FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011

It is difficult to debate an issue of such importance and have very good friends who are taking an opposite position. But I think that, in this case, we have to look very squarely at the literal reading of the Constitution.

The First and Fourth Amendment literal reading makes it very clear that the Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of constitutional principles. There are extraordinary powers being given by the government, and it contravenes not just principles of the Constitution but our own oath to defend the Constitution.

I want to speak to the provisions that are set for reauthorization here.

Two of the provisions are contained in the Patriot Act, legislation that I opposed when it first came up because I believed that it was over-infringement on basic civil liberties, including freedom of speech.

The first one, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the FBI to obtain an order from the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or their device, and I challenged the constitutionality because I believe this provision severely undermines the Fourth Amendment, which requires warrants to describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. This provision of the Patriot Act requires neither the target nor device to be identified.

The second provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the business records provision, allows the FBI to order any person or business to turn over any tangible things, as long as it specifies it is for an authorized investigation. Orders executed under section 215 constitute a serious challenge to the Fourth 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 third provision, section 6001, known as the lone wolf surveillance provision, is contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that authorized the government to conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected with foreign power or terrorist groups, but effectively allows the government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts.

I would hope that my good friend from California, in his very passionate defense of the Patriot Act, did not mean to imply that the distinguished Mr. Conyers in some way would suborn terrorism, because he chooses to point out that the standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts are really being circumvented under section 601.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I think it is fair for us to debate this. I think we have to just be cautious about how far we draw conclusions about the motivations of each other in taking the positions that we do.

I want to first thank the ranking member, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the amicable manner of comity that you have extended here. It is very much appreciated. I also want to say, as I have listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak in defense of this, I am aware that you love this country, that you want America to be safe, and you want America to continue to be free. And the great thing about this Congress is that we have different ways of viewing how we can go about that. But I have great respect for each of the speakers who has come forward.

I want to say that since Congress first passed the Patriot Act in 2001 that we have been continually challenged on this question of our constitutional duties to act as a coequal branch of government and that it is my belief that we have failed to conduct checks and balances over government power. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in that regard and that we have failed to conduct robust and effective oversight. And in connection with the gentleman from Wisconsin, some of the remarks that you have made about what we needed to do, I think you have made some good points on that. I also think that we have a responsibility here to protect the American people from overt infringements on their most basic civil liberties, and I see this continuing extension as being a challenge to that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 514.

Since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we have continually abdicated our constitutional duties to act as a co-equal branch of government by failing to conduct checks and balances over government power, failing to conduct robust and effective oversight, and ultimately, failing to protect the American people from overt infringements on their most basic civil liberties by continuing to extend these provisions without any meaningful reforms.

These three provisions were passed in the wake of 9/11, and given sunsets in recognition of their far reaching and unprecedented powers that effectively allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance and demand material from people not connected to any terrorism investigation, including librarians and peace groups. Yet they have been extended Congress after Congress without any reform.

Perhaps even more troubling is that we are extending these provisions through the end of the year without addressing the PATRIOT Act as a whole.

In a 2007 article by the Washington Post, then Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assistant director stated that he is ``not even sure such an example exists'' that would demonstrate how expanded surveillance has made a difference in our national security.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the type of information the government could request from targets, while at the same time, lowering the standard required to obtain an order to request private records from targets. This means that the government can obtain orders for private records or items from people who are not connected to any investigation, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Orders executed under this provision constitute a serious violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library or medical records.

National Security Letters (NSLs), which can be issued under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, allow the government to obtain private information from telecommunication companies, internet and email, and health care providers without judicial warrants or oversight. They can be issued to people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing and are often accompanied by gag orders.

According to an article in the Washington Post from 2005, NSLs ``do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress.'' The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution requires prior judicial review and allows warrants to be issued only with probable cause.

The government has used NSLs to demand records of patrons from librarians across the country. A decision by a federal district court rules in 2006 that the gag order enforced on librarians in Connecticut violated the First Amendment, forcing the government to withdraw the gag order and its demand for patron records.

