[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2357-2362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EXTENDING COUNTERTERRORISM AUTHORITIES

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 93, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the U.S.A. 
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 I have a motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The Clerk will 
designate the Senate amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
  Senate amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``FISA Sunsets Extension Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. 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 ``May 
     27, 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 ``May 27, 2011''.


                            Motion to Concur

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Texas moves that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 93, the motion 
shall be debatable for 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include other materials on H.R. 514.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 extends the three 
expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for only 90 days. I am 
disappointed that the Senate refused to agree to the 10-month extension 
approved by the House earlier this week. Repeated short-term extensions 
of these authorities create uncertainty for our intelligence agencies. 
They don't know if the tools they rely on to keep America safe today 
will be available to them tomorrow. That is why the House sought a 10-
month extension, to allow sufficient time to reauthorize the law while 
providing greater certainty to the intelligence community.
  With adoption of this amendment, the House and Senate will now have 
to move expeditiously to approve a Patriot reauthorization bill so we 
can avoid the need for another short-term extension. It is important 
that the House approves this 90-day extension today to keep the 
expiring intelligence-gathering provisions in place.
  In a recent letter to Congress, Director of National Intelligence 
Admiral Clapper and Attorney General Holder said that ``it is essential 
that these intelligence tools be reauthorized before they expire'' and 
they ``have been used in numerous highly sensitive intelligence 
collection operations.''
  Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that 
``the terrorist threat . . . is at its most heightened state since the 
9/11 terrorist attacks.''
  Just this week, the FBI announced that the probability that the U.S. 
will be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction at some point is 100 
percent. The head of the FBI's WMD Directorate said that the type of 
attack that keeps him awake at night is an attack by a so-called ``lone 
wolf.''
  With the likelihood of a weapons of mass destruction attack at 100 
percent, we cannot afford to leave our intelligence officials without 
the tools they need to keep America safe. The war on terror is not 
over, but the terrorist threat is constantly evolving. We must fully 
arm our intelligence community with the resources they need to prevent 
another devastating and deadly terrorist attack.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment, which will have the effect of 
passing the extension of the expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT 
Act and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
giving me the chance to go early. I particularly want to speak now 
because when we voted the second time on the Patriot Act, the first 
time I did vote against the extension, but the second time I missed the 
vote--my fault--but I want to make clear my opposition not to an 
extension of the basis of self-defense that we have here but of passing 
it unchanged and of failure of the legislative process.

                              {time}  0920

  We knew this date was coming. To extend this now--and the gentleman 
from Texas laments the fact that we were unable to do it indefinitely 
without a chance to amend it. When the bill came up twice before, there 
was in neither case a chance to offer amendments. There isn't today; 
twice on suspension, once in a closed rule. To be presented with 
either/or on this is a bad idea. There are things that could be 
improved. There are areas where there are excesses.
  We have gone through a lot of symbolic activity in the legislative 
process this year--the vote to repeal the health care bill, a vote 
reaffirming that we would do oversight, which we have been doing and 
which is our duty--time

[[Page 2358]]

