[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8321-8329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 PATRIOT SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 281

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall 
     be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 
     990) to provide for an additional temporary extension of 
     programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the House amendment. The Senate amendment shall 
     be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a hard-fought compromise 
for a 4-year extension of the Patriot Act. We know that there are two 
priority items that need to be addressed here: Number one, ensuring 
that we do not face another terrorist attack against the United States 
or our interests; and number two--equally important--to preserve the 
civil liberties and the constitutional protections that the American 
people have. This compromise does just that.

[[Page 8322]]



                              {time}  1850

  We had a 3-month extension, the House Judiciary Committee, and 
specifically Mr. Sensenbrenner's subcommittee, had three hearings. We 
see a bipartisan and bicameral compromise before us, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a major development in the war on terror 
in the last few weeks with the successful defeat of Osama bin Laden, 
striking a major blow to al Qaeda. At a time like this, we should 
reexamine the restoration of our constitutional protections. There's no 
reason to continually extend these Patriot Act provisions without 
taking a close look at them.
  My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) put forward an excellent 
proposal that's an example of the many thoughtful bipartisan proposals 
that would improve the Patriot Act, keep the American people safe, and 
protect our constitutional rights. Unfortunately, discussion of that 
proposal and debate, and a vote on that proposal, is not allowed under 
this rule. Therefore, I'm opposed to the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would specifically reauthorize three 
provisions: sections 215, 206, and 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act.
  Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that 
might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That could include 
medical records, your diary, even what books you've checked out at a 
library. Now, in the past, these orders were limited to narrow classes 
of businesses and records, but the Patriot Act has stripped away these 
basic requirements and continues to violate a basic American principle 
of privacy.
  Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government 
to conduct roving wiretaps. This allows the government to obtain 
surveillance warrants that don't specify the person or the object to be 
tapped. It could be an entire neighborhood. So much for the Fourth 
Amendment of the Constitution, which states that warrants must specify 
the person and place to be seized and searched with ``particularity.'' 
This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have the unfettered 
powers that this version of the Patriot Act would continue to give them 
for 4 years.
  The final section that would be reauthorized under this bill, section 
6001, deals with the ``lone wolf'' provision. This allows secret 
surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. even if they're not connected 
to any terrorist group or foreign power. This authority is only granted 
in secret courts and threatens our understanding of the limits of our 
own government's investigatory powers within our own country's borders.
  Now, we're told that government has never used this power, so I ask 
my colleagues, why should we reauthorize? If it hasn't even been used, 
shouldn't it be allowed to expire, particularly in light of our recent 
successes in the war on terror and the defeat of Osama bin Laden?
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about 
the growth of the government. Yet in spite of the rhetoric, this bill 
grows government and takes away privacy and respect for our private 
lives. This is the type of government intrusion which the Bill of 
Rights was designed to prevent.
  The provisions in the Patriot Act continue to be an affront to our 
most basic liberties as American citizens. I urge anyone who's worried 
about the unchecked growth of the State to think twice about this bill, 
perhaps look at a short-term extension, and have a real discussion of 
restoring the balance between individual rights and security. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply say that this is a hard-fought compromise. This is a 4-year 
extension. We've had exhaustive hearings on this issue. We need to 
ensure our security, number one, and we also need to ensure our civil 
liberties, and I believe that this measure does just that. It passed 
the Senate by a vote of 72-23. I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I 
call up the bill (S. 990) to provide for an additional temporary 
extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and I have a motion at 
the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment to the House amendment is as 
follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. SUNSET EXTENSIONS.

       (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 ``May 27, 2011'' and inserting ``June 1, 
     2015''.
       (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; 50 
     U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ``May 27, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``June 1, 2015''.


                            Motion to Concur

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Texas moves that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 990.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 281, 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 New York 
(Mr. Nadler) 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. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on S. 990.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, 4 months from now, America will mark the 10-year 
anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Tonight at 
midnight, three national security provisions that have helped prevent 
another 9/11 attack will expire. Congress must do its job and approve 
this legislation to reauthorize them before time runs out.
  Some argue that since we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 
September 11, we no longer need these laws. Others argue that the death 
of Osama bin Laden brought an end to al Qaeda and the war on terror, 
but both of these claims lack merit.
  The Patriot Act provisions continue to play a vital role in America's 
counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large-scale attack 
but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots.
  Earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia was 
arrested in my home State of Texas for attempting

[[Page 8323]]

to use weapons of mass destruction. Khalid Aldawsari attempted to 
purchase chemicals to construct a bomb against targets including the 
Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush, several dams in 
Colorado and California, and the homes of three former military guards 
who served in Iraq. Information obtained through a section 215 business 
records order was essential in thwarting this plot.
  Make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. These 
provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations, and they are 
effective.

