H5890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—13 

Akin 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Culberson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Herger 

Hirono 

Holden 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Moran 

Ryan (WI) 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There is 1 minute remaining. 

b 1505 

Mr. YARMUTH changed his vote 

from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a 

recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 

5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 225, noes 189, 

not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 568] 

AYES—225 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Barton (TX) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gibbs 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—189 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bartlett 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Fitzpatrick 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gerlach 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Hayworth 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Ross (AR) 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—15 

Akin 

Broun (GA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Chandler 

Culberson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Herger 

Hirono 

Holden 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Moran 

Ryan (WI) 

Whitfield 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. 

b 1512 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

pursuant to House Resolution 773, I 

call up the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the 

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five 

years, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

YODER). Pursuant to House Resolution 

773, the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the 

bill is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read. 

The text of the bill, as amended, is as 

follows: 

H.R. 5949 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 403(b) of the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 

122 Stat. 2474) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 

31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’; 

and 

(2) in paragraph (2) in the material preceding 

subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading 

of section 404(b)(1) of the FISA Amendments Act 

of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2476) is 

amended by striking ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2012’’ and 

inserting ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2017’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill 

shall be debatable for 1 hour, 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. 

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

SMITH) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) each will control 20 

minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. ROGERS) and the gentleman 

from Maryland (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER) 

each will control 10 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise 

and extend their remarks and include 

extraneous materials on H.R. 5949, as 

amended, and currently under consideration. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5891 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, America and its allies 

continue to face national security 

threats from foreign nations, spies, and 

terrorist organizations. Our national 

security agencies must be able to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists 

and others so we can stop them before 

they disable our defenses, carry out a 

plot against our country, or kill innocent Americans. 

In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide procedures for the domestic collection of foreign intelligence. To protect Americans’ civil liberties, FISA 

created Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts comprised of sitting Federal court judges. 

b 1520 

If the government needs to collect 

domestic information for national security purposes, it must first request 

permission from a FISA judge. This is 

limited to domestic information. FISA 

was never intended to apply to the collection of information from non-U.S. 

persons in foreign countries. 

But advances in technology over the 

last 40 years have changed how overseas communications are transmitted. 

In 2006, then-Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, stated that the intelligence community 

was not collecting approximately twothirds of the foreign intelligence information that it collected prior to legal 

interpretations that required the government to obtain individualized FISA 

court orders for overseas surveillance. 

To solve the problem, in 2008, Congress 

passed the FISA Amendments Act to 

reaffirm our longstanding intent that a 

court order is not required when a nonU.S. person outside the U.S. is targeted. The act continues the authority 

to collect intelligence from foreign targets located outside the United States. 

The FISA Amendments Act both 

strengthens our national security and 

expands civil liberties protections for 

all Americans. The act requires an individualized court order for the government to target an American anywhere 

in the world. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the government cannot 

conduct any surveillance overseas 

without authorization. The government cannot target individuals unless 

there is a reasonable belief they are 

not in the United States, which the 

government must try to ascertain. 

The government cannot intentionally 

acquire communications when the 

sender and recipient are both in the 

United States without an individualized court order from a FISA judge. 

The government cannot reverse-target 

individuals overseas in order to monitor those in the United States. This 

means that the government cannot target a U.S. person simply by monitoring 

a non-U.S. person that the U.S. person 

is talking to. And for the first time in 

history, the government must obtain 

an individualized court order from the 

FISA court to target Americans outside the United States. 

Foreign surveillance under the FISA 

Amendments Act is subject to extensive oversight by the administration 

and Congress. Every 60 days, Justice 

Department national security officials 

and the Director of National Intelligence conduct onsite reviews of surveillance conducted pursuant to the 

FISA Amendments Act. In addition, 

the Attorney General and the Director 

of National Intelligence conduct detailed assessments of compliance with 

court-approved targeting and minimization procedures and provide these 

amendments to Congress twice a year. 

The administration also is required 

to submit to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees a copy of any FISA 

court order opinion or decision. It must 

also submit the accompanying pleadings, briefs, and other memoranda of 

law from national security officials 

within the intelligence community 

that relate to a significant construction or interpretation of any provision 

of FISA. 

This law will expire at the end of this 

year unless Congress reauthorizes it. 

President Obama has identified reauthorization of the FISA Amendments 

Act as the top legislative priority of 

the intelligence community and requests Congress to extend the law for 5 

years. H.R. 5949 is a bipartisan piece of 

legislation to do just that, extend the 

FISA Amendments Act to December 31, 

2017. 

Foreign terrorists continue to search 

for new ways to attack America. Foreign nations continue to spy on America, to plot cyberattacks, and attempt 

to steal sensitive information from our 

military and private sector industries. 

They are committed to the destruction 

of our country, and their methods of 

communication are constantly evolving. 

We have a solemn responsibility to 

ensure that the intelligence community can gather the information it 

needs to protect our country and protect our citizens. This bipartisan bill 

ensures that our country will be able 

to identify and prevent threats to our 

national security without sacrificing 

the civil liberties of American citizens. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in 

support of this bill, and I reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on our 

side, I would begin our discussion by 

yielding 3 minutes to the distinguished 

senior member of Judiciary, ranking 

member of Immigration, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. LOFGREN). 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. 

Speaker, I urge this body to reject this 

bill. 

The surveillance bill raises several 

serious constitutional and civil liberties issues that Congress needs to address and has not addressed in this bill, 

and I’d like to discuss just one of those. 

Congress should prohibit the Federal 

Government from intentionally searching for information on a U.S. person in 

a data pool amassed lawfully under section 702 of FISA—should such a data 

ever be amassed—unless the searching 

official has a warrant. 

Now, the FISA Amendments Act of 

2008 does not make clear that the government must obtain a warrant prior 

to searching for information acquired 

incidentally on a U.S. person in a large 

pool of data that the government has 

already lawfully obtained under section 702, should such a data pool ever 

be amassed. Instead, the information 

about the U.S. person in such a situation is subject to minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General, 

and that must be approved by the FISA 

court, but that does not explicitly include a warrant requirement, which I 

think the Constitution requires. 

The prohibition on reverse-targeting—where the government deliberately targets a non-U.S. person for 

the purpose of acquiring information 

about the U.S. person at the other end 

of the line—is not a substitute for the 

warrant requirement to search a database for U.S. persons, should such a 

database ever be amassed under section 

702. Minimization procedures are not a 

substitute for a warrant in such a case. 

Now, I think that the government 

needs to comply with the Fourth 

Amendment to the Constitution all the 

time. I think that the privacy of Americans should not be subject to the 

lower standard of minimization procedures. That’s not in the Constitution. 

And I think, also, that when we think 

that we should trade the protections 

that our Founding Fathers devised for 

us in the United States Constitution in 

the effort to buy safety, we’re mistaken. We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the 

United States. 

I’m mindful that we began this Congress reading most of the United States 

Constitution on the floor of this House. 

It’s ironic, indeed, that we should be 

ending this Congress with a bill that 

does violation to that very body. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN), 

who is the chairman of the Administration Committee here in the House, a 

senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and a former attorney general 

of California. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 

extension of the FISA Amendments 

Act of 2008. 

I would just have to say this is critical to the protection of the American 

people. With the events over the last 

couple of days, we need not be reminded of this solemn responsibility 1 

day after the 11th anniversary of 9/11. 

If you will recall, one of the main 

points made by the 9/11 Commission in 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

their after-action report was that we, 

as a Nation, had not done enough—that 

is, the Government of the United 

States had not done enough—to connect the dots to warn us sufficiently to 

protect against the attack which 

caused the death of over 3,000 on our 

homeland. In order to connect the 

dots—that is, the items of information, 

the intelligence—you have to have the 

dots, you have to have the intelligence. 

That’s precisely what the extension of 

these amendments will allow us to do. 

But initially, it’s important to understand from the outset of this debate 

what this legislation would do as well 

as what it does not do. 

b 1530 

We are seeking to address the essential need for us to be able to monitor 

communications by terrorists and 

other foreign adversaries located outside the United States. We’re not debating the PATRIOT Act here. We’re 

not talking about national security 

letters. We’re not talking about those 

things that are directed at Americans. 

