Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, it's important to talk about what this bill would do and how the Patriot Act really cuts to the heart of what it means to be American, that sensitive balance that we have between protecting what makes it special to be an American, our rights as individuals, our civil liberties, balancing that with the need for national security.

I am opposed to the rule and the bill. We need to have law enforcement make sure that it has the provisions it needs to combat the very real threat of terrorism. However, the Patriot Act strikes that balance in the wrong way. But rather than actually debating the merits of the provisions and coming up with solutions that I think we can agree on with both sides of the aisle, as we have done in the past, the Republican leadership is forcing this through without the proper debate or transparency. In spite of their plethora of

promises to change the culture of Congress, here we are without a single hearing on this topic, without a classified briefing for Members so we know what has and hasn't been done under the Patriot Act.

Specifically, we are discussing the continuation of three provisions of the Patriot Act. We have the lone wolf provision, which relates to foreign nationals in our country that are not specifically connected to a foreign terrorist network or foreign government or represent a security threat. We have the roving wiretap provision, again particularly problematic in how it's been designated where you don't have to even designate whose phone you are tapping or the area in which the phone is being tapped. All that has to be shown is that it might be a phone that is used by somebody who might be considered a suspect by someone without any oversight with regard to that matter. There's nothing to restrict it from being used to tap the phones of an entire neighborhood, an entire block, an entire city.

Has it been used for that? I don't know, because we haven't had yet a classified briefing on this matter. I certainly hope, and it's been stated in our prior debate on this, that it was the intention of our colleagues on the other side to hold hearings and a classified briefing prior to the 90-day period in which this expires.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, again, I would hope and I know that the gentleman and the chair of the Rules Committee's intentions and goals, as are the Speaker's, are more transparency in this Congress. And I don't think it's particularly helpful to cite what may be a failure of the Democrats to deliver on reforming the Patriot Act and say, therefore, we don't have to succeed either in reforming the Patriot Act.

I want to discuss the importance of this vote. We all agree that this affects our national security and the civil liberties of Americans. And yet, unfortunately, from a process perspective, we have reverted back to getting this through first on a suspension vote, then on a long-term extension, and now on a short-term extension.

Again, there is no doubt that the short-term extension is favorable to a long-term extension from those of us who have legitimate concerns, and I think there is even a bipartisan consensus that these concerns are legitimate about the overreach of the Patriot Act. We will have, as a result of this, a 90-day period to try to work through, in a bipartisan, way some of our concerns and make sure that we protect what is special about being Americans. We had an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee late last night, which was the second emergency meeting for this bill alone. Again, I think we all knew coming into this Congress that these provisions were set to expire. There would have been time for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and even a markup with regard to this bill, because they have held hearings with regard to other bills. They were constituted. They held hearings on immigration, on abortion, on other topics. And I think that, regardless of where one stands on this bill, it rises to the level of importance for American citizens that we do strike the right balance between security and protection of civil liberty.

If House Republicans are going to honor the promise of openness and transparency, we must make sure that they do schedule the hearings and markups that are necessary to have a proper debate of this bill. Now, this new version before us today, the short-term CR, provides a window for that; and I am hopeful that the chairs of the respective committees of jurisdiction and subcommittees will be able to offer some assurances to members of both parties that are concerned that this 90-day period will be used to improve upon the bill, to hold hearings on the bill, and offer classified briefings for Members so we can determine exactly how these authorities have been used. Only after the initial effort to push this bill through under suspension failed did Republican leadership bring it to the floor under a closed rule. New Members have not even had a classified briefing, nor have I, the Members from last session, so it's hard for us to understand exactly how these authorities that are delegated are being used.

It is clear that there's bipartisan support to improve this law. In fact, even as we speak, the Senate is debating several versions of the long-term reauthorization bill, and I think there's a very legitimate and important security concern in support of long-term reauthorization so law enforcement can plan accordingly and have long-term planning with regard to exactly what powers and the balances they have with protecting civil liberties they will have.

I think we can all agree a 90-day extension is not the right answer. It's not the right answer for law enforcement. It's not the right answer for protecting our civil liberties. It may be an answer that affords us a chance to get it right, and I would call upon members of both parties to work hard to do that.