                              {time}  1900

  We also have heard repeatedly from the Obama administration about the 
critical importance of extending these laws. S. 990, the Patriot 
Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to 
reauthorize the existing Patriot Act provisions for another 4 years. By 
doing so, Congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be 
collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted.
  In February, Congress approved a 90-day extension of these 
provisions. During the last 3 months, the House Judiciary Committee has 
thoroughly reviewed the Patriot Act and how its provisions are used in 
national security investigations. The Crime Subcommittee has held three 
hearings specifically on the Patriot Act, the full committee held 
oversight hearings of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and all 
committee members were provided a classified briefing by the 
administration. Attorney General Eric Holder told the committee that he 
supports these provisions and encouraged Congress to reauthorize them 
for as long of a period of time as possible.
  The roving wiretap provision allows intelligence officials, after 
receiving approval from a Federal court, to conduct surveillance on 
terrorist suspects, regardless of how many communication devices they 
may use. We know terrorists use many forms of communication to conceal 
their plots, including disposable cell phones and free email accounts. 
Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have 
had roving wiretaps for criminal investigations since 1986. If we can 
use roving wiretaps to track down a drug trafficker, why shouldn't we 
also use it to prevent a terrorist attack?
  The business records provision allows the FBI to access third-party 
business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and 
espionage cases. Again, this provision requires the approval of a 
Federal judge. That means the FBI must prove to a Federal judge that 
the documents are needed as part of a legitimate national security 
investigation. These two provisions have been effectively used for the 
last 10 years without any evidence of misuse or abuse.
  Our national security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign 
governments, terrorist groups, and their agents. But what about a 
foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied 
to a terrorist organization? The lone wolf definition simply brings our 
national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence 
officials to answer the modern-day terrorist threat.
  Since 9/11, we have seen terrorist tactics change. In addition to 
coordinated attacks by al Qaeda and other groups, we face the threat of 
self-radicalized terrorists who are motivated by al Qaeda but may not 
be directly affiliated with such groups. The lone wolf definition 
ensures that our laws cover rogue terrorists even if they aren't a 
card-carrying member of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization.
  The terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight and neither should 
our national security laws. The Patriot Act is an integral part of our 
offensive against terrorists and has proved effective at keeping 
Americans safe from terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this extension of the 
three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. When we last considered these 
expiring provisions, it was to extend them temporarily so that the 
House could review them and consider whether to improve them or allow 
them to expire. Many Members on both sides of the aisle objected to 
extending these provisions without so much as a hearing or an 
opportunity to debate changes to the law. In fact, the extension was 
rejected the first time with the votes of both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Since that debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner did in fact hold a series 
of hearings in which members of the Judiciary Committee were able to 
consider the issues and hear from many thoughtful experts who were able 
to make helpful suggestions. These three provisions dealing with roving 
wiretap authority, expansion of the definition of an agent of a foreign 
power to include so-called lone wolfs, and section 215, which allows 
the government to obtain business and library records using an order 
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court instead of the normal 
methods have aroused a great deal of controversy and concern, and 
rightly so.
  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. Section 215 is sweeping in its scope, and the government is 
not required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before 
undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. 
Congress should either ensure that things collected with this power 
have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or should allow 
this provision to expire.
  Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps, which permit the government 
to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the 
person to be tapped nor the facility to be tapped. There is virtually 
no particularity required. This seems a clear violation of the Fourth 
Amendment. There are almost no limits on this authority and no 
requirement that the government name a specific target, either a person 
or a location.
  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 not affiliated with a foreign 
government or organization. According to government testimony, this 
provision has never been used; yet we are told it is vital that it 
remain on the books.
  Surveillance of an individual who concededly is not working with a 
foreign government or with a terrorist organization is not normally 
what we understand as foreign intelligence. There may be many good 
reasons for government to keep tabs on such an individual, but there is 
no reason to suspend all our normal laws under the pretext that this is 
a foreign intelligence operation.
  We are now told we must simply punt for a few years. No need, we have 
been told, to consider any of the many improvements that many Members 
believe are important. No need, in fact, even to have a debate or a 
vote on those changes. It's another ``my way or the highway'' vote. 
That is no way to protect our Nation from terrorism while protecting 
our fundamental liberties from government intrusion.
  I realize that the Republican majority has the votes to extend these 
expiring authorities, but I am proud to stand with my colleagues of 
both parties in opposition to the flippant and reckless way in which 
our liberties are being treated today.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous legislation and demand 
that the House have a serious debate on the important issues impacted 
by this legislation affecting our security and our liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I rise today to support a 7-day extension, which means I believe that 
we can fix these problems. And I am disappointed that we again, having 
been