The annual certification procedures 

provided under the FISA Amendments 

Act do not allow the targeting of 

Americans outside the United States. 

Thus, if an American is targeted anywhere in the world, or if a person is 

targeted within the United States, an 

individualized court order is required. 

In cases involving a foreign terrorist 

outside the United States, the Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Court approves annual certifications submitted 

by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. This is a 

court made up of article III judges, 

judges with lifetime appointments, 

with the independence that was accorded them under the Constitution. 

And I would remind my colleagues 

that the appellate review, the appellate 

division of the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court, is also comprised 

of article III judges. 

It is important to note we’re not providing for warrantless surveillance 

here. In fact, the FISA Amendments 

Act has enhanced the statutory protections afforded to U.S. persons under 

the law. Because it was the first time, 

under these amendments that we wish 

to extend, we required an individual 

FISA court order to conduct overseas 

intelligence collections on U.S. citizens 

and permanent residents. Even if 

they’re overseas, we now require that. 

It was not required by statute before 

that. 

Before that, the Attorney General 

approved such collections against U.S. 

persons outside the U.S., pursuant to 

an executive order of the President. We 

all know that executive orders of the 

President can be changed by a President while in office, or a succeeding 

President. 

I would submit that if you are concerned about civil liberties, and I assume everybody in this debate is, returning to the good old days prior to 

the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act is not a step forward for 

civil liberties. 

It should also be understood that 

we’re not seeking to extend the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act in its entirety. Today we’re attempting to achieve the rather modest 

purpose of the 2008 amendments. Again, 

court approval of annual certification 

by the DNI, the Director of National 

Intelligence, and the Attorney General, 

identifying categories of foreign intelligence agents outside the United 

States is required. An individualized 

court order is required in other cases. 

The legislative history of FISA is instructive. The House Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence report that 

accompanied FISA in the initial act in 

1978 clearly expressed Congress’ intent 

to exclude overseas intelligence activities from the reach of FISA. These 

were the words of that report: 

The committee has explored the feasibility 

of broadening this legislation to apply overseas, but has concluded that certain problems and unique characteristics involved in 

overseas surveillance preclude the simple extension of this bill to overseas surveillance. 

In other words, overseas surveillance 

was never the focus of the 1978 act. 

Rather, it focused on domestic surveillance of persons located within the 

United States to ensure that there 

were protections in that regard. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I will yield the 

gentleman an additional minute. 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The FISA Amendments Act 

under consideration here today requires an individualized court order in 

cases where an American is the target, 

no matter where they may be located. 

Here’s the reason why this is important. It is the change in communications, the nature of communications 

that required us to do the amendments. 

If we fail to pass this, we will, as 

former DNI Director McConnell stated, 

we will lose two-thirds of those dots, 

those bits of information, the intelligence that we need to connect to protect us. We will put in very much manner the country at risk. 

If you look at a simple risk analysis, 

you have to do threat, you have to do 

vulnerability, you have to do consequence. We can figure out what the 

vulnerability is by our inspection of 

our own resources and infrastructure. 

We can figure out what the consequences are. 

What we have to have, in order to figure out the threat, is a means of collecting intelligence. We have to pass 

this law, a bipartisan law. 

I recall being here and having the 

former Speaker of the House spend, I 

think, 7 minutes arguing on behalf of 

this, and the gentleman who is Number 

two on the Democratic side as well. 

It has never been partisan. Hopefully, 

we can have bipartisan support expressed in the vote for these amendments. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself 15 seconds to let my distinguished colleague and friend from California know that we’re in complete 

agreement with most of what he said, 

except that all we want to do is limit 

this to a 3-year measure instead of 5 

years. Now, there’s a compromise you 

can’t turn away from. 

At this point I yield 3 minutes to the 

distinguished senior member from the 

Judiciary Committee, JERRY NADLER. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 

the FISA Amendments Act of 2012. If 

we had had an opportunity to evaluate 

this law based on experience with it, 

and to consider some amendments and 

alternatives, this opposition would not 

be necessary. But the Republican majority has, once again, told the Members of this House and the American 

people that it’s ‘‘my way or the highway.’’ 

While it is certainly appropriate for 

our government to gather foreign intelligence, and while some degree of secrecy is obviously necessary, it is also 

vital in a free society that we limit 

government, protect the constitutional 

rights of Americans here and abroad, 

and limit warrantless spying to genuine foreign intelligence. 

Unfortunately, we have seen repeatedly how even the very minimal restraints Congress put on FISA have 

been violated. We should address those 

abuses. Congress has an obligation to 

exert more control over spy agencies 

than simply to give them a blank 

check for another 5 years. 

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CONYERS) had an amendment that 

would have shortened the sunset by 2 

years, but we won’t even have a chance 

to consider it, perhaps because some of 

our Republican colleagues might also 

want to support such an amendment. 

As a result, we will not revisit the law 

until after the end of the next presidential term. 

And if we had cut shorter this extension, we could do what we should have 

done but haven’t: hold hearings, look 

into how the law is operating, and decide what amendments and protections 

are necessary to make sure it operates 

right so that we can collect the intelligence without violating the constitutional rights of Americans. 

I had an amendment that would have 

required the Attorney General to make 

publicly available a summary of each 

decision of the FISA court and the 

FISA court of review that includes a 

significant construction of section 702, 

which allows warrantless surveillance, 

with appropriate security redactions 

and editing. 

Many American citizens and others 

who have nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering are caught up in 

this surveillance, and government has 

an obligation to protect their rights. 

The FISA court is supposed to do that, 

and we need to ensure that the law and 

the courts are working. 

Disclosure of classified information 

is not needed to know whether the 

court performs meaningful oversight of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5893 

the executive branch, applies minimization standards correctly, and 

whether or not we ought to amend the 

law. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER) said, ‘‘rather than 

playing the numbers game, either with 

the actual targets or the people who 

are incidentally surveilled, perhaps decisions of the FISA court, particularly 

the review of the FISA court, appropriately redacted, would be able to give 

us the answer to that question. I have 

always been one that favored disclosure.’’ 

The gentleman from Wisconsin is 

right. If the FISA court is just a 

rubberstamp of the executive branch, 

we and the public should know that. 

And if the court really does provide 

meaningful oversight and meaningful 

limitations on the executive branch, 

we and the public should know that 

too. 

But we won’t get to discover that or 

to debate that. Failure to do so is a 

dereliction of our constitutional duty 

to protect the constitutional rights of 

American citizens and the betrayal of 

our liberties. 

I urge my colleagues to reject this 

legislation and demand that we properly consider this very important issue 

by a somewhat shorter extension and 

by proper hearings and examination of 

the limitations and the workings of 

this law. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. MCCLINTOCK). 

b 1540 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I want to thank 

the chairman for yielding to a contrary 

point of view. 

Mr. Speaker, FISA allows the government to target foreign nationals and to 

intercept their communications, even 

those with American citizens, without 

a warrant, as required by the Fourth 

Amendment. 

Now, we’re told don’t worry. The law 

requires that any irrelevant information collected in this manner be disregarded. Well, here is the problem. 

The enforcement of this provision is, 

itself, shrouded in secrecy, making the 

potential for abuse substantial and any 

remedy unlikely. Secret courts and 

warrantless surveillance are not compatible with a free society or the 

English common law or the American 

Constitution. 

We are told FISA is necessary to stop 

terrorist plots and that this protection 

trumps privacy or due process concerns. Well, Ben Franklin answered 

that argument years ago when he 

warned us that those who can give up 

essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty 

nor safety. In fact, America’s security 

is far better assured as a thriving free 

society in a world that respects her 

strengths and fears her just vengeance. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself 20 seconds to commend the 

statement by the gentleman from California in this regard. Also, on the subject of transparency, two Senators— 

one from Oregon, the other from Colorado—asked the Director of National 

Intelligence how many Americans are 

affected by this law. 

The answer: We don’t know. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 10 more 

seconds. 

