[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H951-H957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 514, EXTENDING
COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 93
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table 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, with the
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered
by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his
designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The
Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The motion
shall be debatable for one hour, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and thoughtful Rules
Committee colleague, the gentleman from Boulder, Mr. Polis, pending
which I yield myself such time as I my consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, by a vote of 274-144, the
House passed a temporary 10-month extension to the Patriot Act, the
three provisions that are scheduled to expire within one legislative
day from now. One legislative day from now. We all know that we're
going to be going into a district work period beginning tomorrow
afternoon, so we have one legislative day left to deal with this issue.
And yesterday, by a vote of 86-12, our colleagues in the Senate chose
to take the 10-month extension that we had and turn that into a 90-day
extension.
Now, I think there's bipartisan consensus that we need to have Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Lungren, other members of the Judiciary Committee,
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and others
involved in this take a very close look at the need to deal with both
the national security implications as well as the civil liberties
implications of the extension of the Patriot Act.
I just had a meeting with Mr. Sensenbrenner in which we were talking
about the fact that when we first put the Patriot Act into effect, he
and I were together in saying there needed to be sunset provisions
because we didn't want to legislate through the prism of September 11
without ensuring that this House and the other body would expend the
time and energy and effort looking at all of the ramifications of the
Patriot Act, because it was unprecedented. But I believe that as we
look at where we are today, the Patriot Act has been a very, very
important tool in ensuring that we have not seen what so many people
expected would happen after September 11, and that is repeated attacks
on our country. We have had attempts, we all know that. But we all
thank God that we have been able to successfully prevent those attempts
to attack us from coming to fruition. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that
the existence of the Patriot Act has played a role in that.
Having said that, I am a self-described small L libertarian
Republican. I believe in recognizing the civil liberties of every
American, and I think that that's a priority that does need to be
addressed. And I also recognize that sacrifices have to be made when
you're dealing with the kinds of threats that we face. And so striking
that balance is not an easy thing to do, and Messrs. Sensenbrenner and
Lungren and others, Mr. Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
I believe, are going to, in the next 90 days, do a lot of work in
ensuring that the concerns that have been put before us are addressed.
And so, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that we don't see the expiration of
these very important three provisions of the Patriot Act, I'm going to
urge my colleagues to support this rule that will allow us to simply
accept the language that the Senate has passed with a 90-day extension,
and move ahead just as expeditiously as possible so that our colleagues
will be able to get to work in addressing the concerns that are out
there.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, it's important to talk about what this bill
would do and how the Patriot Act really cuts to the heart of what it
means to be American, that sensitive balance that we have between
protecting what makes it special to be an American, our rights as
individuals, our civil liberties, balancing that with the need for
national security.
{time} 1220
I am opposed to the rule and the bill. We need to have law
enforcement make sure that it has the provisions it needs to combat the
very real threat of terrorism. However, the Patriot Act strikes that
balance in the wrong way. But rather than actually debating the merits
of the provisions and coming up with solutions that I think we can
agree on with both sides of the aisle, as we have done in the past, the
Republican leadership is forcing this through without the proper debate
or transparency. In spite of their plethora of
[[Page H952]]
promises to change the culture of Congress, here we are without a
single hearing on this topic, without a classified briefing for Members
so we know what has and hasn't been done under the Patriot Act.
Specifically, we are discussing the continuation of three provisions
of the Patriot Act. We have the lone wolf provision, which relates to
foreign nationals in our country that are not specifically connected to
a foreign terrorist network or foreign government or represent a
security threat. We have the roving wiretap provision, again
particularly problematic in how it's been designated where you don't
have to even designate whose phone you are tapping or the area in which
the phone is being tapped. All that has to be shown is that it might be
a phone that is used by somebody who might be considered a suspect by
someone without any oversight with regard to that matter. There's
nothing to restrict it from being used to tap the phones of an entire
neighborhood, an entire block, an entire city.
Has it been used for that? I don't know, because we haven't had yet a
classified briefing on this matter. I certainly hope, and it's been
stated in our prior debate on this, that it was the intention of our
colleagues on the other side to hold hearings and a classified briefing
prior to the 90-day period in which this expires.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. One question I would have is February 25 of last year is
when the 12-month extension was put into place. How many hearings or
classified briefings were held for Members during the past 12 months
before this February 25 expiration?