[[Page 8324]]

given the responsibility of oversight, now rush for a two-page 
document, a two-page document that is now the essence of the Patriot 
Act, which in fact will provide some challenge to the civil liberties 
of all Americans. I highlight just one or two.
  The business records applies to citizens and noncitizens alike, where 
law enforcement or government authorities can come and take items, no 
matter what their relevance, if they think that they might have some 
relevance to terrorism. Any tangible thing. Restaurants, where you are 
going to a restaurant. They can ask for what you ate. A hotel, your 
records. Libraries, your records.
  Why couldn't we do this with a 7-day review time? Extend it for 7 
days today and allow us from New Hampshire to Texas to California to be 
able to say that we stand with our soldiers in securing the Nation, but 
we also believe in civil liberties.
  Let me remind my colleagues, 9/11 and the terrorists that we were 
shocked that could find their way to lift off and not take off, that 
was a question of not connecting the dots. Not that we didn't have the 
information; we didn't connect the dots of information that were 
sitting on the desks of an agent in the Midwest and information that 
was somewhere else. Intelligence, getting information, analyzing it is 
part of securing the homeland, not violating the rights of Americans.
  So here we go again. Business records with no restraint, not adding 
the civil liberties and oversight provisions that were found in John 
Conyers' legislation, the ranking member on Judiciary, and as well the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Senator Leahy.
  What is the rush to protect those who are in fact citizens of the 
United States--what is the rush not to protect them? Support a 7-day 
extension. Don't vote for legislation that violates the civil liberties 
of Americans.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the 
importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we 
strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. I appreciate the 
need to ensure that the law enforcement and intelligence communities 
are equipped with the tools necessary to carry out investigations. And 
with certain improvements to protect individuals' privacy rights and 
civil liberties, I believe the PATRIOT Act can continue to achieve that 
goal.
  However, as members of Congress, we have the role of oversight, and I 
am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of 
being infringed upon, even if it is in the name of national security.
  This bill would extend three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
commonly known as the business records, lone wolf, and John Doe roving 
wiretap provisions, for four years to June 1, 2015, with no changes, 
alterations, or considerations of the constant concerns about privacy 
rights and civil liberties.
  This bill is reflective of a deal between Senate Leadership and 
Republican House Leadership, however, it does not contain any of the 
considerations and meaningful improvements which were included Senator 
Leahy's version of the PATRIOT Act Sunset extension bill that passed 
the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and the backing 
of the intelligence community. It makes no improvements to the PATRIOT 
Act. It includes no new protections for privacy. It requires no 
reporting to Congress.
  Nor does this bill take into account any of the meaningful 
improvements or additions which were included in H.R. 1805, 
Representative Conyers' House counterpart to Senator Leahy's Senate 
Bill.
  The proposals introduced by Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers 
make meaningful improvements to the PATRIOT Act and related 
authorities, and have the support of the Obama Administration and the 
intelligence community.
  They reauthorize the Business Records, Lone Wolf, and Roving Wiretaps 
provisions for two and a half years--until December 2013--allowing for 
greater Congressional oversight, which was the original intent of 
Congress when it originally included sunsets in these provisions. For 
the first time, a sunset was included on the use of National Security 
Letters. Finally, it moves the sunset on the FISA Amendments Act from 
the end of 2012 to 2013 so that all these inter-related surveillance 
authorities can be considered together in a non-election year to avoid 
reconsideration in the midst of a politicized environment.
  This proposal modifies the standard for obtaining a FISA court order 
to obtain business records by eliminating the overbroad presumption of 
relevance in these cases, and requires the Government to provide a 
written statement of the facts and circumstances that justify the 
applicant's belief that the tangible things sought are relevant. 
Furthermore, these bills contain additional protections for bookseller 
or library records.
  Additionally, these proposals would have made a number of changes to 
NSL practices and procedures, in response to the numerous abuses of 
this tool, including clarifying the standards for including a gag 
order, significantly improving the process for challenging gag orders, 
and adding a factual basis requirement.
  Furthermore, the Leahy and Conyers bill would have eased the concerns 
of many Americans by enhancing public reporting and requiring audits.
  The bill before us now, which was rushed through at the final hour 
despite multiple extensions, includes none of the thoughtful 
enhancements and improvements which have been carefully considered and 
crafted over the past several months. It ignores the results of 
countless oversight hearings, legislative hearings, and committee 
markups. It completely ignores the concerns that many Americans have 
voiced and continue to raise.
  These three provisions of the PATRIOT Act extend overstep the bounds 
of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution.
  The ``roving wiretap'' provision allows a roving electronic 
surveillance authority, allowing the government to obtain intelligence 
surveillance orders with not particularity, that identify neither the 
person nor the facility to be tapped.
  The ``business records'' 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.
  The ``lone wolf'' provision 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.
  This bill fails to address National Security Letters (NSLs) all 
together. 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.
  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. It has been examined in the Judiciary Committee 
numerous times. 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, but also National Security Letters 
and the lax standards of intent.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from

