Sunset to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds from being used to detain cleared individuals held at Guantanamo. Of the 166 people currently being held there, 86 have been cleared for release; that is, they have not been charged with any offense. They have been found guilty of nothing, and they have been judged by our military to pose no threat to the United States if released. We should release them now. Holding these 86 people who have been cleared for release is against everything we claim to stand for.

In response to this very situation, President Obama asked: Is this who we are?

I hope today we will answer: No, we are better than that.

I hope we support this amendment and move expeditiously to support the release of these detainees. It is truly astonishing that in 2013 the United States continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime, who admittedly do not pose any threat to the United States. They should be released.

Guantanamo is an affront to America and to the founding principle of the United States that no person should be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Our continuing to hold prisoners indefinitely, without charge and without trial, is a rebuke to our professed support of liberty.

If they've been judged not to pose a threat and we hold them anyway, what kind of message are we sending? By what claim of right do we hold people in jail who have been charged with nothing, whom we're not bringing to trial, and who we have decided pose no threat to us? What are we saying about the United States and our values? We must change course and we ought to support this amendment.

Now, I know some will say these are dangerous terrorists. No, they're not. They're people who were captured in some way who have been judged by our military not to pose a threat to the United States, who have not been charged as terrorists, who have not been judged as terrorists. Some of them may be simply victims to the fact that we paid bounties to people in Afghanistan to turn in people who they said were terrorists. The Hatfields turned in the McCoys because--why not?--we were giving them a couple of thousand dollars.

So anyone who has not been charged with a crime, who has not been convicted, and who we have already decided poses no threat ought to be released. And, therefore, this amendment says no funds may be used to continue their confinement. I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? How much time does the gentleman have left?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, it would serve a purpose if people actually read the amendment. The amendment says none of the funds made available may be used to detain an individual who has been approved for release or transfer to a foreign country.

We hear from the gentleman from Florida, these people are there for a reason. Yes, when we arrest somebody, a murder is committed, a rape is committed, we arrest somebody. But then, the grand jury says, no, we're not going to indict this person; there's not enough evidence.

Do we hold them in jail indefinitely, forever, even though there's no charge, even though the District Attorney says we made a mistake; it's somebody else; they didn't do it? No.

Because maybe they'll commit a crime? That's antithetical to every notion of what the United States is about. These are 86 people who are not charged as terrorists, who we have no evidence are terrorists, and who have been judged by the military and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community to pose no threat to us.

By what claim of right do we hold them in jail? The United States, at this point, is no better than a kidnapper if it holds in jail people whom it charges with no crime and judges safe for release.

Approve the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to construct or expand detention facilities at Guantanamo.

The bill contains $249 million to convert temporary detention facilities into more permanent structures. But the administration wants to close Guantanamo and to release or transfer the detainees. So why waste $429 million to construct facilities that will not be used? Because many in Congress want to keep the detainees in Guantanamo forever.

Now, we have, we know, 166 detainees in Guantanamo; 86 should be released immediately. The gentleman from Florida says that they're bad people; they are terrorists; they're there for a reason. No, they're not. They're there for different reasons. Some because they were handed over for bounties by rival militias or rival clans. Some because a mistake was made. Some because they're terrorists. But we make distinctions.

The gentleman says we shouldn't release them until a careful assessment has been made. Well, a careful assessment has been made: 86 of them, half of those in Guantanamo, have been cleared for release. That is to say, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence agencies have determined that these 86 people were not terrorists and were not likely to pose a threat to the United States if released. So they're guilty of nothing. They have been tried for nothing. We don't say that people are bad people, we ought to hold them in jail indefinitely without a trial normally, except here. So we ought to release the 86 who have been cleared for release immediately, and the others we ought to try, put on trial.

There's a separate dispute whether that should be an Article III court or a military tribunal. I prefer an Article III court, but either way, put them on trial in front of a court or in front of a military tribunal and let them be tried. Perhaps most of them will be guilty and put them in jail for long periods of time. Maybe some will be innocent. That's what the justice system is about.

