>> there are fisa courts to do that. this was a debate that happened in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and even in 2008, that, look, there were some that wanted to do away with fisa warrants and the court system that, as the president said, it is important we have a mechanism that watches the watchers. that's -- that is, in this instance, an important aspect of what the judicial branch does. >> at some point, do you allow some sort of scrutiny on this? >> again, the role in government to do that is through a very specialized set of developed courts in order to ensure that what is done meets the law. >> you want changes in the law? >> again, obviously this is -- we -- there are important

courts two, courts here, a criminal court and a fisa court, we go to the fisa court because we don't know how big this is, we don't know who's involved, we want to arrest everybody that's involved. so let's go to the judge and prove to the judge that if we can figure out that he bought materials from a hardware store to build a bomb, that we might be able to prevent this thing in the future. so they go, they get a court order. this is hypothetical. they get a court order, which is a pretty high standard in any investigation. or the other option is, the bomb goes off, it kills hundreds if not thousands of people and that very same f.b.i. agent takes it with a criminal warrant and gets the very same information after the bomb has gone off. that's what we're talking about. that's the difference. this notion that somehow you don't have to go to a court to get this -- to get an order is wrong. trust me. you're not going to be able to go through somebody's underwear drawer because you want to. it's not going to happen. if you believe in the process that we have in our criminal courts, to h

to obtain an order from fisa to wiretap without having to specify the target or device, when we look at section 6,001 which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of nonu.s. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, effectively allows the government to circumvent standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from courts . when we look at ese things, these provisions are divorced from our constitutional experience. they are divorced from what we know are commonsense provisions of what our rights ought to be. that's why i'm opposed to the extension of the patriot act. and why if we had any sense we could repeal the whole thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguish chair of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i am excited that my colleagues renewed interest i

agent should go to a fisa court to get a court order which is a higher standard for business records to prevent a terrorist attack. it's the only difference in these two i think misunderstood provisions. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to address the senate amendment to h.r. 514 which would re-authorize three expiring provisions on the patriot act for an additional 90 days. mr. speaker, my position today remains the same as it was three days ago when we passed h.r. 519. as i said then, i would like to see a three-year extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to s. 289 which is currently pending in the senate. mr. ruppersberger: the president supports a three-year extension, too. believing as i do that a three-year term would give our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies predictability and cert

we would surely favor at least a three-year extension to coincide with extensions of the fisa amendment as you discussed. .. the first and foremost of these concerns is terrorism. counterterrorism is top priority because job one is to keep americans safe and the homeland secure. intelligence community suffered devastating attacks. most recently the cargo bomb plot this past october. we apprehended numerous dangerous actors throughout the world and much of these capabilities including its operations, training and propaganda. we are deeply engaged with foreign partners to the effect to prevent terrorist actions and remain vigilant despite degradation of the organization against al qaeda's desire to attack the west. we are especially focused on al qaeda's results for americans for recruitment, and disturbing instances of radicalization among our own citizens. last? talents community health provide information that led to the arrest of extremists in the united states. homegrown terrorists are a small part of the global threat. they have a disproportionate impact because they understand the

agent should go to a fisa court to get a court order which is a higher standard for business records to prevent a terrorist attack. it's the only difference in these two i think misunderstood provisions. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to address the senate amendment to h.r. 514 which would re-authorize three expiring provisions on the patriot act for an additional 90 days. mr. speaker, my position today remains the same as it was three days ago when we passed h.r. 519. as i said then, i would like to see a three-year extension of these authorities until 2013, similar to s. 289 which is currently pending in the senate. mr. ruppersberger: the president supports a three-year extension, too. believing as i do that a three-year term would give our nation's intelligence and w enforcement agencies predictability and certai

and you saw this play out again in the previous administration when they went through a lot of the fisa reform and what happens on wiretaps and what constitutes electronic surveillance and what are those records. you need to bring clarity to that situation, and that's what this act is attempting to do is bring clarity to that, too, so that people know exactly what will happen when. >> host: o.k.. the senators also talked about their legislation, here's a little bit more of what they had to say: >> host: who gets to define national emergency as such? >> guest: well, the legislation also goes on to say that you have to define that, and so there's a structure that's being put in place that talks about a center being established at the department of homeland security and that there would be a directer, and they're very specific about what the authorities of that directer at homeland security would have in the cyber arena. and that they would have to put together what the rules are in conjunction with the secretary of defense, the office of management and budget, the attorney general which t

to obtain an order from fisa to wiretap without having to specify the target or device, when we look at section 6,001 which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of nonu.s. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, effectively allows the government to circumvent standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from courts . when we look at these things, these provisions are divorced from our constitutional experience. they are divorced from what we know are commonsense provisions of what our rights ought to be. that's why i'm opposed to the extension of the patriot act. and why if we had any sense we could repeal the whole thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguish chair of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i am excited that my colleagues renewed interest

again this goes through the fisa court. if we did not have that, there are so many means of communications now, and this particular order enables us to focus on a person without going back daily or weekly to get a change of order from the court. the last provision is called a loan with provision. -- the lone wolf provision. if a non u.s. citizen who we have reason to believe is an of a terrorist, we can use the authorities by going to the court and showing that this individual is involved in terrorist activities, but do not have to make the additional showing that he is an associate of a particularized terrorist group. back in 2001, moussaoui -- this provision was put into if you could not make that tie, we could not use the fisa authorities, and this particular provision was put into the law to avoid that particular circumstance happening again and allowing us to go up on a non- u.s. citizen who was involved in terrorist activities with the approval and the order of a court. and while we have not used this provision yet, w