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, again, I would hope and I know that
the gentleman and the chair of the Rules Committee's intentions and
goals, as are the Speaker's, are more transparency in this Congress.
And I don't think it's particularly helpful to cite what may be a
failure of the Democrats to deliver on reforming the Patriot Act and
say, therefore, we don't have to succeed either in reforming the
Patriot Act.
I want to discuss the importance of this vote. We all agree that this
affects our national security and the civil liberties of Americans. And
yet, unfortunately, from a process perspective, we have reverted back
to getting this through first on a suspension vote, then on a long-term
extension, and now on a short-term extension.
Again, there is no doubt that the short-term extension is favorable
to a long-term extension from those of us who have legitimate concerns,
and I think there is even a bipartisan consensus that these concerns
are legitimate about the overreach of the Patriot Act. We will have, as
a result of this, a 90-day period to try to work through, in a
bipartisan, way some of our concerns and make sure that we protect what
is special about being Americans. We had an emergency meeting of the
Rules Committee late last night, which was the second emergency meeting
for this bill alone. Again, I think we all knew coming into this
Congress that these provisions were set to expire. There would have
been time for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and even a
markup with regard to this bill, because they have held hearings with
regard to other bills. They were constituted. They held hearings on
immigration, on abortion, on other topics. And I think that, regardless
of where one stands on this bill, it rises to the level of importance
for American citizens that we do strike the right balance between
security and protection of civil liberty.
If House Republicans are going to honor the promise of openness and
transparency, we must make sure that they do schedule the hearings and
markups that are necessary to have a proper debate of this bill. Now,
this new version before us today, the short-term CR, provides a window
for that; and I am hopeful that the chairs of the respective committees
of jurisdiction and subcommittees will be able to offer some assurances
to members of both parties that are concerned that this 90-day period
will be used to improve upon the bill, to hold hearings on the bill,
and offer classified briefings for Members so we can determine exactly
how these authorities have been used. Only after the initial effort to
push this bill through under suspension failed did Republican
leadership bring it to the floor under a closed rule. New Members have
not even had a classified briefing, nor have I, the Members from last
session, so it's hard for us to understand exactly how these
authorities that are delegated are being used.
It is clear that there's bipartisan support to improve this law. In
fact, even as we speak, the Senate is debating several versions of the
long-term reauthorization bill, and I think there's a very legitimate
and important security concern in support of long-term reauthorization
so law enforcement can plan accordingly and have long-term planning
with regard to exactly what powers and the balances they have with
protecting civil liberties they will have.
I think we can all agree a 90-day extension is not the right answer.
It's not the right answer for law enforcement. It's not the right
answer for protecting our civil liberties. It may be an answer that
affords us a chance to get it right, and I would call upon members of
both parties to work hard to do that.
Apart from the procedural flaws with the process, the Patriot Act is
a bill that really has been plagued with abuse since it was first
passed. After 10 years of public record, there are some clear sections
of the law that need to be improved. And yet here we are again. Instead
of debating those sections of the law and finding solutions we can
agree on, we are facing an up-or-down vote on this bill with very
little debate.
This reauthorization fails to provide the administration with the
tools and predictability it needs to fully protect and defend our
Nation. The administration supports a permanent reauthorization and has
asked for a real one, and I think they are willing to work with us in
this body on improving the Patriot Act.
So this bill fails both to please the advocates pushing to reform the
Patriot Act and also fails to provide for the administration, whose job
it is to protect our country.
Again, we ask why is the Republican Party jamming this bill through
here, today, instead of debating a real bill that would improve our
national security.
This bill before us today specifically reauthorizes three provisions
of the Patriot Act. Section 215 allows the government to capture any
tangible thing, any business record that might be relevant to a
terrorist investigation. That can include medical records, a diary,
even, in one case, books that have been checked out of a library. There
was a library where somebody checked out a book about Osama bin Laden,
and who that person was was reported on.
In the past, these orders were limited to certain classes of
businesses and records and also required that we show specific facts
that pertain to an agent of a foreign power. And if the Patriot Act is
stripped away of those basic requirements, that's something I think
that every American who values privacy should be concerned about.
This section 215 goes against the basic constitutional notions of
search and seizure. We began this session of Congress by reading the
Constitution on the floor of the House, and this really comes at the
very core identity of what it means to be an American.