Apart from the procedural flaws with the process, the Patriot Act is a bill that really has been plagued with abuse since it was first passed. After 10 years of public record, there are some clear sections of the law that need to be improved. And yet here we are again. Instead of debating those sections of the law and finding solutions we can agree on, we are facing an up-or-down vote on this bill with very little debate.

This reauthorization fails to provide the administration with the tools and predictability it needs to fully protect and defend our Nation. The administration supports a permanent reauthorization and has asked for a real one, and I think they are willing to work with us in this body on improving the Patriot Act.

So this bill fails both to please the advocates pushing to reform the Patriot Act and also fails to provide for the administration, whose job it is to protect our country.

Again, we ask why is the Republican Party jamming this bill through here, today, instead of debating a real bill that would improve our national security.

This bill before us today specifically reauthorizes three provisions of the Patriot Act. Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing, any business record that might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That can include medical records, a diary, even, in one case, books that have been checked out of a library. There was a library where somebody checked out a book about Osama bin Laden, and who that person was was reported on.

In the past, these orders were limited to certain classes of businesses and records and also required that we show specific facts that pertain to an agent of a foreign power. And if the Patriot Act is stripped away of those basic requirements, that's something I think that every American who values privacy should be concerned about.

This section 215 goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. We began this session of Congress by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House, and this really comes at the very core identity of what it means to be an American.

The government, under our Constitution, is required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before they can infringe upon an American's privacy. We should seriously consider making changes to this section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to secretly spy on its citizens.

Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government to conduct the roving wiretaps. These allow the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't even specify a certain person or an object that's going to be tapped. Another problem with this is the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which again I'm sure all my colleagues are familiar with, having read it on the floor of the House. It states that warrants must specify the person and places to be seized and searched with particularity. This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have unfettered power to decide single-handedly who and how to search private citizens and seize their property.

The Founding Fathers were concerned and worried about the possibility of a central government authority issuing general warrants that would give it far-reaching power to spy on its citizens and intervene in their private lives. That's an American value that we share today, and I think it's critical to craft protections for our privacy as Americans that can be consistent with the need to secure our country before authorizing the government such overwhelming power.

The final section would be the lone wolf provision, which allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. These are foreign citizens who are here legally, even if they are not connected to a terrorist group or foreign power. So, again, this authority is only granted in a secret court.

So from our perspective in Congress, without having had the benefit of a classified briefing, it's very difficult for us to exercise any meaningful oversight on a provision when we're not aware of how or if it's been used.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have said in numerous debates that they are worried about the growth of government. Yet, in spite of the recent rhetoric about how the government is trying to take control over our lives, this bill, their fifth bill under rules since taking control of the House, actually gives the government the ability to spy on innocent Americans.

No wonder so many Republicans joined Democrats in voting against this bill earlier this week. I encourage my colleagues to continue standing strong for civil liberties.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond. Absolutely the Patriot Act can be used to investigate and find out private records from innocent Americans, and we say that because section 215 can be used for any information relevant to an investigation. It doesn't need to be from the subject of an investigation. It can be Internet records, what they buy at a bookstore, what they get at a library.

The Judiciary Committee has had time to have 10 hearings this year. It is just none of them have happened to be on this particular topic. Apparently it is not important enough to discuss. How are we to know whether violations have occurred if we don't have the benefit of a classified briefing before making this vote?

Saying no court has found or there haven't been reported violations, well, that is because all of this is hush-hush and secret, as some of it needs to be, and I would agree. But for us to execute our oversight function, you can't just simply say there haven't been abuses because we don't know about them. We have to find out about what has been going on under this law and execute our judgment as an elected body representing our country to decide whether there have or haven't been abuses.

I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman of California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Patriot Act really speaks to our very core identity as Americans.

How do we balance what makes it special to be an American--with our unprecedented levels of rights that we enjoy, our privacy as individuals, our civil liberties--and reconcile that with staying safe in an incredibly complex world?

I think it is critical for any of us who are concerned about the unchecked growth of this state, those of us who seriously believe in protecting the rights and liberties of Americans, to seriously look at these issues and debate them. A ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill is the first step towards accomplishing that.

