[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1318-1325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 514

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

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 514 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Next September 11 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst 
terrorist attack on the U.S. in history. America is fortunate not to 
have suffered another attack of such magnitude in the past decade, but 
we must not take this relative security for granted or let our safety 
become complacency.
  America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up 
their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We are safe 
today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence 
community, and our law enforcement agencies work every single day to 
protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the 
resources they need to counteract continuing terrorist threats.
  On February 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act 
will expire. These provisions give investigators in national security 
cases the authority to conduct ``roving'' wiretaps, to seek certain 
business records, and to gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are 
not affiliated with a known

[[Page 1319]]

terrorist group. These types of provisions have been used by domestic 
law enforcement agencies for years to apprehend typical criminals. It 
is common sense to give our national security investigators the same 
tools to fight terrorists that our police officers have to combat 
crime.
  The ongoing threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups 
continues. In the last few years, terrorists have attempted to blow up 
a plane over Detroit; to bomb New York's subway system; to destroy 
skyscrapers in Dallas, Texas, and Springfield, Illinois; and to 
detonate a car bomb in New York City's Times Square. Most of these 
plots were thwarted thanks to the Patriot Act and other national 
security laws.
  The Patriot Act works. It has proved effective in preventing 
terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions 
expire would leave every American less safe. We must continue these 
intelligence-gathering measures to win our fight against terrorists. 
And President Obama agrees.
  In a letter to Congress last month, Director of National Intelligence 
Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder urged us to reauthorize the 
expiring provisions, noting that they are critical tools that ``have 
been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence collection 
operations.''

                              {time}  1430

  This bill reauthorizes the expiring provisions through December 8, 
2011, the last day that the House of Representatives is scheduled to be 
in session. This extension serves two important functions. First, it 
ensures that these intelligence-gathering tools will remain available 
to national security investigators. And second, it provides Congress 
with the opportunity to engage in a thorough review of these provisions 
as we pursue and consider a longer reauthorization.
  I urge my colleagues to support our ability to continue to protect 
Americans against terrorist plots and attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I reluctantly rise in nonsupport of this provision to extend expiring 
provisions of the Patriot Act because of section 215 of the Patriot 
Act, which I'd like to call to your attention. This is the act that 
allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect 
business records or anything else, requiring that a person or business 
produce virtually any type record. We don't think that that was right 
then. We don't think it's right now. And I feel obligated to oppose any 
extension of these expiring acts since we've had no hearings, no 
markup, no committee vote, nobody's done anything about it. They're 
saying, well, ex-chairman, just support this, and we'll get to it 
afterward. Well, I can't go along with that.
  This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and 
seizure which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or 
probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon 
a person's privacy. And so I urge a ``no'' vote on the extension of 
these expiring provisions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is currently the chairman of 
the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee, and who previously, as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee itself, was responsible for writing the Patriot Act 
provisions.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I'm a 
little bit puzzled that my friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
opposing the extension of these three provisions of the Patriot Act 
today because last year, he called up a Senate bill that provided for a 
year's extension of these three provisions, and managed the time and 
voted for it. And after hearing his comments, I'm wondering why he has 
changed his mind.
  In 19 days, three national security laws will expire unless Congress 
votes to reauthorize them. H.R. 514 temporarily extends these laws--
FISA business records, roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf definition--
until December 8 of this year.
  As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the last decade, I 
oversaw the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in response to the 9/11 
terrorist attacks. Title II of the act addressed enhanced foreign 
intelligence and law enforcement surveillance authority. Sixteen 
sections of that title were originally set to expire on December 31, 
2005. Also set to expire on that date was section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which is the 
lone wolf definition.
  In 2005, I again spearheaded the effort to reauthorize the Patriot 
Act. Recognizing the significance of the act to America's 
counterterrorism operations and the need for thorough oversight, the 
House Judiciary Committee held 9 subcommittee hearings, 3 days of full 
committee hearings, then a robust full committee markup reauthorizing 
legislation.
  The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 made 
permanent 14 of the 16 intelligence provisions. The act extended the 
sunset on section 206 FISA roving wiretaps, section 215 FISA business 
records, and the lone wolf definition until the end of 2009.
  But the three remaining temporary provisions were not reauthorized 
before that deadline. Instead, the then-Democratic majority chose twice 
to extend the provisions, first for 2 months and then for a year, 
without ever bringing a reauthorization bill to the floor.
  This Congress, things will be different. We must approve a temporary 
extension today to keep these critical national security tools in 
place. This extension will afford Congress sufficient time to hold 
hearings and markups, then adopt a permanent reauthorization of these 
provisions this year, which I intend to introduce soon.
  The time for multiple temporary extensions is over. The terrorist 
threat has not subsided and will not expire, and neither should our 
national security laws.
  It is equally important that Congress make permanent the lone wolf 
definition. This provision closes the gap in the FISA act and, if 
allowed to expire, could permit an individual terrorist to slip through 
the cracks and carry out his plot undetected. When FISA was originally 
enacted in 1978, terrorists were believed to be members of an 
identified group. That's not the case today.
  Today, more than ever, we are confronted with threats from loosely 
organized terrorist groups or individuals who may subscribe to a 
movement or certain beliefs but do not belong to or identify themselves 
with a specific terrorist group. Without the lone wolf definition, our 
surveillance tools will be powerless to act against this growing threat 
to America's security.
  Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizes the use of roving or 
multipoint wiretaps for national security and intelligence 
investigations. This allows the government to use a single wiretap 
order to cover any communications device that the target uses or may 
use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to 
seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, 
phone, or computer that needs to be monitored.
  Section 215 of the act allows the FISA court to issue orders granting 
the government access to business records in foreign intelligence, 
international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. The 2005 
act expanded the safeguards against potential abuse of section 215 
authority and included additional congressional oversight, procedural 
protections, application requirements, and judicial review. Each of 
these provisions are integral to defending America's national security 
and must be kept intact.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 514.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, who has been the chairman of 
the Constitution Subcommittee longer than any Member in the Congress.