Are we really going to say that Guantanamo is separate? Anyone who is unlucky enough to be sent there because at one time we thought maybe they were dangerous should stay there indefinitely until they die without a trial?

The assessment has been made for 86 of them. They have been judged not to be guilty, not to be a terrorist, and not to be a threat. That assessment has been made according to law, and these people ought to be released. The other 80 ought to be tried and, if convicted, ought to be put in prison in the United States. We have hundreds of terrorists in maximum security prisons in the United States. There's no reason a few more couldn't be put there, and we could save $249 million.

Guantanamo was originally set up because it was thought by the Bush administration that if we held people in Guantanamo they could be tried or handled without having the constitutional rights of someone in the United States, but the Supreme Court said no. The people in Guantanamo have the same rights as if they were held in the United States. So it doesn't change what will happen to them, whether they're kept in prison in the United States or in Guantanamo.

So let's release the 86 who ought to be released because they've been adjudged that they should be released by the Joint Chiefs and by the intelligence agencies. Let's try the others, and let's keep them in jail if they're adjudged guilty. Let's proceed with American justice notions and do ourselves proud, and let's stops wasting billions of dollars on Guantanamo.

So this amendment says don't permanentize what should be and will be temporary, however temporary it is. Don't waste $249 million on making these facilities permanent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left?

I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the $249 million in the budget is for expansion and making permanent detention facilities. I have

no objection to construction of other military facilities at Guantanamo Bay. I don't know whether that makes sense or not. But the $249 million we're talking about here is for more detention facilities. That's a pure waste of money. And I'll be happy to clarify, if this amendment passes, that it should apply only to detention facilities.

So if you're opposed to wasting $249 million more on detention facilities so we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per prisoner instead of $34,000 per year per prisoner in the United States, if you think that's a good idea to waste all this money, then vote against this amendment. I hope rational people who don't want to waste a quarter of a billion dollars for permanent detention facilities will vote for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been described and offered as an alternative to the Amash-Conyers amendment that we will consider next. It is not.

This amendment restates the existing ban on the intentional targeting of United States persons under section 702. It also places into law for the next fiscal year the Obama administration's current ban on collecting the contents of the communications of U.S. persons under section 215. I agree with these prohibitions. But they have nothing to do with the current misuse of section 215 to engage in the suspicionless, bulk collection of Americans' telephone records.

The dragnet collection under section 215 telephone metadata program reveals call information--including all numbers dialed, all incoming phone numbers and call duration--but not the content of communications. Therefore, this amendment would have no impact whatsoever on this misuse of section 215. Metadata reveals highly personal and sensitive information, including, for example, when and how often one calls the doctor, a journalist, or the local Tea Party or ACLU affiliate. By tracing the pattern of calls, the government can paint a detailed picture of anyone's personal, professional, and political associations and activities.

Congress never authorized this type of unchecked, sweeping surveillance of our citizens. It is this problem--the indiscriminate, bulk collection of metadata under section 215--that we need to fix right now.

The Amash-Conyers amendment does so by restoring the required reasonable relationship between the collection of records and specific persons being investigated under section 215. The Amash-Conyers amendment ensures that this standard is not ignored by the administration or by the FISA Court, as is happening now.

This amendment does not fix the problem with 215. The Amash-Conyers amendment does. However you vote on this amendment, and I intend to vote in favor of it, it is imperative that we also vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment because this amendment, although doing no harm, does not solve the problems that Congress and Mr. Sensenbrenner and many others have articulated with respect to the misuse of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Madam Chairperson, this amendment stops the government from misusing section 215, to engage in the dragnet collection of all of our personal telephone records. Congress did not grant the executive the authority to collect everything it wants so long as it limits any subsequent search of that data.

