[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 74 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3746-H3750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PATRIOT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to be recognized to
address you here on the floor of the United States House of
Representatives and this great deliberative body that we have, and
especially immediately in the aftermath of this historic vote that has
just gone up on the Patriot Act.
As we have debated this and worked with an amendment process and
negotiations that took place in the Senate, we got down to the last
minutes here. And I presume final passage of the Patriot Act is now on
its way to the President's desk to be signed tonight so that there's
not a window of vulnerability with regard to the intelligence that we
can gather against our enemies that are evermore coming into the United
States and plotting against us globally.
This is an issue that emerged when we saw our vulnerabilities in the
immediate aftermath of September 11. And as that was dealt with here in
this Congress--and I will say that of pieces of legislation that have
been passed in a relative emergency situation, the Patriot Act among
them stands out as something that came together with--it was clearly a
bipartisan effort to put the Patriot Act language together; it was done
so with the information that we had at the time. Some of that
information was gathered in a hasty fashion--the smoke was certainly
rolling up out of Ground Zero in New York while the Patriot Act was
passed here in the House of Representatives.
It was also passed with the idea that it had sunsets on it so it
required reauthorization so that Congress would come back and have
oversight over the authority that was granted in the Patriot Act to do
surveillance. For example, roving wire taps. Clear back in the 1980s it
was understood with cell phones that when investigators were
investigating organized crime, for example, the Mob had it figured out
[[Page H3747]]
where they could pick up a cell phone, use it for a while, dispose of
it, go grab another cell phone, use it for a while and dispose of it.
The old wiretap laws that would allow for a judge to grant a warrant to
tap a land line at, say, a residence or a business of the suspected
mobster were archaic in the 1980s because of cell phone emergence, and
so Congress acted and provided for the roving wiretap for
investigations domestically. But it didn't cover the investigations
that had to do with noncitizens and terrorist activities, and so that's
something that the Patriot Act addressed.
As I look at the components of the Patriot Act one after another, it
comes down to this: That the constitutional protections that are there
for the individuals that are being investigated are equal to or greater
than those protections for American citizens in domestic investigations
unrelated to terrorist charges. So the roving wiretap is a piece that
was a natural, that had to be part of the Patriot Act, and it is. And
we also have the FISA courts, the special courts that evaluate the
investigations and yield a judgment as to whether they're in
compliance. The national security letters, of which there have only
been about 300 requested national security letters--yes, there is a
confidentiality that's attached to that. If a Federal agent goes into
an entity and issues a national security letter, first of all, that's
reported later on to the court, and the individual or the company
that's required to produce that information is bound by confidentiality
for obvious reasons. If Osama bin Laden or Zarqawi or any of the
plotting terrorists were planning against the United States, the
subject of the investigation, they would be tipped off. They would be
tipped off on the national security letter request, which means the
investigation would be blown up by that lack of confidentiality, the
lone wolf piece of this.
So there is piece after piece of the Patriot Act that has stood up
very well. And one of the people that has stood up on this issue that
understands this very thoroughly, and one of the people who is on the
Select Committee on Intelligence--which will prevent her from talking
about some of the things that are confidential because of the deep
intelligence knowledge that goes on in a secure room in this Capitol--
is my friend from Minnesota whom I would like to yield to, Michele
Bachmann.
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
This is a very important issue and a very important vote that we have
just taken here in the House Chamber. It is dealing with the Patriot
Act. We have had calls, we have had requests on our Facebook, Twitter,
and in our emails urging a ``no'' vote tonight on the Patriot Act. I
cast a ``yes'' vote on this act. The Patriot Act did pass. This is why.
This is an authorization for the next several years in three areas. One
is the lone wolf exception. We have a new war, a new enemy, new
tactics. The lone wolf is one actor acting alone. And if we get a tip,
it may be at the last minute, and we've got to go in for national
security reasons and find that actor. That is an appropriate use of
gaining this intelligence and information.
Number two, roving wiretaps. We have changed from the days of
telephones being wired into the walls; now we use a cell phone. A lot
of modern terrorists will buy a thousand ``go'' phones. They'll make
one call, use a cell phone, throw it away like it's a disposable phone,
pick up another cell phone, make another call. So we have to have the
ability to be able to go to whichever phone a potential alleged
terrorist may be using.
Now the third exception is the business records section; this is
section 215. This is the section that most people have the greatest
worries about. They worry about the infringement of Fourth Amendment
rights. I worry about that too. I spent all week this week going to
Members who I felt would oppose the Patriot Act. I went to people who
are national voices who oppose the Patriot Act to find out what their
concerns were, because I'm a lawyer. I genuinely am concerned about
making sure that we never cross the line as a Federal Government.