that could have been spent in committee, working on a process, offering 
people a chance to amend so we could--would not, for the third time, be 
confronted by the majority with up-or-down, an unchanged Patriot Act.
  Of course we are supportive of continuing our ability to defend 
ourselves but not without some refinement, not without some look and 
say, yes, there are ways we could do this that are more respectful of 
the liberties of the average American but would not endanger in any way 
our national security. For the third time, we are being denied a chance 
to do this; and I, therefore, will join my colleagues in opposing this, 
not because we don't want to see any extension at all but because we 
want a chance to work on it so we can do an extension of much of this 
act but with some improvements.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Although the Senate has rejected the House version of the bill with a 
1-year extension and has amended the bill to provide only a 90-day 
extension, which will provide us a more accelerated opportunity to 
actually deal with the issues involved, the reservations that I have 
previously stated on the floor remain the same. I still oppose any 
extension.
  I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to 
consider these provisions of possible reform, even to hold a hearing or 
markup. While in the past, Members have had the opportunity to receive 
classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members, many on the 
Judiciary Committee, who have received no such briefings. The three 
sections scheduled to sunset are deeply troubling, and I hope that we 
will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come 
before the House again.
  Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible 
thing'' so long as the government provided a ``statement of facts 
showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible 
things are relevant to a foreign intelligence, international terrorism, 
or espionage investigation.'' That would include business records, 
library records, tax records, educational records, medical records, or 
anything else. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types 
of records were subject to FISA orders, and the government had to show 
``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the 
person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a 
foreign power.''
  This dragnet approach allows the government to review personal 
records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual 
involved had anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to 
individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little 
restraint on government. Congress should either ensure that the things 
collected with this power have a meaningful connection to suspected 
terrorism 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. Without the necessity to specify 
the person and the facility to be tapped, you have a situation where 
the tap could be on a particular phone. And without specifically 
designating the person to be listened into, that means anybody using 
that pay phone, for example, can be listened into, or a roving wiretap 
on a person could result in any phone that that person might use being 
tapped, even if others use that phone, too.
  Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret 
intelligence of non-U.S. persons who are known to be not affiliated 
with any foreign government or organization. It provides the government 
with the ability to use secret courts or other investigatory tools that 
are acceptable in a domestic criminal investigation as long as we are 
dealing with a foreign government or an entity. According to government 
testimony, the lone wolf provision has never been used. Given the risk 
of this provision being used to circumvent existing protections against 
government intrusion, the government should explain why it should 
remain on the books. Surveillance of an individual who is not working 
with a foreign government or foreign organization is not what we 
usually understand as foreign intelligence. There may be good reason 
for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to 
suspend all our laws under the pretext that it is a foreign 
intelligence operation.
  While some have argued that these authorities remain necessary tools 
to fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without 
modification, others have counseled careful review and modification. 
Some have even urged that we allow some of those provisions to sunset; 
and if they are needed, they can be reinstated. I believe that we 
should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety and 
examine how it is working, where it has been successful, where it has 
failed, where it has gone too far, or where it may need improvement. 
That's the purpose of sunsets; and to extend it without review 
undermines that purpose.
  There are other authorities that deserve careful review. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the National 
Security Letters Reform Act which would make vital improvements to the 
current law to better protect civil liberties while ensuring that those 
letters 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 authority in those letters 
is too great for the Congress to ignore.
  It is encouraging that there was significant bipartisan opposition 
last week to the extension of the Patriot Act. It shows a healthy 
skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the 
United States. We need to restore our traditional respect for the right 
of every individual to be secure from unchecked government intrusion, 
and I hope that we will be able, after this vote, to carefully examine 
the ways these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways 
to reform the law in light of that experience. That's the purpose of 
sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close; so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem, 
and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and 
not for 1 year. With that in mind, however, it's important to note that 
we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to 
the opportunity for Members of this Congress to, in fact, review 
closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some 
of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may 
have on the constitutional rights of our citizens.
  Yesterday in a markup, I offered an amendment to affirm that the 
legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at 
least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and 
adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the Democratic 
Members who were there and present voted ``yes,'' and all the 
Republicans voted ``no.'' I think adhering to the Constitution and 
ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important 
concept. In this instance, we have not had the chance for a full 
hearing. And I am very glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the 111th 
Congress, we did; but unfortunately, even the amendments that were 
passed in that Congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this 
initiative that was passed by the House.
  I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section 
215,

[[Page 2359]]

where library records could be in question, if you read certain books. 
And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. 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.
  As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress, 
as I indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the 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. As a member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, I, as well, am very, very convinced that we do need 
to secure our homeland; but human intelligence is a very large part of 
that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the 
care that it deserves.