The government, under our Constitution, is required to show
reasonable suspicion or probable cause before they can infringe upon an
American's privacy. We should seriously consider making changes to this
section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to
secretly spy on its citizens.
Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government
to conduct the roving wiretaps. These allow the government to obtain
surveillance warrants that don't even specify a certain person or an
object that's going to be tapped. Another problem with this is the
Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which again I'm sure all my
colleagues are familiar with, having read it on the floor of the House.
It states that warrants must specify the person and places to be seized
and searched with particularity. This is to make sure the executive
branch doesn't have unfettered power to decide single-handedly who and
how to search private citizens and seize their property.
[[Page H953]]
The Founding Fathers were concerned and worried about the possibility
of a central government authority issuing general warrants that would
give it far-reaching power to spy on its citizens and intervene in
their private lives. That's an American value that we share today, and
I think it's critical to craft protections for our privacy as Americans
that can be consistent with the need to secure our country before
authorizing the government such overwhelming power.
The final section would be the lone wolf provision, which allows
secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. These are foreign
citizens who are here legally, even if they are not connected to a
terrorist group or foreign power. So, again, this authority is only
granted in a secret court.
So from our perspective in Congress, without having had the benefit
of a classified briefing, it's very difficult for us to exercise any
meaningful oversight on a provision when we're not aware of how or if
it's been used.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have said in numerous
debates that they are worried about the growth of government. Yet, in
spite of the recent rhetoric about how the government is trying to take
control over our lives, this bill, their fifth bill under rules since
taking control of the House, actually gives the government the ability
to spy on innocent Americans.
{time} 1230
No wonder so many Republicans joined Democrats in voting against this
bill earlier this week. I encourage my colleagues to continue standing
strong for civil liberties.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I just was talking to our first-rate staff here saying that the last
statement my friend just made is just plain wrong. This bill does not
allow the government to spy on innocent Americans.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished
chair of the Crime Subcommittee, that the notion of claiming that we
could have had full hearings before we dealt with this expiration is
preposterous. The Judiciary Committee organized about 2 weeks ago, and
the expiration date, the 1-year expiration date that was established
last February 25 provided that entire year, and there was not a single
hearing.
I wasn't being critical of the majority. But what I am being critical
of is to come here and now point the finger at us and saying, why
haven't hearings and briefings been held on this issue before we deal
with the extension? The extension is set to come to pass in one
legislative day. We are going to deal with a 90-day extension that is
before us that the Senate passed by that 86-12 number, and I think it
is very clear that we have to do our work.
The person who is going to lead this effort is the former chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, who
is ready in the next 90 days to take this measure on with great
enthusiasm. I would like to yield him 3 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from San Dimas,
and I just want to reiterate the point that my friend from Colorado is
so, so wrong. We have heard most of these arguments in the three times
this bill has been on the floor in the last 9 days.
I want to say again, first of all, the Judiciary Committee under my
chairmanship reported out a Patriot Act unanimously in October of 2001,
and that ranged from people like Maxine Waters on the left to Bob Barr
on the right. We did reform the Patriot Act in 2005 when it came up for
renewal last time, and I fulfilled my promise, number one, to oppose a
premature elimination of the sunset, and, number two, to have hearings
on each of the then 17 expanded provisions of law enforcement that were
sunsetted at that time.
Fourteen out of the 17, there was no complaint about. Even the
American Civil Liberties Union testified on behalf of the fact that
there were no abuses whatsoever in those 14. There was concern about
the three that are in the underlying bill today, and at the insistence
of the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, we put a sunset on it.
That expired in 2009, and there have been two extensions that were
voted on by the then-Democrat Congress, but they really didn't get at
what the complaints of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Polis, have
been.
This bill has been used by its opponents as a way of expressing
frustration with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that have
nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and it is kind of like a bait and
switch or putting up a straw man and then attacking the straw man,
because they really can't attack the real man, which is the Patriot Act
and what is up for extension.
None of these three provisions have been held unconstitutional by a
court. There hasn't even been a challenge to the roving wiretaps, and
there hasn't been a challenge to the lone wolf provision that is also
up for renewal. When there was a challenge to section 215, business
records, or for that matter library records, the reforms that I wrote
and which we passed in 2005 corrected them to the extent that those who
were filing the constitutional challenge against it withdrew their
complaint after we fixed what they were complaining about.
