H5780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90- 

day period prior to the anniversary 

date of its declaration, the President 

publishes in the Federal Register and 

transmits to the Congress a notice 

stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary 

date. In accordance with this provision, 

I have sent to the Federal Register for 

publication the enclosed notice, stating that the national emergency with 

respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism is 

to continue in effect beyond September 

23, 2012. 

The crisis constituted by the grave 

acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on 

September 11, 2001, in New York and 

Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on 

United States nationals or the United 

States that led to the declaration of a 

national emergency on September 23, 

2001, has not been resolved. These actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of 

the United States. For these reasons, I 

have determined that it is necessary to 

continue the national emergency declared with respect to persons who 

commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, and maintain in force 

the comprehensive sanctions to respond to this threat. 

BARACK OBAMA.

THE WHITE

f 

HOUSE, September 11, 2012. 

b 1300 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 5544, MINNESOTA EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING 

FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 

5949, FISA AMENDMENTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 

call up House Resolution 773 and ask 

for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 773 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 

House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the Laurentian District of the Superior National 

Forest and certain other National Forest 

System land in the State of Minnesota that 

has limited recreational and conservation resources and lands owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the public school system 

that are largely scattered in checkerboard 

fashion within the Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. General debate shall be 

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. In 

lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute recommended by the Committee 

on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 112-30, modified by the amendment 

printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the 

House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as 

the original bill for the purpose of further 

amendment under the five-minute rule and 

shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the bill, as 

amended, are waived. No further amendment 

to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of 

the Committee on Rules. Each such further 

amendment may be offered only in the order 

printed in the report, may be offered only by 

a Member designated in the report, shall be 

considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such further amendments are 

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 

the bill for amendment the Committee shall 

rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 

House with such further amendments as may 

have been adopted. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening 

motion except one motion to recommit with 

or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution 

it shall be in order to consider in the House 

the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008 for five years. All 

points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 

Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 

the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 

bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the 

bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on 

the bill, as amended, and on any amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 

minutes equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit with 

or without instructions. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 

hour. 

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, for 

the purpose of debate only, I yield the 

customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. POLIS) 

pending which I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I rise 

today in support of this rule, which 

provides for consideration of two different pieces of legislation. 

The first of these bills transfers lands 

within the State of Minnesota to the 

benefit of the State’s public school system. The rule provides for consideration of each and every amendment offered by Members to the Rules Committee by the amendment deadline. 

The next measure this rule allows for 

consideration of is H.R. 5949, the FISA 

Amendments Act Reauthorization Act 

of 2012. Also called the FAA Reauthorization, this legislation would reauthorize programs that are critically 

important to our national security. 

First passed in 2008, FAA has enjoyed 

a history of strong bipartisan support. 

Now, President Obama and his administration have made it clear that a 

clean, long-term extension of FAA is 

their number one intelligence priority. 

That’s exactly what H.R. 5949 does. 

Recognizing that our Nation’s security cannot and should not wait until 

an emergency, the 11th hour, or rushed 

reauthorization, the Select Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have 

had hearings on the FAA’s reauthorization, they’ve marked up the bill, and 

they’ve sent it to us months ahead of 

the expiration deadline. I congratulate 

both of these committees on their 

timely and dedicated work for the sake 

of our own safety. 

It is with the tools that the FAA provides to our intelligence community 

that we’re able to monitor our Nation’s 

enemies overseas. Without this authority, the ability to track those individuals who aren’t American citizens and 

want to do harm to this country would 

return to the state it was in before 

September 11 of 2001. 

I really want to stress that the FISA 

Amendments Act applies to targeting 

non-U.S. citizens living outside of the 

United States. 

The FAA also enhances civil liberty 

protections for Americans. The government cannot target an American overseas without first obtaining an individualized court order from the FISA 

Court. Prior to FAA, the government 

was not required to obtain an individualized court order to target U.S. persons outside of the United States. This 

is an expansion of the civil liberties 

made possible by the FISA Amendments Act. 