                              {time}  0930

  In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would 
allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced 
protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of 
those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time 
have been included in this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. None of the privacy concerns or civil 
liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have 
even been addressed. I'm 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. 
Therefore, I would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how 
fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same faults. And I simply 
say that the Fourth Amendment does say that it is the right of people 
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against 
unreasonable search and seizures.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this and begin our 
work as quickly as we can. But even with this provision passing, as I 
expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the American people, 
both in terms of homeland security and their constitutional right of 
privacy.
  I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, ``To extend 
expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists 
as agents.''
  This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision 
that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision 
revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include 
any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or 
preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It 
also grants government access to business records relating to a 
terrorist investigation.
  While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect 
our nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the 
democratic principles that make this country the crown jewel of 
democracy. The bill before us today, however, does not do that. In 
fact, even the manner by which are even considering this bill, only 
days after introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, 
circumvents the process we have in place to allow for improvements and 
amendments to be made.
  The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would 
extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set 
forth in the Constitution.
  The first provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any 
tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there 
is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or 
terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the 
Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs a foul of the 
traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government 
to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before 
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. 
Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a 
meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take 
steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.
  The second provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe 
wiretap,'' allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance 
orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. 
Like the first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary 
Committee during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional 
notions of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with 
particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision 
were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be 
done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit 
roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.
  The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf'' 
provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US 
persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type 
of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to 
abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the 
government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United 
States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has 
never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this 
provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be 
allowed to expire.
  Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it fails to amend other 
portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, specifically, those 
issues relating to the issuance and use of national security letters 
(NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, 
financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism 
investigation, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful 
behavior. I repeat, even if that person is NOT suspected of unlawful 
behavior.
  The three provisions I have just mentions, as well as the issues 
surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past 
Congresses, because they were in dire need of improvements to protect 
the rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in 
the past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.
  Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to 
us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act 
was introduced. In 2005, the Patriot was examined in the Judiciary 
Committee. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like 
Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only 
addressed the three provisions in H.R. 514, but also National Security 
Letters and the lax standards of intent.
  Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I 
stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act (FISA), another piece of law used in conjunction with 
the PATRIOT Act and essential to combating the war on terror, but one 
that was in need of improvements to protect Americans' Constitutionally 
enshrined civil liberties. On that day, I said that, ``we must ensure 
that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to 
protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding 
Americans,'' and I stand firmly behind that notion today.
  When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns 
around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept 
permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations 
were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended 
for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.
  I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American 
is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the 
FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in 
ensuring compliance with our constitution. I stand here today urging my 
colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act 
that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this 
legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other 
legislative body.
  Furthermore, this very bill was considered last year in the 111th 
Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up 
in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan 
amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in

[[Page 2360]]

this bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the 
breadth of the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an 
individual's privacy and civil liberties.
  In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow 
for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection 
against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my 
amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues who were on the 
Judiciary Committee at that time, are included in this legislation.
  None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues 
that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I am 
deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people, 
without so much as a hearing.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and 
appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we 
face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However, 
as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional 
rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national 
security.
  To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the 
founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which 
enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills Of Rights guarantee 
certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. 
One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people 
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against 
unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the Fourth 
Amendment, or any other provision in the United States Constitution, 
merely because it is inconvenient.
  As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is 
pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the 
basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers 
drafted the constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in 
Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience 
such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in 
the PATRIOT Act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress 
not included in the bill?
  Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct 
robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms 
that will better protect private communications from overbroad 
government surveillance.
  There is nothing more important than providing the United States of 
America, especially our military and national security personnel, the 
right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on 
terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is 
the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure 
America while preserving our way of life.
  Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of 
these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing 
H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business 
records, and individual terrorists as agents.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the 90-day extension in this bill is significantly more 
appropriate than the 10-month extension that the House has previously 
passed. If the bill is passed, I look forward to working with the 
leadership on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee in the 
past has been able to work constructively on this issue. In fact, when 
the Patriot Act was originally reported out of the Judiciary Committee, 
it was reported on a unanimous vote. That is very unusual. The 
Judiciary Committee is usually one of the more contentious committees 
in the entire Congress. But we can work together, and I look forward to 
working with the leadership of the committee as we deal with the 
possible extension of many of these provisions.
  I hope we will oppose the extension.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman 
of the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief today. I will just 
make several points but not extensively because this is the fifth 
debate we've had on this subject in 10 days and I think everything has 
been said.
  First of all, I have pledged in the past and I will pledge again 
today on this House floor that there will be hearings on a 
reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, as well 
as an oversight hearing on the Patriot Act as a whole.
  The three provisions that are up for reauthorization are important 
provisions to keep America safe, and I want to dispel some of the 
misinformation that has again been placed in the Record on the floor of 
the House today.
  First of all, section 215, which is the business records provision, 
has more strict standards for the issuance of a FISA warrant than the 
issuance of a Grand Jury subpoena in a criminal record. And only 
business records can be obtained. That means that it is not subject to 
the Fourth Amendment because it's not a search and seizure under the 
Fourth Amendment.
  The reauthorization in 2005, which I authored, provided procedures 
for recipients of section 215 warrants to seek judicial review of those 
orders compelling the production of business records. So people can 
have their day in court to have the warrant quashed.
  With respect to roving wiretaps, they're nothing new. We have had 
roving wiretaps for decades over criminal investigations such as 
racketeering and drug pushing.
  A roving wiretap order can only be issued by a judge. The law 
enforcement agency must minimize roving wiretaps, which means that if 
the target isn't on the phone at the time or they're not talking about 
something under investigation, then the wiretap has got to be turned 
off. And that provides for protections, and that has never been 
challenged for its constitutionality since it was put in the Patriot 
Act in 2001.
  Finally, the lone wolf definition is very important because in order 
to trigger Patriot Act surveillance or applications for Patriot Act 
surveillance without the lone wolf, there has to be a demonstration 
that the target is a member of a group like al Qaeda. And the way al 
Qaeda has kind of sprung out or people who said that they're al Qaeda 
when they really might not be al Qaeda, lone wolf becomes absolutely 
vital.
  It's important to note that the lone wolf authority cannot be used 
against a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. It could be used 
against an alien who is present in the United States on a nonpermanent 
basis, meaning either a visa or as a visa overstay.
  All of this has gone through constitutional scrutiny. It has passed 
muster. I will give everybody a chance to speak their peace on the 
Patriot Act. Believe me, these commitments have been made both myself 
and by the committee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). 
We're going to do it. We're going to get it done. But we need to have 
the extra time that was given to us by the Senate. So the motion that 
has been made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is a good motion, 
an essential motion, and it should be favored.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We've already had a lengthy debate on this legislation. There is 
bipartisan consensus that these important tools for our Intelligence 
Community cannot be allowed to lapse. The Senate amendment, which was 
also supported by a wide bipartisan margin in the other body, will keep 
these three needed priorities in place for the next 90 days, till May 
27.
  While I have strong concerns about the short-term extension and how 
that will compress the time needed to have a full and complete debate 
over the longer-term reauthorization, I will support the Senate 
amendment in order to make sure that these tools remain available.
  As I said earlier this week in this debate, it makes very little 
sense to me why we would not have the tools like roving wiretap 
authority and authority to obtain business records in terrorism and spy 
cases when the same tools are readily available in criminal cases, 
often with fewer protections for civil liberties.