The House was in session late into the night, as it likely will be again tonight, on a very important topic: cutting spending. I've put several suggestions forward. I appreciate this process which has enabled Members to come up with how we are going to cut. There have been a lot of great ideas that have been submitted through amendments. I would submit that this Patriot Act and balancing our civil liberties with our security is as important a topic with regard to what it means to be an American as is making cuts in our budget.

I voted against the adjournment resolution yesterday. I think that, if we were in session next week and put the time into solving the issues under the Patriot Act that we're putting into making budget cuts, we would be able to come to a consensus that protects our civil liberties and that also keeps Americans safe from the threat of terrorism.

The majority argues that we must pass this extension now without any process. It has also been alluded to that there were not hearings in the last Congress. There actually were. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on the Patriot Act in 2009. It has been said, Oh, there hasn't been time to hold hearings in this Congress because the Judiciary Committee just constituted itself. Well, they found time to hold 10 hearings on items that have not even come to the floor. So surely there would have been time for one hearing on an item that everybody knew was going to expire and needed to be dealt with.

Those of us who joined Congress in the last session as well as our new Members this session, many of whom are on the other side of the aisle, have not had any classified briefings on how this authority that has been given to the Federal Government has been used.

How can we exercise meaningful oversight with regard to these three provisions of the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act in general, if we are not given the benefit of finding out exactly how these broad powers that have been given to the Federal Government have been used?

If this passes today--and I expect it might--it is critical that we take the next 90 days to make sure that Congress can properly execute its oversight upon the next need for renewing the necessary provisions of the Patriot Act. There is a window of time that will afford the Judiciary Committee to do its work in a bipartisan way, which is to include other Members through a classified briefing to find out how and when the powers under the Patriot Act have been used, so that Members of this body can make an informed decision, an informed decision about how to move forward in 90 days in protecting our rights as Americans and in protecting our security as Americans. The two are not irreconcilable, and we cannot sacrifice what makes it special to be an American in the name of security--or the terrorists will have won.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman.

I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem, and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and not for 1 year. With that in mind, however, it's important to note that we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to the opportunity for Members of this Congress to, in fact, review closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may have on the constitutional rights of our citizens.

Yesterday in a markup, I offered an amendment to affirm that the legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the

Democratic Members who were there and present voted ``yes,'' and all the Republicans voted ``no.'' I think adhering to the Constitution and ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important concept. In this instance, we have not had the chance for a full hearing. And I am very glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the 111th Congress, we did; but unfortunately, even the amendments that were passed in that Congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this initiative that was passed by the House.

I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section 215, where library records could be in question, if you read certain books. And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our Constitution.

As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress, as I indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the Patriot Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I, as well, am very, very convinced that we do need to secure our homeland; but human intelligence is a very large part of that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the care that it deserves.

In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time have been included in this legislation.

None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I'm deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people without so much as a hearing. Therefore, I would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same faults. And I simply say that the Fourth Amendment does say that it is the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this and begin our work as quickly as we can. But even with this provision passing, as I expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the American people, both in terms of homeland security and their constitutional right of privacy.

I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, ``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.''

This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It also grants government access to business records relating to a terrorist investigation.

While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect our nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the democratic principles that make this country the crown jewel of democracy. The bill before us today, however, does not do that. In fact, even the manner by which are even considering this bill, only days after introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, circumvents the process we have in place to allow for improvements and amendments to be made.

The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution.

The first provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs a foul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.

The second provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe wiretap,'' allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Like the first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.

The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf'' provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be allowed to expire.

Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, specifically, those issues relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. I repeat, even if that person is NOT suspected of unlawful behavior.

The three provisions I have just mentions, as well as the issues surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past Congresses, because they were in dire need of improvements to protect the rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in the past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.

Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was introduced. In 2005, the Patriot was examined in the Judiciary Committee. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only addressed the three provisions in H.R. 514, but also National Security Letters and the lax standards of intent.

Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), another piece of law used in conjunction with the PATRIOT Act and essential to combating the war on terror, but one that was in need of improvements to protect Americans' Constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. On that day, I said that, ``we must ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans,'' and I stand firmly behind that notion today.

When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.

I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our constitution. I stand here today urging my colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other legislative body.

Furthermore, this very bill was considered last year in the 111th Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties.

In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues who were on the Judiciary Committee at that time, are included in this legislation.