As a former law enforcement officer, 

I know how important it is to get the 

information that we need to work on a 

case. Without good, reliable information, you can’t do your job and protect 

the citizens, but the information must 

be obtained in the right way. 

b 1310 

FAA is a critical tool at our international community’s disposal in our 

war against terrorism. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5781 

I encourage my colleagues to join me 

in supporting our national security by 

voting for the FISA Amendments Act 

Reauthorization Act. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 

to the rule and the underlying bills— 

H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, and 

H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act 

Reauthorization Act. There are significant problems in both pieces of legislation. However, both bills are, nevertheless, being brought forward under a restrictive process, despite the efforts of 

my colleague, Mr. MCGOVERN, to 

amend the rule to allow for an open 

rule on amendments on both debates. 

Unfortunately, that motion failed in 

the Rules Committee. Instead, this rule 

is a restrictive process that limits debate and discussion that can improve 

this legislation. 

Let me briefly address the lands law 

before getting to the FISA bill, which 

is of great concern to our civil liberties. 

We have before us a bill that allows 

for the exchange of 86,000 acres of Minnesota’s school trust lands within the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness for unidentified Forest Service 

lands. The wilderness is a critical asset 

for northeastern Minnesota’s tourism 

and recreation industry, as well as the 

most popular wilderness area in our 

Nation’s wilderness system. But since 

the bill doesn’t even give details about 

what public land would be lost, we 

can’t even say how bad a deal this is 

for the American people. It is simply 

bad policy to push through a controversial land swap bill without adequate public involvement and participation. 

I strike that in contrast to a bill that 

I recently introduced, H.R. 6370, the 

Conveyance of the Forest Service Lake 

Hill Administrative Site. This bill does 

have accompanying maps that will be 

made available to the committee so 

that people can see where the land in 

question is. It is land that no longer 

fits the characteristics of forest land, 

having been deforested near the highway, about 40 acres, and it should not 

be a controversial bill. 

In direct contrast to this bill, the bill 

I introduced today has support from 

the counties, towns, and local environmental community, and no local opposition to that bill. On the other hand, 

Mr. CRAVAACK’s bill doesn’t even identify what Forest Service parcels would 

be sold by the Federal Government and 

acquired by Minnesota. This kind of 

ambiguity in a land exchange bill is 

unprecedented for a land exchange bill 

and is not providing the adequate information to the Members of this body 

to make an informed decision on the 

underlying bill. 

Now, let me address FISA—I take 

issue with a number of elements of 

FISA—which extends the sweeping 

electronic surveillance network established under the FISA Amendments 

Act of 2008 for 5 years. I did not support 

the bill when it came before the House 

Judiciary Committee on which I serve, 

and I do not support this bill now. 

Now, of course everybody in our 

country understands the serious threat 

our Nation faces from terrorist organizations and foreign nations, but we 

can’t give up what makes it special for 

us to be Americans in the name of defending our country. Our privacy rights 

should not be eviscerated in the name 

of national security. 

Many of these concerns are addressable, but unfortunately the bill fails to 

strike an appropriate balance between 

protecting our liberties and security. 

Some of its many shortcomings include 

giving the U.S. Government the ability 

to intercept U.S. residents’ international phone calls and email communications without having to even name 

the people or groups it’s monitoring or 

show its targets who are suspected of 

wrongdoing or terrorism. The target 

could even be a human rights activist, 

a media organization, a country, a region, an ethnicity. Nothing requires 

the government to identify its surveillance targets at all, nor are there sufficient parameters around making sure 

that they are narrowly tailored to our 

national security needs. 

In addition, this bill unfortunately 

allows the U.S. to intercept communications without having to identify 

the location, the phone lines, the email 

addresses to be monitored. In essence, 

the government can use this new law 

to collect all phone calls between the 

U.S. and abroad simply by saying to 

the FISA court that it was targeting 

someone abroad and that a purpose of 

the new surveillance program is to collect foreign intelligence information. 

The lack of judicial oversight is also 

startling. While the FISA courts have a 

limited role, it’s limited to overseeing 

the government surveillance activities 

rather than reviewing individualized 

surveillance applications, including 

whether they are sufficiently broad or 

not. 

Yesterday, the chair of our committee, Mr. DREIER, also mentioned 

that Congress itself has an oversight 

role in making sure that the broad 

powers given to the Federal Government under FISA are not abused. However, this Congress—and myself, personally—have not had any briefing 

with regard to the use of FISA. 