Despite a successful challenge to the unconstitutionality of the original PATRIOT Act's gag order provisions by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 5% of all NSLs issued by the FBI in 2006 contained ``insufficient explanation to justify imposition of these obligations,'' according to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

The ability to demand records from Americans absent judicial review and probable cause are certain to quell free speech and freedom of association--rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution.

The ``material support'' statute, also contained in the PATRIOT Act, criminalized the act of providing ``material support'' to any foreign organization designated as terrorist by the Secretary of State. ``Material support'' is defined so broadly that it can refer to almost any kind of support, including support that does not further terrorism. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Court ruled in 2000 that criminal bans on ``providing `personnel' and `training' to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the government are unconstitutionally vague and could criminalize free speech as protected by the First Amendment,'' to include human rights advocacy training, humanitarian aid in conflict zones, or even writing an op-ed. A number of the cases brought forth by the government using this statute have been dismissed or ended in mistrial.

According to the ACLU, the material support provisions ``impermissibly criminalize a broad range of First Amendment-protected activity, both as a result of their sweeping, vague terms and because they do not require the government to show that a defendant intends to support the criminal activity of a foreign terrorist organization.''

Despite years of documentation by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and respected human rights organizations of abuse by the government of these provisions, we have failed to hold agencies accountable for abusing the far reaching powers allowed under the PATRIOT Act.

As Members of Congress, we are sworn to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution. We have a responsibility to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the PATRIOT Act to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2007]

FBI Audit Prompts Calls for Reform--Some Lawmakers Suggest Limits On

Patriot Act

(By Dan Eggen and John Solomon)

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on

antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report

that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs,

banking records and other personal information on thousands

of Americans.

The audit by the department's inspector general detailed

widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to seize personal

details about tens of thousands of people without court

oversight through the use of national security letters.

It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with

telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for

information on more than 3,000 phone numbers--often without a

subpoena, without an emergency or even without an

investigative case. In 2006, the FBI then issued blanket

letters authorizing many of the requests retroactively,

according to agency officials and congressional aides briefed

on the effort.

The disclosures prompted a public apology from FBI Director

Robert S. Mueller III and promises of reform from Attorney

General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was the focus of a new tide

of criticism from Democrats and Republicans already angry

about his handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

``I am the person responsible,'' Mueller said in a hastily

scheduled news conference. ``I am the person accountable, and

I am committed to ensuring that we correct these deficiencies

and live up to these responsibilities.''

Democrats and Republicans alike said Gonzales, Mueller and

the Bush administration did not properly monitor the FBI and

guard the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and legal

residents. The report came at the end of a difficult

political week for the Bush administration, after the

conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff

in the CIA leak case and damaging allegations by fired

federal prosecutors.

Top lawmakers raised the possibility that Congress would

seek to curb the Justice Department's powers, most likely by

placing restrictions on the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism

law.

``This goes above and beyond almost everything they've done

already,'' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among

a host of Democrats promising investigative hearings. ``It

shows just how this administration has no respect for checks

and balances.''

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking

Republican, told reporters that Congress may ``impose

statutory requirements and perhaps take away some of the

authority which we've already given to the FBI, since they

appear not to be able to know how to use it.''

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has

been pressing for a review of national security letters since

2005, said the report ``confirms the American people's worst

fears about the Patriot Act.''

A national security letter is a type of administrative

subpoena that allows the FBI to demand records from banks,

credit-reporting agencies and other companies without the

supervision of a judge. The Patriot Act significantly

expanded the FBI's ability to use them, and a reauthorization

of the law last year required the audit that was issued

yesterday.

The findings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were so at

odds with previous assertions by the Bush administration that

Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters

from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements

in earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other

officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters

as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of

terrorist attacks.

One such retraction letter, sent to Specter by Acting

Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, sought to

correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story

about national security letters. ``We have determined that

certain statements in our November 23 letter need

clarification,'' Hertling wrote.

Fine's 199-page unclassified report found that the FBI's

records showed it issued more than 143,000 requests for

information on more than 52,000 people through national

security letters from 2003 to 2005. But not only did the

agency understate that number in required reports to

Congress, the number of requests it issued was much higher.