Now the gentleman from Colorado and the other opponents of the
Patriot Act are complaining for the sake of complaining. They are
saying that there has been a violation of civil liberties. There hasn't
been. No court has found that there has been a violation of civil
liberties.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. On none of these provisions that are up for
renewal has there really been any meritorious complaint. There has been
this great big fear that civil liberties have been violated, but when
you get down to the facts, no court has found that civil liberties have
been violated.
I really would hope that we could debate these issues without all of
the smokescreen of the other sins, real or imagined, by law
enforcement, and particularly by the FBI, and maybe we could get to a
rational debate on what this bill does. But the arguments I have heard
from the gentleman from Colorado and other opponents of this rule and
this bill simply miss the mark. You are now up to strike four, I would
say to the gentleman from Colorado. Let's retire the side.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond. Absolutely the Patriot
Act can be used to investigate and find out private records from
innocent Americans, and we say that because section 215 can be used for
any information relevant to an investigation. It doesn't need to be
from the subject of an investigation. It can be Internet records, what
they buy at a bookstore, what they get at a library.
The Judiciary Committee has had time to have 10 hearings this year.
It is just none of them have happened to be on this particular topic.
Apparently it is not important enough to discuss. How are we to know
whether violations have occurred if we don't have the benefit of a
classified briefing before making this vote?
Saying no court has found or there haven't been reported violations,
well, that is because all of this is hush-hush and secret, as some of
it needs to be, and I would agree. But for us to execute our oversight
function, you can't just simply say there haven't been abuses because
we don't know about them. We have to find out about what has been going
on under this law and execute our judgment as an elected body
representing our country to decide whether there have or haven't been
abuses.
I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
I first want to respond to some of the things that I just heard
before I give my statement, if I may. The majority has promised that
after we vote on this, we will have some hearings. We are told they are
going to be rigorous and fair, and we are reminded of the many hearings
held by Mr. Sensenbrenner during the 2005 reauthorization.
Well, first, in the 111th Congress we held the hearings before we
marked up the Patriot Act, before we asked Members to vote on the bill,
not after. We
[[Page H954]]
have new Members in the body who have never voted on the Patriot Act,
have never been briefed on how these authorities are used. It is simply
not responsible to make them vote when they don't know what they are
voting on.
Second, the majority's nostalgia for 2005 has colored their memories
a bit. While they remember a careful and thorough process, I remember
being forced to hold minority hearings so all perspectives could be
heard. I remember hearings being gaveled to a close before they were
over. I remember a subcommittee chairman walking out of the hearing
while Members were raising points of order. I remember microphones
being turned off on Democrat members, including one of my fellow
Members from New York, while they were speaking. I remember being
forced to convene a hearing on something like 2 days' notice as the
power to schedule the committee was abused. So I don't know how to take
these current promises of openness and a fair procedure.
Third, while there has been so much talk today on the floor about
using the coming hearings to reform the Patriot Act, we know that is
simply not what is going to happen. My friends in the majority have
already stated their views on the question. Last Congress, Chairman
Smith proposed a 10-year extension with no changes or reforms to the
underlying law. In 2005, Mr. Sensenbrenner proposed a permanent
extension, and they have a bill for that right now in the Senate.
Indeed, if there were any will in the majority party to reform these
provisions, that would have happened in the last Congress. The Democrat
majority worked for months to forge a compromise but got no Republican
support. So I don't expect the coming hearings to be part of any kind
of reform process. I expect them to be heavy on political theater
designed to make these powers permanent. That, no doubt, is why this
extension is timed to force the next vote into the presidential primary
season; to raise the political stakes.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the 16 provisions were set to expire
in 5 years is because they were deemed too invasive of our civil
liberties, possibly invasive enough to be used to violate the very
freedoms that our young men and women in uniform too often die
protecting. These provisions provide the government with exceptional
powers of search, seizure, and surveillance, often without the due
process that our Constitution guarantees us.
{time} 1240
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Nearly 10 years later, we continue to reauthorize
these provisions without a blink of the eye. The idea of these measures
always was that they would be temporary. And yet to see the process
under which we deliberate them, it seems they would last forever.
Seeking no input or deliberation of any point in this bill's
consideration and instead choosing to blindly move forward is a rather
sad testament to the majority's view of an open process.
Ultimately, this is no way to consider a piece of legislation that
has such far-reaching and profound implications for our civil liberties
as this does. Yet the majority seeks to simply kick the can down the
road, all the while stifling the rigorous debate with which these
deserve and need to be scrutinized.