[[Page 8325]]

Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the current chairman of the Crime 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 990, to reauthorize the three 
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act for 4 years. This legislation 
provides much-needed certainty to our intelligence officials, who rely 
on these tools to prevent terrorist attacks, monitor foreign spies, and 
prevent espionage.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not go as far as legislation reported 
by the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. H.R. 1800, the bill I 
sponsored along with Judiciary Chairman Smith, Intelligence Chairman 
Rogers, and House Administration Chairman Lungren, permanently 
reauthorizes the lone wolf definition and extends section 206 roving 
authority and section 215 business records authority for 6 years.
  The PATRIOT Act has been plagued by myths and misinformation for 10 
years. We've heard some of those tonight, and we'll probably hear more. 
In the last 3 months, myths have become even more outlandish--claims of 
warrantless wiretapping, monitoring entire neighborhoods, and blatant 
constitutional violations. Make no mistake: Each and every one of these 
claims are patently false, and if Congress fails to reauthorize these 
laws before they expire, America's national security and that of its 
citizens will be the most vulnerable in a decade.
  The lone wolf definition closes a gap in FISA by allowing the 
government to track a foreign national, not a U.S. person, who engages 
in acts to prepare for a terrorist act against the United States but is 
not affiliated, or cannot immediately be shown to be affiliated, with a 
foreign terrorist organization. The lone wolf definition is in fact 
quite narrow. It cannot be used to investigate U.S. persons and only 
applies in cases of suspected international terrorism. The government 
cannot use this provision to investigate domestic terrorism.
  Although the lone wolf provision has yet to be used, it is an 
important provision that recognizes the growing threat of individuals 
who may subscribe to radical and violent beliefs, but do not clearly 
belong to a specific terrorist group. The recent death of Osama bin 
Laden only strengthens its importance, as the fear of individual 
retaliatory acts increases.
  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 is using or is 
about to use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators must seek 
a new court order each time a terrorist or spy changes cell phones or 
computers. In today's world of disposable cell phones, free e-mail 
accounts, and prominent social media, roving authority is a crucial 
tool.
  Section 215 allows the FISA Court to issue orders granting the 
government access to business records in foreign intelligence, 
international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. This 
authority is similar to the widely accepted grand jury subpoena in 
criminal investigations.
  There are numerous protections written into the law to ensure that 
the authority is not misused. Under section 215, only an article III 
FISA judge can issue an order for business records; an investigation of 
a U.S. person cannot be based solely on activities protected by the 
First Amendment; the records must be for a foreign intelligence or 
international terrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must 
be utilized.
  In addition, requests for records of library circulation, book sales, 
firearms sales, and the like must first be approved by the FBI 
director, his deputy, or head of the FBI's national security division. 
By contrast, a grand jury subpoena can obtain all of these records in a 
criminal investigation with simply the signature of a line prosecutor. 
Finally, business records, which by definition reside in the hands of a 
third party, do not--and I repeat, do not--implicate the Fourth 
Amendment.
  Since this law was first enacted over 10 years ago, these provisions 
have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have been 
either unchallenged or found constitutional. The lone wolf definition 
has never been challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been 
challenged. But four appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit, 
have upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth 
Amendment.
  Section 215 business records were challenged, but after Congress made 
changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, which many 
people who are complaining about this bill voted against, the lawsuit 
was withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. These three provisions have stopped countless 
potential attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law 
enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country 
safe.
  The death of Osama bin Laden proves that American intelligence 
gathering is vital to our national security. The fight against 
terrorism, however, did not die with bin Laden, and neither did the 
need for the PATRIOT Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to another 
abdication of our constitutional duty to conduct oversight and protect 
our most basic civil liberties. This bill extends through June 1, 2015, 
three provisions contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act and the USA PATRIOT Act that, at the time of their 
passage, constituted an unprecedented expansion of government power and 
infringement on the American people's privacy.
  Earlier this month, the Department of Justice released its annual 
report on surveillance activities for 2010. The report reveals that the 
government quadrupled its use of section 215 orders, named after one of 
the provisions, poised to extend until 2015 with no reform. Section 
215, also known as the business records provision, allows the FBI to 
order any person, any business, to turn over any tangible things as 
long as it specifies it's for an authorized investigation. Orders 
executed under section 215 constitute a serious violation of Fourth 
Amendment and First Amendment rights by allowing the government to 
demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First 
Amendment rights, such as library records or medical records.
  The other amendments to be extended include section 601, the lone 
wolf surveillance provision, contained in the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which authorizes the government to 
conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected to any 
foreign power or terrorist group. It effectively allows the government 
to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain electronic 
surveillance orders from criminal courts.
  Lastly, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the FBI to 
obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to 
wiretap a target without having to specify the target or the device. 
These provisions were given a sunset for a reason.
  There's an abundance of evidence over the last 10 years that these 
powers have given the government license to infringe on 
constitutionally protected privacy of the American people with no 
accountability. It's time we stop rubber-stamping these provisions, 
reform the PATRIOT Act, and stop Big Government from reaching into 
people's private lives.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