Nearly half the people targeted were U.S. citizens or legal

residents, and the proportion of such ``U.S. persons''

increased over the three-year period, the report said.

In examining a small sample of security letters issued by

four FBI offices, Fine discovered that the letters were

improperly issued about 16 percent of the time. In the sample

of 293 letters, the FBI had identified 26 potential

violations but missed 22 others, the report said.

The report also details how, after obtaining sweeping new

anti-terrorism powers under the Patriot Act in late 2001, the

FBI did not establish basic training and record-keeping

procedures to ensure that civil liberties were protected.

That kept the agency from giving Congress accurate numbers on

how often it used national security letters, the

investigation found.

``During the time period covered by this review, the FBI

had no policy or directive requiring the retention of signed

copies of the national security letters or any requirement to

upload national security letters to the FBI's case management

system,'' the report said.

The findings are reminiscent of those in previous reports,

including many by Fine's office, that have detailed the FBI's

chronic inability to keep track of items ranging from guns to

laptops to documents related to the Oklahoma City bombing

case. Fine determined that the latest violations were not

deliberate but that they could be widespread.

Gonzales described the problems as unacceptable and left

open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further

investigation.

``Once we get that information, we'll be in a better

position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken,''

Gonzales said after a speech to privacy officials. ``There is

no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are

going to make things right as quickly as possible.''

At the same time, Gonzales stressed that he thinks ``the

kinds of errors we saw here were due to questionable judgment

or lack of attention, not intentional wrongdoing.'' Mueller

said that ``the number of abuses is exceptionally small''

compared with the broad use of national security letters and

that ``no one has been damaged'' by the errors.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil

Liberties Union, which has sued the government over its use

of national security letters, said the report shows the need

for an independent investigation of the Justice Department's

antiterrorism tactics.

``It confirms our greatest suspicions about the abuse of

Patriot Act powers and, specifically, national security

letter powers,'' Romero said.

Aside from the findings about national security letters,

the report details for the first time a separate kind of

emergency letter used in ``exigent circumstances,'' modeled

on letters used by New York FBI agents after the Sept. 11,

2001, attacks. The 739 emergency letters were issued as part

of an agreement with three unidentified telephone companies

and requested information with the promise of subpoenas,

which rarely materialized, the report said.

Mueller indicated that ``we stopped the use of these

letters'' in May 2006. An FBI official later clarified those

comments, saying emergency letters are still used but now

promise a national security letter rather than a subpoena

sometime in the future.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2007]

Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On--Records Collection Brought Internal

Questions but Little Scrutiny

(By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon)

FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed

procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records

during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers

were expressing escalating concerns about the practice,

according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and

documents.

FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October

2004 but did not closely scrutinize the practice until last

year, FBI officials acknowledged. They also did not

understand the scope of the problem until the Justice

Department launched an investigation, FBI officials said.

Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing,

counterterrorism agents last year wrote new letters to phone

companies demanding the information the bureau already

possessed. At least one senior FBI headquarters official--

whom the bureau declined to name--signed these ``national

security letters'' without including the required proof that

the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage

investigations, an FBI official said.

The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands

for records, called ``exigent circumstance'' letters, which

contained false or undocumented claims. They also included

national security letters that were issued without FBI rules

being followed. Both types of request were served on three

phone companies.

Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles

E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice

Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: ``It is . . .

difficult to imagine why there should not have been swift and

severe consequences for anyone who knowingly signed . . . a

letter containing false statements. Anyone at the FBI who

knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an obligation to put a

stop to it and report it immediately.''

A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use

of the exigency letters ``circumvented'' the law that governs

the FBI's access to personal information about U.S.

residents.

The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office

after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers

that the FBI needed information immediately and would follow

up with subpoenas later. There is no basis in the law to

compel phone companies to turn over information using such

letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents never followed

up with the promised subpoenas, he said.

But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent

efforts to legitimize those actions with improperly prepared

national security letters last year.

Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI,

prompting a news conference at which Director Robert S.

Mueller III took responsibility for the lapses. Some

lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's

expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.

