[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8330-8333]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE PATRIOT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to be recognized to 
address you here on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives and this great deliberative body that we have, and 
especially immediately in the aftermath of this historic vote that has 
just gone up on the Patriot Act.
  As we have debated this and worked with an amendment process and 
negotiations that took place in the Senate, we got down to the last 
minutes here. And I presume final passage of the Patriot Act is now on 
its way to the President's desk to be signed tonight so that there's 
not a window of vulnerability with regard to the intelligence that we 
can gather against our enemies that are evermore coming into the United 
States and plotting against us globally.
  This is an issue that emerged when we saw our vulnerabilities in the 
immediate aftermath of September 11. And as that was dealt with here in 
this Congress--and I will say that of pieces of legislation that have 
been passed in a relative emergency situation, the Patriot Act among 
them stands out as something that came together with--it was clearly a 
bipartisan effort to put the Patriot Act language together; it was done 
so with the information that we had at the time. Some of that 
information was gathered in a hasty fashion--the smoke was certainly 
rolling up out of Ground Zero in New York while the Patriot Act was 
passed here in the House of Representatives.
  It was also passed with the idea that it had sunsets on it so it 
required reauthorization so that Congress would come back and have 
oversight over the authority that was granted in the Patriot Act to do 
surveillance. For example, roving wire taps. Clear back in the 1980s it 
was understood with cell phones that when investigators were 
investigating organized crime, for example, the Mob had it figured out 
where they could pick up a cell phone, use it for a while, dispose of 
it, go grab another cell phone, use it for a while and dispose of it. 
The old wiretap laws that would allow for a judge to grant a warrant to 
tap a land line at, say, a residence or a business of the suspected 
mobster were archaic in the 1980s because of cell phone emergence, and 
so Congress acted and provided for the roving wiretap for 
investigations domestically. But it didn't cover the investigations 
that had to do with noncitizens and terrorist activities, and so that's 
something that the Patriot Act addressed.
  As I look at the components of the Patriot Act one after another, it 
comes down to this: That the constitutional protections that are there 
for the individuals that are being investigated are equal to or greater 
than those protections for American citizens in domestic investigations 
unrelated to terrorist charges. So the roving wiretap is a piece that 
was a natural, that had to be part of the Patriot Act, and it is. And 
we also have the FISA courts, the special courts that evaluate the 
investigations and yield a judgment as to whether they're in 
compliance. The national security letters, of which there have only 
been about 300 requested national security letters--yes, there is a 
confidentiality that's attached to that. If a Federal agent goes into 
an entity and issues a national security letter, first of all, that's 
reported later on to the court, and the individual or the company 
that's required to produce that information is bound by confidentiality 
for obvious reasons. If Osama bin Laden or Zarqawi or any of the 
plotting terrorists were planning against the United States, the 
subject of the investigation, they would be tipped off. They would be 
tipped off on the national security letter request, which means the 
investigation would be blown up by that lack of confidentiality, the 
lone wolf piece of this.
  So there is piece after piece of the Patriot Act that has stood up 
very well. And one of the people that has stood up on this issue that 
understands this very thoroughly, and one of the people who is on the 
Select Committee on Intelligence--which will prevent her from talking 
about some of the things that are confidential because of the deep 
intelligence knowledge that goes on in a secure room in this Capitol--
is my friend from Minnesota whom I would like to yield to, Michele 
Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
  This is a very important issue and a very important vote that we have 
just taken here in the House Chamber. It is dealing with the Patriot 
Act. We have had calls, we have had requests on our Facebook, Twitter, 
and in our emails urging a ``no'' vote tonight on the Patriot Act. I 
cast a ``yes'' vote on this act. The Patriot Act did pass. This is why. 
This is an authorization for the next several years in three areas. One 
is the lone wolf exception. We have a new war, a new enemy, new 
tactics. The lone wolf is one actor acting alone. And if we get a tip, 
it may be at the last minute, and we've got to go in for national 
security reasons and find that actor. That is an appropriate use of 
gaining this intelligence and information.
  Number two, roving wiretaps. We have changed from the days of 
telephones being wired into the walls; now we use a cell phone. A lot 
of modern terrorists will buy a thousand ``go'' phones. They'll make 
one call, use a cell phone, throw it away like it's a disposable phone, 
pick up another cell phone, make another call. So we have to have the 
ability to be able to go to whichever phone a potential alleged 
terrorist may be using.
  Now the third exception is the business records section; this is 
section 215. This is the section that most people have the greatest 
worries about. They worry about the infringement of Fourth Amendment 
rights. I worry about that too. I spent all week this week going to 
Members who I felt would oppose the Patriot Act. I went to people who 
are national voices who oppose the Patriot Act to find out what their 
concerns were, because I'm a lawyer. I genuinely am concerned about 
making sure that we never cross the line as a Federal Government.