Now, we don’t know if he meant that 

he didn’t want to tell us that he knew 

or that he honestly didn’t know. Either 

response or explanation is inadequate. 

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 

minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Ms. SHEILA

JACKSON LEE. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join 

the chairman of the full committee and 

the ranking member of the full committee in this vigorous debate on the 

Constitution. I am also delighted that 

the ranking member has indicated, by 

his reference to the previous speaker, 

that this is a bipartisan challenge and 

question about the reauthorization. 

This does not have a partisan place. It 

does have a place in the Constitution. 

As I do this, might I take just a moment, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member, just to acknowledge the loss 

of our Americans who fell in Libya— 

Ambassador Stevens and those who 

were securing him. It is a recognition 

that we live in a difficult world; but 

one of the distinctive aspects of America is that we live in a free country, 

that we are willing to accept the distinctions and differences of all people 

and that we respect the privacy and 

the Fourth Amendment. 

So I might refresh my fellow colleagues as to what FISA does from the 

very beginning. It is electronic surveillance, physical searches, the installation and use of pen registers and trapand-trace devices, and demands for the 

production of physical items. Although 

FISA is designed for intelligence gathering and not for the collection of 

criminal evidence, the law applies to 

activity to which a Fourth Amendment 

warrant requirement would apply if 

they were conducted in a criminal investigation. Members need to understand there are questions of the Fourth 

Amendment right here. So what those 

of us who have a concern on this reauthorization are asking for has simple 

premise: 

We want to join with Congressman 

CONYERS and his simple amendment 

that allows for greater congressional 

oversight and the protection of the 

Fourth Amendment as it relates to 

Americans by shortening the reauthorization to 2015 from 2017. It intrudes 

the Congress properly in oversight. In 

addition, there should be more transparency in the surveillance program, 

such as requiring the creation of unclassified versions of the intelligence 

assessments of the surveillance program, requiring the creation of unclassified summaries. 

I introduced a simple amendment. 

We all have respect for the Inspector 

General’s office. That is one independent force of our agencies that most 

Members of Congress will not challenge. My amendment would require a 

report by the Inspector General of the 

Department of Justice and the Inspector General of the intelligence community on the implementation of the surveillance program under the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008. 

Now, let me try to find out what the 

horrifically liberal groups are that are 

concerned about this. What about the 

American Library Association? the Association of Research Libraries? the 

very well-respected Brennan Center for 

Justice? the Center for Democracy & 

Technology? the OpenTheGovernment 

.org? 

What we are simply saying today— 

and we hope our colleagues will listen 

on both sides of the aisle—is that, yes, 

we can reauthorize this legislation but 

that, no, we cannot abdicate the questions of congressional oversight. 

Today, we had a hearing on the abuse 

of power. The only issue in abuse of 

power is whether or not we respect the 

three branches of government. That is 

the argument we are making today. Do 

you respect the three branches of government—the people’s House, who represent the people, who by themselves 

cannot defend themselves against this 

extensive reauthorization? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 

30 more seconds. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. In the 

course of this particular legislation, we 

had to contend with such things as 

warrantless wiretapping. Again, as I indicated, the need for the intruding of 

the Congress is a respect of the liberties which we want to protect. 

So I would ask my colleagues to yield 

to transparency, to yield to a shorter 

extension. Make this bill stand on its 

own two feet juxtaposed to the Constitution. While we mourn those who 

have fallen, we respect that this is a 

free country. Today, we are not acting 

on that freedom by giving up the congressional oversight that is necessary. 

I ask my colleagues to reject the 

present form of this bill. I beg the Senate to look more readily at a shorter 

extension and more transparency. 

I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments 

Act of 2008. I believe that although we had a 

chance to discuss this reauthorization in the 

Judiciary Committee, the full import of this bill 

is too broad and more debate and consideration is necessary. The fact is not lost on me 

that this is the 11th year following the attacks 

of 9–11. 

I open my statement with a quote from one 

of my heroines, and a trailblazer on so many 

levels, Barbara Jordan, who said: ‘‘What the 

people want is very simple—they want an 

America as good as its promise.’’ 

Over the past year, Senate and House 

Democrats have worked with their Republican 

counterparts, the Administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

develop proposals for amendments to FISA 

that would give the intelligence community the 

flexibility it needs to safeguard our nation, 

while also providing strong protections for civil 

liberties. A proper balancing is America—as 

good as its promise. 

And in-keeping with the notion of balance, I 

offered an amendment during the Judiciary 

Committee Markup of this legislation which 

simply asked for a report on the implementation of the amendments made by the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008. My amendment 

simply requested that the report include an assessment of the impact of Section 702 of the 

FISA on the privacy of persons inside the 

United States. Even with court-approved targeting and minimization procedures in place, 

the government can and does intercept the 

communications of U.S. citizens. 

It does so without a particularized warrant or 

a showing of probable cause. This approach 

to electronic surveillance raises concerns 

under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits 

unreasonable searches, warrantless eavesdropping, and the use of ‘‘general warrants.’’ 

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right ‘‘of the people to be 

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 

effects, against unreasonable searches and 

seizures.’’ Many of the government activities 

discussed in this report have the potential to 

constitute a search as that term is defined in 

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 

Namely, government action constitutes a 

search when it intrudes upon a person’s ‘‘reasonable expectation of privacy,’’ which requires both that an ‘‘individual manifested a 

subjective expectation of privacy in the 

searched object’’ and that ‘‘society is willing to 

recognize that expectation as reasonable.’’ 

The Fourth Amendment and its protections 

go back to our founding—the ability of the 

American Patriots to resist unwarranted 

searches and seizures by the British is inculcated in the American psyche. 

Thus, the Fourth Amendment ultimately limits the government’s ability to conduct a range 

of activities, such as physical searches of 

homes or offices and listening to phone conversations. As a general rule, the Fourth 

Amendment requires the government to demonstrate ‘‘probable cause’’ and obtain a warrant (unless a recognized warrant exception 

applies) before conducting a search. 

This rule applies most clearly in criminal investigations. For example, an officer conducting a criminal investigation typically may 

not search a person’s belongings without first 

obtaining a warrant that describes the property 

for which sufficient evidence justifies a search. 

The extent to which the Fourth Amendment 

warrant requirement applies to the government’s collection of information for intelligence 

gathering and other purposes unrelated to 

criminal investigations is unclear. Although the 

surveillance of wire or oral communications for 

criminal law enforcement purposes was held 

to be subject to the warrant requirement of the 

Fourth Amendment in 1967, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress sought to regulate 

the use of such surveillance for national security purposes at that time. 

Several years later, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic surveillance of 

domestic organizations for national security 

purposes, but indicated that its conclusion 

might differ if the electronic surveillance targeted foreign powers or their agents. A lower 

court has since upheld the statutory scheme 

governing the gathering of foreign intelligence 

information against a Fourth Amendment challenge, despite an assumption that orders 

issued pursuant to the statute might not constitute ‘‘warrants’’ for Fourth Amendment purposes. 

The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue. However, even if the warrant requirement was found not to apply to 

searches for foreign intelligence or national 

security purposes, such searches would presumably be subject to the general Fourth 

Amendment ‘‘reasonableness’’ test. 

In the context of national security, the contours of the Fourth Amendment are necessarily narrowed but not abandoned altogether. The march toward a Big Brother State 

begins when the people’s rights to privacy and 

to be free from surveillance are surrendered in 

toto. All we have to do is look at the recent 

Jones decision which concerned a purely domestic case in which law enforcement took 

advantage of high-tech tools to follow a suspected drug dealer. A conservative Roberts 

Court voted 9–0 to invalidate this search. 

It is rare for liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to agree on much of anything these days, but I am sure that many of 

my colleagues on the other side would find 

untargeted procedures under FISA unlawful 

and thereby unconstitutional. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, 

it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an 

issue for all Americans—all of us need to be 

secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, 

and secure in our communications. 