Now, yesterday, representatives of 

the Intelligence Committee offered to 

make those briefings available, but I 

think the proper order to go about 

things, if Members of Congress are to 

make an informed decision about 

whether these vast powers given to the 

Federal Government are being used appropriately, would be to have the classified briefing first before bringing a 5- 

year extension bill to the floor so that 

Members of Congress, in a classified 

setting, have access to the information 

that we need—the information that I 

need, the information my colleagues 

need—to make an informed decision 

about whether the proper controls are 

in place and the extent of the use and/ 

or abuse of the vast powers given under 

FISA. 

In addition, there are no real limits 

on how the government uses, keeps, or 

disseminates the information it collects. The law doesn’t say what government can keep and has to get rid of. 

Potentially, this could lead to the 

archiving of material over decades. It 

fails to place real limits on how and to 

whom information can be disseminated. Whether it’s our U.S. intelligence partners in other countries, 

whether it’s contractors to our own 

government, we need to have the right 

controls around where private information is shared. 

Finally, I want to address another 

element of the bill in my initial remarks, and that is the indemnity that 

is given to companies that violate their 

own terms of service and allow the government to trample the privacy rights 

of thousands of Americans. 

Effectively, telecom companies and 

others that provide the government 

with enormous amounts of information 

are effectively completely indemnified, 

so there is no way to hold any of these 

companies accountable for their activities in violation of their own user 

agreement signed by two parties, themselves and their customer. There remains no way to enforce the violation 

of that user agreement because there is 

complete indemnity for those organizations. 

I think there needs to be a way, 

through the regular court system, to 

hold companies accountable for their 

activities. Letting them off the hook 

entirely only invites widespread abuse 

and disregard of their own customer 

agreements. Why bother even having to 

post or have a privacy policy if, at the 

whim of the company—not the government, the whim of the company—it can 

be completely shared with the government in disregard to their own privacy 

policy because that is the most effective way for the company to receive a 

blanket indemnification to any civil liability that might arise from violating 

privacy laws and/or its own terms of 

use. 

Again, national security is a critical 

imperative. We need to make sure that 

our agencies charged with keeping us 

safe have the right tools at their disposal to do so. But in the process of 

making sure that Americans are safe, 

we need to make sure we don’t give up 

what makes it special to be an American. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, a 

number of issues that my good friend 

from Colorado brought up cover both 

bills, actually. One, obviously, is the 

Minnesota bill as relates to public education. That was passed by the Minnesota State Legislature in a bipartisan way, and it was also signed by the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5782 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

Democratic Governor of Minnesota in 

regards to this particular issue on this 

particular bill as it relates to Minnesota. 

With that, I’m going to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 

(Mr. CRAVAACK). 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, 

H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This 

bill will support the teachers and 

schoolchildren in the State of Minnesota, create well-paying jobs in 

northern Minnesota, and make the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area, for the 

first time in its existence, whole. 

We have to have a bit of context 

here. 

When Minnesota became a State in 

1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township in Minnesota were set aside in 

trust for the benefit of schools. The 

State could use, lease, or sell the land 

to raise money for education. 

In the beginning, the State leaders 

decided to sell the more valuable parcels of the school trust lands, but 

around the turn of the century they realized they needed a more sustainable 

plan and began putting the school trust 

lands to productive use for timber and 

mining. This has been the goal of the 

State for over 100 years, and it has produced dividends for generations for our 

school kids. 

As DFL State Representative Denise 

Dittrich has so ably educated me on, 

these lands are not so much owned by 

the State as held in trust by the State 

and owned by the schoolchildren of 

Minnesota. It is the responsibility of 

the school trust fund trustees to maximize the return on these lands for the 

benefit of this fund. This is a critical 

point. This is part of the Minnesota 

Constitution. 

But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness. These lands 

within the Boundary Waters cannot be 

logged, leased, or mined in order to 

preserve the unique wilderness character of this pristine land. Thousands 

of visitors from around the country 

come to enjoy this beautiful area. But 

as a result of its creation, Minnesota 

and its students have been faced with 

an 86,000-acre problem for over 30 

years. 

b 1320 

Eighty-six thousand acres of Stateowned school trust lands have been 

locked within the borders of the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area, unable 

to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. It is imperative we resolve this longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect 

the Boundary Waters and allow Stateowned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education. 

Unfortunately, Minnesota school 

kids have been cheated out of public 

education funding for over 34 years 

now. In the past, there have been a 

number of working groups, studies, and 

resolutions. Finally, after years of inaction, stalling and dilatory tactics by 

special interest groups, Republicans 

and Democrats together in Minnesota 

said enough is enough. 