We would do well to remember that these provisions were passed into
law in the frantic weeks after September 11, 2001, without our
understanding of their potential impact and benefit. And that is why we
created a sunset review in the first place and why we need thorough
review as long as we keep these incredible powers in place.
Make no mistake, they are incredible powers. We're not patching a
run-of-the-mill program here. These are powers that will allow the
government to continue to access business records, conduct roving
wiretaps, and monitor American citizens. The intrusive nature of these
provisions that the majority seeks to whisk through would leave our
Founding Fathers aghast at the willful erosion of the civil liberties
they enshrined for us. Our swearing into office is an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution. However, many Members of the House voted
against the Constitution when this came on the floor last week. This
process, lacking a serious review of far-reaching and invasive
provisions, does not live up to that standard.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
against the underlying measure.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my
hardworking colleague, the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr.
Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether we're in an episode of ``Alice in
Wonderland'' here or not. Just because you say something is true
doesn't make it true.
The gentlelady just spoke a moment ago and said we need to look at
this; we need to scrub this. And yet she is asking her colleagues to
vote against the rule to not even allow this to be brought up. What's
the conclusion of that? What's the intimation of that? That we should
allow these provisions to expire. Not that we would have time to look
at it, but they would expire, one legislative day left.
There are three major provisions in our effort to fight against
terrorists. These are the provisions that initially were put under a
sunset by the gentleman from Wisconsin when he was chairman of the
committee. And then later on when we redid, reviewed, and reformed
provisions of this, I authored and brought forward the extension with
the sunsets on these three provisions. So I find it interesting to have
my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us what we were doing
and tell us now that there has been a proven unconstitutionality or
unconstitutional basis for these three provisions.
Interestingly enough, they refer to the lone wolf provision. That was
known when it was first passed as the Schumer-Kyl provision. Now, some
people may not be aware that those are two Senators, Members of the
other body, I would say probably extending from the left to the right.
Why did they put that in? Because we believe that we were actually
burdening ourselves in a way that would not allow us to find out about
terrorism before it was actually carried out.
The lone wolf provision recognizes that the greatest threat we have
today are, as was said by the two cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, less
consequential attacks; meaning attacks on a smaller scale than that we
saw on 9/11, still meant to do grievous harm to Americans, to cause us
to see the loss of life, to do tremendous fiscal damage to this
country, yet with smaller cells or even from individuals.
Do we have to be reminded of what happened on that Christmas Day a
couple of years ago? That was a lone wolf, even though these provisions
wouldn't apply because he's an American citizen. Major Hasan was a lone
wolf. Just to prove the point that we have to be concerned about lone
wolves.
The other two provisions, the business records and the roving
wiretaps, I'd like to talk about those because there's been so much
misunderstanding, misstatements.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I actually observed a Member of
the other body this morning on television saying the reason that he
voted against these extensions was that under the Constitution he
believes that one ought to have a warrant so there's intervention of a
third party that is a judicial officer. Well, these two provisions, the
business records provision and the roving wiretap provisions, require
the government to go to the FISA court to get permission to carry out
those elements directed at any individual.
And so let's just make sure we know what we're talking about here.
We're talking about two provisions that require the government to go
before the FISA court to get permission to utilize those provisions in
their investigation. And the third part deals with the lone wolf
definition, and the lone wolf requirement is needed now more than it
was when it first passed because of the difference in the threat to us
that has
[[Page H955]]
been recognized by our intelligence agencies and by the 9/11 Commission
and, most recently, by Secretary Napolitano.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House has told us
that their decisions are guided by two principles: first, loyalty to
the Constitution; and, second, a belief that the government is too
large and too intrusive. Well, here's their chance to act on these
principles, because the Patriot Act provisions we are voting on today
represent Big Brother at its creepiest and most invasive. They are a
clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, ``The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. No, sir.
Mr. Speaker, for close to a decade now we've been told that our civil
liberties must be shredded in the name of a so-called war on terrorism.
We've been told that the national security imperatives of the moment
are so great and so different than any we face in our history that we
must submit to roving wiretaps and that we must empower the government
to retain ``any tangible thing'' related to a terrorism investigation.