None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people, without so much as a hearing.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However, as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national security.

To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills Of Rights guarantee certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient.

As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in the PATRIOT Act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress not included in the bill?

Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms that will better protect private communications from overbroad government surveillance.

There is nothing more important than providing the United States of America, especially our military and national security personnel, the right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure America while preserving our way of life.

Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and thoughtful Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Boulder, Mr. Polis, pending which I yield myself such time as I my consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, by a vote of 274-144, the House passed a temporary 10-month extension to the Patriot Act, the three provisions that are scheduled to expire within one legislative day from now. One legislative day from now. We all know that we're going to be going into a district work period beginning tomorrow afternoon, so we have one legislative day left to deal with this issue.

And yesterday, by a vote of 86-12, our colleagues in the Senate chose to take the 10-month extension that we had and turn that into a 90-day extension.

Now, I think there's bipartisan consensus that we need to have Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Lungren, other members of the Judiciary Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and others involved in this take a very close look at the need to deal with both the national security implications as well as the civil liberties implications of the extension of the Patriot Act.

I just had a meeting with Mr. Sensenbrenner in which we were talking about the fact that when we first put the Patriot Act into effect, he and I were together in saying there needed to be sunset provisions because we didn't want to legislate through the prism of September 11 without ensuring that this House and the other body would expend the time and energy and effort looking at all of the ramifications of the Patriot Act, because it was unprecedented. But I believe that as we look at where we are today, the Patriot Act has been a very, very important tool in ensuring that we have not seen what so many people expected would happen after September 11, and that is repeated attacks on our country. We have had attempts, we all know that. But we all thank God that we have been able to successfully prevent those attempts to attack us from coming to fruition. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the existence of the Patriot Act has played a role in that.

Having said that, I am a self-described small L libertarian Republican. I believe in recognizing the civil liberties of every American, and I think that that's a priority that does need to be addressed. And I also recognize that sacrifices have to be made when you're dealing with the kinds of threats that we face. And so striking that balance is not an easy thing to do, and Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Lungren and others, Mr. Smith, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe, are going to, in the next 90 days, do a lot of work in ensuring that the concerns that have been put before us are addressed.

And so, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that we don't see the expiration of these very important three provisions of the Patriot Act, I'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule that will allow us to simply accept the language that the Senate has passed with a 90-day extension, and move ahead just as expeditiously as possible so that our colleagues will be able to get to work in addressing the concerns that are out there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

One question I would have is February 25 of last year is when the 12-month extension was put into place. How many hearings or classified briefings were held for Members during the past 12 months before this February 25 expiration?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just was talking to our first-rate staff here saying that the last statement my friend just made is just plain wrong. This bill does not allow the government to spy on innocent Americans.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished chair of the Crime Subcommittee, that the notion of claiming that we could have had full hearings before we dealt with this expiration is preposterous. The Judiciary Committee organized about 2 weeks ago, and the expiration date, the 1-year expiration date that was established last February 25 provided that entire year, and there was not a single hearing.

I wasn't being critical of the majority. But what I am being critical of is to come here and now point the finger at us and saying, why haven't hearings and briefings been held on this issue before we deal with the extension? The extension is set to come to pass in one legislative day. We are going to deal with a 90-day extension that is before us that the Senate passed by that 86-12 number, and I think it is very clear that we have to do our work.

The person who is going to lead this effort is the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, who is ready in the next 90 days to take this measure on with great enthusiasm. I would like to yield him 3 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my hardworking colleague, the gentleman from Gold River, California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I was sorry that my friend would not yield to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee. He was simply going to ask her what provisions of the Patriot Act have been determined to be unconstitutional. The answer is: Not one.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on H. Res. 93.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are where we are. The Senate took our 10-month extension that we passed by a vote of 274-144, and decided to offer a 90-day extension, which passed by an 86-12 vote.

Even before we saw this extension, the gentleman from Menomonee Falls, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee and the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had made a commitment that he will proceed very vigorously in the next 90 days to deal with the questions that my friend has raised.

I think that many of the questions that have been raised are valid. That's why it is that we need to have this extension, which is scheduled to expire in one legislative day if we take no action, because I think everyone can acknowledge that the Patriot Act has played a role in keeping the United States of America safe.