{time} 2010
Why? Because I think government is too big. I think we intervene too
much in people's lives. I certainly don't want to give the government
the unfettered right to go in and access my personal private records.
This is what I know to be true about section 215 and why I could vote
for it.
Number one, no right of gaining access to records can be given unless
a Federal agent goes to a judge first. They have to go to the FISA
court. Also, there has to be a connection to national security
interests or to a foreign government. We've got that level of
protection. When they go and make these requests, of which there have
been 300-some requests, then they can go and they can gain access to a
record.
Now, these are business records. These aren't records in my basement
or your basement. These are records that a company has, like a phone
company or a bank, but they're used in only the limited case where a
judge first grants permission.
So what does that mean?
That means that it is constitutional in that the individual
American's due process rights are observed because a Federal agent
first has to go to a judge, a judge has to apply due process to that
request, and then from there then access can be given to records, not
in an individual's house but from a business. And then during the
course of investigation--again, remembering, this is if there is a
threat of a national security incident only.
Then during the course of an investigation, it's well understood if
we're investigating a terrorist, if we get a lead that Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed has a phone, we get his information, we are able to access
records that are somehow connected to an alleged terrorist--or now an
admitted terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--we have to be able to have
the means. Do we tip off someone like a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that
we're looking at his records? Of course not. That would be absurd.
So, it's a very different time and a very different war and we're
observing Fourth Amendment rights. Now, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not
an American. He is not an American citizen. He is not an American. But
for Americans, when we are seeking a request for a record of an
American, the Federal agent first has to go and get this approved by a
judge.
I urge people, Mr. Speaker, go to my Facebook site. We have all of
the documents up to verify and show all of the reasoning behind the
Patriot Act.
And again, this is a very important discussion this evening. I want
to thank my colleague Steve King for bringing this to people's
attention. It's a very important vote. I've spent all week trying to
get the basis for whether the vote should be ``yes'' or the vote should
be ``no,'' and I have confidence this evening that it was the right
vote to cast a ``yes'' vote.
And again, I encourage anyone who is interested to go to my Facebook
site and get all of this documentation. Read for yourselves. Make up
your mind. But in my opinion, this passes constitutional muster. And I
can assure every American I would not vote for this bill unless I
thought it did pass constitutional muster.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlelady
from Minnesota for coming to the floor on short notice to add clarity
to this discussion and this debate and having the courage to stand up
on these constitutional principles.
I have had it pointed out to me that the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution limits the Patriot Act. It's the protection against
unreasonable search and seizure. Unreasonable. And these searches and
seizures that have been found to be reasonable, in many cases by our
Supreme Court across this land, are very well settled law, and the
Patriot Act fits within the parameters of existing domestic
surveillance.
And I would add that this Congress has protected itself in this
fashion: that the major components of this Patriot Act that have been
extended are extended for 4 years. That means that this Congress comes
back again and evaluates the Patriot Act for constitutional and
functionality within this 4-year period of time, and it will require
reauthorization again. So we're carefully walking down this path making
sure that the abuses do not take place.
And I, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as one who has gone
up
[[Page H3748]]
to the secure room and gone through a number of secure briefings that
had to do with the functionality of the Patriot Act--it's a requirement
on some of our parts here in this Congress to do that. I have also made
a pledge to a number of other Members that I'll keep an eye on these
constitutional functions and the respect for this statute that's given
by the Federal agents that are allowed to utilize the Patriot Act. And
that will be a never-ending vigilance here in this Congress. It always
is. And protecting constitutional rights is a never-ending vigilance.
One of the people who is very duly vigilant who, when the rest of us
take a little break and catch some sleep at night, is back keeping his
eye on the functions of government, one of the relentless and incessant
providers of protection of liberty and constitutional protection and
one of the scholars on the Constitution here is the gentleman from
Texas.
I'd be happy to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Louie
Gohmert.
Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa, my very dear friend.
As my friend knows, he and I've both been extremely vigilant in
following up on these issues. But I wanted to point out, there is a lot
of confusion. There are people on television that are just making these
claims that the Constitution has been thrown away, and they haven't
looked at how these three provisions that have been extended for 4
years were being used.
Now, my first year here, 2005, we were taking up the Patriot Act, and
I had concerns then. I still have concerns, because these things, these
powers, these three have been held constitutional, and I think they
are. The problem comes in the potential for abuse.
