Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

r. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

I hope we will oppose the extension.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source