                              {time}  2010

  Why? Because I think government is too big. I think we intervene too 
much in people's lives. I certainly don't want to give the government 
the unfettered right to go in and access my personal private records. 
This is what I know to be true about section 215 and why I could vote 
for it.
  Number one, no right of gaining access to records can be given unless 
a Federal agent goes to a judge first. They have to go to the FISA 
court. Also, there has to be a connection to national security 
interests or to a foreign government. We've got that level of 
protection. When they go and make these requests, of which there have 
been 300-some requests, then they can go and they can gain access to a 
record.
  Now, these are business records. These aren't records in my basement 
or your basement. These are records that a company has, like a phone 
company or a bank, but they're used in only the limited case where a 
judge first grants permission.
  So what does that mean?

[[Page 8331]]

  That means that it is constitutional in that the individual 
American's due process rights are observed because a Federal agent 
first has to go to a judge, a judge has to apply due process to that 
request, and then from there then access can be given to records, not 
in an individual's house but from a business. And then during the 
course of investigation--again, remembering, this is if there is a 
threat of a national security incident only.
  Then during the course of an investigation, it's well understood if 
we're investigating a terrorist, if we get a lead that Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed has a phone, we get his information, we are able to access 
records that are somehow connected to an alleged terrorist--or now an 
admitted terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--we have to be able to have 
the means. Do we tip off someone like a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that 
we're looking at his records? Of course not. That would be absurd.
  So, it's a very different time and a very different war and we're 
observing Fourth Amendment rights. Now, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not 
an American. He is not an American citizen. He is not an American. But 
for Americans, when we are seeking a request for a record of an 
American, the Federal agent first has to go and get this approved by a 
judge.
  I urge people, Mr. Speaker, go to my Facebook site. We have all of 
the documents up to verify and show all of the reasoning behind the 
Patriot Act.
  And again, this is a very important discussion this evening. I want 
to thank my colleague Steve King for bringing this to people's 
attention. It's a very important vote. I've spent all week trying to 
get the basis for whether the vote should be ``yes'' or the vote should 
be ``no,'' and I have confidence this evening that it was the right 
vote to cast a ``yes'' vote.
  And again, I encourage anyone who is interested to go to my Facebook 
site and get all of this documentation. Read for yourselves. Make up 
your mind. But in my opinion, this passes constitutional muster. And I 
can assure every American I would not vote for this bill unless I 
thought it did pass constitutional muster.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, and thanking the gentlelady 
from Minnesota for coming to the floor on short notice to add clarity 
to this discussion and this debate and having the courage to stand up 
on these constitutional principles.
  I have had it pointed out to me that the Fourth Amendment of the 
Constitution limits the Patriot Act. It's the protection against 
unreasonable search and seizure. Unreasonable. And these searches and 
seizures that have been found to be reasonable, in many cases by our 
Supreme Court across this land, are very well settled law, and the 
Patriot Act fits within the parameters of existing domestic 
surveillance.
  And I would add that this Congress has protected itself in this 
fashion: that the major components of this Patriot Act that have been 
extended are extended for 4 years. That means that this Congress comes 
back again and evaluates the Patriot Act for constitutional and 
functionality within this 4-year period of time, and it will require 
reauthorization again. So we're carefully walking down this path making 
sure that the abuses do not take place.
  And I, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as one who has gone 
up to the secure room and gone through a number of secure briefings 
that had to do with the functionality of the Patriot Act--it's a 
requirement on some of our parts here in this Congress to do that. I 
have also made a pledge to a number of other Members that I'll keep an 
eye on these constitutional functions and the respect for this statute 
that's given by the Federal agents that are allowed to utilize the 
Patriot Act. And that will be a never-ending vigilance here in this 
Congress. It always is. And protecting constitutional rights is a 
never-ending vigilance.
  One of the people who is very duly vigilant who, when the rest of us 
take a little break and catch some sleep at night, is back keeping his 
eye on the functions of government, one of the relentless and incessant 
providers of protection of liberty and constitutional protection and 
one of the scholars on the Constitution here is the gentleman from 
Texas.
  I'd be happy to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Louie 
Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Iowa, my very dear friend.
  As my friend knows, he and I've both been extremely vigilant in 
following up on these issues. But I wanted to point out, there is a lot 
of confusion. There are people on television that are just making these 
claims that the Constitution has been thrown away, and they haven't 
looked at how these three provisions that have been extended for 4 
years were being used.
  Now, my first year here, 2005, we were taking up the Patriot Act, and 
I had concerns then. I still have concerns, because these things, these 
powers, these three have been held constitutional, and I think they 
are. The problem comes in the potential for abuse.
  And the reason I ended up catching a lot of grief from some of the 
leaders in our party back in 2005 as a freshman was I wanted to have 
sunsets on some provisions so that we could get leverage, because as we 
saw from Attorney General Gonzales, when he was head of the Justice 
Department, and as we have seen with Attorney General Holder, 
Departments of Justice are not very forthcoming no matter what party 
they are when the Congress asks for information. Now, they will say, 
Oh, yeah, we'll give you whatever you need, but they're not very 
forthcoming.
  And it's not until powers that they want to keep come up for sunset, 
that they could go away and they need them renewed, and they know they 
need them renewed because they are helpful in keeping the country safe, 
but it's only then that they come forward and say, Oh, by the way, what 
was it that you made in your request a year ago that we never did 
provide you? And that basically happened back in 2004 and 2005.
  And that was one of the reasons I was pushing we've got to have 
sunsets, because the only way to deal with these issues and make sure 
the abuses are not occurring of these constitutional powers is to put 
sunsets, and that way they come forward with the information and those 
of us that have the security clearances can go in. Now, not everybody 
who has security clearances has enough interest to go wading through 
this material like my friend from Iowa and I have.
  But I think part of the problem has been people have been confused 
with the abuses that occurred, the outrageous abuses that occurred with 
the national security letter power, which has been reined in some, 
still not enough for my liking. And I really would like to rein in the 
national security letter power even further because it is not required 
to go before a district judge like these powers that we extended 
tonight for 3 years. That's where the abuses were. That's where the IG 
report said they were. And so that's where a tremendous amount of 
vigilance needs to be placed in making sure that the Justice Department 
does adequate vigilance themselves in not abusing the power they have.
  And I'm sure I didn't make the Director of the FBI very happy when I 
pointed this out to him in committee, but it's what I believe, and that 
is that this Director came in to the FBI and eventually implemented--he 
called it a 5-year up-or-out policy. So that if you were a supervisor 
in the FBI, of a field office anywhere in the country, and you did 5 
years in that location, at the end of 5 years, you had to either move 
to Washington, move up to Washington, or get out of the FBI. Move out, 
basically.

                              {time}  2020

  We have lost thousands of years of experience from our FBI. Now, I 
know what it is to be an aggressive prosecutor, young, out of law 
school. Had a little more hair back then. And boy, we are going to get 
the bad guys. There's something to be said for experience.
  So it's not been uncommon to have FBI field offices around the 
country go, for example, from having a supervisor with 25 years of 
experience, he or she had seen it, done it, been there, and

[[Page 8332]]

able to learn from mistakes, make wise decisions, and yet because of 
the 5-year up-or-out policy, they end up having to leave because 
they're not moving to Washington. And when they do, we have had 
offices, for example, come in and the new supervisor has 5 or 6 years' 
experience, the head supervisor. We go from 25, 26 years to 5 or 6; 
it's not good for the FBI. These are fantastic agents. Take nothing 
away from their knowledge and ability, but there is something to be 
said for 25 years of experience as a law enforcement officer. We lost 
that.
  As we lost that, we began to see these vast abuses of the National 
Security Letters. And people need to know that the National Security 
Letter power was not up for renewal tonight. It is something I would 
like to address further because it has such tremendous potential for 
abuse. I am hoping we can deal with that. I also further hope that 
those who were really upset or concerned will not just take demagogued 
statements, but will actually look into this, as I have.
  And I have spent no telling how many hours pouring through material, 
classified material, pouring through the laws, the interpretation of 
the laws. These powers are basically the same powers the FBI has, these 
three that we renewed tonight, basically the same powers the FBI has to 
go after organized crime; and now they're allowed to do it with 
terrorism.
  They pertain to terrorists, or agents, foreign agents of foreign 
powers. So if they're properly supervised, as I know my friend from 
Iowa and I will do unless we get kicked off of the Judiciary Committee, 
but as long as we're allowed to be there, and as unpleasant as some 
people find our positions at times, we want to make sure there's 
adequate supervision.
  That's what I intend to do. That's what I know my friend from Iowa 
intends to do. That is what our friend Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota 
will do. That's one of the most diligent people I have ever seen in 
anything. And I'm not sure there is another Member of Congress or the 
Senate that has a master's in any area of law. She has a master's in 
law.
  So you have got people that are diligent, that understand the law, 
have studied it, and are looking into the allegations. I am comfortable 
with what we did tonight only to the extent that I know that there will 
be an awful lot more nights like I have had the last two nights where I 
get 1\1/2\, 2 hours sleep because there is so much to review, so much 
to cover, so much to read because of this important responsibility we 
have been handed.
  But I hope people understand National Security Letters have been the 
area where there has been great abuse. Supposedly that's been reined 
in. But the reason some of us on the Republican side demanded sunsets 
on these is not because we think they are unconstitutional, but because 
we have got to have leverage to use with the Justice Department, no 
matter which party is in power in the White House, to make sure that 
our freedoms are preserved and Congress can use its power, have power, 
have leverage that gets respected by the Justice Department.
  I appreciate my friend for yielding.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman from 
Texas, Judge Gohmert, who does do due diligence in this Congress, it 
occurs to me as I listen to the discussion here and participate in it, 
that there was a decided lack of enthusiasm for the Patriot Act on the 
part of Barack Obama when he was a partisan Senator. The most liberal 
Senator by voting record out of the 100 Senators in the United States 
Senate, and that includes Bernie Sanders, the self-professed socialist 
who voted somewhat to the right of Barack Obama when they were in the 
Senate together.
  This candidate for President then, Barack Obama, had a position that 
was less than favorable towards this Patriot Act, but as he became 