This amendment restores the requirement that records sought are relevant to an authorized foreign intelligence or terrorist investigation. It restores the minimal relevant standard required by Congress but ignored by successive administrations.

No administration should be permitted to operate above or beyond the law as they have done in this respect. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's intense interest in trying to protect these folks who would be affected by sequestration, but awarding or granting or giving a national security clearance is not a simple thing and it should not be taken lightly. If the Department of Defense or government agency decides that a person doesn't really qualify, they feel that they don't deserve a national security clearance, if the phrase ``furlough caused by sequestration'' is included in the denial, then the denial is null and void. You can't deny it if it is claimed that it's due to sequestration, and that's not fair. That's not fair to our national security. It's not fair, actually, to the Defense Department, and I just think this is not a good idea.

But I know what the gentleman wants to accomplish and would like to work with him to figure out how to do this without denying the Defense Department the right to deny a security clearance to someone that they think is not a good risk for a security clearance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, again I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. It's just the problem in the denial, if they use the phrase ``furlough caused by sequestration,'' they can't deny that request for a security clearance, and there may be a lot of good reasons why that person should be denied.

And so it's a question of do we protect the national security by giving the Defense Department the authority to deny regardless of what the furlough language is, or do we allow this amendment, which is probably poorly written; and we would like to work with the gentleman to write it in such a way that it doesn't cause us great distress. But I just don't want to see someone who should be denied a security clearance given one because of a technicality.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would allow, and probably require, that a very large number of detainees from Guantanamo are sent back home to their home country or a country that they might have come to. They're detainees for a reason. They are detainees because they inflicted harm or danger or threats or death to our American interests, our American soldiers. They came from the battlefield.

Now, we know that two of the former detainees who have been sent back to their country established a group that's run by those two former Gitmo detainees, and so I don't think it's a good idea. I think we should keep the detainees that are dangerous. Until such time as they meet the requirements of the law, they should stay at Guantanamo. They would have to ensure that the remaining Gitmo detainees, whom most judge as the most dangerous, will not be released or otherwise brought into the homeland where U.S. citizens could be threatened.

Second, the present law ensures that, prior to releasing Guantanamo detainees to a foreign country, a careful and deliberate assessment must be made that the detainee is not likely to reengage in terrorist activities.

What's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with that, so why change it? Why turn these people loose to go back to the battlefield, which many of them that have been released have already done, causing additional harm to our troops. So I'm strongly opposed to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it can be said any stronger or needed to be said any more often. These detainees are bad, bad people. They hate America. They've sworn to kill Americans, and, in fact, they have done so on the battlefield, and that's why, when they were captured, they were sent to Guantanamo. That's where they should stay unless the current law is abided by, and that is, to ensure that the remaining Gitmo detainees who are most judged as the most dangerous will not be released or brought into the homeland where U.S. citizens could be threatened.

Second, they ensure that prior to releasing Guantanamo detainees to a foreign country a careful and deliberate assessment must be made that the detainee is not likely to re-engage in terrorist activities and the foreign government can maintain control over the individual. What's wrong with that law?

It protects Americans. It protects America, and it keeps the bad guys where they need to be kept. And in this particular case, it's at Guantanamo.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the amendment, I'm assuming that the gentleman is trying to prevent any further construction or money of that type for the Guantanamo detainees. And I can understand that because we have just recently spent a lot of money building two brand new prisons, air-conditioned, comfortable, and we've already spent that money, so maybe we don't need to spend any money there.

But what the amendment doesn't recognize is that since 1903, we have had a presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for our own military purposes. The 4th Fleet is headquartered there and has been there for many years. Allied shipping, allied Navy facilities, allied forces move through Guantanamo Bay on a fairly regular basis. I don't know that they have any specific requests right now for any kind of construction, but I don't think we want to deny it in the event that the Defense Department finds it important to do a construction project there.

So, understand, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been part of the United States military facility since 1903, and so I don't think this amendment is a good amendment because it would deny our troops, our forces not even involved with Guantanamo detainees the right for military construction, or the right for whatever needs to be spent.