In a letter to Fine that was released along with the March

9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's agents had

used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and

made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.

Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such

letters this month, although he defended their value and

denied that the agency had intentionally violated the law.

Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but

said they involved procedural and documentation failures, not

intentional misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller

ordered a nationwide audit, which began Friday, to determine

if the inappropriate use of exigency letters went beyond one

headquarters unit.

``We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this

sooner, corrections had been made and the process was more

transparent,'' FBI Assistant Director John Miller said

yesterday.

Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office

used the exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and

2005 to obtain records related to 3,000 separate phone

numbers. FBI officials acknowledged that the process was so

flawed that they may have to destroy some phone records to

keep them from being used in the future, if the bureau does

not find proof they were gathered in connection with an

authorized investigation.

Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes

an internal audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview

at headquarters Friday.

Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI

in an effort to block some of its data requests, said that if

the bureau cannot prove a link between the letters and an

ongoing investigation, its requests were ``a total fishing

expedition.''

The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the

condition of anonymity because of forthcoming House and

Senate hearings on the matter, would speak for the agency.

Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the

letters and why the department did not act more swiftly to

halt the practice. Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the

Senate Judiciary Committee copies of all FBI e-mails related

to the letters of demand, as well as transcripts of the

interviews Fine conducted on the issue.

The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with

Mueller as the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary

Committee intends to question Fine and FBI general counsel

Valerie Caproni.

FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the

letters at issue were drafted by the Communications Analysis

Unit (CAU), which comprises about a dozen people assigned to

analyze telephone records and other communications for

counterterrorism investigators. They sent the secret requests

to three companies--AT&T, Verizon and a third firm whose

identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist

attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of

supplying such records almost instantaneously in a form that

its agents can readily examine, according to the report and

the senior FBI official.

In each letter, the FBI asserted that ``due to exigent

circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached

list of telephone numbers be provided.'' The bureau promised

in most of the letters that subpoenas for the same

information ``have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's

office who will process and serve them formally.''

But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of

the letters were ``not sent in exigent circumstances'' and

that ``there sometimes were no open or pending national

security investigations tied to the request,'' contrary to

what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had actually been

requested before the letters were sent. The phone companies

nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in

anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later,

FBI officials said.

The use of such letters was virtually ``uncontrolled,''

said an FBI official who was briefed on the issue in early

2005. By that fall, CAU agents had begun creating

spreadsheets to track phone records they had collected for a

year or more that were not covered by the appropriate

documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with

officials.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic,

referring questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter

Thonis, who would not confirm nor deny the existence of an

FBI contract with his firm, said that ``every day Verizon

subpoena units respond to emergency requests from federal,

state and local law enforcement for particular calling

records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI

emergency requests in terrorist matters, and we had every

reason to believe they were legitimate emergency

situations.''

The inspector general's report said that the wording of the

exigency letters was copied from a standard letter that the

FBI's New York office used to obtain urgently needed records

after the 2001 terrorist bombings. When officials from that

office were later reassigned to create the CAU in Washington,

the senior FBI official said, ``they brought their business

practices with them'' and continued to use the same letter

``for reasons that I cannot explain.''

But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make

such requests, and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field

offices to submit the promised legal follow-up documents. The

offices rarely did so speedily, and in many cases ignored the

request altogether.

``In practice, if you have already got the records, the

incentive to do the paperwork is reduced,'' the senior FBI

official said.

When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch,

Patrice Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal

justifications were frequently missing or extremely late, she

did not advise agents to ``change their process,'' the senior

official said. ``Our advice was instead to . . . use these

letters only in true emergencies'' and institute ``covering

practices.''

These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened

a related investigation and promptly sent a formal national

security letter to provide legal backing for the demand.

Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised

concerns about the tardy legal justifications shortly after

he was assigned to the job in early 2005, according to his

lawyer, Steve Kohn.

``He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he

reported that to his chain of command. They defended the

procedures and took no action,'' Kohn said, adding that

``their initial response was to deny the scope of the

problem.''

Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was

denied a promotion because of discrimination based on his

ethnicity.

Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a

meeting at headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau

considered a work-around: Its lawyers proposed creating

special, catch-all investigative files that could be used to

authorize quick phone-records seizures that did not involve

open field investigations.

But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that

genuine emergency requests for the records ``were few and far

between,'' according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting

that was reviewed by The Washington Post, and the idea was

never implemented. The account referred to efforts by one of

the bureau's top lawyers to brief ``higher ups'' in the

agency about the problem.

``At some point, they told us there were not that many such

letters'' still in use, the senior official said. ``We

believed the problem had resolved itself . . . in retrospect,

it never got resolved.''

One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is

that Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office

did not review until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent

circumstances letters sent to the phone companies from 2003

to 2005. As a result, they were unaware that some of the

letters contained false statements about forthcoming

subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.

Bureau officials ultimately decided to ``clean up'' the

problem by writing seven national security letters designed

to provide legal backing for all the telephone records

requests that still needed it, the senior FBI official said.

In every case, these requests in 2006 covered records already

in the FBI's possession and lacked the required cover memos

spelling out the investigative requirements for the requests.

At no time did senior FBI officials outside the

communications unit attempt to tally how often the exigent

circumstances letters had been used, with the result that

Mueller and others in senior management did not learn about

the scope of the problem until two months ago, when Fine

informed them, the senior official said.

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, I too would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, my colleague from Texas, for the time and to the ranking member as well.

All of the issues have been laid out as to the three elements. So I just simply want to pose a question to my colleagues: We know that we have a problem with the three remaining intrusive and, I believe, unconstitutional provisions.

We know that Ranking Member Conyers has explained that we were not absent; we did not have the lights out under his jurisdiction. We actually pursued this. We couldn't get an agreement. We couldn't move toward the floor. So the question now is, we realize that a roving wiretap is intrusive. We realize that the ``lone wolf'' provides a problem. So the question is, how do we fix it for the American public? How do we ensure the Constitution is intact?

Let me be very clear: It is well documented that human intelligence is the best. Why? Because most of us were surprised when I say that in the intelligence community--at least they have not articulated about what is going on in the Mideast, both in Egypt and Yemen and otherwise--we were surprised. Did any of that help us? This is an intrusion on the American public.

We are not in any way nonpatriots. We are patriots. We believe in the Founding Fathers. We understand that they came together to give you, Americans, the right to your freedom. We ask for the Fourth Amendment to be sacrosanct, to indicate that you are not subject to unreasonable search and seizure. That is my question to my colleagues: When will you engage in the hearings and the ability to mark something up to address these infringements? How quickly will you move? December of 2011 is too long. Let us work together to uphold the Constitution.

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

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

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 afoul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.

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-U.S. persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be allowed to expire.

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 mentioned, 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 Act 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.

I thank the Judiciary chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last week, 122 Democrats rejected legislation to temporarily extend the three expiring Patriot Act provisions, including 36 who supported a 1-year extension last year. The House then adopted a rule to bring the bill back to the floor today, and the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed that, too. These votes are nothing but the minority party playing politics with national security, and their arguments ring hollow.

The Democrats' 1-year extension last February successfully achieved their goal of delaying Patriot reauthorization until after the midterm elections. But it left very little time for the new Congress to complete a reauthorization bill before the February 28 sunset. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle now profess concerns with the expiring provisions. If they were so concerned about the law, they could have easily brought a reauthorization bill to the floor last Congress making changes to these provisions, but they did not.

They also take issue with the process used to achieve this much- needed extension, criticizing the absence of hearings or a markup. But they gloss over the fact that their 1-year extension was brought straight to the floor with no hearings, no markup, and no opportunity to offer amendments--the same circumstances that a year later they now claim to dislike.

Since this law was enacted, these provisions have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have either been unchallenged or found constitutional. The lone wolf definition has never been challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been challenged. But Members should know that, in 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-- and that's the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal in the country--upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Section 215 business records were challenged, but after Congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, which I sponsored, the lawsuit was withdrawn. 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 and its people safe.