My two colleagues and I have joined from the get-go in saying that they should not have made this measure permanent, because we were legislating through the prism of September 11 at the outset. We felt very strongly that recognizing the civil liberties of every single American has to continue to be a very, very top priority while we look at what, I think, are the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which are ``providing for the common defense.''

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson made it very clear when he said that a wise and true government shall restrain men from injuring one another.

That is why our security has to be of paramount importance, but it doesn't mean it is done at the expense of civil liberties and the rights of every American.

Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The gentleman who chairs the Crime Subcommittee is absolutely dedicated within the next 90 days of pursuing that as vigorously as possible.

I will say that when this extension that we're faced with right now was passed, last February 25, 1 year ago, that brought to an end any discussion, any hearings. That brought to an end any hearings through the entire rest of that Congress once the extension was put into place.

I will say that any Member who wants a classified briefing can request it, and so the opportunity for classified briefings on the Patriot Act or any other measure is there for Members of this body.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's clear to me, we have a 90-day extension that has come back from the Senate. It will expire in one legislative day. We want Mr. Sensenbrenner to begin working with Mr. Lungren and others who have spent so much time and energy in dealing with the questions of the lone wolf and roving wiretaps and all that. We need to have that addressed as quickly possible.

So let's do it, let's do it now, let's pass this thing in a bipartisan way and get it done.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to concur in the Senate amendment, which will have the effect of passing the extension of the expiring provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Although the Senate has rejected the House version of the bill with a 1-year extension and has amended the bill to provide only a 90-day extension, which will provide us a more accelerated opportunity to actually deal with the issues involved, the reservations that I have previously stated on the floor remain the same. I still oppose any extension.

I cannot support this extension when the House has done nothing to consider these provisions of possible reform, even to hold a hearing or markup. While in the past, Members have had the opportunity to receive classified briefings, we have dozens of new Members, many on the Judiciary Committee, who have received no such briefings. The three sections scheduled to sunset are deeply troubling, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to review them carefully before they come before the House again.

Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' so long as the government provided a ``statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or espionage investigation.'' That would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records, medical records, or anything else. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types of records were subject to FISA orders, and the government had to show ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.''

This dragnet approach allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved had anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive areas of our lives with little restraint on government. Congress should either ensure that the things collected with this power have a meaningful connection to suspected terrorism activity or allow the provision to expire.

Section 206 provides for roving wiretaps which permit the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Without the necessity to specify the person and the facility to be tapped, you have a situation where the tap could be on a particular phone. And without specifically designating the person to be listened into, that means anybody using that pay phone, for example, can be listened into, or a roving wiretap on a person could result in any phone that that person might use being tapped, even if others use that phone, too.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the so-called ``lone wolf provision,'' permits secret intelligence of non-U.S. persons who are known to be not affiliated with any foreign government or organization. It provides the government with the ability to use secret courts or other investigatory tools that are acceptable in a domestic criminal investigation as long as we are dealing with a foreign government or an entity. According to government testimony, the lone wolf provision has never been used. Given the risk of this provision being used to circumvent existing protections against government intrusion, the government should explain why it should remain on the books. Surveillance of an individual who is not working with a foreign government or foreign organization is not what we usually understand as foreign intelligence. There may be good reason for government to keep tabs on such people, but that is no reason to suspend all our laws under the pretext that it is a foreign intelligence operation.

While some have argued that these authorities remain necessary tools to fight against terrorism and that they must be extended without modification, others have counseled careful review and modification. Some have even urged that we allow some of those provisions to sunset; and if they are needed, they can be reinstated. I believe that we should not miss the opportunity to review the act in its entirety and examine how it is working, where it has been successful, where it has failed, where it has gone too far, or where it may need improvement. That's the purpose of sunsets; and to extend it without review undermines that purpose.

There are other authorities that deserve careful review. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has introduced the National Security Letters Reform Act which would make vital improvements to the current law to better protect civil liberties while ensuring that those letters remain a useful tool in national security investigations. I hope we can work to strike that balance in a responsible and effective manner, but the record of the abuse of the authority in those letters is too great for the Congress to ignore.