``Any tangible thing''--that gives the government pretty broad
discretion to ferret out just about whatever they want. It is an
invitation to overreach and abuse. I believe it has stifled freedom
more than it has advanced it.
There is a real incoherence to an approach that says we have to do
violence to our Nation's values in order to protect them. Benjamin
Franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200
years ago when he said, ``Any society that would give up a little
liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''
I believe we must let these provisions expire. And let's not stop
there. Let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and
national security, a debate that revises and ultimately repeals the
Patriot Act.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I was sorry that my friend would not yield to the distinguished chair
of the subcommittee. He was simply going to ask her what provisions of
the Patriot Act have been determined to be unconstitutional. The answer
is: Not one.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want my friend from Wisconsin to know
that I don't denigrate his service on this. We have a different way of
looking at this.
I believe the Patriot Act represents the cracked domestic crown jewel
of a disastrous global war on terror which led us to attack Iraq based
on lies, invade Afghanistan based on a misreading of history, indulge
in occupations which having fueled insurgencies, expand war to Pakistan
and other countries, demonstrating a total lack of common sense. So the
Patriot Act issues from a pestiferous soil laced with lies and
distortions.
{time} 1250
We've created a national security state which threatens our
Constitution and weakens our basic liberties. This is not about whether
you're Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, but whether we
can actually realize that we have been sold a bill of goods, lies about
WMDs, and questions about the nature of an anthrax attack, which caused
us all too willingly to limit our civil liberties.
I joined other Members of Congress in approving the United States in
its launching of attacks on the training camps after 9/11 because we
have a right to respond and defend ourselves. We also have an
obligation to defend the Constitution. We have an obligation to defend
the truth. Freedom isn't free, and we shouldn't freely give our
freedoms away.
Francis Scott Key wrote the Star-Spangled Banner. Remember these
words: ``O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land
of the free and the home of the brave?'' He connected freedom and
democracy.
We have to be courageous to stand up for this Constitution. I believe
my colleagues on the Republican side are courageous Americans and are
good Americans, but I want to say we have to look at the context in
which the Patriot Act was passed, and we have to, from that context,
challenge the Patriot Act.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman of California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. CHU. I rise today to oppose this rule. The underlying bill will
extend provisions of the Patriot Act that continue to deny Americans
their civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, we should not be extending these provisions. We should
be fixing them. A delay even of 3 months will only incur more
violations of the civil rights of American citizens.
Take the so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' which allow our government to
spy on a nebulous array of people and technology. If the FBI wants to
wiretap a phone, they don't even have to know who they're listening to.
They don't even have to get a court's permission to tap a phone before
they start listening.
Now, last year, I voted on a bill that would at a minimum require the
government to name the place or person they want to listen to. But does
this bill include that simple protection? No.
These provisions, including the provision to allow the FBI to access
your private information, even the books that you read, make a mockery
of our civil liberties--letting the government spy on whomever they
want for any reason without letting Americans know or without giving
them a chance to challenge that order in court.
It has been a full decade since these overly broad provisions were
passed, and I don't think we should extend them without commonsense
changes. We need to fix them and fix them now and protect American
privacy and personal information from government overreach.
So I urge the other side to come back to the table and work with us
on a bill that protects our national security without undermining
Americans' civil liberties and constitutional rights. And if they can't
find a way to work with us on a bipartisan basis to protect the
American people, then all of my colleagues should oppose this rule and
the underlying bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this Patriot Act really speaks to our very core identity
as Americans.
How do we balance what makes it special to be an American--with our
unprecedented levels of rights that we enjoy, our privacy as
individuals, our civil liberties--and reconcile that with staying safe
in an incredibly complex world?
I think it is critical for any of us who are concerned about the
unchecked growth of this state, those of us who seriously believe in
protecting the rights and liberties of Americans, to seriously look at
these issues and debate them. A ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill is
the first step towards accomplishing that.
The House was in session late into the night, as it likely will be
again tonight, on a very important topic: cutting spending. I've put
several suggestions forward. I appreciate this process which has
enabled Members to come up with how we are going to cut. There have
been a lot of great ideas that have been submitted through amendments.
I would submit that this Patriot Act and balancing our civil liberties
with our security is as important a topic with regard to what it means
to be an American as is making cuts in our budget.
I voted against the adjournment resolution yesterday. I think that,
if we were in session next week and put the time into solving the
issues under the Patriot Act that we're putting into making budget
cuts, we would be able to come to a consensus that protects our civil
liberties and that also keeps Americans safe from the threat of
terrorism.