Opponents of these provisions argue that we can simply use criminal laws to gather the information we need. But this argument ignores the most important distinction between criminal investigations and intelligence gathering. Criminal investigations only occur after the fact--after a murder has been committed or a home has been burglarized. The entire purpose of intelligence gathering is prevention--to stop the terrorist attack before it happens. We cannot rely on criminal tools to identify and apprehend those who are plotting to attack us.

As the Democrats choose to play politics rather than worry about the safety of our country, we're now under a time crunch. Only 4 legislative days, including today, remain for the House to extend these provisions before they expire and our Nation is placed at a greater security risk. We can't let our guard down. These are needed provisions to keep America safe, and I urge the House to approve this bill today and urge the other body to act quickly to reauthorize these provisions.

It's time to put politics aside and do what's right for America's national security. I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give my friend from California and other Members a little history lesson.

When the Patriot Act was drafted in 2001, I insisted on the sunset and the then-Republican-controlled House prevailed on that issue against the then-Democrat-controlled Senate. I resisted repeal of the sunset prematurely, and in 2005, the Judiciary Committee, when I was chairman, had hearings on each of the 17 provisions. There was no controversy about 14 of those provisions. Even the ACLU testified in behalf, that those provisions have not been abused. So 14 of the provisions were made permanent. This law has not trampled on anybody's civil rights.

Where there was a constitutional problem with section 215, it was fixed in the reauthorization, and I'm getting a little bit irritated at the scare-mongering that has been going on about this law when no provision has been held unconstitutional by a court.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, yielded the Democrats 2 additional minutes, and asked for a copy of the motion to recommit so that we could look at it. The gentleman extended that offer in good faith.

We received a copy of this motion to recommit at the time the Clerk started reading it, and our offer of good faith was responded to with an attempted surprise.

Now, the underlying bill, H.R. 514, is very simple. All it does is extend the authorizations that are about ready to expire until December 8. It doesn't add to the Patriot Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act. It does not subtract from it. It gives the Judiciary Committee the time to do the oversight, which is exactly the same thing that I did when I was the chairman the last time the sunset expired.

But there is something else in here that I think is very important, and that is that there is a provision that would cause the courts to second-guess themselves every time a national security action asked them for a business record order. And rather than expediting the request to seek information on terrorists, this motion to recommit tells the court to expedite civil lawsuits against the United States Government to get money damages under a provision that is in the Patriot Act, and that tips it all on its head.

If the civil rights are violated, there is a provision in this Patriot Act that allows people to file a lawsuit and to do all of the discovery that needs to be done and to bring the case to trial, and they don't need to be expedited. What needs to be expedited is going after the terrorists with business records.

Now, there is a provision in the motion to recommit that says that the Constitution has to be followed. We don't need to put things in the statute book that says the Constitution needs to be followed. That's the supreme law of the land. This is completely redundant. It is unnecessary. And, frankly, the Constitution has been followed in the Patriot Act, because there has been no finding of unconstitutionality of any of the 17 provisions. Where there was a preliminary finding in the business records section, we amended the law and the plaintiffs dropped their suit. We fixed the problem, to the approval of the plaintiffs who filed this suit.

So we ought to get on with this. We're going to have these hearings. We are going to have the time to have these hearings. And all of the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have my commitment now, as they did 9 years ago and as they did 5 and 6 years ago, that the hearings will be thorough, they will be comprehensive, and they will allow everybody to speak their piece.

Vote against this motion to recommit and pass the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, fighting fires is very serious business in my home State of Colorado. Just a few months ago, we experienced the most expensive fire in our history--the Fourmile Fire, near Boulder. This fire destroyed more than 150 homes and burned over 6,000 acres.

We could not have stopped this fire without the dedicated efforts of hundreds of public servants, including volunteer firefighters from local fire districts. These individuals saved lives and property, often risking their own lives. That is, in part, why I believe we should do everything we can to help these fire districts and the volunteers who serve them.