It’s been referred to as Mr. 

CRAVAACK’s bill. That is not, in fact, 

the case. This is Minnesota’s bill. 

On March 22 of this year, an overwhelming majority of Democrats and 

Republicans from the State senate 

passed senate file 1750 on a vote of 53– 

11. On April 3, the house followed suit, 

passing a bipartisan bill 90–41. On April 

27, our Democratic Governor, Governor 

Mark Dayton, signed the bill into law. 

H.R. 5544 executes a bipartisan State 

plan that Governor Dayton signed into 

law earlier this year. H.R. 5544 would 

exchange State-owned school trust 

lands trapped in the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal 

Government in exchange for Federal 

Government-owned land outside the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. 

This bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans 

can maintain their existing hunting 

and fishing rights within the Boundary 

Waters. In addition, the bill exempts 

the land exchange process from NEPA. 

The land exchange itself would have 

no environmental impact on any future 

development and would still be subject 

to strict State and Federal regulations. 

Intuitively, a land swap is merely a 

redrawing of maps and has no environmental impact in and of itself. The 

mentioned activities, mining and logging, do, in fact, have environmental 

impact and would be subject to the full 

Federal and State review. Not one environmental protection is lost in the 

execution of this bill. 

I want to be very transparent here. 

One of the hopes of my constituents is 

to have a bill to create good-paying 

jobs in the timber and mining industries. The lands listed in S.F. 1750 are 

rich in natural resources. Many of 

them lie in portions of the Superior 

National Forest that are already being 

successfully mined for iron ore and 

harvested for timber. It’s a working 

and managed forest. 

These activities employ thousands of 

workers and support tens of thousands 

of other ancillary jobs in the region. 

Northern Minnesotans want these and 

need these opportunities, and every 

American benefits from the steel and 

lumber that goes into our cars and into 

our homes. 

While I generally support the aims of 

NEPA, the State of Minnesota has 

some of the strictest environmental 

standards in the country and a track 

record of successful regulation of mining and logging. 

On the other hand, obstructionist 

special interest groups have a track 

record of abusing the NEPA process to 

sue and delay. I do not want these 

groups to continue to delay this land 

exchange, preventing Minnesota 

schools from receiving the funding that 

they need and, quite frankly, they deserve. 

The State of Minnesota cannot afford 

to be sued by environmental groups for 

years. Some of those arguing for NEPA 

are, in fact, arguing that defending 

lawsuits is an appropriate use of the 

taxpayer dollars and that it’s okay to 

transfer wealth from State coffers to 

special interest groups. Interesting to 

note, many of these special groups 

aren’t even from Minnesota. 

Make no mistake. This will be passed 

and a bipartisan land exchange is going 

to get done. I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to 

abuse the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail a land 

exchange. If I could trust special interest groups to act in good faith and if I 

could trust the Federal bureaucracy to 

act promptly, I would include NEPA in 

this legislation. 

The teachers and schoolkids in Minnesota can’t wait years, if not decades. 

Currently, some of the schools in Minnesota have classrooms with over 40 

kids, and some school districts, like 

mine in North Branch, have been reduced to a 4-day school week. I ask, is 

that progress? 

This legislation will generate a lot of 

funding for our schools and create 

good-paying jobs. Importantly, the 

Minnesota Education Investment Employment Act will not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land. In 

fact, it would include wilderness acres 

to the existing Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area Wilderness boundaries while giving Minnesota’s children land that 

rightfully and constitutionally belongs 

to them. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

rule and the underlying bill. 

Mr. POLIS. Remarkably, the underlying bill produced by Mr. CRAVAACK

actually uncovered a permanent earmark that the CBO found provides $6 

million a year to three Minnesota 

counties. I think that in a Congress 

that is supposed to move past earmarks it’s not a good precedent to include that earmark in the transition. 

I’d also like to clarify that Governor 

Dayton, while, of course, asking for the 

land to be exchanged—and there 

doesn’t seem to be disagreement about 

that—did not ask for NEPA to be 

short-circuited, nor do they ask to bypass the normal appraisal process. 

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT), 

the ranking member of the Judiciary 

Committee Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam 

Speaker, I oppose this rule because it 

does not allow consideration of amendments to the FISA bill that would 

strengthen the underlying bill by providing for greater accountability to the 

public of an otherwise wholly secretive 

process. 