[[Page 8326]]


  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the House is once again in an unexamined rush 
to make semi-permanent the government's ability to seek all matter of 
records on citizens without having to demonstrate to a court that 
citizens under suspicion are actually engaged in terrorist activities.
  The power of government for surveillance and enforcement are among 
the most important but also the most fearsome. We know these 
authorities and others have been abused, because the Department of 
Justice Inspector General has told us so. I know it, because for 8 
years I served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
Let me tell you, American freedom and security are not well-served by 
the excessive secrecy imposed on our society and government by this 
legislation.
  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is responsible for 
approving government surveillance requests under the PATRIOT Act, is 
the kind of court that should be used only rarely and in the most 
special circumstances. Instead, it has become part of a kind of routine 
clandestine government.

                              {time}  1920

  Treating some Americans as above suspicion and others as suspect 
without cause has made us a less just and also a less secure society.
  The PATRIOT Act was originally passed at a time of high emotion in 
this country. Nearly a decade at the PATRIOT Act enactment, the death 
of Osama bin Laden has provided us with an opportunity to stop and 
reflect on all that has transpired over the last 10 years. It is past 
time for us to pause and reexamine the validity of the assumptions that 
led to the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the validity of its current 
application.
  But, you say, we cannot debate the validity of its current 
application because those applications are classified at a very high 
level. That is precisely one of the points we should be debating 
thoroughly before any reauthorization.
  Sitting on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 
years, let me tell you, that secrecy does not serve America well.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the House 
Administration Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I know we want to 
get to a vote very, very soon and normally I would refrain from 
speaking on this except that because this is such an important issue 
and some of the things that have been stated on the floor are so 
patently untrue, there is an obligation for those of us who have been 
working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the 
public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the 
floor.
  Number one, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.
  We have heard statements on this floor that are absolutely not true. 
They are the same statements that were made the last time we had this 
on the floor, the same statements that were made when we reauthorized 
this a few years ago. And one of the most amazing things is there is a 
continuation of this argument that we haven't done proper oversight. I 
don't know where you have been, but many of us on this side of the 
aisle have been in briefings and on hearings on these very issues 
seeking out the truth on these things.
  The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does 
not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever. The suggestion that somehow 
we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the 
language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. And 
the argument that somehow, since we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we 
don't need this, is the most absurd at all.
  One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against 
Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long 
range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you 
the information that you need. It doesn't fall from heaven. It doesn't 
come like manna. You have to go get it. We have carefully constructed 
these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is necessary 
not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has 
occurred but, rather, to prevent these terrorist attacks.
  One of the things people should keep in mind is that we have the 
intervention of Federal judges in these three different areas of the 
law. It is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go 
unfettered into looking for this information. Rather, they must justify 
it to an independent Federal court; and some say, oh my gosh, it is a 
secret court. It is a secret court because, in fact, there are certain 
secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save 
this Nation and our citizens from those who would attack us.
  One wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is 
necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. The fact that 
we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to 
dismantle the means which allowed us to do that. It is, in fact, a 
reason why we should continue this.
  Any honest examination of the history of this Judiciary Committee and 
the Crime Subcommittee will reveal that we have done the oversight 
necessary to ensure that we have the tools to fight the threat of 
terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of American 
citizens.
  To suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. To suggest it's 
unconstitutional is to somehow ignore the decisions made by every 
Federal court that has looked at this.
  But you can continue to make these statements, you can continue to 
confuse the public, you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought 
not to be raised.
  With all due respect, while everybody is entitled to their opinions, 
they are not entitled to their own facts. They must take the facts as 
they are. And the facts are this is constitutional, it is workable, it 
is necessary. We have to do it, and we have to do it now.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 990. These 
three provisions of the PATRIOT Act provide important tools that help 
keep America safe.
  I am pleased that this bill includes sunsets. Our Founding Fathers 
created a system of government that included checks and balances among 
the three branches of government: the legislative, executive and 
judicial. Sunsets allow for the legislative branch to conduct 
meaningful oversight on an ongoing basis.
  I will support this extension because I believe that these provisions 
are consistent with the Constitution and provide the tools the 
government needs to keep us safe while protecting civil liberties.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we have heard all these arguments 
before many times on this floor. It's hard for me to believe that a 
proper investigation and proper procedures would not have been able to 
improve these provisions in any way, that all the hearings, all the 
suggestions that were made came to no changes at all.
  I am not going to debate for the fifth time with Mr. Lungren his 
statements. I do not believe they are accurate. He does not believe 
what I said is accurate. We are on similar ground there.
  Let me just say that I believe that these provisions should be 
amended, they should be changed. They are an overbroad violation of our 
rights and leave it at that and, therefore, I will oppose it.
  Before we conclude, I want to recognize Judiciary Committee counsel 
Sam Sokol, who is leaving the committee

