[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.

                          ____________________