Operations of the government must 

be held accountable to the people. The 

problem with holding operations under 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5783 

the existing FISA law is that most of 

the activities under it are conducted in 

secrecy. The fact that I or other Members of Congress have access to classified information regarding those secret 

activities is not sufficient for public 

accountability. 

Even if I were satisfied by my access 

to classified information, that only 

reasonable and constitutionally justified actions are being taken by officials 

in secret, I would still feel the need to 

give greater assurances to the public 

other than simply, trust me, I’m satisfied, so should you. Curiously, if I’m 

not satisfied, there’s nothing I could 

say because it’s classified information. 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to curb 

abuses in collection and use of intelligence information, foreign and domestic. Under the original provisions 

of FISA, procedures for collection of 

foreign intelligence required the government to show not only that there 

was probable cause to believe that the 

target of the intelligence surveillance 

is an agent of a foreign power, but also 

that foreign intelligence-gathering is 

the primary purpose of the collection. 

Under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2002 

and beyond, the government now only 

needs to show the probable cause of the 

target is an agent of the Federal government, and that the foreign intelligence-gathering is merely a significant purpose of that collection. When 

foreign intelligence collection is not 

the primary purpose for the collection 

of information, we are left to wonder 

what the primary purpose of that action might be. 

The FISA Act of 2008 went a step further, authorizing the collection of massive amounts of information about foreign persons reasonably believed to be 

outside of the United States without a 

warrant. With such massive amounts of 

information being collected, invariably 

information involving U.S. persons in 

the United States whose information 

may not be the target is also being collected. 

The FAA of 2008 requires the executive branch to design targeting procedures which limit the scope of the collection before the government acts and 

minimization procedures which limit 

the use of information before the government collects it, and the FISA 

court reviews these procedures for 

legal sufficiency. However, with nearly 

all of this oversight being conducted in 

secret, the public has no choice but to 

take the government at its word. 

We can do better. My amendment 

would simply require the executive 

branch to provide at least some documentation that it uses this authority 

narrowly, responsibly, and exclusively 

for foreign intelligence-gathering purposes, while protecting the material 

that would be classified. So we should 

reject this rule in favor of one that allows amendments to strengthen public 

accountability over the surveillance of 

Americans. 

Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I certainly do appreciate the gentleman’s 

comments because, as a former law enforcement officer, I want to make sure 

that we protect Americans. But I’m 

not so sure I want to protect those in 

foreign countries that are not Americans, those in foreign countries that 

would do harm to America, like they 

did on this day 11 years ago. 

You know, FISA—our good friend 

mentioned about 2008, but prior to 2008, 

Americans could be entrapped within 

the FISA context. 

b 1330 

In 2008, that changed. What it said is 

that, if Americans become involved in 

a FISA investigation in which their 

names come up, the information comes 

up, it has to be minimized. Then they 

have to go to a Federal judge and to 

the FISA court to get an authorization 

to do what they need to do as it relates 

to a warrant in order to receive and recover that information. That’s what 

2008 did. What the President has asked 

is that we just continue to do what we 

did since 2008. The protections that 

were put in place for American citizens 

that were not there prior to 2008 are to 

be extended. That’s the intent of the 

reauthorization act of the FAA. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. 

Madam Speaker, Congress will soon 

leave town again for a long district 

work period. We believe it is essential 

that before we go home we must extend 

tax cuts for the middle class. If we defeat the previous question here today, 

we will amend the rule to say that Congress needs to stay here to vote on the 

Middle Class Tax Cut Act and not go 

home until we’ve made sure the middle 

class tax cut extension becomes law 

and that tax rates do not increase for 

millions of American families. 

To speak about the previous question, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. WELCH). 

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. 

There is agreement in this Congress 

that we’ve got to create jobs in this 

economy. There is 100 percent agreement that we should extend tax cuts 

for 98 percent of the American people. 

If there is 100 percent agreement 

among the 435 Members of Congress to 

provide a continuing benefit to 98 percent of the people, why don’t we do it? 

That’s pretty good. The election will 

allow each side to make its argument 

about the tax cuts for the 2 percent. Incidentally, that 2 percent would be included. They’d get their tax cuts on the 

first $250,000 of income. So what we 

really have is 100 percent agreement 

that 100 percent of the people will get 

a tax cut, and we have a disagreement 

about whether 2 percent of the people 

will have their tax cuts stopped at 

$250,000. 