[[Page 1320]]



                              {time}  1440

  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this extension of the expiring provisions of 
the Patriot Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act.
  I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to 
consider these provisions, or possible reforms, or even to hold a 
hearing or a markup. While in the past Members have had the opportunity 
to receive classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members who have 
received no such briefings.
  Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible 
thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no 
showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or 
terrorist activities. It is sweeping in scope, and the government is 
not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before 
undertaking investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy, 
including the records of what he has read in the library. Congress 
should either ensure that things collected with this power have a 
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or allow the provision 
to expire.
  Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps, which permit the government 
to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the 
person nor the facility to be tapped. This is supposedly to update the 
law to deal with portable cell phones and the like and other modern 
technology, but it goes too far. Without the necessity to specify 
either the person or the facility to be tapped, this is, for all 
practical purposes, a general grant of authority to wiretap anyone and 
anywhere the government wants. There are almost no limits to this 
authority and no requirement that the government name a specific 
target. This is very akin to the old British general Writs of 
Assistance which engendered the first colonial outrage that led to the 
American Revolution.
  Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004, the so-called lone wolf provision, permits secret intelligence 
surveillance of non-U.S. persons who are concededly not affiliated with 
a foreign government or organization. According to government 
testimony, this provision has never been used, yet it remains on the 
books. It has never been used because there is ample other authority to 
do that in any event.
  Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign 
government or organization is not what we normally understand as 
foreign intelligence. There may be many good reasons for government to 
keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws 
under the pretext that this is a foreign intelligence operation.
  While some have argued that each of these authorities remain 
necessary tools in the fight against terrorism and that they must be 
extended without any modifications, others have counseled careful 
review and modification. Some have even urged that we allow some or all 
of these authorities to sunset. I believe we should not miss the 
opportunity to review the act in its entirety, to examine how it is 
working, where it has been successful, where it has failed, where it 
goes too far, and where it may need improvement. That is the purpose of 
sunsets, and to extend it without review undermines that purpose.
  I have also introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act, 
which would make vital improvements to the current law in order to 
better protect civil liberties while ensuring that NSLs remain a useful 
tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike 
that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of 
the abuse of the NSL authority is too great for the Congress to ignore.
  I realize the majority has the votes to extend these provisions. I 
hope we will be able, after this vote, to examine carefully the way 
these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform 
the law in light of experience. That was the purpose of sunsets, and I 
hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12 minutes. The 
gentleman from Michigan has 15 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ron Paul.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I was 
opposed to the Patriot Act in 2001, and do not believe now that it is a 
good idea to extend it.
  The Fourth Amendment is rather clear. It says that we should be 
secure in our papers, our persons, our homes, and our effects; and, 
that if warrants are to be issued, we have to do it with probable 
cause, and describe in particular the places, the people, and the 
things that we are going to look at.
  I think what has happened, though, over the years has been that we 
have diluted the Fourth Amendment. It was greatly diluted in 2001, but 
it started a lot earlier than that. When the FISA law was originally 
written in 1978, that really introduced the notion that the Fourth 
Amendment was relative and not absolute. Later on, it was further 
weakened in 1998, and then of course in 2001.
  I think our reaction to the horrors of 9/11--we can understand the 
concern and the fear that was developed, but I think the reaction took 
us in the wrong direction, because the assumption was made of course 
that we weren't spending enough money on surveillance. Even though then 
our intelligence agencies received $40 billion, that didn't give us the 
right information. So now we are spending $80 billion. But it also 
looks like the conclusion was that the American people had too much 
privacy, and if we undermine the American people's privacy, somehow or 
another we are going to be safer.
  I think another thing that has come up lately has been that the 
purpose of government is to make us perfectly safe. Now, it is good to 
be safe, but governments can't make us safe. I question whether or not 
we have been made safer by the Patriot Act. But let's say a law makes 
us somewhat safer. Is that a justification for the government to do 
anything they want?
  For instance, if you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and 
wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our 
houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer 
this way. But what would you be giving up?
  So perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from 
government is to enforce the law and to protect our liberties.
  This, to me, has been, especially since 9/11, a classic example of 
sacrificing liberty for safety and security. Now, I didn't invent those 
terms. They have been around a long time. And it is easily justified, 
and I can understand it, because I was here in 2001 when this came up, 
and people become frightened, and the American people want something 
done. But I think this is misdirected, and it doesn't serve our 
benefits.
  I think at this time we should really question why we are extending 
this. We are extending the three worst parts. Why were these sunsetted? 
Because people had concern about them. They weren't sure they were good 
pieces and maybe they were overkill, and, therefore, they were saying 
we had better reassess it.
  So what have we done? We have already extended it twice, and here we 
are going to do it again, with the intent, I think, in a year to 
reassess this. But this bill doesn't make things worse, it doesn't make 
anything better, but it does extend what I consider and others consider 
bad legislation. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak 
on this very important issue, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. 
For a variety of reasons, we need to reauthorize this bill.