[[Page H956]]
The majority argues that we must pass this extension now without any
process. It has also been alluded to that there were not hearings in
the last Congress. There actually were. The Judiciary Committee held
two hearings on the Patriot Act in 2009. It has been said, Oh, there
hasn't been time to hold hearings in this Congress because the
Judiciary Committee just constituted itself. Well, they found time to
hold 10 hearings on items that have not even come to the floor. So
surely there would have been time for one hearing on an item that
everybody knew was going to expire and needed to be dealt with.
Those of us who joined Congress in the last session as well as our
new Members this session, many of whom are on the other side of the
aisle, have not had any classified briefings on how this authority that
has been given to the Federal Government has been used.
How can we exercise meaningful oversight with regard to these three
provisions of the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act in general, if we
are not given the benefit of finding out exactly how these broad powers
that have been given to the Federal Government have been used?
If this passes today--and I expect it might--it is critical that we
take the next 90 days to make sure that Congress can properly execute
its oversight upon the next need for renewing the necessary provisions
of the Patriot Act. There is a window of time that will afford the
Judiciary Committee to do its work in a bipartisan way, which is to
include other Members through a classified briefing to find out how and
when the powers under the Patriot Act have been used, so that Members
of this body can make an informed decision, an informed decision about
how to move forward in 90 days in protecting our rights as Americans
and in protecting our security as Americans. The two are not
irreconcilable, and we cannot sacrifice what makes it special to be an
American in the name of security--or the terrorists will have won.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material in the Record on H. Res. 93.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are where we are. The Senate took our 10-month
extension that we passed by a vote of 274-144, and decided to offer a
90-day extension, which passed by an 86-12 vote.
Even before we saw this extension, the gentleman from Menomonee
Falls, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee and the former chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, had made a commitment that he will proceed
very vigorously in the next 90 days to deal with the questions that my
friend has raised.
I think that many of the questions that have been raised are valid.
That's why it is that we need to have this extension, which is
scheduled to expire in one legislative day if we take no action,
because I think everyone can acknowledge that the Patriot Act has
played a role in keeping the United States of America safe.
My two colleagues and I have joined from the get-go in saying that
they should not have made this measure permanent, because we were
legislating through the prism of September 11 at the outset. We felt
very strongly that recognizing the civil liberties of every single
American has to continue to be a very, very top priority while we look
at what, I think, are the five most important words in the middle of
the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which are ``providing for the
common defense.''
In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson made it very clear
when he said that a wise and true government shall restrain men from
injuring one another.
That is why our security has to be of paramount importance, but it
doesn't mean it is done at the expense of civil liberties and the
rights of every American.
Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The gentleman who chairs the Crime
Subcommittee is absolutely dedicated within the next 90 days of
pursuing that as vigorously as possible.
{time} 1300
I will say that when this extension that we're faced with right now
was passed, last February 25, 1 year ago, that brought to an end any
discussion, any hearings. That brought to an end any hearings through
the entire rest of that Congress once the extension was put into place.
I will say that any Member who wants a classified briefing can
request it, and so the opportunity for classified briefings on the
Patriot Act or any other measure is there for Members of this body.
So, Mr. Speaker, it's clear to me, we have a 90-day extension that
has come back from the Senate. It will expire in one legislative day.
We want Mr. Sensenbrenner to begin working with Mr. Lungren and others
who have spent so much time and energy in dealing with the questions of
the lone wolf and roving wiretaps and all that. We need to have that
addressed as quickly possible.
So let's do it, let's do it now, let's pass this thing in a
bipartisan way and get it done.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254,
nays 176, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 45]
YEAS--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
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
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
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
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
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
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
[[Page H957]]
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--176
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--3
Giffords
Markey
Speier
{time} 1329
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, WALZ of Minnesota, Ms. BASS of
California, Messrs. BACA, LABRADOR, BUTTERFIELD, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs.
COURTNEY and MURPHY of Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. ADERHOLT, DUNCAN of Tennessee, BILBRAY, LoBIONDO, BARTLETT,
MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. CARDOZA, HELLER,
JONES, BARLETTA, CRAVAACK, ROGERS of Alabama, RAHALL, BUCSHON,
BILIRAKIS, GRIMM, FRELINGHUYSEN and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________