[[Page 8327]]

tomorrow for what I know is a bright future. I know that I speak for 
every member of the committee in thanking Sam for his wise counsel, his 
prodigious capacity for work, and his friendship. He has been a valued 
member of our team, and we will miss him greatly. We wish you the best 
of luck, Sam.
  With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.
  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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee Crime Subcommittee. He is also both a former U.S. Attorney 
and district attorney.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, it's incredulous what I am hearing here 
today from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I was a U.S. 
Attorney and used the PATRIOT Act. I debated it, I lectured it, and I 
put a terrorist away by using the PATRIOT Act.
  I was also a district attorney, and it was easier for me to get a 
warrant for documents as a district attorney than it was for me to get 
documents pursuant to the PATRIOT Act.
  I just could not sign a document and go get papers and have a 
wiretap. I had to go through a FISA judge. It had to go through my 
first assistant, myself, the Justice Department, a judge, and then back 
to the office for a signature.

                              {time}  1930

  There are absolutely no circumstances where I could get information 
from a citizen who we believed to be a terrorist or to be involved in 
terrorism by not getting a warrant.
  An example is the roving wiretap. The roving wiretap was designed for 
one specific reason. Wiretaps, when the wiretap law went into effect, 
were based on a phone being on a wall in a particular location. Over 
the years, because of cell phones, terrorists, criminals, and drug 
dealers were buying-- and are still buying--cell phones in the 5, 10, 
and 20 batches, using them for several minutes, dropping them, 
continuing the same crime, and just switching to a new cell phone. The 
law allowed us not to have to go after a new warrant for each cell 
phone. That was logical because the phone was not attached to a wall in 
a particular location; they were roving. It has done its job not only 
in drug work but terrorism work as well.
  The same thing for documents and information from business records 
and bank records. In some instances, as a district attorney, I didn't 
even need a warrant. All I had to do was subpoena those documents. That 
is not possible under the Federal system. We have to go through a FISA 
court to get those warrants. I've done that for 6 years as a U.S. 
attorney and for 12 years as a district attorney. What we are hearing 
from the other side is absolutely not true about warrantless searches.
  Earlier today, the Senate approved Senate 990 by a vote of 72-23, 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is time for the House to do 
the same thing. Time is of the essence. We have until midnight tonight 
to help keep America safe because the terrorists are out there 
continually working. They aren't taking breaks.
  These are commonsense provisions that have worked effectively for 10 
years to prevent terrorists attacks, protect the American people, and 
preserve civil liberties. They need to be extended for another 4 years.
  The terrorist threat we face as a Nation has not expired. Neither 
should these important provisions that have helped keep us safe from 
terrorist attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical national 
security bill.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, we can defeat our enemies without 
surrendering the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of our 
republic.
  Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to 
defend the liberties that we hold dear. In light of their bravery and 
commitment to the highest standards of human rights--even in war--we 
must ask ourselves if, through this vote on S. 990, the PATRIOT Sunsets 
Extension Act of 2011, we are willing to freely give up those very 
rights for which they are willing to die.
  The PATRIOT Act can be a law worth preserving. Many of its provisions 
have enhanced our security. But several of its prescriptions would 
undermine our cherished protections of civil liberties and American 
freedom. That is not the American way.
  As we approach Memorial Day, a day when we reflect on the sacrifices 
made by our fallen warriors, let us give them and the defenders of our 
security the legal tools they need to protect us all and to seek out 
and descend upon those who would do us harm. But let us sensibly 
discard those provisions of law which do not uphold those standards and 
would instead give away the precious liberties which millions of 
Americans have died defending throughout the history of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, today I vote against S. 990 because this Congress did 
not move sensibly to amend the PATRIOT Act to bolster our security 
while respecting our civil liberties and freedoms.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in February of this year, I voted to 
support a three-month extension of the PATRIOT Act provisions in 
today's underlying legislation in order to give Congress time to build 
a consensus around necessary, common sense reform. Today, it is with 
great reluctance that I must stand in opposition to an additional 
extension of these provisions, as Congress has failed to make reforms 
to safeguard civil liberties.
  This is a missed opportunity. Senators Leahy and Paul offered a 
bipartisan amendment that included a sunset date for National Security 
Letters, enhanced oversight of PATRIOT Act authorities, and more 
focused standards of relevance for business record requests--changes 
that would provide meaningful improvements to the balance between 
national security and civil liberties. However, this proposal was not 
given a vote on the floor of the Senate.
  I believe there are important provisions in this bill that should be 
extended. However, there is also a clear need for improved oversight 
and privacy protections. We must not be stampeded into continuing to 
pass bad policy, especially when credible solutions are well within 
reach. I voted to give Congress time to responsibly reform these 
provisions. But I cannot in good conscience support a four-year 
extension that makes no effort to ensure that the authorities under 
this law are being exercised responsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, I have always been prepared to support a balanced 
PATRIOT Act that defends Americans without eroding our freedom. 
Unfortunately, S. 990 is not that legislation.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I do not support S. 990, which extends 
three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions. There is a much better way 
to safeguard our national security without jeopardizing the privacy and 
civil liberties of American citizens. This legislation reauthorizes 
these sections of the PATRIOT Act without making necessary 
improvements, and it fails to even address other problematic practices, 
including the use of National Security Letters.
  Among the provisions included in this extension is Section 215, which 
expands the government's ability to private, confidential records, 
without showing probable cause or direct connection to a foreign power 
or agent. This includes library, and bookstore records, as well as 
highly personal information such as medical records.
  In addition to my concerns about what is in this bill, I am concerned 
about what is not in it. Instead of engaging in a real debate about 
reforming the PATRIOT Act, we are simply continuing the bad policies of 
the past. Tonight's bill fails to address the widespread use (and 
abuse) of National Security Letters. The National Security Letters 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which drastically expand government 
authority to demand private records without prior court approval, have 
been used hundreds of thousands of times since 2001.
  There is another way to protect our citizens, without treading on 
their rights. Congressman Conyers has offered an alternative proposal, 
H.R. 1805, laying out a compromise approach to improving the PATRIOT 
Act. I am a cosponsor. Congressman Conyers' legislation, which has the 
support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community, as 
well as bipartisan Senate support, reauthorizes the three expiring 
provisions for two and a half years, rather than the six-year extension 
in S. 990. It makes critical improvements to prevent the abuse of 
fundamental civil liberties, including tightening the requirements on 
roving wiretaps (and eliminating the so-called ``John Doe Roving 
Wiretap,'' under which the government can obtain surveillance orders 
that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped).
  In addition, for the first time, Congressman Conyers' bill sunsets 
the use of National Security Letters (NSL) and makes a number of 
changes to abusive NSL practices. H.R. 1805 strengthens the factual 
basis required for use

[[Page 8328]]

of an NSL, clarifies the standards for including a gag order in an NSL, 
and improves public reporting on the number of NSLs issued each year.
  I do not believe that these invasive authorities should be extended 
in the absence of real improvement in the civil liberties protections. 
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know that we can protect 
our citizens without treading on their rights. We do not have to choose 
between our security and our values. Instead, we should pass 
legislation that grants the intelligence community the tools they 
require while also protecting the rights and liberties of all 
Americans.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against an extension 
of the PATRIOT Act because Congress should be refining and narrowing 
the scope of the Act, not extending it as-is, until 2015.
  There are real concerns on both sides of the aisle about granting the 
federal government too much power with little to no mechanisms for 
oversight by Congress. We are missing an opportunity in the House for 
bipartisan reform by rushing this extension to the floor. It's time for 
a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our 
national defense.
  Our intelligence community has the tools necessary to keep us safe 
without compromising our privacy. This hasty four-year extension is 
disappointing because the Act could be more effective if it included 
the auditing requirements for which many in Congress have advocated.
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Speaker, deep within my heart I have a mistrust of the 
Obama Administration when it comes to the PATRIOT Act. However, I do 
have a greater trust in the law enforcement and judges on the FISA 
court to keep Americans safe.
  I support the work that law enforcement does around the nation each 
and every day in order to protect our citizens and apprehend 
individuals who want to kill innocent people and try to destroy our way 
of life.
  The PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after September 11 to deal with 
the threat of international terrorism. Indeed, we are engaged in a 
global conflict against radical Islam. Those who are captured on this 
truly global battlefield should be treated as non-state, non-uniform 
belligerents, not as common criminals.
  As you are well aware, I spent 22 years in the United States Army--
the tip of the spear tasked with protecting the citizens of this great 
nation. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I have taken an 
oath to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of the 22nd 
Congressional District of Florida and all Americans.
  Benjamin Franklin, one of the founders of our nation wrote ``They who 
can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
  For many weeks I have reflected on this quote as I have studied this 
issue to make a decision on how I should cast my vote on the 
reauthorization of provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I have spoken with 
numerous individuals, including my fellow colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Robert Mueller, and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 
Mike Rogers in order to try to understand the facts.
  I have spoken to numerous constituents who are both experts on this 
issue and constituents who, while not experts, have a concern about 
these provisions. I reviewed testimony to Congressional Committees and 
have studied many documents in order to determine the proper balance 
between individual's rights and the responsibility of the Federal 
Government to protect Americans.
  I have done what I was sent to Capitol Hill to do, to make an 
informed decision based on the facts and represent the people of the 
22nd Congressional District of Florida. I have determined that the most 
important constitutional right, one which I have taken an oath to 
protect, is the right to life for all Americans. We must do whatever is 
necessary to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil and how to do 
this must be fully and openly debated.
  When we killed Osama bin Laden, we may have killed the face of evil 
and the mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks, however, we face an 
emboldened enemy who now operates on a 21st century battlefield. The 
perpetrators of September 11th lived in South Florida and planned their 
attacks upon our nation there. And just this month, individuals were 
arrested in South Florida sending funds to terrorists in Pakistan.
  The complexities of the 21st Century Battlefield require us to 
reassess and redefine how we confront our enemy. The men and women who 
serve in law enforcement throughout our country today face this non-
state, non-uniform belligerent who has no regard for international 
borders or boundaries, to include our homeland. As we have seen by the 
terrorist attacks in Little Rock and Fort Hood, our fight against 
radical Islam is not just against the Taliban in Afghanistan or al 
Qaida in Iraq, but against a global movement who has infiltrated our 
borders.
  We are at war with a radical ideology that has brought the fight to 
us time and time again. From Fort Hood, Texas, to Little Rock, 
Arkansas, Islamists have targeted American citizens. After each of 
these brutal attacks, I, like many Americans, was shocked at how this 
could happen on American soil. Political Correctness allowed Major 
Nidal Hassan to have so-called ``spiritual conversations'' with a 
radical element who preached and advocated violence against American 
citizens. Under the protection of the First Amendment, Carlos Bledsoe 
was able to travel overseas, become radicalized, return home to 
purchase weapons, plan and execute an attack against a Little Rock Army 
Recruiting Depot.
  As I outlined to a letter I sent to FBI Director Robert Mueller 
earlier this month, I believe the execution of these provisions should 
be moved to the Counter Terrorism Division instead of the Criminal 
Division. Further, I do not support the extension of these provisions 
for four years and I am gravely disturbed that we did not allow an open 
process to review the extension of these provisions.
  We must clearly focus on the enemy, not permit political correctness 
to drive our domestic security policy. No one recognizes the security 
situation better than I. However, I have not been fully persuaded that 
these provisions make us safe . . . as opposed to the illusion of 
feeling safe.
  Based upon my research, I shall not vote for extending these 
provisions for four years. The most integral part of our focus on 
security against radical Islamic terrorism is to recognize and confront 
this enemy. And to do this we must openly debate the best way for this 
to be accomplished.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 281, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered 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. NADLER. 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 250, 
nays 153, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 376]

                               YEAS--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes

[[Page 8329]]


     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--153

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Akin
     Baca
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Buchanan
     Castor (FL)
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Filner
     Flake
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Hastings (WA)
     Huelskamp
     Jackson (IL)
     Long
     McCarthy (NY)
     McKeon
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Olver
     Owens
     Pompeo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1956

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. YODER, SCOTT of South Carolina, and POE of Texas 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 against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 376, 
Consideration of PATRIOT Act Extension, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my floor vote on 
rollcall vote 376.
  Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``nay'' for 
rollcall vote 376.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for 
personal reasons, and missed a recorded vote for S. 990, the PATRIOT 
Sunsets Extension Act of 2011. If present, I would have recorded my 
vote as ``nay'' for rollcall vote 376.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 376, I was away from the Capital 
region attending the Civil Rights Freedom Riders' 50th Anniversary 
Celebration. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________