[[Page 1321]]

  First and foremost, there are three provisions I think we are all 
very familiar with. It's the lone wolf provision, it's the roving 
wiretaps of course, which is something else that we very much need to 
do, and also the business records provision.
  With respect to roving wiretaps, I believe it has already been stated 
on this floor, but it should be stated once again: Law enforcement has 
been using roving wiretaps for years against drug dealers and organized 
crime, I believe since 1986. Extending that roving wiretap provision to 
terrorists makes good sense. We have been doing it. We need to give law 
enforcement and our intelligence services the tools they need to take 
down these terror plots before they become operational. That is why 
this extension is needed.
  The lone wolf provision, it should be noted, is also important. Many 
of the types of plots we are trying to foil now are being carried out 
by lone wolves. Major Hasan is a good example. Jihad Jane and others 
are lone wolves, and we need this capacity so that we can pursue these 
lone wolves just as we would individuals or terrorists who are part of 
a terrorist organization or an agent of a foreign power. So that is 
absolutely essential.
  With respect to the issue of the business records, often people would 
say that we are somehow trying to examine one's library records, what 
books they are reading. That's really not the case. We know that 9/11 
terrorists were using public library computers. We knew that they were 
also using university library computers to make plane reservations as 
well as to confirm those reservations. So the idea is to be able to 
access one's business records. That's what we are after, to make sure 
that we cannot only apprehend or go after that individual who is 
planning an attack but also that cell or that network of individuals 
with whom that individual may be working. That is why we need this 
issue of business records contained in this reauthorization.
  In fact, I am not even certain that the word ``library'' appears 
anywhere in the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, this has been dubbed the 
library provision, which really it is not.
  For all of these reasons, I think it is critically important that we 
continue to provide our law enforcement with the tools they need, our 
intelligence services with the tools they need to stop terrorism. We 
cannot tie the hands of local law enforcement. We are asking them to do 
more and more.
  The critics of this legislation often say we need to let law 
enforcement fight these battles. This gives them the tools. I urge 
passage and support for this reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Crime in the Judiciary Committee for 4 
years.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, 
which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our 
lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 
2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight demonstrating that 
these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these 
provisions for one full year, or for any period of time, for that 
matter; and I therefore oppose the bill.
  I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that in 
order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and 
freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the 
formation of our Nation that ``they who give up essential liberty to 
obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
  One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the 
Patriot Act that gives the government power to secretly invade our 
private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely 
alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, but 
without having to show that the seized material is in connection with 
any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. There is no 
requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of 
being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore there is no 
meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is in fact 
necessary.
  Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act, 
which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It 
gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without 
having to show which phone will be used or even who will be using it 
and without requiring a court order for the specific roving tap.
  The third provision is section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the ``lone wolf'' 
provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in 
the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident 
aliens even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any 
terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those 
targeted have any interaction with an American citizen, then that U.S. 
citizen is spied upon as well.
  We already allow spying on such non-citizens outside of the United 
States or even in the United States where there is probable cause that 
they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist 
organization, but this is an extension of that power which could 
envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with 
a targeted person even while we are in the United States.
  The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy 
even when there is no probable cause nor even reasonable suspicion or 
credible evidence of any wrongdoing and without allowing the kind of 
detached oversight such as a court warrant which is generally called 
upon when such power over individuals is extended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Absent these oversight protections, even after 
the fact in the case of emergencies, all three provisions should be 
allowed to expire, unless we demonstrate in hearings and oversight 
hearings that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to 
achieve a compelling national security interest. The freedoms and 
protections these provisions take away are the very core of our values 
and liberties, so these protections should not be legislated away 
without rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been some criticism today that section 215, 
business records authority, gives national security agencies too much 
access to confidential records, but section 215 has more strict 
requirements than grand jury subpoenas used in criminal investigations. 
Unlike a grand jury subpoena, which is not issued by a judge, a 215 
order can only be used by a FISA court judge. Section 215 only grants 
terrorism investigators the power to get records held by third parties, 
such as a hotel or car rental records.
  Also there has been criticism that section 215 violates Fourth 
Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. 
However, a request for business records held by a third party is not a 
search under the Fourth Amendment. The target of an investigation does 
not own the records and therefore has no reasonable expectation of 
privacy in them. Section 215 cannot be used to acquire records of U.S. 
persons based solely on First Amendment protected activity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one has worked more carefully on this 
matter than Dennis Kucinich, the distinguished gentleman from 
Cleveland.
  I yield the gentleman 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers. I certainly 
appreciate that.
  I will certainly never seek to impugn the feelings of those who say 
that we have to have the Patriot Act in order to protect our country. 
We are all patriots here, and we all want America to be protected; but 
we have to recognize

[[Page 1322]]