We know that extending those Clinton-era tax rates is very important in 

order to maintain what is a fragile recovery. If we can step back from our 

political posturing and acknowledge 

that, in fact, we do agree that it is essential to the economy to extend those 

Clinton-era tax rates, why not do it 

sooner rather than later? Number one, 

there is no guarantee after the election 

that it will be easier to do then than it 

will be now. It’s a roll of the dice on 

both sides. 

It would be one thing if the only 

thing at stake were our political futures, our political careers. That’s not 

a big deal. Yet what’s at stake is the 

American economy. It’s about whether 

people have jobs, whether they have security, whether they can depend on 

what they need to raise their families. 

Some of those provisions are really important to students—a tax credit if you 

have a kid in college. Some of those 

are important as to whether you’re 

going to be able to continue to itemize 

your deductions if you’re a middle 

class family. Some of those are about 

the rates of tax that you pay. 

We agree on all of this, but it is solely within the power of the majority to 

decide whether to bring this bill to the 

floor for a vote. We are asking that it 

be done on behalf of the American people. 

Mr. NUGENT. I yield myself such 

time as I may consume. 

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot, 

particularly as it relates to FISA. I 

want to clarify and make sure everyone understands that the FAA authorizes the targeting of non-U.S. citizens 

who are overseas. They are not citizens 

of the United States. Thus, they don’t 

have the protections under the United 

States Constitution—nor should they. 

If an American becomes a target during the investigation, just as in a 

criminal investigation when I was sheriff and someone became a target during 

a wiretap, we then have to identify 

that person. If we want to go after him, 

if we want to eavesdrop on his conversations, we have to get a separate 

order to allow us to do that. Back in 

1978, when this was first put in place— 

guess what?—if an American were 

picked up in one of these wiretap operations, there was no requirement to go 

back and get a separate authorization 

to go after that American citizen. But 

2008 changed that. 2008 put in a particular protection for American citizens who may get caught up in a FISA 

investigation in regards to the collection of data or voice transmissions. 

That’s the difference. 

So, when people start talking about 

it as it relates to civil liberties, if you 

live in a foreign country, you don’t 

have civil liberties with us if you’re 

plotting against the United States. 

That’s the whole identification reference to this: that it’s a foreign country and a non-U.S. citizen. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire of 

the gentleman from Florida how many 

speakers he has remaining. 

Mr. NUGENT. I have none. 

Mr. POLIS. Then I am prepared to 

close, and I yield myself the balance of 

my time. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5784 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

Madam Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans continue to struggle 

to find work, our Federal deficit continues to mount. Here we are in Congress after a 5-week recess—doing 

what?—considering, one, a faulty land 

swap deal that is a bad deal for the 

general public, that contains a hidden 

earmark and is controversial among 

local communities in Minnesota, and, 

two, a major reauthorization bill under 

a closed process that significantly curtails our liberties as Americans without there being any opportunities for 

Members of either party to offer suggestions about how to reconcile liberty 

with security. 

Look, Congress’ ‘‘to do’’ list remains 

long, and it’s steadily growing. The 

American public is upset that Congress 

isn’t tackling the deficit or the debt. 

Congress isn’t tackling jobs, infrastructure, moving forward and investing in our future economic growth. 

Among Congress’ unfinished business is 

a tax increase that will hit the middle 

class unless Congress acts. 

If we defeat the previous question, we 

will make sure that Congress does not 

go home before making sure that middle class taxes do not go up. In fact, according to the House Clerk’s Office, 

only 61 bills have become law in 2012. 

That’s the fewest number of bills in 60 

years. We only have 7 days that this 

House of Representatives is working 

here in Washington in September, yet 

this Congress continues to refuse to 

make the hard choices needed to get 

our economy moving. 

It’s time to roll up our sleeves and 

get to work in making sure that we 

have the ability to protect Americans 

from threats. Let’s do so in an open 

way that encourages ideas from both 

sides and that has a classified briefing 

at which Members of Congress can receive the information we need to suggest how or if FISA needs to be 

changed before it’s authorized for a 

carte blanche 5 additional years. 