It is widely known that the Obama Administration would like a clean, five year reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, consistent with the approach taken by the Senate 

Select Committee on Intelligence this spring. I 

would also note that there were two voices of 

dissent in the Senate committee’s proceedings, Senators WYDEN and UDALL who 

have been champions of national security, privacy, and civil liberties—which are not mutually exclusive. 

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was designed to provide critically important authority 

for the U.S. Intelligence Community to acquire 

foreign intelligence information by targeting 

foreign persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. However, our experts now tell us that there are serious issues 

with targeting procedures, disclosure of basic 

information and there is a lack of strong rules 

on how the information gathered can be used. 

‘‘Reverse targeting,’’ a concept well known 

to members of this Committee but not so well 

understood by those less steeped in the 

arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners 

without a warrant while its actual purpose is to 

collect information on certain U.S. persons. 

One of the major concerns that libertarians 

and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, had 

with the ill-conceived and now expired Protect 

America Act of 2007, was that the understandable temptation of national security agencies 

to engage in reverse targeting is difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to 

prevent such unauthorized and blanket snooping. 

Although Section 1881 of the FISA Amendments Act statutorily forbids such reverse targeting, it is a lingering concern of many civil 

libertarians which I share. 

No doubt there are instances where it may 

be necessary to target persons within and outside the United States in order to address 

threats but Congress has made it clear that 

these exigencies must be subject to review at 

some point and time. 

On the issue of targeting procedures, they 

were designed to ensure that only people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S. 

would be targeted. However, in reality quite 

the contrary has taken place. There has been 

bulk collection of information without any targets whatsoever. Ensure transparency by conducting as much public oversight as possible, 

including releasing basic information about the 

program, such as the type of information collected and how many Americans and people 

in the U.S. it has affected. 

It is also critical that Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court opinions and administration 

interpretations of its authority to collect and 

use information under the FISA Amendment 

Act (FAA) become part of the public record 

and congressional debate. 

On the issue of disclosure, there has been 

a lack of transparency on what type of information is being gathered, who is being picked 

up and what rights of Americans have been 

violated. 

We must strike a balance between what 

constitutes ‘‘classified’’ information, and other 

compelling facts, disclosure of which do not 

threaten national security. 

On the issue of rules, there has been a lack 

of rules that clearly define how the information 

is being used. The key is to amend the FISA 

Amendment Act to ensure that information collected under those programs can be used only 

in the narrowest of circumstances. The FAA’s 

minimization procedures should be amended 

to ensure that this foreign intelligence 

warrantless surveillance program doesn’t allow 

information to be repurposed for other government uses. 

I understand that there must be a way for 

the intelligence community to gather vast 

amounts of information in a manner that 

makes sense. However, after carefully reviewing these proposals but suffice to say, I am 

still disturbed about certain aspects of the 

FISA Amendments of 2008. This Act was not 

designed for an overreach of power. It was 

designed to for the intelligence community to 

conduct meaningful information overseas. 

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis 

DeTocqueville, who remains the most astute 

student of American democracy, observed that 

the reason democracies invariably prevail in 

any martial conflict is because democracy is 

the governmental form that best rewards and 

encourages those traits that are indispensable 

to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage. 

Thus, the way forward to victory in the War 

on Terror is for this country to redouble its 

commitment to the Bill of Rights and the 

democratic values which every American will 

risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home 

of the free, the land of the brave, and the 

country we love. It is not easy for me or any 

Member of this House to go against the President’s wishes on a matter of national security 

but I am convinced that more debate is necessary, and more consideration of what the 

FISA Amendments mean to national security 

and civil liberties. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5895 

We are in the throes of a national election 

for which the candidates have labored for over 

two years and the American people have 

seen, for better or worse, what they are about. 

Why so long: because that is Democracy. And 

civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, are the essence of 

the stew of our American Democracy. 

I hope that Congress can maintain our oversight function to ensure that law enforcement 

is well aware of their limitations of surveillance 

balanced by a strong commitment to protecting this great nation from future harm, and 

limiting the reauthorization to 2015. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 

South Carolina (Mr. GOWDY), who is a 

particularly active member of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for your leadership on this 

and a host of other issues on the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. Speaker, this week has provided 

tragic reminders that the world is a 

dangerous place. We are targets even 

from people we have helped in the 

past—with lethal consequences because 

we represent freedom, liberty and tolerance even among those with whom 

we disagree. 

Each of us is asked when we go back 

home to our districts, Can Congress 

agree on anything? Is there anything 

that rises above politics anymore? 

Many of us would like to answer yes. 

We’d like to tell the people we work for 

that, yes, on issues of national security 

and protecting this country, yes, we 

can come together. We are capable of 

putting down talking points and red 

herrings and straw arguments and of 

picking up something called responsibility. 

To say that this reauthorization has 

bipartisan support is an understatement. This bill passed unanimously in 

the House Intelligence Committee. For 

those in shock back home, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to repeat that: this bill 

passed unanimously. All Democrats, all 

Republicans on the House Intelligence 

Committee with access to the most information, not a single ‘‘no’’ vote. 

President Bush supported this. Mr. 

Obama supports this. National security 

experts support this. Law enforcement 

officials support it. Our colleagues who 

served in the FBI and those who are 

Federal prosecutors and in the military 

support it. The Democrat-led House 

passed this bill in 2008 with former 

Speaker PELOSI giving a glowing 

speech extolling the virtues of the underlying bill and excoriating her colleagues about the necessity of passing. 

All of this happened, Mr. Speaker, because intelligence is the lifeblood of 

our ability to defend ourselves. It happened because this bill has nothing to 

do with Americans on American soil. It 

passed because this provides protections for Americans who are traveling 

abroad. It passed because there is 

ample oversight. It passed because it 

has the needed checks and balances between the legislative branch and the 

executive branch and the judicial 

branch. 

So why the opposition? How can you 

explain supporting something when Ms. 

PELOSI had the gavel, but you can’t 

support it when Mr. BOEHNER has the 

gavel? 

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, just 

for today is: let’s put down the red herrings, and let’s put down the straw arguments and the misrepresentations. 

This bill doesn’t implicate the Bill of 

Rights anymore than it implicates any 

other part of our Constitution—unless 

you think that foreign nationals who 

are on foreign land fall within the protections of the United States Constitution, and that is an absurd argument. 

b 1550 

Foreign nationals in foreign lands, do 

they have the right to vote? Do they 

assert states’ rights under the 10th 

Amendment? Can they claim cruel and 

unusual punishment? Go to Iran. If 

you’re an Iranian, you go to Iran and 

assert your Fifth Amendment right to 

Miranda or your Sixth Amendment 

right to counsel and see what happens. 

Yet we’re to believe that the Fourth 

Amendment applies to the entire 

world? It’s absurd. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m almost out of time, 

but I do want to say from the bottom 

of my heart—what’s left of it after having been a prosecutor for 16 years—I 

want to say this. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield an additional 1 minute to the 

gentleman. 

Mr. GOWDY. I believe you were with 

us, Mr. Speaker. I believe all of our colleagues were with us on the steps of 

the Capitol. We came together to remember 9/11 and what we lost and what 

we still grieve for as a Nation, Mr. 

Speaker, what we found as a Nation in 

the aftermath of 9/11. Republicans 

stood with Democrats on this, the steps 

of the people’s House, and conservatives stood with progressives and 

moderates, and libertarians beside us. 

We were just Americans. That was 

enough on Tuesday. We were united. 

We were just Americans. 

Even for just one fleeting moment, in 

our desire to honor, protect, and defend, if we can come together, Mr. 

Speaker, to remember 9/11, surely we 

can come together to prevent another 

one. 

I ask my colleagues to support this 

bill. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, no one 

respects the gentleman from South 

Carolina more than I do, but I should 

advise him that it is incorrect to say 

that members of the Intelligence Committee didn’t support my amendment 

to shorten the sunset period. I have the 

names of two of them in front of me 

right now. I also would advise him that 

the authority unquestionably affects 

United States persons, citizens on 

American soil, that their communications are regularly intercepted, and 

that would, I think, allow him to join 

in with some of the rationale for the 

resistance to this measure as it appears 

right now. 