our constitutional experience here and the reason why we have a Fourth 
Amendment that protects people not just from unreasonable search and 
seizure, but from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their 
lives.
  When we look at our constitutional experience and all of the efforts 
that made it and built up to it, we didn't hear ``give my liberty or 
give me a wiretap.'' We didn't hear ``don't tread on me, but it is okay 
to spy.'' What we heard was a ringing declaration about freedom, and it 
was enshrined in the Constitution.
  I stood on the floor of the House way back when the Patriot Act came 
forward, voted against it because I read it and understood that it 
opened up the door for a broad reach and possibilities of broad reach 
by the government into our daily lives.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin, who is my friend, correctly pointed out 
earlier the difference between National Security Letters and the 
Patriot Act. But it also is true that section 505 of the Patriot Act 
gave the government the ability to greatly expand who could issue a 
national security letter, so much so that nearly 50,000 national 
security letters were issued by the FBI in 2006, I think the year was. 
They don't have to use section 215 of the Patriot Act. They can just 
invoke the national security letter authority and reach into people's 
financial records, their medical letters, their reading material.
  What is happening to our country? Why are we giving up our basic 
liberties? We need to take a stand here, and this is as good a day as 
any to take a stand. Many Members of Congress, including those 
supported by my friends in the tea party, maintain their goal is to get 
rid of big government, get government out of their lives. Well, how 
about the Patriot Act, which has the broadest reach and the deepest 
reach of government into our daily lives? Shouldn't we be thinking 
about that?
  Some want to get government out of health care. Some want to get 
government out of retirement security. How about getting government out 
of people's bedrooms, out of people's financial records, out of 
people's medical records?
  Vote ``no'' on extending the Patriot Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about 
national security letters. The authority for them was made permanent in 
2006. It is not a part of this bill, so we ought to completely forget 
about the complaints about national security letters.
  What I will say is that in the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot 
Act there were provisions in it to give recipients of a national 
security letter the right to obtain judicial review; and I am proud of 
that fact because I think whatever constitutional infirmities there 
were in this part of the Patriot Act, they were solved.
  Now, we hear an awful lot about no oversight. The people on the other 
side of the aisle who are complaining about this had the authority to 
have oversight hearings. There was only one of them in the last 
Congress. Compare that to the nine subcommittee hearings, three full 
committee hearings, and the full markup that we had in 2006 when this 
side of the aisle had the majority. The people who have been doing the 
oversight have been the Republicans, not the Democrats. The people who 
know this law is making Americans safer are the Republicans, and the 
Democrats once again are complaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the 
most important powers of government, but also the most fearsome. They 
must be wielded very, very carefully. For decades, our government 
routinely has collected information on potential foreign threats 
through various forms of surveillance. These collection activities 
enjoy broad bipartisan support in our country because of their value in 
helping to protect American citizens and interests.
  However, in the 1960s and 1970s, these collection capabilities were 
turned on the American people and executive branch agencies engaged in 
spying on the American public, sometimes even for political purposes. 
The ensuing public backlash triggered the adoption of legal reforms 
that gave us laws to help prevent a repeat of these abuses.
  Subsequently, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, gave proponents of 
extended domestic surveillance a powerful political and rhetorical 
weapon, which they used to reduce constitutional protections against 
surveillance and seizures without appropriate warrants.
  When the Congress passed the Patriot Act in March of 2006, it 
included sunset requirements of three provisions that you've heard 
about today. Since 2005, I've voted against extending these and other 
provisions because these provisions are overly broad and frequently 
abused while still not improving truly the security of the American 
people. My concerns are supported by the revelations of abuses of those 
authorities during hearings of the House Judiciary Committee in 2009 
and in multiple reports issued by the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice.
  The bill before us today does nothing to fix these problems or 
prevent future abuses. This bill does not raise the standards for 
intelligence collection to ensure that the right people are targeted in 
the first place. The law was not meant to sunset so that we could 
periodically reauthorize it, unchanged. We're now on the verge of the 
third ``temporary'' extension, with no remedies for the flaws 
identified by this body and the Department of Justice Inspector 
General.
  For all of these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud now to yield 2 minutes to a 
senior member of the committee from Houston, Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson 
Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member of this committee.
  I want to remind my colleagues of a singly important moment when 
those of us who were Republican and Democrat came together after 9/11, 
and out of this Judiciary Committee came a singular initiative that 
dealt with the crisis which we are facing.
  I have in my hand the Constitution; and I am reminded that when the 
Founding Fathers came together and declared that we all were created 
equal, they, too, were concerned about treason, spying, the undermining 
of government, and maybe even the threat of violence. As we well know 
how this country came into being, we had to fight a war; yet they had 
in this Constitution the rights of the Fourth Amendment that we would 
be protected against unreasonable search and seizure; a Fifth Amendment 
of due process; and they believed that Americans should be protected.
  This bill, however, comes to the floor again without amendments. And 
I'm very proud to say that over the series of my tenure on the 
Judiciary Committee I have submitted very vital and important 
amendments to protect the civil liberties of Americans, as well as to 
recognize the responsibility of all of us to secure this Nation.
  I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I am not unmindful 
of the everyday threats that we receive, but this bill would extend 
provisions that were created in 2005, that also were included in the 
intelligence reform bill. It extends a provision that allows for a 
roving electronic surveillance authority and a provision revising the 
definition of an ``agent of foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. 
person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory 
activities, also known as the ``lone wolf,'' without protections. As a 
member of Homeland Security, I recognize that that is vital, but there 
needs to be a variety of protections. The other provisions, of course, 
are ones that invade privacy