President, sat down with his briefings, which I presume and hope are 
daily briefings, and he began to understand the threat against the 
United States that exists domestically and abroad. His position on the 
Patriot Act began to migrate. And perhaps as we speak now he is picking 
up his pen to sign the Patriot Act, the extensions of the three 
provisions that were approved here tonight that extends them for a 4-
year period of time.
  That, Mr. Speaker, brings this back before this Congress. And it 
means also that all of the people that are utilizing the Patriot Act 
within the sections 206, the roving wiretap; and 215, the business 
records component of this; and section 6001(a), the lone wolf 
component, each of which were extended here by this Congress for 4 
years, all of the Federal agents that would be utilizing these 
provisions will be very well aware that Congress will be reviewing 
these provisions within 4 years of today. So they will be very careful 
I think to comply with the law. And I think this is a prudent extension 
rather than the effort to make it permanent. I think it's prudent to 
temporarily extend these provisions of the Patriot Act.
  As the gentleman from Texas alluded, and I will just say I would like 
to reiterate and emphasize this point, of all of the things that we 
have heard and the things that we have heard up in the secure room from 
the classified standpoint, the things that we have heard before the 
Judiciary Committee and the many hearings that we have had, the 
challenge that was put out towards President Bush in a partisan effort, 
I think, to undermine the Patriot Act before the last Presidential 
election in November of 2008, all of those efforts, not one individual 
was produced who had had their constitutional rights usurped. Not one. 
Not one had lost their constitutional rights under the Patriot Act.
  It would seem to me that of all of the encounters that have taken 
place under the Patriot Act for all these years, if there had been 
serious abuses of people's constitutional rights, we would have heard 
from an individual. And then a statement is made that, well, we won't 
know because we don't have access to these records, that they are all 
secret. Well, but the records are reported to the FISA court, and the 
FISA court evaluates them. And the reason we know that those records 
exist is because there is a requirement of the court reporting. But 
still, not an individual has come forward who has had their 
constitutional rights and their civil rights abused.
  Now, that doesn't mean I am not taking a position here, Mr. Speaker, 
that it has not happened. And I am not taking the position that it 
could not happen. My position is that if it had been endemic, if it had 
been something that was systematically grinding through the civil 
rights of Americans or individuals that are in the United States and 
under the protections of our laws and our Constitution, we would know 
some of those names, we would know some of those faces, we would 
understand those incidents.
  And one of the hardest things you can do in this business is to try 
to explain something that is law without putting a face on it; to try 
to explain a flaw that they argue might exist within the Patriot Act 
without being able to give an example or an anecdote to put that face 
on it so people can see by example how things work.
  We are only dealing with data here. We are dealing with data here 
because we don't have the individual examples. They have not come 
forward. They have not been identified, however mightily some have 
tried to produce them. So I support the extensions that we passed here 
tonight. It is something that I have worked with here in this Congress 
into my ninth year. It's very much something we have examined, I think, 
very thoroughly with hearing after hearing, and intense debate, and 
amendments that were offered, as well as the secure briefings that take 
us much deeper into the practices of the Patriot Act.
  So the three components that were extended here tonight for 4 years, 
the roving wiretaps, which are just absolutely necessary. If you can 
imagine Khalid Sheikh Mohammed running around, or Moussaoui running 
around the United States with a gym bag full of disposable cell phones, 
using one for a little while and tossing it in the trash, and then 
another and another

[[Page 8333]]

and another, you have got to be able to switch and have the roving 
wiretap follow the individual rather than follow a single land line 
that might be there.

                              {time}  2030

  It just makes simple sense. It existed since the eighties for 
domestic investigations of crime, including organized crime.
  We have the business records component of this, also extended for 4 
years, that allows those business records to be accessed, to be able to 
look for patterns, patterns that would indicate the acts, the planning 
of terrorism against the American people.
  We have the lone wolf provision, which says an agent of a foreign 
power, if that agent of a foreign power is operating, under the 
suspicion that that's the case, they can go in and do investigations, 
that also is extended for 4 years.
  It was a difficult negotiation here in the House and in the Senate. 
It did come down to the last minute. Sometimes here in Congress we can 
only do things at the last minute.
  I would like to, Mr. Speaker, transition this subject matter into 
another subject matter that I understand the gentleman from Texas is 
prepared to discuss. In this brief segue, and I expect to yield so the 
gentleman from Texas can take this subject matter up, but in this 
transition and in this week, I think it's important that the House of 
Representatives and the American people consider what has happened with 
regard to especially the Middle East. Having come back from a trip 
through that area of the world and been briefed on a lot of our 
national security issues over in that part of the world, it comes to 
mind as I watched President Obama's speech last week about the Global 
War on Terror and about his efforts from a tactical, a geopolitical and 
a diplomatic effort in the Middle East, naming country after country 
that have gone through the Arab spring, as we now call it, the unrest 
in places like Egypt and Tunisia, and the list goes on. Certainly Libya 
is part of this. As I read carefully through President Obama's speech 
that I understand he delivered at the State Department about a week ago 
or so, if you take Israel out of the speech, the rest of it read like 
George W. Bush delivering the Bush Doctrine. A lot of that philosophy I 
support, that if you give people an opportunity to grasp and achieve 
and succeed with the beginnings of freedom, they'll turn their focus 
from hatred and from terrorism towards building their communities, 
their families and their countries and towards commerce. That 
philosophy is beginning to emerge with a level of success in Iraq, for 
example. It has been a belief of George Bush and known as the Bush 
Doctrine for a long time. As I listened to President Obama, who was 
critical of that approach and that doctrine and our involvement in 
places like Iraq and Afghanistan, I would point out that he gave a Bush 
Doctrine speech, with the exception of Israel. There, President Obama, 
I'll say, broke the mold and went down a new path, a bit of a 
surprising path, unless you are reading between the lines on his 
position on Israel in prior times, to make the argument that there 
would be a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, that 
the Palestinians would have a single contiguous country. Right now it's 
either two pieces, West Bank and Gaza, or three pieces, West Bank, Gaza 
and whatever their claim might be to the Golan Heights. If you look at 
the map, it's not possible to tie together a contiguous Palestinian 
state without severing Israel from its components.
  It was interesting, also, that President Obama said, well, this is 
how we want to do this, a contiguous Palestinian state, a two-state 
solution, and the issue of Jerusalem, we'll just set that aside for now 
but they have to go back to the '67 borders. That had to have caused a 
lot of Israelis and American Jewish people and those of us who have a 
strong support and affinity for Israel to take a deep breath and gasp 
and wonder what did the President mean? Why did he throw all that 
confusion into the situation in Israel? And the statement that he made 
resulted in putting Israel at even greater risk, undermining their 
security, making their negotiating position less stable and encouraging 
more pushback from the Palestinian effort and their sympathizers and 
the terrorists that are part of the government, the Palestinians, who 
refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. You cannot negotiate 
with people who are determined to annihilate you, and as Binyamin 
Netanyahu said, they're not going to concede the strategic locations 
that allow Israel to defend itself.
  When Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke behind where I stand right now a 
couple of days ago, I think it was an historic speech, I think that he 
laid out the parameters that can allow the Jewish State of Israel to 
survive and defend itself against its enemies--and there are many--and 
I think he went about as far as he could without openly challenging the 
President of the United States who, by the way, had to walk back some 
of his comments a few days after his speech. So I'm happy with what has 
happened in the aftermath of President Obama's speech that I believe 
erroneously said that Israel would have to go back to the pre-'67 war 
boundaries.
  But I want to, Mr. Speaker, as I turn this floor over to the 
gentleman from Texas, say to you and here before the American people 
that that speech took place here in the United States Congress because 
of the activism and the foresight and the effort of Congressman Gohmert 
who put that request together and got a lot of us to sign the letter of 
invitation and with that support took it to Speaker Boehner who, as I 
understand it, issued the invitation, and the timing of it was 
impeccable timing in the aftermath of President Obama's speech, and at 
the time that there are critical issues taking place in the world, the 
Prime Minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, stepped here on the floor 
of the United States Congress and spoke before a joint session of 
Congress, and the joint session of Congress that received him as a 
representative of Israel with the warmest of welcomes that anyone could 
ask for, with instantaneous and spontaneous standing ovations, two or 
three of those before a word was uttered and several more before there 
was any word of substance uttered, the warmth and the bond and the 
commitment to stand up and support Israel not just in spirit, not just 
politically, but tactically and monetarily as well, was clearly 
demonstrated here in the joint session of Congress. That is thanks to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, as I wrap this up, I would thank you for your 
attention and your indulgence, and I would yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________