One fire district involved in the Fourmile Fire--the Sugar Loaf Fire District--lost 17 homes in the fire. The Sugar Loaf Fire District is critical to protecting thousands of Coloradans, but instead of being able to focus on fighting fires this District has been wrapped up trying to resolve a land issue with the Forest Service for many years now. It is a very simple land exchange to make sure that the Fire District owns the land under two of its three fire stations.

The Fire District has occupied and operated the fire stations on these properties for nearly 40 years. If they can secure ownership, the lands will continue to be used as sites for fire stations and training. The Fire District is willing to trade the property it owns, an undeveloped inholding in Forest Service land, for the property under the stations. This is a simple and fair exchange that will serve the public good and help protect the local area from growing wildfire threats.

The Fire District has made a strong, persistent, and good faith effort to acquire the land under the stations through administrative means by working with the Forest Service. Furthermore, the Fire District has demonstrated its sincere commitment to this project by expending its monetary resources and the time of its staff to satisfy the requirements set forth by the Forest Service.

However, those efforts have not succeeded and it has become evident that legislation is required to resolve the situation.

To help facilitate this land exchange, I am introducing the Sugar Loaf Fire Station Land Exchange Act of 2011 today. This language is the same as what passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the last Congress.

Under the bill, the land exchange will proceed if the Fire District offers to convey acceptable title to a specified parcel of land amounting to about 5.17 acres. This land resides between the communities of Boulder and Nederland in an unincorporated part of Boulder County within the boundaries of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. In return, the land--about 5.08 acres--where the two fire stations are located will be transferred to the Fire District.

The lands transferred to the Federal Government will become part of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and managed accordingly.

This is a relatively minor bill but one that is important to the Sugar Loaf Fire District and the people it serves. As public lands bills pile up in Congress because of ideological obstruction, this fire district is being forced into wasting time and money trying to resolve an otherwise commonsense and technical public lands fix. I think this bill deserves enactment without unnecessary delay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Camp Hale Study Act of 2011, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of establishing Camp Hale, near Leadville, CO, as a national historic district. Camp Hale is an important part of our Nation's proud national defense legacy, and it deserves to be recognized and protected.

This bill concerns an important military legacy from the World War II and Cold War eras. Camp Hale, located in the mountains of central Colorado, was a training facility for combat in high alpine and mountainous conditions. Principally, it was a training venue for the Army's 10th Mountain Division and other elements of the U.S. Armed Forces. The geography of the area was ideal for winter and high- altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. The facility itself was located in Eagle County along the Eagle River, and its training boundary included lands in Eagle, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin Counties.

In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team, 99th Infantry Battalion, and soldiers from Fort Carson were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965. Throughout this time, the Army tested a variety of weapons and equipment at Camp Hale.

Between 1956 and 1965, the camp was also used by the Central Intelligence Agency as a secret center for training Tibetan refugees in guerilla warfare to resist the Chinese occupation of their mountainous country. Just last year, at my urging, the Forest Service put in place a plaque honoring these Tibetan Freedom Fighters. I joined many of those brave Tibetans, their CIA trainers, and their families in a moving ceremony to honor those who trained at Camp Hale.

In July 1965, Camp Hale was deactivated, and in 1966, control of the lands was returned to the Forest Service. Today the site is part of the White River and San Isabel National Forests. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to clean up potentially hazardous munitions left over from weapons testing at the site, particularly in the East Fork.

Camp Hale was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, but this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to complete a special resource study of Camp Hale to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Camp Hale as a separate unit of the National Park System. That would include an analysis of the significance of Camp Hale in relation to the defense of our Nation during World War II and the Cold War, including the use of Camp Hale for training of the 10th Mountain Division and for training by the Central Intelligence Agency of Tibetan refugees seeking to resist the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

I have worked with Representative Lamborn on this bill since he first introduced it in the House in the 110th Congress, when I proudly cosponsored it. I introduced this bill in the Senate in the last Congress and shepherded it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, because of opposition from a few Senators to all public lands bills, we could not pass this bipartisan bill on the Senate floor.

Camp Hale should be recognized for the role it played in our country's national security. The people who trained there are proud of their accomplishments, and I am proud to join Representative Lamborn in supporting this legislation. I am confident that we will have more success in passing this legislation in this Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.