[[Page 1323]]

and create a lack of recognition that we have a Constitution to abide 
by.
  So I would ask my colleagues as we move on this legislation to 
remember it has not been amended; remember we have lived under a 
Constitution that protects civil liberties; and also remember it took a 
lawsuit to allow someone to say they had gotten a national security 
letter.
  We must do things in a constitutional manner, Mr. Speaker; and I 
would argue we're not doing it in this legislative initiative. I ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation; go back to the Judiciary 
Committee and abide by the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, 
``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and 
individual terrorists as agents.''
  This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision 
that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision 
revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include 
any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or 
preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It 
also grants government access to business records relating to a 
terrorist investigation.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and 
appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we 
face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However, 
as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional 
rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national 
security.
  To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the 
founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which 
enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills of Rights guarantee 
certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. 
One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people 
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against 
unreasonable searches and seizures.
  We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in 
the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient. 
While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect our 
nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the democratic 
principles that make this country the crown jewel of democracy. The 
bill before us today, however, does not do that. In fact, even the 
manner by which are even considering this bill, only days after 
introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, circumvents 
the process we have in place to allow for improvements and amendments 
to be made.
  Furthermore, this bill was considered last year in the 111th 
Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up 
in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan 
amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill. 
In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of 
the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an 
individual's privacy and civil liberties.
  In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow 
for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection 
against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my 
amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues, are included 
in this legislation. None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty 
infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been 
addressed. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the 
American people, without so much as a hearing.
  We have been faced with this type of legislation before. On August 3, 
2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, another piece of law essential to 
combating the war on terror, but one that was in need of improvements 
to protect Americans' constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. On 
that day, I said that, ``we must ensure that our intelligence 
professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, 
while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans,'' and I 
stand firmly behind that notion today.
  When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns 
around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept 
permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations 
were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended 
for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.
  I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American 
is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the 
FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in 
ensuring compliance with our Constitution. I stand here today urging my 
colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act 
that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this 
legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other 
legislative body.
  The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would 
extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set 
forth in the Constitution. One provision authorizes the government to 
obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, 
even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected 
terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed 
in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs afoul of the 
traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government 
to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before 
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. 
Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a 
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take 
steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.
  Another provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe wiretap,'' 
allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that 
identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Like the 
first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary Committee 
during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional notions 
of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with 
particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision 
were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be 
done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit 
roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.
  The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf' 
provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. 
persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type 
of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to 
abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the 
government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United 
States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has 
never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this 
provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be 
allowed to expire.
  All three of these provisions have been examined and amended in the 
past because they were in dire need of improvements to protect the 
rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in the 
past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.
  Finally, H.R. 514 fails to amend other portions of the PATRIOT act in 
dire need of reform, specifically, those issues relating to the 
issuance and use of national security letters, NSLs. NSLs permit the 
government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of 
anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person 
is not suspected of unlawful behavior. I repeat, even if that person is 
not suspected of unlawful behavior.
  As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is 
pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the 
basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers 
drafted the Constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in 
Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience 
such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in 
the PATRIOT act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress 
not included in the bill?
  Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct 
robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms 
that will better protect private communications from overbroad 
government surveillance.
  There is nothing more important than providing the United States of 
America, especially our military and national security personnel, the 
right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on 
terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is 
the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure 
America while preserving our way of life.
  Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of 
these provisions, I ask my

[[Page 1324]]

colleagues to please join me in opposing H.R. 514, a bill to extend 
expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists 
as agents.

        [From the American Civil Liberties Union, Aug. 10, 2010]

 National Security Letter Recipient Can Speak Out for First Time Since 
                 FBI Demanded Customer Records From Him