So, again, I just have to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made my case. We don't really need a lot more money for construction for Guantanamo detainees. We've already spent a lot of money there.

The point is, we don't want to deny the ability of the Defense Department to provide whatever is needed for our own military forces at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not part of the Guantanamo detainees.

I think we've talked this one to death. We're repeating ourselves now. So, in the interest of time, I'm going to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time.

Madam Chairman, this is an issue that we can't sweep under the rug any longer. We have got to face it square on. The gentlelady's amendment helps do that.

The subcommittee when preparing this legislation was extremely concerned about the issue, and we have included considerable amounts of money to deal with sexual predators and sexual assaults in the military, especially demanding that the military do a better job at enforcing the rules, the laws, to protect the rights of those who are sexually abused.

I thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment, and we do support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Again, Madam Chairman, this is a good amendment. Those who are subject to sexual assaults, sexual attacks, and who have been separated from the military on grounds of a disorder need to have their records corrected if information indicates that that should be done.

Sexual assault victims have already suffered a great deal. They deserve to have their military records accurately reflect their military service. Those victims who were improperly discharged on the grounds of a personality disorder deserve to have those records corrected.

We do support the amendment. This bill already provides substantial funding to provide these services.

I notice a very distinguished gentleman rising who would like me to yield, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Madam Chairman, needless to say, we support this amendment. We have already robustly financed sexual assault programs. We fully fund the President's request for sexual assault prevention and response programs at the service level and at the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program office.

I would like to emphasize ``prevention.'' If we can prevent these sexual assaults, then the other problems go away. So it is important that we do pay attention to prevention.

In addition, our bill provides $25 million to the Department and the services, including the Guard and Reserve, to implement a Sexual Assault Special Victims program, such as the Air Force Special Victims Counsel program, to provide all victims with specially trained legal assistance throughout the investigation and prosecution process--fair play. That's important.

We also support a number of policy changes that were including the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. I think our bill goes a long way on this issue, and this amendment goes even further, so we enthusiastically support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate our colleague from Florida for having a very successful first few months in the Congress. He has done a really good job.

I am happy to rise in support of this amendment. It is a responsible approach to a critical national security issue. We appreciate the gentleman working closely with the committee to address this issue in a responsible manner that protects our national interests.

So I say, again, thank you for the initiative that you have offered here today.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes for the closing argument to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

I appreciate my friend yielding to me.

I simply want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The agreement that was reached--and I think some people used the agreement as an excuse to do nothing--is 40 years old. It was entered into in 1973. Well, they agreed to it. I graduated from law school in 1973. The world is a much different place today. People have changed. I certainly think our environmental consciousness has improved and our consciousness of our responsibility in this has improved. And I do think this is an opportunity to rectify that.

I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of this great committee. The chairman chairs that Energy and Water Subcommittee. Unfortunately, in the Formerly Used Defense Sites that were cited by the gentleman, we have over 10,000 properties, which is one of the problems I think the gentleman alludes to as far as the costs we have to deal with. All the more reason, I believe, that we ought to be very assiduous and active in beginning to address these sites.

So I appreciate the gentleman raising it, and I certainly support his position.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I had my breath taken away with the assertion that the President of the United States might give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia, and that we are debating an amendment to Defense appropriations, with all of the other problems we face and all the threats we face in this country, based on the assumption that the President of the United States might give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia.

I would simply ask my colleagues to think about the underlying assumptions based in the gentleman's amendment and vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman responds to my concern by suggesting that he has discovered the possibility that the President of the United States is going to give away the most intimate secrets this country holds to Russia through the media. I'm wondering--and I ask this question simply rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleague--I wonder if that was FOX News. I wonder if he saw that on the Colbert Report recently. I wonder if that was on the John Stewart program.