[[Page 2361]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have said before I think this is one of the most 
misrepresented and misunderstood pieces of legislation I think I've 
ever seen. The things that exist in the ability for an FBI agent to 
conduct in criminal activities, including business records, including 
roving wiretaps, are just being extended to the FISA court, or the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to go against terrorism 
and espionage. That's the only difference here. It has been an 
important tool to keep America safe the last 10 years.
  I look forward to a thoughtful debate outside of the political 
rhetoric about what people believe this act to do and what it really 
does do to keep Americans safe. And if you believe that an FBI agent 
should be able to get a subpoena for business records to solve a crime, 
then clearly you believe that the same FBI agent should go to a FISA 
court to get a court order, which is a higher standard, for business 
records to prevent a terrorist attack. That's the only difference in 
these two, I think, misunderstood provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to address the Senate amendment to H.R. 514, which would 
reauthorize three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act for an 
additional 90 days.
  Mr. Speaker, my position today remains the same as it was 3 days ago 
when we passed H.R. 514. As I said then, I would like to see a 3-year 
extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to S. 289, which is 
currently pending in the Senate.
  The President supports a 3-year extension, too, believing, as I do, 
that a 3-year term would give our Nation's intelligence and law 
enforcement agencies predictability and certainty in the conduct of 
their critical work.
  Setting a 3-year sunset would also take this debate out of the 
political realm of an election season, which I think is the best way to 
approach things. This should be a matter of what is best for America, 
without regard to electoral politics.
  I know that there are varying opinions on my side of the aisle, and 
principled members feel strongly in both directions. That is why I 
support reauthorization with a sunset, so we can take a second look at 
the authorities in 3 years to make sure they are being used properly 
and individual civil liberties are being protected--a critical 
consideration as we move forward.
  I believe including a sunset in the legislation provides the proper 
checks and balances necessary to ensure we are doing all we can to 
protect Americans while also protecting Americans' constitutional 
rights.
  I don't think anyone in this Chamber is happy with the position we 
are in now. Some of us wanted a 3-year reauthorization, some wanted a 
10-month reauthorization, and some wanted no reauthorization. And now, 
here we are with 90 days, which ensures we will be back here having 
this debate soon.
  I hope that we can use the next 90 days to hear from all sides on how 
we can improve the Patriot Act, and I hope that we can all decide to 
set the sunsets in the future in such a way to minimize the impact of 
politics so we can focus on getting the policy right.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 93, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 279, 
nays 143, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                               YEAS--279

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

                               NAYS--143

     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Heller
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hultgren
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman

[[Page 2362]]


     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clay
     Costa
     Giffords
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Honda
     Langevin
     Lummis
     Matheson
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1010

  Messrs. HOLT, HULTGREN, and GUTIERREZ changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ALEXANDER, CARNEY, HARPER, RYAN of Wisconsin, WHITFIELD, and 
Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, I was at a constituent 
meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________