       New York.--The FBI has partially lifted a gag it imposed on 
     American Civil Liberties Union client Nicholas Merrill in 
     2004 that prevented him from disclosing to anyone that he 
     received a national security letter (NSL) demanding private 
     customer records. Merrill, who received the NSL as the 
     president of an Internet service provider (ISP), can now 
     reveal his identity and speak about his experience for the 
     first time since receiving the NSL. The ACLU and New York 
     Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the NSL 
     statute and the gag order on behalf of Merrill (then called 
     John Doe) in April 2004, which resulted in numerous court 
     rulings finding the NSL statute unconstitutional. Merrill was 
     the first person ever to challenge an NSL in court.
       ``After six long years of not being able to tell anyone at 
     all what happened to me--not even my family--I'm grateful to 
     finally be able to talk about my experience of being served 
     with a national security letter,'' said Merrill. ``Internet 
     users do not give up their privacy rights when they log on, 
     and the FBI should not have the power to secretly demand that 
     ISPs turn over constitutionally protected information about 
     their users without a court order. I hope my successful 
     challenge to the FBI's NSL gag power will empower others who 
     may have received NSLs to speak out.''
       NSLs are secret record demands the FBI issues to obtain 
     access to personal customer records from ISPs, libraries, 
     financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without 
     court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing. Because the 
     FBI can gag NSL recipients to prohibit them from disclosing 
     anything about the record demands they receive, the FBI's use 
     and potential abuse of the NSL power has been shrouded in 
     excessive secrecy.
       While the NSL served on Merrill stated that he was 
     prohibited from telling anyone about it, he decided to 
     challenge the demand in court because he believed that the 
     FBI was ordering him to turn over constitutionally protected 
     information about one of his clients. Because of the FBI-
     imposed gag, Merrill was prohibited from talking about the 
     NSL or revealing his identity and role in the lawsuit until 
     today, even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records 
     from Merrill more than three years ago.
       In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 
     ruling in Merrill's case, found that some of the NSL 
     statute's gag provisions were unconstitutional because they 
     wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to challenge gag 
     orders, narrowly limited judicial review of gag orders and 
     required courts to defer entirely to the executive branch. 
     The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District 
     Court for the Southern District of New York and ordered the 
     government to justify the constitutionality of the gag on 
     Merrill. On July 30, the parties reached a settlement in the 
     case. As part of that settlement, the FBI agreed that Merrill 
     could now identify himself as the John Doe NSL recipient.
       ``We are thrilled that Nick will finally be able to speak 
     out about why he took the courageous step of challenging the 
     FBI's NSL power. Thanks to Nick's actions, courts have now 
     recognized the need for judicial oversight of the 
     government's dangerous NSL gag power,'' said Melissa Goodman, 
     staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. ``But 
     even though this case has resulted in significant 
     improvements to NSL procedures, innocent Americans' private 
     records remain too vulnerable to secret and warrantless data 
     collection by the FBI. At a minimum, the FBI should have to 
     show individual suspicion before it issues an NSL for an 
     individual's personal information and invades Americans' 
     right to privacy and free speech on the Internet.''
       While misuse and abuse of the NSL power has been widely 
     documented, the Obama administration is now seeking to expand 
     the statute to allow the FBI to demand even more records 
     without court approval. In July, the Obama administration 
     proposed to expand the statute to allow the FBI to get 
     Americans' Internet activity records without court approval 
     or even suspicion of wrongdoing.