It is important to reject both of these 

underlying rules and these underlying 

bills. It is time to focus on job creation, deficit reduction, and tax reform, not on trying to rush to the floor 

an earmark land swap with no map for 

Minnesota, for what can only be taken 

to be purely political reasons, as well 

as there being under a closed process a 

bill about which many of us have grave 

concerns and that undermines our 

right to privacy as Americans. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the rule and 

the two flawed underlying bills, and I 

ask unanimous consent to insert into 

the RECORD the text of my amendment 

to the rule, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 

on the previous question. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I urge 

my colleagues to cast a thoughtful 

vote and to vote ‘‘no’’ on the rule and 

the bills and to defeat the previous 

question. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

Madam Speaker, I’ve heard my good 

friend from Colorado. Maybe he wasn’t 

serving on the Judiciary Committee 

this summer, but prior to this being 

vetted within the Judiciary Committee, all the members there were offered a classified briefing as it relates 

to FISA. Every member had the opportunity to attend that. As I said, I’m 

not sure if Mr. POLIS was a member of 

that Judiciary Committee at the time 

it was offered to all. As a matter of 

fact, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, the ranking Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. 

RUPPERSBERGER, pointed out to the 

Rules Committee that, at any time, 

any Member of this House can request 

a classified briefing—any Member. 

b 1340 

He wanted to make sure that this 

didn’t become a political football. He 

admonished all of us not to make this 

a political statement, but to do what’s 

right for this country. 

I hear time and time again from my 

good friend as this relates to civil liberties of Americans. If you look back 

to 2008, that was rectified. Prior to that 

I would tell you that the civil liberties 

of Americans were in jeopardy, but in 

2008, that was corrected, and it’s continued on in this reauthorization of 

2012. 

Once again, the FISA court is comprised of U.S. District Federal judges, 

and they also have a right to appeal to 

a court of review made up of Federal 

judges. The information, as Mr. RUPPERSBERGER said, is if you want a briefing requested, if you want additional 

information in a classified setting requested, every Member has that opportunity. As a matter of fact, in the Intelligence Committee, there wasn’t one 

opposing vote. Democrats and Republicans alike came together and said 

this is what’s important to keep America safe. They don’t want to have another 9/11 on their watch. At the same 

time, we want to protect all Americans. 

When people start throwing this 

around and saying this is an assault on 

American civil liberties, that’s just not 

right, it’s not correct, and it’s wrong 

because this bill does everything to 

protect Americans from intrusion into 

their private lives. It forces the Federal Government to go back to court if 

it uncovers through these surveillance 

techniques activities by an American 

citizen who’s doing something wrong as 

it relates to terrorism against this 

country. It gives them a process to do 

it because, prior to 2008, they could do 

it without abandon. They could wind 

up collecting any information on U.S. 

citizens. In 2008, that changed and 

rightfully so. There should be constraints on the Federal Government. 

I heard also there’s no checks and 

balances. That’s just not true. Every 60 

days there’s a report done in reference 

to FISA in regards to the intercepts. 

Twice a year, there’s an automatic report that has to be generated that goes 

to Congress. And at any time, the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence 

Committee can hold hearings—and 

they do—as it relates to classified information, as it relates to FISA. That’s 

oversight. That’s what we’re supposed 

to do. 

And the reason they say this is secret—well, guess what, it’s not secret, 

but it’s kept under wraps because of 

this: if we tell our techniques to our 

enemies, then guess what? They’ll figure out a way to circumvent so they 

can get the information, pass the information, and conspire against this country. That’s the reason in law enforcement we don’t give up our techniques 

because the bad guys will figure it out. 

They’re pretty smart folks. They have 

time on their hands. What we don’t 

want to do is give them time on their 

hands to assault the United States of 

America, kill our citizens, kill and injure those first responders, and then 

put our military at risk. 

This is directed to those that live 

outside of this country, those that are 

not American citizens. Let me make 

this perfectly clear. Besides all the 

rhetoric of those who would love to inflame different people as it relates to 

this, this has nothing do with American citizens, except if they do get 

caught up in a conversation with someone who is a foreign national that it 

does have to go back to court to get 

that specific authorization to record or 

transmit that information as it relates 

to them. 

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

support this rule and bring these two 

very important pieces of legislation to 

the House floor for a vote. If there’s 

one duty that is inherently part of our 

Federal Government’s core mission, 

it’s to provide for our national security. None is more important than 

making sure that this Republic survives. 