I was watching CNN, and I didn't see any report of that yesterday; although, I saw that a baby was born in another country. Despite the world coming apart, that was the headline news. I didn't see MSNBC, and I don't know if that was it. Perhaps it was even on a BBC telecast. But I'm wondering what media outlets are providing this inside information as to the deliberations of the President of the United States to give away these cherished secrets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time, and I understand I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated, in query to my rhetorical question, that all I have to do is Google and I will discover the information that will lead to our knowledge that the President of the United States is considering giving away this very sensitive information.

It comes to mind, when the gentleman suggests I should Google it, how many different encounters I have had with members of the public who said, ``I saw it on the Internet; it must be true.'' For example, Members of Congress, after serving one term, receive a full salary pension for the rest

of their lives; and Members of Congress receive free health care for the rest of their lives; and Members of Congress, for the last 4 years in a row, have received significant pay increases because they Googled it on the Internet, and so they secured very specific, accurate information. Perhaps we should go to Facebook or LinkedIn or reddit, or maybe we should tweet each other.

Again, in very serious concern, I would suggest my colleagues absolutely reject this amendment. I would ask for their vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong support of his amendment.

The gentleman who is in opposition mentions that the administration mentions the United States Constitution. The fact is we have a constitutional responsibility. With the passage of more than a decade and a changing world--and I would agree with the gentleman, something else may be in store--we ought to revisit that issue. We ought to exercise our constitutional, congressional prerogative and have a full debate.

Again, the gentleman is providing over 1\1/2\ years. In such a serious issue, I think even this Congress could come to grips with that type of fundamental issue and resolve the future.

So I strongly support what the gentleman is doing and appreciate his amendment.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and the chairman's support.

Madam Chair, the amendment does seek to target an important part of the process when prosecuting a sexual assault--the investigation of the incident.

As the Congresswoman pointed out, the Inspector General found this particular part of the process lacking in terms of interviewing victims, investigating crime scenes, and notifying the sexual assault response coordinator. The funding proposed would provide the means to include special training for tactics and techniques when investigating crimes of these natures. I would join the chairman of the committee in thanking her for raising the issue and strongly support it.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would like to associate myself with his kind remarks, and appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment and would like to indicate my support for the amendment as well.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the additional 10 minutes on the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would point out in my opening remarks that I think the fundamental responsibility of this body is to be engaged in these types of situations and to make determinations relative to our constitutional responsibility, particularly in dangerous situations when it involves military action. Syria, for example, is reported to have the fourth most sophisticated, integrated air defense of any nation on the planet Earth. Reports in the media indicate that Russia has kept these systems resupplied and up to date technologically.

It is but one of many things that we have to consider as far as the safety and well-being of those who are in our military forces, as well as, ultimately, what our national interests are.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would make an additional observation on the gentleman's amendment.

There are political and diplomatic issues of Russia's relationship with the Assad regime. Altering this relationship over the long run may become an objective of U.S. foreign policy. Maybe. Maybe not. However, entering into an armed conflict with this relationship in mind is a dangerous step, among many other dangerous steps, and it renews the prospect of a more openly hostile relationship with a country that otherwise had ended the Cold War. So it's certainly an additional reason as to my appreciation for the gentleman offering the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, from my perspective, I would also make it clear that what we're talking about at this point is the use of military force. There is no question that there is a significant and tragic humanitarian crisis taking place.

It is estimated that about 6.8 million people are in need of various types of humanitarian assistance in Syria itself. There are about 4.25 million people displaced within that country. We have 1.78 million Syrians displaced to neighboring countries. There were 486,972, as of the latest count, that are refugees in Jordan; 607,908 are refugees in Lebanon; 412,789 are refugees in Turkey; 161,014 are refugees in Iraq, and 92,367 in Egypt. It's one reason why today it's estimated that about $814 million of U.S. humanitarian aid has been expended for good purposes. That's certainly not what we're talking about here today, and I certainly would want to make our colleagues understand that as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the gentlewoman as much time as she may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Either to yourself or possibly for the author of the amendment, the question I have, because there has been a lot of talk, it is ``not the intent of the amendment'' to interfere with any intercooperation we have today with the Egyptians. It is not our intent not to be involved in the Sinai, but the amendment reads no funds, and then goes on to fund military operations in Egypt.