       In 2009, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake 
     (R-AZ) reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act, 
     aimed at reigning in abuse of the power. The ACLU has called 
     on Congress to reform the remaining constitutional defects of 
     the NSL gag power and reject Obama proposals to expand the 
     NSL statute.
       In addition to Goodman, attorneys on the case are Jameel 
     Jaffer of the national ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg of the 
     NYCLU.

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
514, which would reauthorize expiring provisions of the Patriot Act 
without important modifications necessary to safeguard our civil 
liberties. While the threat of terrorism is real, and law enforcement 
must have the right tools to protect Americans, any counterterrorism 
measure must have a solid constitutional footing and respect the 
privacy and civil liberties of the American people.
  This legislation fails to address shortcomings in the original 
Patriot Act legislation, and for that reason I will vote against it. 
One of the major problems with this bill is its failure to address the 
issuance and use of national security letters. These letters permit the 
government to obtain the communications of anyone deemed relevant to a 
terrorism investigation, even if that person is not suspected of 
unlawful behavior. If Congress reauthorizes these provisions with no 
changes, Americans will remain subject to warrantless intrusions into 
their personal affairs--a gross overreach of Federal investigative 
authority that could be abused. It's just not how we do things in this 
country.
  Rather than taking the time to craft reforms that will better protect 
private citizens' communications and privacy from overbroad government 
surveillance, the Republican majority simply wants to cram this bill 
through without providing any opportunity for anyone to offer 
amendments that improve the bill. We all acknowledge that law 
enforcement needs new tools to keep up with 21st century threats; but 
surely it is the responsibility of Congress to reexamine legislation 
that was hurriedly passed through Congress in the wake of 9/11 to make 
sure it lives up to our national ideals.
  Because this bill fails to contain any checks and balances to prevent 
law enforcement abuse and protect civil liberties, I will be voting 
against it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, extending the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act 
will ensure that America's law enforcement officials and intelligence 
agents are equipped to identify terrorist threats and prevent terrorist 
acts. The Patriot Act is an effective tool in the war on terror. As 
terrorists show no signs of ending their plots, neither should our laws 
that stop them be allowed to sunset. This temporary extension will 
facilitate further review and reauthorization of these provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this extension is supported by the Obama administration. 
I urge my colleagues to support this extension as well.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again oppose the 
reauthorization of expiring provisions in the Patriot Act.
  Last month, Republican leaders gave Members of Congress the chance to 
read the Constitution on the floor of the House. Perhaps we skipped 
over the Bill of Rights, because the provisions we're extending today 
are a direct infringement on Americans' constitutional rights.
  This legislation grants the federal government sweeping authority to 
pry into the private lives of Americans. Federal authorities have the 
power to access private records like library records or credit card 
statements, even if it's not related to a terrorism investigation. 
Authorities can receive wiretapping permits without specifying who or 
what they're going to wiretap. Secret intelligence courts can authorize 
law enforcement to spy on foreigners who are not connected to terrorist 
groups.
  Many of my colleagues were elected based on their rhetoric opposing 
more power to the federal government. Today's vote gives them a chance 
to put their money where their mouths are, and say no to giving 
government the power to violate Americans' civil liberties. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act in 2001, 
voted against its extension in 2005, and will again vote against it 
again today. The PATRIOT Act was sold as a measure to ensure the safety 
of the American people. Instead, the PATRIOT