The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization is a key tool in keeping our 

Nation safe. We heard it from both 

sides of the aisle who testified in front 

of the Rules Committee yesterday. As 

we continue to fight terrorists around 

the world who want nothing more than 

to harm our Nation, the FAA gives our 

intelligence community the tools they 

need to track these enemies overseas. 

That’s the important word, ‘‘overseas.’’ 

We can’t give up that fight, which is 

why we need to keep using the information we have access to. The FISA 

Amendments Act Reauthorization balances this need for security with civil 

liberty protections for Americans living abroad. It keeps us safe at home 

while protecting Americans living 

around the world. 

I encourage my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to continue the bipartisan tradition of supporting the FAA 

and to vote for this bill. 

The material previously referred to 

by Mr. POLIS is as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5785 

AN AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 773 OFFERED BY

MR. POLIS OF COLORADO

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: 

Sec. 3. Upon completion of consideration of 

House Resolution 746 the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 

House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 15) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

tax relief to middle-class families. All points 

of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to 

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under 

the five-minute rule. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. At 

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole 

rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after 

the third daily order of business under clause 

1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of 

the Whole for further consideration of the 

bill. 

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 

apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this resolution. 

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this 

resolution, the House shall proceed to the 

consideration in the House of the resolution 

(H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of 

a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a 

law is enacted to provide for the extension of 

certain expired or expiring tax provisions 

that apply to middle-income taxpayers if 

called up by Representative Slaughter of 

New York or her designee. All points of order 

against the resolution and against its consideration are waived. 

(The information contained herein was 

provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 

111th Congresses.) 

THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT

IT REALLY MEANS

This vote, the vote on whether to order the 

previous question on a special rule, is not 

merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 

against the Republican majority agenda and 

a vote to allow the opposition, at least for 

the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It 

is a vote about what the House should be debating. 

Mr. Clarence Cannon’s Precedents of the 

House of Representatives (VI, 308–311), describes the vote on the previous question on 

the rule as ‘‘a motion to direct or control the 

consideration of the subject before the House 

being made by the Member in charge.’’ To 

defeat the previous question is to give the 

opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker’s 

ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that 

‘‘the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the 

control of the resolution to the opposition’’ 

in order to offer an amendment. On March 

15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 

the previous question and a member of the 

opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, 

asking who was entitled to recognition. 

Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R–Illinois) said: 

‘‘The previous question having been refused, 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to 

the first recognition.’’ 

Because the vote today may look bad for 

the Republican majority they will say ‘‘the 

vote on the previous question is simply a 

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate 

vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] 

has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.’’ But that is not what 

they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 

Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here’s 

how the Republicans describe the previous 

question vote in their own manual: ‘‘Although it is generally not possible to amend 

the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, 

control of the time passes to the Member 

who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he 

then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 

amendment.’’ 

In Deschler’s Procedure in the U.S. House 

of Representatives, the subchapter titled 

‘‘Amending Special Rules’’ states: ‘‘a refusal 

to order the previous question on such a rule 

[a special rule reported from the Committee 

on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.’’ (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ‘‘Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 

question, who may offer a proper amendment 

or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.’’ 

Clearly, the vote on the previous question 

on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools 

for those who oppose the Republican majority’s agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan. 

Mr. NUGENT. With that, I yield back 

the balance of my time, and I move the 

previous question on the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that 

I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

RECESS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair 

declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes. 

Accordingly (at 1 o’clock and 46 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess. 

b 1400 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the House 

was called to order by the Speaker pro 

tempore (Mr. W

f 

ESTMORELAND) at 2 p.m. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 

will resume on questions previously 

postponed. 

Votes will be taken in the following 

order: ordering the previous question 

on House Resolution 773; adopting 

House Resolution 773, if ordered; and 

suspending the rules and passing H.R. 

4264. 

The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining 

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 5544, MINNESOTA EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING 

FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 

5949, FISA AMENDMENTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 773) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange 

involving National Forest System land 

in the Laurentian District of the Superior National Forest and certain other 

National Forest System land in the 

State of Minnesota that has limited 

recreational and conservation resources and lands owned by the State 

of Minnesota in trust for the public 

school system that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion within 

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other purposes, and 

providing for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years, on 

which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 232, nays 

177, not voting 20, as follows: 

[Roll No. 560] 

YEAS—232 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE