York office used to obtain urgently needed records 
     after the 2001 terrorist bombings. When officials from that 
     office were later reassigned to create the CAU in Washington, 
     the senior FBI official said, ``they brought their business 
     practices with them'' and continued to use the same letter 
     ``for reasons that I cannot explain.''
       But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make 
     such requests, and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field 
     offices to submit the promised legal follow-up documents. The 
     offices rarely did so speedily, and in many cases ignored the 
     request altogether.
       ``In practice, if you have already got the records, the 
     incentive to do the paperwork is reduced,'' the senior FBI 
     official said.
       When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, 
     Patrice Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal 
     justifications were frequently missing or extremely late, she 
     did not advise agents to ``change their process,'' the senior 
     official said. ``Our advice was instead to . . . use these 
     letters only in true emergencies'' and institute ``covering 
     practices.''
       These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened 
     a related investigation and promptly sent a formal national 
     security letter to provide legal backing for the demand.
       Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised 
     concerns about the tardy legal justifications shortly after 
     he was assigned to the job in early 2005, according to his 
     lawyer, Steve Kohn.
       ``He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he 
     reported that to his chain of command. They defended the 
     procedures and took no action,'' Kohn said, adding that 
     ``their initial response was to deny the scope of the 
     problem.''
       Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was 
     denied a promotion because of discrimination based on his 
     ethnicity.
       Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a 
     meeting at headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau 
     considered a work-around: Its lawyers proposed creating 
     special, catch-all investigative files that could be used to 
     authorize quick phone-records seizures that did not involve 
     open field investigations.
       But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that 
     genuine emergency requests for the records ``were few and far 
     between,'' according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting 
     that was reviewed by The Washington Post, and the idea was 
     never implemented. The account referred to efforts by one of 
     the bureau's top lawyers to brief ``higher ups'' in the 
     agency about the problem.
       ``At some point, they told us there were not that many such 
     letters'' still in use, the senior official said. ``We 
     believed the problem had resolved itself . . . in retrospect, 
     it never got resolved.''
       One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is 
     that Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office 
     did not review until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent 
     circumstances letters sent to the phone companies from 2003 
     to 2005. As a result, they were unaware that some of the 
     letters contained false statements about forthcoming 
     subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.
       Bureau officials ultimately decided to ``clean up'' the 
     problem by writing seven national security letters designed 
     to provide legal backing for all the telephone records 
     requests that still needed it, the senior FBI official said. 
     In every case, these requests in 2006 covered records already 
     in the FBI's possession and lacked the required cover memos 
     spelling out the investigative requirements for the requests.
       At no time did senior FBI officials outside the 
     communications unit attempt to tally how often the exigent 
     circumstances letters had been used, with the result that 
     Mueller and others in senior management did not learn about 
     the scope of the problem until two months ago, when Fine 
     informed them, the senior official said.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we must act now to keep these national security laws in 
place. Time is running out. We have only a few days left to do what we 
need to do to keep America safe. These are commonsense provisions that 
prevent terrorist attacks, protect the American people, and preserve 
civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
commonsense extension.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, tonight I felt compelled to vote against 
extending the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act that 
continue to give the government sweeping authority to spy on 
individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any 
suspicion of wrongdoing. These intrusive and sweeping powers stand in 
stark contrast to the fundamental individual privacy rights enshrined 
in the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. All three surveillance 
provisions are unnecessary, they do not protect us against terrorism, 
and they should have been allowed to expire long ago. I am appalled by 
the blatant disregard for the civil liberties of innocent Americans who 
have absolutely no connection to the global war on terrorism, and I 
look forward to a time when these provisions are no longer the law of 
the land.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 514, a limited 
bill to extend three Patriot Act counterterrorism authorities scheduled 
to expire at the end of this month through December of this year. I do 
so to ensure our intelligence and law enforcement communities continue 
to have the tools they need to protect American citizens while Congress 
works to reform this currently flawed law.
  The authorities being extended in today's legislation include Section 
6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act, also known

[[Page H742]]

