Providing for Consideration of H.R. 514, Extending Counter-Terrorism Authorities

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I am opposed to the rule and the bill. We need to have law enforcement make sure that it has the provisions it needs to combat the very real threat of terrorism. However, the Patriot Act strikes that balance in the wrong way. But rather than actually debating the merits of the provisions and coming up with solutions that I think we can agree on with both sides of the aisle, as we have done in the past, the Republican leadership is forcing this through without the proper debate or transparency. In spite of their plethora of promises to change the culture of Congress, here we are without a single hearing on this topic, without a classified briefing for Members so we know what has and hasn't been done under the Patriot Act.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

Again, there is no doubt that the short-term extension is favorable to a long-term extension from those of us who have legitimate concerns, and I think there is even a bipartisan consensus that these concerns are legitimate about the overreach of the Patriot Act.

We will have, as a result of this, a 90-day period to try to work through, in a bipartisan, way some of our concerns and make sure that we protect what is special about being Americans.

We had an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee late last night, which was the second emergency meeting for this bill alone. Again, I think we all knew coming into this Congress that these provisions were set to expire. There would have been time for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and even a markup with regard to this bill, because they have held hearings with regard to other bills. They were constituted. They held hearings on immigration, on abortion, on other topics. And I think that, regardless of where one stands on this bill, it rises to the level of importance for American citizens that we do strike the right balance between security and protection of civil liberty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source