If I am an adviser, if I am a member of the uniformed services, how is the intent met under the particular restrictions of the amendment? That would be my question.

If the gentleman will yield, as a Member of the House and the committee, I would want to participate in that to ensure we do not disrupt the very positive interchange that is taking place.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Washington (Mr. Heck) and I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Why? Because it restates current law, and current law has been interpreted by the administration in a way that is, frankly, contrary to the intent of the crafters of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act says that you can obtain information that is relevant to a national security investigation.

Now, what has happened since Congress enacted that provision? It is a low bar, but under the NSA's interpretation, it is no bar at all. Because, as has been widely reported, they are collecting the information about every phone call made by every American. Clearly, that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation.

I think it is important to note that business records that are the subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. What are business records? phone records? Internet records? credit card records? medical records? Are these things that we would voluntarily give up to the government? No. They are incredibly sensitive, and that's why they are being sought.

I do think it is important to note that the amendment that will follow after this one doesn't end the ability of the government to pursue terrorism. We are all for that. It merely requires that the government adhere to the law, which requires that there be relevance to a terrorist investigation.

I certainly do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who has offered this amendment, but I do think if you think that this provides a remedy, then you are wrong. This provides a fig leaf.

We should vote against it, and I hope that we will move on to the Amash amendment and solve the problem today.

I want to talk about the much ballyhooed oversight.

Every year, there is a report to the Judiciary Committee, an annual report, on section 215. This year, the report was eight sentences--less than a full page. To think that the Congress has substantial oversight of this program is simply incorrect. I cannot match Mr. Sensenbrenner's brilliant remarks; but I do agree that when we wrote the PATRIOT Act relevance had a meaning.

Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter to Mr. Sensenbrenner from the Department of Justice, which basically says, because 300 inquiries were made, the records of every single American became relevant. That's a joke.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: This responds to your

letter to the Attorney General date June 6, 2013, regarding

the ``business records'' provision of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861,

enacted as section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

As you know, on June 5, 2013, the media reported the

unauthorized disclosure of a classified judicial order issued

under this provision that has been used to support a

sensitive intelligence collection program. Under this

program, which has been briefed to Congress and repeatedly

authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

(FISC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtains

authorization to collect telephony metadata, including the

telephone numbers dialed and the date, time and duration of

calls, from certain telecommunications service providers. The

National Security Agency (NSA), in turn, archives and

analyzes this information under carefully controlled

circumstances and provides leads to the FBI or others in the

Intelligence Community for counterterrorism purposes. Aspects

of this program remain classified, and there are limits to

what can be said about it in an unclassified letter.

Department of Justice and Intelligence Community staff are

available to provide you a briefing on the program at your

request.

In your letter, you asked whether this intelligence

collection program is consistent with the requirements of

section 215 and the limits of that authority. Under section

215, the Director of the FBI may apply to the FISC for an

order directing the production of any tangible things,

including business records, for investigations to protect

against international terrorism. To issue such an order, the

FISC must determine that (1) there are reasonable grounds to

believe that the things sought are relevant to an authorized

investigation, other than a threat assessment; (2) the

investigation is being conducted under guidelines approved by

the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333; and (3) if

a U.S. person is the subject of the investigation, the

investigation is not being conducted solely upon the basis of

First Amendment protected activities. In addition, the FISC

may only require the production of items that can be obtained

with a grand jury subpoena or any other court order directing

the production of records or tangible things. Finally, the

program must, of course, comport with the Constitution.

The telephony metadata program satisfies each of these

requirements. The lawfulness of the telephony metadata

collection program has repeatedly been affirmed by the FISC.