It’s in that spirit that I point out to 

him that, with the lack of transparency and no oversight, the length of 

the measure is too long, and that this 

is being brought up under a closed rule 

was part of our objections. I think 

they’re in good faith. 

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to 

a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from 

Georgia (Mr. JOHNSON). 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank 

you, Mr. Ranking Member. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 

H.R. 5949, which, without benefit of one 

oversight hearing by the full Judiciary 

Committee during the 112th Congress, 

wants to, for 5 long years, reauthorize 

expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without 

important modifications that are necessary to safeguard the civil liberties 

and the privacy rights of American 

citizens. 

Although H.R. 5949 is designed to defend the United States against international terrorism and other threats, 

it has been reported that FISA has resulted in the illegal surveillance of untold numbers of American citizens 

through data accumulation, also 

known as overcollection of voice and 

data communications. Overcollection 

occurs when the voice and data of 

American citizens is collected incidentally to the collection of communications of foreigners. 

What happens to the data and voice 

communications of Americans that is 

incidentally collected without a warrant? What happens to it? What happens to the private voice and data of 

Americans when it’s minimized? These 

are critical questions, and they deserve 

critical answers. But as I’ve said, we’ve 

not had one oversight hearing in the 

full Judiciary Committee on this issue. 

We’ve just simply had a markup of this 

reauthorization bill. 

These, and other questions, deserve 

answers. The Fourth Amendment 

would ordinarily protect the communications of American citizens. It prohibits unreasonable and warrantless 

searches and seizures of the communications of American citizens, including warrantless eavesdropping and 

snooping. But under H.R. 5949, no warrant or showing of probable cause exists where information is overcollected. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield an additional 

30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. In 2009, 

The New York Times described the 

practice of overcollection as significant and systemic. 

Any counterterrorism measure must 

have a solid constitutional footing and 

respect the privacy and the civil liberties of American citizens. For that 

reason, I urge my colleagues to vote 

against this 5-year reauthorization. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

we’re prepared to close on this side, so 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I’m 

pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good 

friend from Ohio, DENNIS KUCINICH. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very 

much, Mr. CONYERS. 

To my friends on the other side of 

the aisle who have expressed passion 

about passing this, you’re good Americans, and I respect your position. I respectfully disagree. 

We have to defend our country from 

attacks on the outside. I voted, along 

with other Members of this Congress, 

right after 9/11, for the United States 

to defend itself. But it’s equally important that we not lose our freedoms and 

our constitutional protections while 

we’re engaged in that defense. We take 

an oath not only to defend the Constitution, but we have to keep in mind 

that that oath and that Constitution is 

really part of America’s first line of defense. 

Think of what it’s like to make a 

phone call, any one of us right now. We 

make a phone call—even from this Capitol—to call a friend overseas, start 

talking about matters relating to 

what’s happening in America, what’s 

happening in the world. The way this 

law is written, without changes, those 

phone calls could be intercepted. They 

cannot only be intercepted, but they 

can be downloaded, transcribed, and 

stored for future use by the government. I have a problem with that. It’s 

a great concern. What happens is that 

everyone then becomes suspect when 

Big Brother is listening. 

I don’t think that government should 

have the right to listen in to people’s 

phone calls unless there’s a warrant. 

You have to have probable cause. 

That’s what the Fourth Amendment is 

about. This bill doesn’t have those protections. It extends government’s authority to conduct surveillance of persons reasonably believed to be outside 

the United States for 5 years, and there 

is a blanket extension, which is an abdication of Congress’ constitutional obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. 

Given the information we know 

about our government’s past abuse of 

surveillance authorities, if we pass this 

bill without any changes to ensure adequate congressional oversight and 

transparency, we’re losing an opportunity. 

Since the amended FISA Act passed 

in 2008, the government has released 

very little information on how it uses 

the powers granted under this act. As 

the Electronic Frontier Foundation recently pointed out, nobody in the government is willing to answer questions 

about how many Americans’ phone 

calls or emails have been or are being 

collected and read without a warrant 

under the authority of the FISA 

Amendments Act. So Big Brother is 

not accountable. Even more disturbing 

is that it’s well known that the government has violated the FISA Amendments Act, despite the broad surveillance authorities it provides the government. 

A freedom of information request by 

the ACLU revealed that violations of 

the FISA Amendments Act and the 

Constitution continue to occur on a 

regular basis, until at least March 2010. 

b 1600 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 

an additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. KUCINICH. According to the 

ACLU, the law is written so broadly 

that a phone call by a U.S. citizen to a 

U.S. citizen overseas discussing general 

foreign affairs could be listened in on. 

Section 702 of this act allows the government to intercept the communication of any U.S. citizen absent probable 

cause, in subversion of their Fourth 

Amendment rights. So Big Brother is 

listening. 

There’s no doubt that Congress is abdicating its responsibility when it 

passes a blanket extension of this bill 

without knowing how many Americans 

have been affected by FISA or the government’s interpretation of the law. 

Without vital civil liberties safeguards 

and a minimum of transparency, an extension should be rejected. 

Big Brother is not accountable. Let’s 

vote against Big Brother. Let’s vote to 

protect the Fourth Amendment. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT

REPORT ON THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Accordingly, we, the undersigned members 

of The Constitution Project’s Liberty and 

Security Committee, recommend: 

I. Increased Judicial Review of Surveillance Authorizations: The FAA should be 

amended to require more robust judicial review by the FISC to authorize programmatic 

surveillance and ensure that it is appropriately focused on foreign intelligence. Specifically: 

(a.) Congress should restore the requirement that foreign intelligence be the primary purpose of the programmatic surveillance. 

(b.) When seeking approval for programmatic surveillance, the government 

should be required to (1) explain the foreign 

intelligence purpose of the proposed surveillance, (2) define the scope of planned interceptions, and (3) provide a risk assessment 

and an estimate of reasonably anticipated 

interceptions of the communications of U.S. 

persons and individuals located within the 

United States. The surveillance should only 

be permitted after the FISC has thoroughly 

evaluated these submissions to ensure that 

surveillance is appropriately designed to acquire foreign intelligence information from 

legitimate targets without interfering with 

the privacy rights of U.S. persons and individuals located within the United States. 

(c.) Additionally, the government should 

be required to develop and submit to the 

FISC procedures for determining when an acquisition may be expected to collect communications to or from the United States. 

Then, in cases where the planned surveillance may reasonably be expected to intercept communications to or from a person 

reasonably believed to be in the United 

States, the government should be required to 

obtain a FISA warrant under pre-FAA standards. 

2. Inclusion of Warrant Requirements and 

Other Safeguards for Post-Collection Use of 

Information: The FAA should be amended to 

require that the government obtain a warrant from the FISC before searching collected communications for information on a 

specific U.S. person, decrypting the identity 

of a specific U.S. person party to a conversation, or reviewing communications reasonably believed to be to or from the United 

States. As required under the pre-FAA 

version of FISA, the warrant should be based 

upon a showing of probable cause to believe 

that the target is an agent of a foreign power 

or has committed a crime, and that evidence 

of the crime will be found and must name its 

target(s) with particularity. Moreover, Congress should ensure that collected information is being properly used for foreign intelligence purposes, including at the very least 

a requirement that authorities obtain a warrant before using data for law enforcement 

purposes. Finally, Congress should amend 

the FAA to require more stringent procedures for minimization, including periodic, 

ongoing FISC review of the implementation 

and efficacy of such procedures. 

3. Increased Reporting and Oversight: More 

information about the intelligence community’s use of the FAA should be provided to 

Congress and the public. Before reauthorizing the FAA, Congress should demand and 

review detailed information regarding the 

operation of the FAA surveillance program 

to date, including the extent and scope of 

interceptions of the communications of U.S. 

persons and individuals located within the 

United States. Further, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community should 

be required to audit these surveillance programs and issue annual reports to Congress 

regarding how government surveillance has 

been conducted. In particular, these reports 

should include: statistics regarding how 

many U.S. persons’ communications have 

been intercepted by the government; aggregate statistics on the number of intercepted 

communications in total, and the number of 

intercepted communications to or from the 

United States or involving any U.S. person; 

an analysis of the performance of the government’s targeting and minimization procedures; and an explanation of how collected 

information has been used, including the 

number of times the information has been 

used for law enforcement rather than foreign 

intelligence purposes. These reports should 

also be provided in an unclassified form released to the public. Additionally, as much 

as practicable, more information on the FAA 

should be released to the public, including 

important decisions by the FISC and Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, 

redacted as necessary. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today extends the expiration date of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 from December 31, 2012 to 

December 31, 2017. I oppose this unwarranted long term extension because neither 

Congress nor the public yet have an adequate 

understanding of the impact this law has had 

on the privacy of American citizens. 

The heart of the FISA Amendments Act is 

section 702, which authorizes the government 

to intercept the communications of people who 

are reasonably believed to be foreign persons 

outside of the U.S. On its face, the statute includes protections for American citizens who 

may be on the other end of these communications. 

But section 702 does not require the government to obtain a warrant—and without 

more information about how the executive 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5897 

branch uses this authority, we cannot confirm 

that the privacy of U.S. citizens is adequately 

protected. 

These concerns are more than theoretical. 

In 2009, the New York Times reported that the 

NSA had engaged in the ‘‘overcollection’’ of 

American communications in situations not 

permitted by law. The government assures us 

that this problem was an accident and has 

been corrected—but the report does not inspire confidence in the safeguards we have 

put in place. 

More recently, in a July 26, 2011, letter to 

Senators RON WYDEN (D–OR) and MARK

UDALL (D–CO), the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence stated that it is ‘‘not reasonably possible’’ to determine how many 

U.S. persons have had their communications 

intercepted under this law. Even if it is difficult 

to state an exact figure, it is hard to believe 

that the Director of National Intelligence cannot even guess. The Inspector General of the 

Intelligence Community didn’t fare any better, 

and simply deferred to the non-answer provided earlier by the ODNI. 

The public deserves better—and it is our responsibility to demand more information in the 

public record if the government will not provide 

it. 

My colleagues prepared a series of amendments that would have addressed many of 

these basic oversight needs—without any risk 

to national security or the integrity of the underlying programs—but under this closed rule, 

we are not permitted to even debate these 

moderate changes to the bill on the floor. 

What is so dangerous about increased oversight that we cannot even debate an amendment? 

If we require the government to provide us 

with unclassified reports, public summaries of 

key FISA court opinions, and an honest accounting of the number of Americans who 

have been affected by these programs, we will 

have gone a long way towards the responsible 

exercise of our oversight role. 

And even if we cannot support these modest changes, we ought to amend this bill to 

provide for a shorter sunset. Meaningful oversight means revisiting these authorities before 

the winter of 2017. We cannot allow an entire 

presidential administration to pass before we 

discuss these authorities again—in the 115th 

Congress. 

My amendment would have had the added 

benefit of linking this sunset to the three expiring provisions created by the USA PATRIOT 

Act. It would be to our benefit to consider the 

most controversial aspects of FISA all at once, 

instead of piecemeal over the course of the 

next decade. But under this closed process on 

the floor today, the House has been denied 

the opportunity to even consider this moderate 

change to the bill. 

In conclusion, the government can and must 

do a better job of responding to our questions 

about privacy and other civil liberties. It can do 

so without risk to national security. 

I have no doubt that these expiring authorities are important to the executive branch, but 

we should not let this opportunity pass without 

demanding reasonable, meaningful, and public 

oversight of a highly controversial law. 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on H.R. 

5949. 

I yield the balance of my time to the 

gentleman from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER). 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank Ranking 

Member CONYERS for his courtesy. 

For over a decade, I have deeply been 

concerned about the potential overreach of wiretapping legislation and efforts at the NSA. I have voted repeatedly in the past against unreasonable 

expansion of any administration’s ability to intrude in the lives of unknowing and innocent Americans, and I will 

do so again today. 

I remain confident that the dedicated 

members of the intelligence community do not need to erode the rights of 

Americans in order to protect them. 

Any apparent gains in security that 

may be achieved are modest and more 

than outweighed by longer-term potential loss of civil liberties and oversight, 

the sense of security that each American deserves. I’m troubled by the implications for our Fourth Amendment 

rights, the absence of meaningful court 

review, and the risk to American liberties that stem from the FISA Amendments Act. 

Frankly I see no reason to rush into 

voting on a bill so deficient. The American people would be better served if we 

continued the debate and the examination, had thorough answers from NSA, 

and took up reauthorization based on a 

more complete review and process. 

In fact, I think as we stand here 

today on the floor, not even the NSA 

knows the extent to which the FISA 

Amendment Act may potentially have 

been abused. The right approach would 

be refining this bill and more broadly 

taking a closer look at what over the 

last decade has become an intelligence 

community that is, frankly, some feel, 

growing out of control. 

It’s been over 11 years since 9/11. We 

ought to be able to get this right. We 

shouldn’t be rushed into doing something that has significant long-term 

implications for every American. 

You know, take a deep breath and 

take a step back. There are over 4.2 

million Americans who hold a security 

clearance. That’s more than the entire 

State of Oregon’s population, and let’s 

throw in the city of Seattle for good 

measure. Almost half of them hold Top 

Secret security clearances, more than 

people who reside in Maine or Idaho. 

When you’ve got those millions of people, you have an entity that is cumbersome, potential for abuse, and, 

frankly, potential to be infiltrated or 

have mistakes. 

Think about it: 9/11 occurred in part 

not because we didn’t have information. Remember the memo on Bush’s 

desk warning of a potential attack 

from bin Laden? 

What we are doing at the same time 

we are eroding American rights? We’re 

piling on more and more and more information, and it’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to sort through. We 

risk putting Americans in trouble. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

REED). The time of the gentleman has 

expired. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, the vote we cast on the 

FISA Amendments Act tonight will be 

one of the most important votes we 

cast in Congress, and it is appropriate 

we do so during the week of 9/11. 

The FISA Amendments Act will continue to allow us to conduct surveillance of terrorists, spies and others 

who would do us harm. A FISA court 

order is required if the target is a U.S. 

citizen, but not if the individual is outside of the United States and not a U.S. 

citizen. 

The FISA Amendments Act was first 

passed in 2008 overwhelmingly, and it 

expires at the end of December. This 

bill extends the law for 5 years. The 

FISA Amendments Act is a top priority of the intelligence community. It 

was supported by the Bush administration in 2008 and is strongly endorsed by 

the Obama administration now. This is 

a bipartisan bill that enables us to vote 

to both neutralize threats to our national security and protect the civil 

liberties of American citizens. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

bill, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 5949, which would reauthorize 

the FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, 

or FAA, as we refer to it, for 5 years. 

The FAA is currently set to expire at 

the end of the year. If that happens, 

the government will lose a critical tool 

for protecting Americans against foreign threats, including terrorists, and, 

as a result, will lose significant intelligence on these foreign targets. I want 

to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, foreign targets. 

We were all reminded yesterday, 

while looking back on the horrible 

events of 9/11, of the threat that we 

face from those seeking to do us harm. 

Let me reassure you that even though 

we have been able to disrupt numerous 

plots over the years, our enemies want 

to do just as much harm today as they 

did then, and they just want to do it as 

badly as they did even 11 years ago. 

The original FAA that is being reauthorized was sponsored by Representative REYES in 2008, my Democrat predecessor, as chairman of the Intelligence 

Committee. It also reflected the work 

of then leader, Mr. HOYER, to help develop the final product under the previous majority. I have been pleased to 

work in a collegial, bipartisan manner 

with my ranking member, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, on this clean reauthorization bill as well. In fact, the Intelligence Committee reported this bill 

out unanimously, which doesn’t happen 

all that much around this place. 

The administration has also indicated to us that reauthorizing the FAA 

is its highest national security legislation priority, and on Tuesday issued a 

statement strongly supporting this 

bill. I hope we can all recognize this is 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

an issue that is being driven by our national security needs and not by politics. 