as the ``lone wolf'' amendment, which allows surveillance of non-
citizens engaged in international terrorism apart from identified 
terrorist groups; Section 206 of Patriot Act, which permits roving 
surveillance of terrorism suspects who use multiple communication 
devices to thwart detection; and Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which 
compels production of business records and other tangible items upon 
the approval of the FISA court.
  Of these three authorities, the current construction of the Section 
215 ``tangible items'' authority is the most problematic. Specifically, 
the ``relevance'' standard that must be met under this authority is too 
weak. Recipients of Section 215 orders are required to wait a year 
before challenging a nondisclosure order. And the government can use 
secret evidence to oppose judicial challenges to a Section 215 order.
  I believe Section 215 and other Patriot Act authorities should be 
reformed along the lines of Senator Patrick Leahy's USA Patriot Act 
Sunset Extension Act. Additionally, the Justice Department and Congress 
must exercise more oversight over the application of these authorities 
to ensure that they are being exercised responsibly. It is critically 
important that, in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans 
cherish, we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to 
protect.
  Mr. PENCE. I rise in support of H.R. 514 to extend the three expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and 
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Nearly 
ten years removed from the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too 
clear that America is still a nation at war and these expiring 
provisions are still valuable tools in the Global War on Terror.
  I was here at the Capitol on that day. I saw the evil of our enemies 
written in the smoke rising above the Pentagon. We are reminded even 
today that their desire to inflict such violence on our homeland and 
that of our allies is real.
  Just last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano 
testified that the ``threat continues to evolve'' and went on to say 
that the risk of attack ``may be at its most heightened state'' since 
that fateful day in 2001.
  Because we are still a nation at war, I support the extension until 
December 8, 2011 of the three provisions, set to expire on February 28, 
2011.
  The first, Section 206, authorizes the use of roving wiretaps by law 
enforcement after approval from the FISA court. This allows for 
terrorists or spies who throw away their cell phones and change 
locations frequently to be tracked before they can execute an attack. 
Roving wiretaps have been routinely used for decades by domestic law 
enforcement in criminal cases. Quite simply, the USA PATRIOT Act gives 
our national security and intelligence communities the same tools 
provided to local law enforcement and it is an essential tool to fight 
terrorism in the modem world.
  Section 215 authorizes the FBI to ask FISA courts to issue an order 
that allows the FBI to investigate business records related to 
international terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities. With 
this provision at their disposal, the FBI will have a greater 
opportunity to obtain foreign intelligence information. Now some will 
argue that this provision will allow the federal government to spy on 
the business records, internet activities and library accounts of 
ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That is not the case.
  To use Section 215, national security agents need approval from the 
FISA court. The government must demonstrate to the court that the 
business records sought are ``not concerning a United States person,'' 
but in connection with international terrorism. The oversight 
requirements of this provision are very stringent. Every six months, 
the Attorney General must report to Congress on the number of times a 
Section 215 order has been sought, granted, modified or denied.
  The third provision, found in section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorist Protection Act, commonly known as the ``Lone Wolf'' 
provision, allows law enforcement to track those non-U.S. citizens who 
seek to inflict terror under their own initiative, without affiliation 
to common terrorist groups.
  Mr. Speaker, only weeks ago, Members of this body took the oath of 
office and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States, against all enemies. We have the responsibility to uphold that 
pledge, and in doing so, I believe we must equip law enforcement and 
intelligence officials with the tools necessary to protect Americans 
from terrorist attack.
  There is no doubt about America's determination to protect itself and 
this legislation will ensure that our intelligence community--those who 
work tirelessly every day to protect us--have the tools they need to 
prevent the horrors of September 11th from being brought to our soil 
again.
  We must also safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that 
make our lives free and fulfilling. The PATRIOT Act includes strong 
protections for the civil liberties of Americans and continues 
extensive measures for oversight and review of the Department of 
Justice and our intelligence agencies. As a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, I fully understand the need to strike a proper balance 
between security and the rights of the American people, and I believe 
that in extending these provisions, we will do just that.
  I am confident this Congress will continue its oversight duties so 
that we can ensure that every tool available to the intelligence 
community is coupled with safeguards that ensure the civil liberties of 
the American people.
  Our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and safeguard 
their civil liberties, and we will fulfill that duty by passing this 
bill to extend, through December 8th of this year, these crucial 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
  I urge passage.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 79, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am opposed in its current form.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     514, to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of section 1, add the following new subsection:
       (c) Compliance With Constitution.--
       (1) Investigations must comply with constitution.--Each 
     investigation of a United States citizen conducted under an 
     extended authority shall be conducted in a manner that 
     complies with the Constitution of the United States, 
     including the first through tenth amendments to the 
     Constitution of the United States (commonly known as the 
     ``Bill of Rights'').
       (2) Expedited review of violations.--In any civil 
     proceeding before a Federal court that involves an alleged 
     violation of paragraph (1), such court shall expedite such 
     proceeding.
       (3) Extended authority defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``extended authority'' means any authority available 
     under--
       (A) an amendment to section 105(c)(2), 501, or 502 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1805(c)(2), 1861, 1862) that took effect after October 25, 
     2001; or
       (B) section 101(b)(1)(C) of such Act, as amended by section 
     6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
     Act (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3742).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Act gave law 
enforcement some necessary tools to keep up with technological advances 
being used by those who would do harm to our country. It did not 
abolish our responsibility to make sure that the constitutional rights 
of law-abiding citizens are protected.
  This motion to recommit will guarantee that the powers of the Patriot 
Act being voted on today are not used to violate the constitutional 
rights and freedoms of American citizens.
  More specifically, this motion does two important things:
  First, it states a fundamental truth, that even in secret national 
security investigations, Patriot Act investigations of U.S. citizens 
may not circumvent any provision of the United States Constitution. The 
Patriot Act powers are used in secret. As a result, when ordinary 
American citizens are ordered to turn over information to the 
government under these expansive powers, they are prohibited from 
discussing their case in public. The risk of government overreach is at 
its greatest in matters such as these.
  The second section states that if a U.S. citizen argues to a court 
that government spying has violated their constitutional rights, that 
the citizen's case must be expedited. The FISA laws

[[Page H743]]

currently require that when our government seeks a secret court order 
to conduct surveillance of an American citizen, the government's 
request must be expedited by the court. This provision is a basic 
promise of fair and equal treatment, and that the government should not 
have greater rights than the people.
  We took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of 
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our 
obligations to that oath and to the American people we represent are 
put to their greatest test when we consider matters of national 
security and government powers such as the ones before us today.
  I urge all Members who support the freedoms guaranteed by our 
Constitution to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is as straightforward as they come. The 
Patriot Act should be enforced in a manner that doesn't violate 
Americans' constitutional rights, and those who believe their 
constitutional rights have been violated should receive fair and 
equitable treatment by the courts.
  I can't imagine any of my colleagues from either party voting against 
this bedrock principle that the executive branch should respect the 
Constitution when it comes to investigating American citizens. After 
all, each of us took an oath of office last month to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. I know we all take that oath seriously. Indeed, we opened 
this session of the Congress by reading through the U.S. Constitution 
on this floor, an exercise in which I was pleased to participate.
  It's in that same spirit that we offer this motion. For while we have 
differing views on how best to protect our national security, while 
upholding our cherished liberties, and in this case, on whether the 
enhanced authorities in this underlying bill are still needed nearly a 
decade after the September 11 attacks, we should all be able to agree 
that the United States Constitution is our last line of defense in 
cases where an American's civil liberties may be threatened. So, by 
assuring that the exercise of these powers doesn't violate our basic 
constitutional rights, this motion would provide a safety net to 
protect Americans' civil liberties in the absence of a more 
comprehensive review of the Patriot Act.
  The second part of this motion states simply that Americans who 
believe their constitutional rights may have been violated by the 
government should receive the same expedited consideration by the 
courts that the government already receives. How can anyone argue with 
that? Why shouldn't our courts be equally responsive to the concerns of 
American citizens as they are to the concerns of the government, 
especially when an individual believes his constitutional rights have 
been violated. A government of the people, by the people, for the 
people has the utmost responsibility to protect the constitutional 
rights of every individual, especially when it comes to matters of 
national security.
  So this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is simple, straightforward 
and consistent with the bedrock principle of our Republic. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' regardless of their views on the underlying 
bill, to vote ``yes'' as an affirmation of the support of this body for 
our Constitution.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, again, I 
urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit to 
protect our Constitution and the civil rights and the civil liberties 
of the American people, while at the same time making sure we are safe 
from those who may wish harm to us.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise 
in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, yielded the 
Democrats 2 additional minutes, and asked for a copy of the motion to 
recommit so that we could look at it. The gentleman extended that offer 
in good faith.
  We received a copy of this motion to recommit at the time the Clerk 
started reading it, and our offer of good faith was responded to with 
an attempted surprise.
  Now, the underlying bill, H.R. 514, is very simple. All it does is 
extend the authorizations that are about ready to expire until December 
8. It doesn't add to the Patriot Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act. 
It does not subtract from it. It gives the Judiciary Committee the time 
to do the oversight, which is exactly the same thing that I did when I 
was the chairman the last time the sunset expired.
  But there is something else in here that I think is very important, 
and that is that there is a provision that would cause the courts to 
second-guess themselves every time a national security action asked 
them for a business record order. And rather than expediting the 
request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit 
tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the United States 
Government to get money damages under a provision that is in the 
Patriot Act, and that tips it all on its head.
  If the civil rights are violated, there is a provision in this 
Patriot Act that allows people to file a lawsuit and to do all of the 
discovery that needs to be done and to bring the case to trial, and 
they don't need to be expedited. What needs to be expedited is going 
after the terrorists with business records.
  Now, there is a provision in the motion to recommit that says that 
the Constitution has to be followed. We don't need to put things in the 
statute book that says the Constitution needs to be followed. That's 
the supreme law of the land. This is completely redundant. It is 
unnecessary. And, frankly, the Constitution has been followed in the 
Patriot Act, because there has been no finding of unconstitutionality 
of any of the 17 provisions. Where there was a preliminary finding in 
the business records section, we amended the law and the plaintiffs 
dropped their suit. We fixed the problem, to the approval of the 
plaintiffs who filed this suit.
  So we ought to get on with this. We're going to have these hearings. 
We are going to have the time to have these hearings. And all of the 
gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have my commitment now, as 
they did 9 years ago and as they did 5 and 6 years ago, that the 
hearings will be thorough, they will be comprehensive, and they will 
allow everybody to speak their piece.
  Vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the 
Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, 
nays 234, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               YEAS--186

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez

[[Page H744]]


     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berkley
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Clarke (NY)
     Culberson
     Giffords
     Harman
     Payne
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1855

  Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mrs. BIGGERT, and Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado and 
JOHNSON of Illinois changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ALTMIRE, JONES, HINCHEY, Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. CLEAVER changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 275, 
noes 144, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               AYES--275

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--144

     Amash
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hultgren
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis

[[Page H745]]


     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass (CA)
     Berkley
     Burton (IN)
     Clarke (NY)
     Culberson
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Harman
     Johnson (GA)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1903

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________