In the years since its inception, multiple FISC judges have

granted 90-day extensions of the program after concluding

that it meets all applicable legal requirements.

Of particular significance to your question is the

relevance to an authorized international terrorism

investigation of the telephony metadata collected through

this program. First, it is critical to understand the program

in the context of the restrictions imposed by the court.

Those restrictions strictly limit the extent to which the

data is reviewed by the government. In particular, the FISC

allows the data to be queried for intelligence purposes only

when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts,

that a particular query term, such as a telephone number, is

associated with a specific foreign terrorist organization

that was previously identified to and approved by the court.

NSA has reported that in 2012, fewer than 300 unique

identifiers were used to query the data after meeting this

standard. This means that only a very small fraction of the

records is ever reviewed by any person, and only specially

cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in

the court-approved procedures can access the records to

conduct queries. The information generated in response to

these limited queries is not only relevant to authorized

investigations of international terrorism, but may be

especially significant in helping the government identify and

disrupt terrorist plots.

The large volume of telephony metadata is relevant to FBI

investigations into specific foreign terrorist organizations

because the intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the

existence of potential terrorist communications within the

data require collecting and storing large volumes of the

metadata to enable later analysis. If not collected and held

by NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the

period that NSA has deemed necessary for national security

purposes because it need not be retained by

telecommunications service providers. Moreover, unless the

data is aggregated by NSA, it may not be possible to identify

telephony

metadata records that cross different telecommunications

networks. The bulk collection of telephony metadata--i.e. the

collection of a large volume and high percentage of

information about unrelated communications--is therefore

necessary to identify the much smaller subset of terrorist-

related telephony metadata records contained within the data.

It also allows NSA to make connections related to terrorist

activities over time and can assist counterterrorism

personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists

have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in

terrorist activities, including persons and activities inside

the United States. Because the telephony metadata must be

available in bulk to allow NSA to identify the records of

terrorist communications, there are ``reasonable grounds to

believe'' that the data is relevant to an authorized

investigation to protect against international terrorism, as

section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the

dataset are not associated with terrorist activity.

The program is consistent with the Constitution as well as

with the statute. As noted above, the only type of

information acquired under the program is telephony metadata,

not the content of any communications, not the identity,

address or financial information of any party to the

communication, and not geolocational information. Under

longstanding Supreme Court precedent, there is no reasonable

expectation of privacy with respect to this kind of

information that individuals have already provided to third-

party businesses, and such information therefore is not

protected by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Maryland, 442

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I feel very strongly about this issue, Madam Chair. I believe without a shadow of a doubt this is one of the most insane policies that borders on madness. For the United States to give funding, training, and arms most likely to al Qaeda in Syria doesn't make any sense.

Can we realize what it is we're talking about right now? This is Islamic jihad, which has declared war on the United States and declared war on our ally Israel. And we're now in a position when we're authorizing arming, training, and funding for allies of al Qaeda, and al Qaeda themselves, in Syria? This is absolute madness.

You see, Madam Chair, the decision to arm the Syrian rebels by the Obama administration just this week will likely have catastrophic consequences for our United States national security and the national security of our ally Israel. The Syrian rebels that the President wants to arm consist mostly of al Qaeda members that we've spent the last decade fighting a war against. Have we forgotten the thousands of Americans that were killed on September 11 in the horrific Twin Towers attack and here in this city at the Pentagon? We lost over 3,000 Americans that day. Are we forgetting who we fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan? It's my opinion, Madam Chair, that this is insanity to aid those who've taken the lives of Americans with impunity and continue to do so.

Just take note that the leader of al Qaeda is an individual named Zawahiri. Zawahiri called on Muslims from around the world to make their way to Syria and support the rebels and, in fact, become the rebels who are seeking to overthrow Assad.

We don't have a great track record, Madam Chair, of putting arms into the hands of terrorists. Take a look at the Fast and Furious program in Mexico and the terrorists who received arms from the United States. Take a look at Benghazi and the tens of thousands of weapons, MANPADS, that went into the hands of al Qaeda after Benghazi. And now we're intentionally going to make a decision to send money, training, and arms to al Qaeda?

How about a referendum with the American people? I think this would be more than a 90 percent issue. Don't do it. That's why we're standing here today. Don't do it.

The top spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood is a man named Qaradawi. He has been outlawed from the United States because he's a terrorist. Also, he was outlawed from Egypt because he's a terrorist. He has called for jihad in Syria, and he has said:

Every Muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that

must make himself available.

So you have the head of al Qaeda and the head of the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood both calling on Islamic jihadists to go to Syria to fight and be the rebels. And we're going to arm them, and we're going to train them, and we're going to provide materiel support to them? Not my vote.

Madam Chair, former President Morsi, who was formerly the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed under Mubarak in Egypt, he supported the call from hardline Egyptian clerics who called for Egyptians to go fight jihad in Syria. So you see, there's a common thread here. All the wrong guys on the wrong team are all calling for jihadists to go to Syria and fight. It was reported that over 2,500 Egyptians have already gone to Syria to fight jihad.

Pakistan Taliban fighters have left Pakistan to join the fight in Syria, and they're working with al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria.

On Monday, al Qaeda's Iraq-affiliated attack on the Abu Ghraib prison helped 500 inmates escape, most of whom were part of senior positions in al Qaeda. These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with the rebels.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my friend.

These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with the rebels.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer in the United States, Martin Dempsey, has warned us that intervening in Syria could assist Islamist extremists, helping them gain access to chemical weapons and biological weapons and further erode United States military readiness already suffering from sharp defense budget cuts. He has said that using force is ``no less than an act of war,'' and stated that some of the military options for Syria may not be feasible without compromising U.S. security elsewhere.

He made reference to the chaos in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and Libya after Qadhafi. He warned of the unintended consequences if Assad fell without having a viable opposition. He said ``we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.''

This is a hub for jihadist activity. The American taxpayer has no obligation. In fact, I say this body must protect the American taxpayer from being involved in arming al Qaeda in Syria. We must defeat this effort, and that's why I'm in support of this today.

Again, we have the major general from the Israeli military intelligence, and he said that right before our eyes the center of global jihad is developing; let's not do it. I agree with him.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Madam Chair, this is a very important issue that we are taking up today because the number one duty of the Federal Government is the safety of the American people--of our constituents and of our own skins, the skins of each one of us in this Chamber today. As we know all too well, national security is a real and present danger, and it is something that we have to take quite seriously. We can't deal in false narratives.

A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking in the content of Americans' phone calls. It's not true. It's not happening.

A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking in the content of the American people's emails. It's not true. It's not happening.

We need to deal in facts. The facts are real, and the facts are these:

The only people who have benefited from the revelation of classified information by someone who worked for this government--who intentionally and without authorization declassified some of the most sensitive national security information that we have--are those who are engaged in Islamic jihad. They will have been benefited, and those whom we seek to protect will have not.

Consider this:

There is more information about each one of us contained in the phone book that sits at home on your kitchen counter than information that is in the National Security Database that we're talking about today. Your name, your address are in the phone book. Your name, your address are not in this National Security Database.

No other nation in the world has the advantage that the United States of America has on national security--no

other nation--and we by this amendment today would agree to handcuff ourselves and our allies by restricting ourselves? Let it not be. Let us not deal in false narratives. Let us deal in facts that will keep the American people safe.

When you look at an envelope, when a letter is put in the mail, is there a privacy right as to what has been written on that envelope? No, there isn't. There is a privacy right as to what is contained inside that envelope. That's a Fourth Amendment right.

Is there a Fourth Amendment right to the record that you called someone on a certain day? No, there isn't--that's a record--but there is a Fourth Amendment right to what's in that phone call. Let's deal in reality, not in false narratives.