A few key points on the FAA. First, 

if we let this authority expire, we will 

lose a critical intelligence collection 

tool against foreigners on foreign soil. 

b 1610 

If that happens, we lose information 

on the plans and identities of terrorists, information about the functioning 

of terrorist groups like al Qaeda and 

others, information on the intentions 

and capabilities of weapons 

proliferators, information on potential 

cyberthreats to the United States and 

other critical intelligence about foreign adversaries that threaten the 

United States of America. 

Second, it is important to remember 

that this authority is focused on allowing the government to conduct intelligence collection targeting foreigners 

located outside of the United States— 

I’m going to say that again, Mr. Speaker, targeting foreigners located outside 

of the United States—and not on Americans located in the United States or 

anywhere else in the world. 

Third, the FAA is subject to a robust 

oversight structure, including Congress, and I can assure you that the Intelligence Committee takes this responsibility extremely seriously. We 

have had numerous hearings, Member 

briefings, and staff briefings since the 

passage of FAA in 2008. Before the government can collect any intelligence 

under the FISA Amendments Act, a 

Federal judge must approve the government’s surveillance process, including the targeting and minimization 

procedures required under the law. 

One final point, in addition to the 

primary authority in FAA to target 

foreigners located abroad, it actually 

enhanced the civil liberties protections 

for Americans by requiring a court 

order to target an American for collection outside of the United States. Before 2008, the government only needed 

the Attorney General for approval. If 

this law expires, so do these enhanced 

civil liberties protections. 

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what some 

may say, FAA is not about domestic 

surveillance and it does not authorize a 

sweeping dragnet of collecting on 

American communications. This is 

about foreigners on foreign soil. It is 

about giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to quickly 

and effectively intercept the communications of those outside the United 

States who seek to do us harm. 

Let’s not forget the nature of the 

threat that, almost 11 years ago to the 

day, took so many lives in such a horrific way. And the examples that we 

see just yesterday of the ongoing target of U.S. civilians, if they’re in the 

United States or they’re in places like 

Libya, continues to be a threat to the 

personal safety of those we ask to 

stand in harm’s way and protect and 

promote the values of the United 

States. 

This is a critical piece of legislation 

supported by both parties and the 

President of the United States. Mr. 

Speaker, I would urge all of our colleagues here to stand united in the defense of the United States and support 

H.R. 5949. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 

consume. 

I rise today in favor of the FISA 

Amendments Act, which is due to expire at the end of this year. 

When Chairman ROGERS and I took 

over the leadership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we made a commitment to 

work together to ensure the intelligence community has the authorities 

it needs to effectively protect our 

country while also protecting the privacy of Americans. I believe we must 

reauthorize this critical piece of legislation to keep America and her citizens 

safe. The FISA Amendments Act allows the government to gain important 

intelligence about terrorists, 

cyberthreats, weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons that threaten Americans and U.S. interests. 

There is a misconception out there 

that this act permits the surveillance 

of Americans without a court order. 

The bill prohibits the targeting of 

American citizens without a court 

order, no matter where they’re located 

in the world. 

The FISA Amendments Act gives the 

U.S. Government the authority to collect intelligence information about foreigners located outside of the United 

States. The FISA Amendments Act is 

subject to aggressive oversight by Congress and the executive branch. 

There was an issue in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee about 

the issue of oversight. In this Congress 

alone, the House Intelligence Committee has held multiple hearings, 

briefings, and more than a dozen meetings concerning FISA. In addition, 

every 60 days the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence conduct detailed onsite reviews 

to ensure compliance with the provisions of the act. 

This is a bipartisan bill that passed 

out of the House Intelligence Committee by a unanimous vote of 17–0. I 

understand some Democrats would like 

a 3-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act, some Republicans requested 

a 9-year extension. The administration 

asked for a 5-year extension to take 

Presidential-year politics out of the 

process while providing consistency to 

the intelligence community. I support 

the President’s request for a 5-year extension. 

Without reauthorization, this critical 

tool would be lost, putting our Nation 

at severe risk. We would not be able to 

obtain the foreign intelligence necessary to prevent terrorist plots and financial support. I believe the act is 

critical to protecting our Nation while 

protecting our Americans’ constitutional rights and privacy. I urge my 

colleagues to support this measure. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield 2 

minutes to a friend of mine, the gentleman from California (Mr. THOMPSON). 

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I 

thank the chairman for yielding time 

to me. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m one of those Democrats that the ranking member talked 

about that would prefer a 3-year extension of this measure, but I’m going to 

vote for H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, 

also known as the FAA. I support this 

legislation because it protects our security, preserves our freedom, and has 

proven to respect our civil liberties in 

the process. 

In 2008, many of us were rightly concerned about this program being created and used as a back door for collecting information on law-abiding 

Americans. I voted against the FAA in 

2008, in part because of these civil liberty concerns. However, as a member 

of the House Intelligence Committee, I 

believe the abuses that we feared have 

just not materialized. 

But let me be clear, and this and future administrations are being given 

fair warning. My colleagues and I on 

the House Intelligence Committee will 

continue to receive reports on FISA information collection. These reports 

must continue to be detailed and specific. If there are any abuses or problems stemming from the application of 

this program, I’m certain that this 

Congress will move swiftly to correct 

them. So far, the application of the 

FAA has gained our trust, but we will 

continue to verify how the FAA is 

being used. Trust, but verify. 

Mr. Speaker, the FAA provides the 

tools we need to collect vital counterterrorism information in foreign intelligence. I will vote in favor of H.R. 5949, 

the FISA Amendments Act. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I reserve 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 

from Illinois (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY). 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I 

rise today in opposition to this FISA 

legislation. I do want to thank my 

ranking member for yielding to me, despite our difference of opinion. 

As a member of the Intelligence 

Committee, I take the threat of terrorism very seriously, but I believe we 

are fully capable of protecting our security and safeguarding our precious 

civil liberties. This law authorizes the 

government to collect mass electronic 

communications coming into and going 

out of the United States so long as no 

U.S. person in the United States is intentionally targeted. Yet in April 2009, 

The New York Times reported that the 

National Security Agency ‘‘intercepted 

private email messages and phone calls 

of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established 

by Congress.’’ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5899 

Shouldn’t our government be required to disclose more about the extent and nature of the surveillance? Is 

this an authority that should be extended until 2017? Should we at least be 

able to consider an amendment to reexamine this law in 2013? But no amendments are allowed today. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote. 

b 1620 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

might consume. 

It’s just important to remember that 

the due process protections of the 

United States are alive and well here. 

This is one of those programs that has 

an inordinate amount of oversight to 

make sure that we are not targeting 

Americans. Not only does the committee participate, but the Department 

of Justice has a separate review. There 

are strong internal reviews. 

In the odd case where an American is 

intercepted, there are very strict procedures on how to destroy that information and correct that problem, and 

it has not happened, hardly frequently 

at all is the good news, which is why I 

think there is such bipartisan and 

strong support of our effort again to 

collect on foreigners who are outside of 

the United States, incredibly important. 

I continue to reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 11⁄2 minutes to the gentleman 

from California (Mr. SCHIFF). 

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding, and I rise in support of the 

FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act. 

This bill reauthorizes intelligence 

gathering capabilities that are essential to our national security while also 

protecting the civil liberties of Americans. 

The recent events in Libya, Egypt, 

and elsewhere should serve to remind 

us all that there remain forces around 

the world that are determined to kill 

Americans, injure our interests, and 

jeopardize our freedoms. 

The FAA allows us to obtain critical 

information about terrorist organizations, nuclear proliferation, and a host 

of other dangers. These authorities 

have produced intelligence that’s vital 

to defending the Nation against international terrorism and other threats, 

which is why Attorney General Holder 

and DNI Clapper have called reauthorizing the FAA their top legislative priority. 

This bill does not authorize spying on 

Americans. To the contrary, the 2008 

FISA Amendments Act ensured that no 

American, whether within the United 

States or overseas, would come under 

surveillance without a court order and 

a finding of probable cause. 

The authorities provided are narrowly tailored to the purpose of protecting the United States from those 

who would harm us, and I urge an 

‘‘aye’’ vote. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. 

Speaker, I have no further speakers. I 

am going to continue to reserve and 

allow the gentleman from Maryland to 

close. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes 

remaining, and the gentleman from 

Michigan has 2 minutes remaining. 

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

Mr. Speaker, there’s been talk about 

the FISA Amendments Act as a backdoor collection on Americans and does 

not sufficiently protect civil liberties. 

This is not the case. We are all Americans. We are Members of Congress. We 

care about our country. We care about 

our Constitution, and we care about 

our privacy and our civil liberties. 

Now, the FISA Amendments Act of 

2008 actually expands the protections 

of Americans’ civil liberties and privacy interests. Before the FISA 

Amendments Act in 2008, which became 

law then, the government needed only 

the Attorney General’s authorization 

to target an American. Because of the 

FISA Amendments Act, if the government allows for surveillance of an 

American, that American must be 

overseas and the government must 

have a FISA court order if they do target an American anywhere in the 

world. The civil liberties of Americans 

are better protected than before this 

act became law in 2008. 

Also, as far as oversight, and there 

have been allegations of not proper 

oversight. I understand the argument, 

and I don’t disagree with the argument 

about sunsets. Sunsets are good because they hold us accountable. We can 

see if there are any abuses, and we can 

deal with them when we have sunsets. 

However, the Department of Justice 

and the Director of National Intelligence file semi-annual reports with 

Congress as it relates to the FISA Act. 

These reports include information 

about compliance, targeting, and minimization on collections involving the 

parties that we’re focused on. 

The Intelligence Committee staff has 

conducted dozens of meetings about 

the authorities under the FISA amendments. These meetings have addressed 

compliance, procedures, authorities, 

and specific collection. 

On the Intelligence Committee, we 

review, investigate, and debate the 

FISA Amendments Act. We maintain 

an ongoing dialogue with the intelligence community to ensure the law is 

being implemented in how it was intended. 

We, as Americans, need to know 

more about the threats that are out 

there. Our threats for cyberattacks are 

occurring as we speak right now. It’s 

very dangerous. These attacks can affect our national security, our grid systems, our banking systems, our air 

traffic control systems. This bill, this 

amendment, is part of our protection 

in dealing with those major issues. 

I advise my colleague that I am 

ready to close, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I reserve 

with the right to close. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield, again, myself such time as 

I might consume. 

The FISA Amendments Act is the result of decades of work to modify a law 

so we can adapt with changing technology and evolving national security 

threats. The bill demonstrates what 

Democrats and Republicans can do 

when we work together in a bipartisan 

way. It is uniquely important to put 

partisanship aside when America’s national security is at stake. 

We all have the same goal of keeping 

America safe from terrorist threats, 

whether on land or sea, in the air or 

with cyberspace. We also believe 

strongly, and this is very important, in 

the Constitution and the protections 

granted by our Founding Fathers. 

The FISA Amendments Act is an important tool that has successfully prevented terrorist attacks on American 

soil. I know it is critical to our intelligence community. 

I commend everyone who participated in this effort, especially the bipartisan leadership of Chairman ROGERS and the other members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of 

the aisle. I support this straight reauthorization which President Obama, 

our Commander in Chief, has said is 

‘‘vital to protect our Nation.’’ 

I will vote for the FISA Amendments 

Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, and I 

urge my colleagues to do the same. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. 

Speaker, I want to thank my ranking 

member, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, for the 

fine bipartisan effort on this important 

national security issue. 

I think the people at home can rest 

assured that we have taken every precaution to protect our civil liberties, 

which we all cherish in this Nation, 

and still have the ability to collect on 

foreigners overseas seeking to harm 

this great country, and I want to thank 

you for your work and commend the 

President for his letter of support of 

our bipartisan effort on this important 

national security issue. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, FAA. Matters of national security are of the utmost importance and we 

should ensure that the government has the 

necessary tools to keep America safe. Yet, we 

must always balance this with protecting the 

civil liberties of American citizens. Unfortunately, this legislation before us today fails this 

important test. 

I voted against this legislation when it was 

first passed in 2008 and I continue to have 

many of the same reservations and objections 

to the policies set forth by the FAA. I continue 

to be concerned that the Fourth Amendment 

rights of American citizens are not adequately 

protected by this legislation, which is of the utmost importance. Specifically, FAA makes an 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, by allowing the government to conduct surveillance without a FISC 

warrant. Such a broad exercise of power undermines our system of checks and balances 

and has grave implications for the protection 

of our constitutional rights. We should be enhancing the role of the FISC to ensure that the 

rights of American citizens are protected while 

the government collects intelligence to help 

defend our nation. 

Additionally, the five-year extension provided by this legislation will ensure that regardless of which candidate wins the presidency on November 6, their administration will 

have these powers for the length of their term. 

A shorter extension would allow Congress to 

conduct the proper oversight over the use of 

these authorities and to better examine whether such authorities are still necessary to ensure the protection of our citizens. 

Regardless of who is in the White House, it 

is the duty of this body to ensure that the 

power of the executive branch is not unfettered and that proper oversight is conducted. 

It is in this spirit that I cast my vote against 

this legislation today. 

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the reauthorization of the 2008 

FISA Amendments Act, as it violates the 

Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. Supporters of this reauthorization claim that the 

United States will be more vulnerable if the 

government is not allowed to monitor citizens 

without a warrant. I would argue that we are 

more vulnerable if we do allow the government to monitor Americans without a warrant. 

Nothing makes us more vulnerable than allowing the Constitution to be violated. 

Passage of this reauthorization will allow the 

government to listen in to our phone calls, 

read our personal correspondence, and monitor our activities without obtaining a warrant. 

Permission for surveillance obtained by a secret FISA court can cover broad categories of 

targets rather than specific individuals, as the 

Fourth Amendment requires. Americans who 

communicate with someone who is suspected 

of being affiliated with a target group can be 

monitored without a warrant. The only restriction is that Americans on U.S. soil are not to 

be the primary targets of the surveillance. That 

is hardly reassuring. U.S. intelligence agencies 

are not to target Americans on U.S. soil, but 

as we all know telephone conversations usually take place between two people. If on the 

other end of the international conversation is 

an American, his conversation is monitored, 

recorded, transcribed, and kept for future use. 

According to press reports earlier this summer, the Director of National Intelligence admitted to the Senate that ‘‘on at least one occasion’’ U.S. intelligence collection agencies 

violated the Constitutional prohibitions on unlawful search and seizure. Without possibility 

for oversight of the process and with the absence of transparency, we will never know just 

how many Americans have been wiretapped 

without warrants. 

Creating a big brother surveillance state 

here is no solution to threats that may exist 

from abroad. I urge my colleagues to reject 

these FISA amendments and return to the 

Constitution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate on the bill has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 773, 

the previous question is ordered on the 

bill, as amended. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. 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 4 o’clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess. 

f 

b 1644 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the House 

was called to order by the Speaker pro 

tempore (Mr. REED) at 4 o’clock and 44 

minutes p.m. 

f 

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: H.R. 5949; and suspending the 

rules and passing H.R. 3857 and H.R. 

5865. 

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

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the passage 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 bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 301, nays 

118, not voting 10, as follows: 

[Roll No. 569] 

YEAS—301 

Ackerman 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amodei 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barber 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Berkley 

Berman 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carnahan 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castor (FL) 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Cicilline 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Cooper 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Deutch 

Diaz-Balart 

Dicks 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fattah 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garamendi 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hall 

Hanabusa 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Heinrich 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinojosa 

Hochul 

Holden 

Hoyer 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kaptur 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Langevin 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Levin 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Long 

Lowey 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Luja ́n 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCaul 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pelosi 

Pence 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Reyes 

Ribble 

Richmond 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (AR) 

Ross (FL) 

Rothman (NJ) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Ruppersberger 

Ryan (OH) 

Scalise 

Schiff 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schwartz 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Scott, David 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Sires 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith (WA) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yarmuth 

Yoder 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NAYS—118 

Amash 

Andrews 

Baldwin 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Chu 

Clarke (MI) 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE