Date: 2010-02-25
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. sometimes we come to the floor. Mr. Speaker. but we dont understand. really. the impetus and the importance of the work that is being done here. To my colleagues. what we are doing is securing the American people. We know that right now there is a major debate that is occurring with leadership dealing with health reform. We will also be addressing the question of jobs. But let it be very clear. nothing is going to stop us from addressing the question of national security. Chairman CONYERS has been working on the reform and the refitting. if you will. of the PATRIOT Act to make sure that it provides more security for the American people. I just came from a hearing on Homeland Security of which I am a member. with the Secretary of Homeland Security. asking hard questions about the reinforcement of security. the provisions of support for personnel at the Department of Homeland Security. and the ability to give more resources so that the traveling public can be secure. In this instance. we are acting expeditiously and responsibly. because what is now occurring is that we are providing for the extension of the PATRIOT Act so we can. in fact. engage the other body and work constructively. one. to. with no doubt. commit ourselves. as the President has done. in committing to use every instrument of national power to fight terrorism. including intelligence and military operations. as well as the criminal justice system. Thats the Judiciary Committee. Theres never been a doubt about the commitment of the Obama administration or the Judiciary Committee. the chairman and our colleagues in the other body. But it is important for us to handle our business and to do our duty. and that is to look with a finetoothed comb at the PATRIOT Act to ensure that it does not violate the rights of Americans. No matter what your political persuasion. you have a sense of understanding of the Constitution. You understand due process. You understand unreasonable search and seizure. And so it is our obligation to do so. As I listened to the debate on the Intelligence bill. I was struck by the efforts that have been made to shore up any of the missing links to provide us a pathway away from the Fort Hood incident or the Christmas Day bombing. And one of the things I want to emphasize is the importance for horizontal integration: Homeland Security. Department of Justice. Intelligence. the agencies dealing with national security as we attempted to do after 9/11. We must ramp up the coordination of information. There must be a focus not only on enhanced coordination. which is the premise of the PATRIOT Act. to get information and to ensure the obligation to ensure your civil liberties. but we must also be somewhat unique and distinct on how we assess who might be a threat. I have constantly asked that we consider this thing called human assessment and behavior. A lot of people will call for profiling and that thats the way to do it. And I can tell you. colleagues. that you can profile from this morning until the end of time. and you will miss someone who doesnt fit the caricature. if you will. of who you might think happens to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh didnt fit that profile. And so it is important for them to be developed human intelligence and human behavior assessment. That would have been an appropriate approach to the captain at Fort Hood. Thats not profiling. its assessing the behavior of interacting on the Internet. of speaking to the imam in Yemen. very conspicuous behavior that was assessed in Washington before he was transferred to Fort Hood. behavior that was not transmitted. if you will. in the right way. And then we can look at the Christmas Day bomber. which we hope will never happen again. We had the shoe bomber. And so behavior should send up a red flag. When we look at the premise of the PATRIOT Act. it is gathering information. And I know my colleagues would not want us to rush to judgment. And so what we have in place now is the opportunity for America to be protected. to use this crosssignal of information. Might I also mention the assessment of the actions of the Department of Justice. Theres not been one moment of a decision that has jeopardized the American people. Yes. theres been a decision that initially was accepted by local officials. as we understand it. to try individuals in a particular area. There were provisions. obviously. to be made for that. That decision alone and whatever happens on the decision after about where that trial will be held has nothing to do with undermining Americas security. We have Mirandized people before. and they have given us information and weve garnered that information to use for our security. We have tried people in the civilian courts under our legal system. and we have found them guilty on the basis of what they have done. and weve protected the American people. So I am concerned that there is some labeling going on. that there is not the convergence of resources in the Obama administration. theres not the work on behalf of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Chairman CONYERS that steadily puts together building blocks to secure the American people. I hope that we will rise to vote for this extension of the PATRIOT Act to allow this Congress. bipartisan. to sit down and do its work. But in the meantime. would we not be irresponsible if we did not come to the floor today to protect the American people. just as weve done with an authorization of the Intelligence bill which has never been done for over a large number of years. We are now doing that because we believe in the security of the American people. I look forward to moving forward on this legislation. I look forward to pressing the intelligence community on human behavior assessment now. not tomorrow. but now. and I look forward to us going forward on securing the American people with the tools that the Obama administration is working on. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3961Extending Expiring Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and R. 2082. I support this motion to extend expiring amendments though I offered several amendments as we debated this issue in the Judiciary Committee that I believe would have made the existing provisions of the ACT more effective. H.R. 3961 extends for one year--through Feb. 28. 2011three antiterrorism provisions which would otherwise expire on February 28. including the "roving wiretap" authority that allows the government to conduct surveillance on suspects who communicate on multiple devices. or repeatedly change their cell phone numbers or carriers. a provision that permits federal law enforcement authorities to seek a court order for "any tangible thing" they deem related to a terrorism investigation such as business records. and the "lone wolf" provision that allows for surveillance of terrorists who are not connected to terrorist groups. The measure also extends. for one year. a provision under current law that expanded authority to access records or "any tangible item." including business and library records. through the use of Section 215 orders. The provision has been one of the focal points of criticism of the PATRIOT Act. uniting liberals and libertarians who express concern that it was too broadly written and could have allowed the government to access a virtually unlimited range of records. Mr. Speaker. prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act. court orders requested under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for access to business records had to assert that there were "specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." The law limited these records to those of hotels. motels. car and truck rental agencies. and storage rental facilities. The provision in the USA PATRIOT Act modified requirements for a FISA court order to include "any tangible things"-such as library or bookstore recordsregardless of the business or individual holding the item. as long as law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation. An application for access to business records under this provision must provide a "statement of facts" proving that the information sought is "relevant" to the investigation. A September 2009 letter from the Justice Department reports that the FISA court had issued about 220 orders to produce business records over the period of 2004 to 2007. The letter noted that 173 of those orders were issued prior to 2006 in combination with FISA pen register orders "to address an anomaly in the statutory language that prevented the acquisition of subscriber identification information normally associated with pen register information." The 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act included language to clarify the law. and the Justice Department says the change made the use of the "business records" provision for such information unnecessary. The remaining business records orders were used to obtain transactional information that did not fall within the scope of other authorities. The department called on Congress to reauthorize this provision because there would "continue to be instances in which FBI investigators need to obtain information that does not fall within the scope of national security letter authorities and are operating in an environment that precludes the use of less secure criminal authorities." My amendment would have made an improvement to the publics oversight of the PATRIOT Act by extending the life of these intrusive government surveillance programs for two years rather than four years as proposed. Specifically. my amendment focused on Sections 102 and 202 of the underlying bill. The change to Section 102 would have extended the sunset dates of roving wiretaps and FISA business records to December 31. 2011 rather than 2013. The change to Section 202 provides a sunset date of December 31. 2011 rather than December 31. 2013 for national security letters. with the effect of expediting the return of the relevant national security letter statutes to their statuses as they read on These proposed changes in those amendments that I offered in the Judiciary committee focused on the idea of increasing public oversight and transparency. These changes would have permitted Congress to review these sections in two years rather than four years. In two years. we may find that these tools are in fact unnecessary. or that new tools are required. Mr. Speaker. the motion also extends. for one year. a provision that allows law enforcement officials to pursue terrorists who use multiple devices. or change cell phone numbers or carriers repeatedly to thwart surveillance efforts under FISA. The law permits authorities to obtain multipoint or "roving" wiretaps so that officials do not have to file multiple applications to continue their investigation. Under current law. applications for a wiretap do not have to include specific information on the location of the wiretap or the names of third parties who would be involved in assisting authorities with setting up the wiretap. Instead. court orders apply to the person or persons and not a particular device or location. Under prior law. the government would have to return to the FISA court for an order that named the new communications carrier. landlord. etc.. before tapping the new device or location. The law requires the FISA court to base its finding on "specific facts" included in an application. and it requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the targets identity is unknown. In the cases when the location of surveillance was unknown at the time of a court order. investigators would be required to notify the court within 10 days of the start of surveillance at any new location. The court can extend this notification time to up to 60 days. According to a September 2009 letter from a Justice Department official. the provision has "proven an important intelligencegathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders." The letter noted that this authority is only available when the government is able to provide specific information that the target of surveillance may engage in countersurveilance activities. The letter noted that the government has sought to use it "in a relatively small number of cases (on average. twentytwo applications per year)." Additionally. the measure extends by one year the socalled "lone wolf" provision that allows federal law enforcement officials to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct surveillance on suspected individuals or "targets" who are engaging in international terrorism activities or preparation for such activities. but cannot be connected to terrorist groups or foreign nations. The provision applies only if the target is not a United States person. i.e.. is not a citizen. legal immigrant or resident. Before 2004. national security officials had to show a court that a target was an agent of a foreign power. or acting on behalf of a foreign power. in order to get permission to monitor him or her. which some argued prevented monitoring a lone wolf operating as an individual. According to the Justice Department. the authority was aimed at situations in which information linking a target to an international group is absent or insufficient. but where the targets engagement in "international terrorism" has been sufficiently established. The department noted that in practice. the government "must know a great deal about the target." but must also be unable to connect that person to any group meeting the definition of "foreign power" under FISA. A Justice Department official. in a September 2009 letter. stated that the department had never filed a FISA application using this provision since it became law in 2004. but stated the departments support for reauthorizing the provision because of potential situations in which it could be the only avenue for surveillance. Mr. Speaker. I believe it is very important that we extend the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion and work to restore civil liberties and secure America.