And the reason I ended up catching a lot of grief from some of the
leaders in our party back in 2005 as a freshman was I wanted to have
sunsets on some provisions so that we could get leverage, because as we
saw from Attorney General Gonzales, when he was head of the Justice
Department, and as we have seen with Attorney General Holder,
Departments of Justice are not very forthcoming no matter what party
they are when the Congress asks for information. Now, they will say,
Oh, yeah, we'll give you whatever you need, but they're not very
forthcoming.
And it's not until powers that they want to keep come up for sunset,
that they could go away and they need them renewed, and they know they
need them renewed because they are helpful in keeping the country safe,
but it's only then that they come forward and say, Oh, by the way, what
was it that you made in your request a year ago that we never did
provide you? And that basically happened back in 2004 and 2005.
And that was one of the reasons I was pushing we've got to have
sunsets, because the only way to deal with these issues and make sure
the abuses are not occurring of these constitutional powers is to put
sunsets, and that way they come forward with the information and those
of us that have the security clearances can go in. Now, not everybody
who has security clearances has enough interest to go wading through
this material like my friend from Iowa and I have.
But I think part of the problem has been people have been confused
with the abuses that occurred, the outrageous abuses that occurred with
the national security letter power, which has been reined in some,
still not enough for my liking. And I really would like to rein in the
national security letter power even further because it is not required
to go before a district judge like these powers that we extended
tonight for 3 years. That's where the abuses were. That's where the IG
report said they were. And so that's where a tremendous amount of
vigilance needs to be placed in making sure that the Justice Department
does adequate vigilance themselves in not abusing the power they have.
And I'm sure I didn't make the Director of the FBI very happy when I
pointed this out to him in committee, but it's what I believe, and that
is that this Director came in to the FBI and eventually implemented--he
called it a 5-year up-or-out policy. So that if you were a supervisor
in the FBI, of a field office anywhere in the country, and you did 5
years in that location, at the end of 5 years, you had to either move
to Washington, move up to Washington, or get out of the FBI. Move out,
basically.
{time} 2020
We have lost thousands of years of experience from our FBI. Now, I
know what it is to be an aggressive prosecutor, young, out of law
school. Had a little more hair back then. And boy, we are going to get
the bad guys. There's something to be said for experience.
So it's not been uncommon to have FBI field offices around the
country go, for example, from having a supervisor with 25 years of
experience, he or she had seen it, done it, been there, and able to
learn from mistakes, make wise decisions, and yet because of the 5-year
up-or-out policy, they end up having to leave because they're not
moving to Washington. And when they do, we have had offices, for
example, come in and the new supervisor has 5 or 6 years' experience,
the head supervisor. We go from 25, 26 years to 5 or 6; it's not good
for the FBI. These are fantastic agents. Take nothing away from their
knowledge and ability, but there is something to be said for 25 years
of experience as a law enforcement officer. We lost that.
As we lost that, we began to see these vast abuses of the National
Security Letters. And people need to know that the National Security
Letter power was not up for renewal tonight. It is something I would
like to address further because it has such tremendous potential for
abuse. I am hoping we can deal with that. I also further hope that
those who were really upset or concerned will not just take demagogued
statements, but will actually look into this, as I have.
And I have spent no telling how many hours pouring through material,
classified material, pouring through the laws, the interpretation of
the laws. These powers are basically the same powers the FBI has, these
three that we renewed tonight, basically the same powers the FBI has to
go after organized crime; and now they're allowed to do it with
terrorism.
They pertain to terrorists, or agents, foreign agents of foreign
powers. So if they're properly supervised, as I know my friend from
Iowa and I will do unless we get kicked off of the Judiciary Committee,
but as long as we're allowed to be there, and as unpleasant as some
people find our positions at times, we want to make sure there's
adequate supervision.
That's what I intend to do. That's what I know my friend from Iowa
intends to do. That is what our friend Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota
will do. That's one of the most diligent people I have ever seen in
anything. And I'm not sure there is another Member of Congress or the
Senate that has a master's in any area of law. She has a master's in
law.
So you have got people that are diligent, that understand the law,
have studied it, and are looking into the allegations. I am comfortable
with what we did tonight only to the extent that I know that there will
be an awful lot more nights like I have had the last two nights where I
get 1\1/2\, 2 hours sleep because there is so much to review, so much
to cover, so much to read because of this important responsibility we
have been handed.
But I hope people understand National Security Letters have been the
area where there has been great abuse. Supposedly that's been reined
in. But the reason some of us on the Republican side demanded sunsets
on these is not because we think they are unconstitutional, but because
we have got to have leverage to use with the Justice Department, no
matter which party is in power in the White House, to make sure that
our freedoms are preserved and Congress can use its power, have power,
have leverage that gets respected by the Justice Department.
I appreciate my friend for yielding.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman from
Texas, Judge Gohmert, who does do due diligence in this Congress, it
occurs to me as I listen to the discussion here and participate in it,
that there was a decided lack of enthusiasm for the Patriot Act on the
part of Barack Obama when he was a partisan Senator. The most liberal
Senator by voting record out of the 100 Senators in the United States
Senate, and that includes Bernie Sanders, the self-professed socialist
who voted somewhat to
[[Page H3749]]
the right of Barack Obama when they were in the Senate together.
This candidate for President then, Barack Obama, had a position that
was less than favorable towards this Patriot Act, but as he became
President, sat down with his briefings, which I presume and hope are
daily briefings, and he began to understand the threat against the
United States that exists domestically and abroad. His position on the
Patriot Act began to migrate. And perhaps as we speak now he is picking
up his pen to sign the Patriot Act, the extensions of the three
provisions that were approved here tonight that extends them for a 4-
year period of time.
That, Mr. Speaker, brings this back before this Congress. And it
means also that all of the people that are utilizing the Patriot Act
within the sections 206, the roving wiretap; and 215, the business
records component of this; and section 6001(a), the lone wolf
component, each of which were extended here by this Congress for 4
years, all of the Federal agents that would be utilizing these
provisions will be very well aware that Congress will be reviewing
these provisions within 4 years of today. So they will be very careful
I think to comply with the law. And I think this is a prudent extension
rather than the effort to make it permanent. I think it's prudent to
temporarily extend these provisions of the Patriot Act.
As the gentleman from Texas alluded, and I will just say I would like
to reiterate and emphasize this point, of all of the things that we
have heard and the things that we have heard up in the secure room from
the classified standpoint, the things that we have heard before the
Judiciary Committee and the many hearings that we have had, the
challenge that was put out towards President Bush in a partisan effort,
I think, to undermine the Patriot Act before the last Presidential
election in November of 2008, all of those efforts, not one individual
was produced who had had their constitutional rights usurped. Not one.
Not one had lost their constitutional rights under the Patriot Act.
It would seem to me that of all of the encounters that have taken
place under the Patriot Act for all these years, if there had been
serious abuses of people's constitutional rights, we would have heard
from an individual. And then a statement is made that, well, we won't
know because we don't have access to these records, that they are all
secret. Well, but the records are reported to the FISA court, and the
FISA court evaluates them. And the reason we know that those records
exist is because there is a requirement of the court reporting. But
still, not an individual has come forward who has had their
constitutional rights and their civil rights abused.
Now, that doesn't mean I am not taking a position here, Mr. Speaker,
that it has not happened. And I am not taking the position that it
could not happen. My position is that if it had been endemic, if it had
been something that was systematically grinding through the civil
rights of Americans or individuals that are in the United States and
under the protections of our laws and our Constitution, we would know
some of those names, we would know some of those faces, we would
understand those incidents.
And one of the hardest things you can do in this business is to try
to explain something that is law without putting a face on it; to try
to explain a flaw that they argue might exist within the Patriot Act
without being able to give an example or an anecdote to put that face
on it so people can see by example how things work.
We are only dealing with data here. We are dealing with data here
because we don't have the individual examples. They have not come
forward. They have not been identified, however mightily some have
tried to produce them. So I support the extensions that we passed here
tonight. It is something that I have worked with here in this Congress
into my ninth year. It's very much something we have examined, I think,
very thoroughly with hearing after hearing, and intense debate, and
amendments that were offered, as well as the secure briefings that take
us much deeper into the practices of the Patriot Act.
So the three components that were extended here tonight for 4 years,
the roving wiretaps, which are just absolutely necessary. If you can
imagine Khalid Sheikh Mohammed running around, or Moussaoui running
around the United States with a gym bag full of disposable cell phones,
using one for a little while and tossing it in the trash, and then
another and another and another, you have got to be able to switch and
have the roving wiretap follow the individual rather than follow a
single land line that might be there.
{time} 2030
It just makes simple sense. It existed since the eighties for
domestic investigations of crime, including organized crime.
We have the business records component of this, also extended for 4
years, that allows those business records to be accessed, to be able to
look for patterns, patterns that would indicate the acts, the planning
of terrorism against the American people.
We have the lone wolf provision, which says an agent of a foreign
power, if that agent of a foreign power is operating, under the
suspicion that that's the case, they can go in and do investigations,
that also is extended for 4 years.
It was a difficult negotiation here in the House and in the Senate.
It did come down to the last minute. Sometimes here in Congress we can
only do things at the last minute.
I would like to, Mr. Speaker, transition this subject matter into
another subject matter that I understand the gentleman from Texas is
prepared to discuss. In this brief segue, and I expect to yield so the
gentleman from Texas can take this subject matter up, but in this
transition and in this week, I think it's important that the House of
Representatives and the American people consider what has happened with
regard to especially the Middle East. Having come back from a trip
through that area of the world and been briefed on a lot of our
national security issues over in that part of the world, it comes to
mind as I watched President Obama's speech last week about the Global
War on Terror and about his efforts from a tactical, a geopolitical and
a diplomatic effort in the Middle East, naming country after country
that have gone through the Arab spring, as we now call it, the unrest
in places like Egypt and Tunisia, and the list goes on. Certainly Libya
is part of this. As I read carefully through President Obama's speech
that I understand he delivered at the State Department about a week ago
or so, if you take Israel out of the speech, the rest of it read like
George W. Bush delivering the Bush Doctrine. A lot of that philosophy I
support, that if you give people an opportunity to grasp and achieve
and succeed with the beginnings of freedom, they'll turn their focus
from hatred and from terrorism towards building their communities,
their families and their countries and towards commerce. That
philosophy is beginning to emerge with a level of success in Iraq, for
example. It has been a belief of George Bush and known as the Bush
Doctrine for a long time. As I listened to President Obama, who was
critical of that approach and that doctrine and our involvement in
places like Iraq and Afghanistan, I would point out that he gave a Bush
Doctrine speech, with the exception of Israel. There, President Obama,
I'll say, broke the mold and went down a new path, a bit of a
surprising path, unless you are reading between the lines on his
position on Israel in prior times, to make the argument that there
would be a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, that
the Palestinians would have a single contiguous country. Right now it's
either two pieces, West Bank and Gaza, or three pieces, West Bank, Gaza
and whatever their claim might be to the Golan Heights. If you look at
the map, it's not possible to tie together a contiguous Palestinian
state without severing Israel from its components.
It was interesting, also, that President Obama said, well, this is
how we want to do this, a contiguous Palestinian state, a two-state
solution, and the issue of Jerusalem, we'll just set that aside for now
but they have to go back to the '67 borders. That had to have caused a
lot of Israelis and American Jewish people and those of us who have a
strong support and affinity for Israel to take a deep breath and gasp
and wonder what did the President
[[Page H3750]]
mean? Why did he throw all that confusion into the situation in Israel?
And the statement that he made resulted in putting Israel at even
greater risk, undermining their security, making their negotiating
position less stable and encouraging more pushback from the Palestinian
effort and their sympathizers and the terrorists that are part of the
government, the Palestinians, who refuse to acknowledge Israel's right
to exist. You cannot negotiate with people who are determined to
annihilate you, and as Binyamin Netanyahu said, they're not going to
concede the strategic locations that allow Israel to defend itself.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke behind where I stand right now a
couple of days ago, I think it was an historic speech, I think that he
laid out the parameters that can allow the Jewish State of Israel to
survive and defend itself against its enemies--and there are many--and
I think he went about as far as he could without openly challenging the
President of the United States who, by the way, had to walk back some
of his comments a few days after his speech. So I'm happy with what has
happened in the aftermath of President Obama's speech that I believe
erroneously said that Israel would have to go back to the pre-'67 war
boundaries.
But I want to, Mr. Speaker, as I turn this floor over to the
gentleman from Texas, say to you and here before the American people
that that speech took place here in the United States Congress because
of the activism and the foresight and the effort of Congressman Gohmert
who put that request together and got a lot of us to sign the letter of
invitation and with that support took it to Speaker Boehner who, as I
understand it, issued the invitation, and the timing of it was
impeccable timing in the aftermath of President Obama's speech, and at
the time that there are critical issues taking place in the world, the
Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, stepped here on the floor
of the United States Congress and spoke before a joint session of
Congress, and the joint session of Congress that received him as a
representative of Israel with the warmest of welcomes that anyone could
ask for, with instantaneous and spontaneous standing ovations, two or
three of those before a word was uttered and several more before there
was any word of substance uttered, the warmth and the bond and the
commitment to stand up and support Israel not just in spirit, not just
politically, but tactically and monetarily as well, was clearly
demonstrated here in the joint session of Congress. That is thanks to
the gentleman from Texas.
And so, Mr. Speaker, as I wrap this up, I would thank you for your
attention and your indulgence, and I would yield back the balance of my
time.
____________________