[[Page 1325]]

Act has served primarily to subvert fundamental rights afforded to 
American citizens.
  A plain extension of the PATRIOT Act, without revisiting its many 
problems and abuses, is a huge mistake and missed opportunity to truly 
protect our country against terrorism and do so in the confines of the 
Constitution.
  Freedom does not have to be compromised to defend liberty. Continuing 
to weaken fundamental American principles will not leave us more 
secure, but instead more vulnerable. Through mutual trust and 
fearlessness, we can progress together.
  It is time to stop extending the PATRIOT Act and restore full 
American freedoms and liberty to our citizens.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H.R. 514, another 
one-year extension of three overreaching provisions in the Patriot Act, 
which are set to expire on February 28, 2011.
  I have opposed the Patriot Act since the original, bipartisan version 
of the bill was hijacked by the Bush administration and significantly 
expanded without safeguards for the rights of ordinary Americans. This 
is why it has been consistently opposed by thoughtful members of 
Congress from both parties.
  In a country that prides itself on civil rights and freedom of 
speech, we must maintain a system with checks and balances to ensure 
that our government works for our citizens in a transparent way. I have 
no doubt that we can keep America safe without compromising our 
liberties. By simply extending this policy for another year, we are 
forfeiting the opportunity and neglecting the responsibility to have a 
meaningful review that can bring us closer to a more accountable 
approach that balances individual privacy with our national defense.
  One of the many provisions in need of reform and left unaddressed in 
this bill is section 215. This provision fails to provide meaningful 
protection for library patrons, and library and business records. The 
burden should be on the government to show reasonable suspicion or 
probable cause before undertaking an investigation.
  After a decade it is past time to review and refine this legislation. 
The intelligence community already has the tools necessary to keep us 
safe without compromising our privacy. Another one-year extension is a 
lost opportunity to make sure we protect the liberties of American 
citizens.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we can fight 
terrorism and keep our communities safe without sacrificing the rights 
and liberties that generations of Americans have fought so hard to 
secure. H.R. 514 fails this critical test, and I will vote to oppose 
it.
  Without a single hearing, committee vote, or even the opportunity to 
offer amendments, this legislation extends provisions that give the 
Federal Government sweeping authority to spy on U.S. citizens. One such 
provision allows the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' in its 
anti-terrorism investigation--including library or bookstore records--
regardless of its relevance to the case. Another provision allows 
federal law enforcement to obtain wiretaps without being required to 
identify the person, building, or business being spied upon to a secret 
court. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department used this 
authority to illegally wiretap American citizens. Evidence of past 
abuses demand that the Patriot Act be reformed with stricter oversight 
and better safeguards to ensure security does not come at the cost of 
our Constitutional freedoms.
  The threat of terrorism is real and persistent. My first priority as 
a Member of Congress is to keep America safe. Be assured I will 
continue working with President Obama and my colleagues in Congress to 
ensure that all levels of law enforcement have the tools and 
flexibility they require.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 514.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________