It is encouraging that there was significant bipartisan opposition last week to the extension of the Patriot Act. It shows a healthy skepticism of unrestrained government power to spy on people in the United States. We need to restore our traditional respect for the right of every individual to be secure from unchecked government intrusion, and I hope that we will be able, after this vote, to carefully examine the ways these provisions have been used or abused and to look at ways to reform the law in light of that experience. That's the purpose of sunsets, and I hope we can take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the 90-day extension in this bill is significantly more appropriate than the 10-month extension that the House has previously passed. If the bill is passed, I look forward to working with the leadership on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee in the past has been able to work constructively on this issue. In fact, when the Patriot Act was originally reported out of the Judiciary Committee, it was reported on a unanimous vote. That is very unusual. The Judiciary Committee is usually one of the more contentious committees in the entire Congress. But we can work together, and I look forward to working with the leadership of the committee as we deal with the possible extension of many of these provisions.

I hope we will oppose the extension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I first want to respond to some of the things that I just heard before I give my statement, if I may. The majority has promised that after we vote on this, we will have some hearings. We are told they are going to be rigorous and fair, and we are reminded of the many hearings held by Mr. Sensenbrenner during the 2005 reauthorization.

Well, first, in the 111th Congress we held the hearings before we marked up the Patriot Act, before we asked Members to vote on the bill, not after. We

have new Members in the body who have never voted on the Patriot Act, have never been briefed on how these authorities are used. It is simply not responsible to make them vote when they don't know what they are voting on.

Second, the majority's nostalgia for 2005 has colored their memories a bit. While they remember a careful and thorough process, I remember being forced to hold minority hearings so all perspectives could be heard. I remember hearings being gaveled to a close before they were over. I remember a subcommittee chairman walking out of the hearing while Members were raising points of order. I remember microphones being turned off on Democrat members, including one of my fellow Members from New York, while they were speaking. I remember being forced to convene a hearing on something like 2 days' notice as the power to schedule the committee was abused. So I don't know how to take these current promises of openness and a fair procedure.

Third, while there has been so much talk today on the floor about using the coming hearings to reform the Patriot Act, we know that is simply not what is going to happen. My friends in the majority have already stated their views on the question. Last Congress, Chairman Smith proposed a 10-year extension with no changes or reforms to the underlying law. In 2005, Mr. Sensenbrenner proposed a permanent extension, and they have a bill for that right now in the Senate.

Indeed, if there were any will in the majority party to reform these provisions, that would have happened in the last Congress. The Democrat majority worked for months to forge a compromise but got no Republican support. So I don't expect the coming hearings to be part of any kind of reform process. I expect them to be heavy on political theater designed to make these powers permanent. That, no doubt, is why this extension is timed to force the next vote into the presidential primary season; to raise the political stakes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the 16 provisions were set to expire in 5 years is because they were deemed too invasive of our civil liberties, possibly invasive enough to be used to violate the very freedoms that our young men and women in uniform too often die protecting. These provisions provide the government with exceptional powers of search, seizure, and surveillance, often without the due process that our Constitution guarantees us.

Nearly 10 years later, we continue to reauthorize these provisions without a blink of the eye. The idea of these measures always was that they would be temporary. And yet to see the process under which we deliberate them, it seems they would last forever. Seeking no input or deliberation of any point in this bill's consideration and instead choosing to blindly move forward is a rather sad testament to the majority's view of an open process.

Ultimately, this is no way to consider a piece of legislation that has such far-reaching and profound implications for our civil liberties as this does. Yet the majority seeks to simply kick the can down the road, all the while stifling the rigorous debate with which these deserve and need to be scrutinized.

We would do well to remember that these provisions were passed into law in the frantic weeks after September 11, 2001, without our understanding of their potential impact and benefit. And that is why we created a sunset review in the first place and why we need thorough review as long as we keep these incredible powers in place.

Make no mistake, they are incredible powers. We're not patching a run-of-the-mill program here. These are powers that will allow the government to continue to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps, and monitor American citizens. The intrusive nature of these provisions that the majority seeks to whisk through would leave our Founding Fathers aghast at the willful erosion of the civil liberties they enshrined for us. Our swearing into office is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. However, many Members of the House voted against the Constitution when this came on the floor last week. This process, lacking a serious review of far-reaching and invasive provisions, does not live up to that standard.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and against the underlying measure.