. >> well, there are fisa courts to do that. and this was a debate that happened in 2005 and 2006 and even in 2008 -- look some of them wanted to do away with fisa warrants and the court system -- and as the president said, it is important that we have a mechanism that watches the watchers. that is in this instance, an important aspect of what the judicial branch does. >> at some point, do you allow some sort of scrutiny on this outside of -- >> again, the role in government to do that is through a very specialized set of developed courts in order to ensure that what is done meets -- meets the law. >> you want no changes in the law? >> obviously, this is -- there are important activities that need to be re-authorized. and that's what our focus is. the president requested, requested an absentee ballot. i do not know if that has been filled out, but i can put that on the list. >> on the unemployment insurance proposal, are you concerned this is going to be read as an increased tax on business when the administration is working har

what it will stop is the use of 215 orders which is issued by the fisa court under a standard so loose it is almost impossible for the government to get turned down instead of the normal warrant. the secret court has become a rubber stamp for the government. the amendment will not stop the use of section 215 orders in other investigations, such as surveillance of computer communications even if conducted in libraries. section 215 authorizes the government to obtain, quote, any tangible thing, closed quote, so long as the government provides a statement of facts to show there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence or international terrorism or espionage investigation. this would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records or medical records. before the enactment of 215, only special orders issued by the secret court and the government had to show specific facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the record pertains is an agent of a foreign power, in other words specific reason to bel

he sold us out whether it's the foreclosure isa re-- fisa act that retroactively made legal but under our constitution is illegal, the wiretapping and ease dropping on tens of millions of americans and whether it is to continue the looting by wall street speculators and swindlers who engaged in fraudulent acts that are criminal, using mortgage brokers and bankers to falsify information on loan applications that they knew were false to hand sums of money to people they knew could never repay it in selling these subprime mortgages as assets, whether it is the continuation of our imperial wars in iraq, in afghanistan which preemptive war under post laws are defined as criminal wars of aggression. they are a crime, and we have no right as a nation to debate the terms of the occupation. whether it is the -- [applause] whether it is the swindle that became the so-called health care reform bill. $400 billion in subsidies to our for-profit health care industry, the equivalent of the bank bailout bill for etna, and sidna, and we are watching barak obama hand these corporations exemptions becau

we have got to take care of the fisa legislation again. i would hope everyone understands we're not going to be playing around with this slot issue for another year. this bill has to pass. it's -- there is one way we can solve it. we will offer their amendments and we will vote on it right down here. well, there is no -- i hear yesterday there are meetings going on to try to resolve this issue. these meetings have been going on for months and months and months and they have held up this legislation, and that's unfair, and so i tell everyone we have got to move forward on this legislation, and if we don't have this issue worked out by monday, i'm going to file cloture on this bill. it's a shame. i repeat, this is a bipartisan bill. this is not something that republicans are trying to hold up or democrats are trying to jam through here. this is a bill that democrats and republicans believe is in the best interests of our country. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absenc

if they really need to do -- they can use the fisa law to get the warrant and go into people's libraries and have the phone lines. ialso, i wanted to add that as far as our representatives not following -- the people who voted nay on may deployment compensation -- they are committing violation of the oath of office under five u.s. code 7311. the people who are listening, congress has voted for these things or against these things, they really need to contact the office oce.house.gov and file an ethics complaint against the representatives so we can get the country back. we are the people. host: democrat from marco, eleanor. if you are interested in staff shakeup at the white house there is a new seating chart on the federal page of "the washington post" this morning a look at who sits where after recent staff changes. many of you heard the news that former msnbc anchor keith older men is going to al gore's current tv -- keith olbermann. current tv is in a small audience by that market standards. he had up to a million viewers per night in his prime time slot on msnbc. nbc universal owns

we are talking about two provision that is require the government to go before the fisa court to get permission to utilize those provisions in their investigation. the third part deals with the lone wolf definition. and the lone wolf requirement is needed now more than it was when it first passed. because of the difference in the threat to us that has been recognized by our intelligence agencies and by the 9/11 commissioners, and most recently, by secretary napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, the new majority in the house has told us that their decisions are guided by two principles, first, loyalty to the constitution. and second, a belief that the government is too large and too intrusive. well, here's their chance to act on those

looking at it differently from the context of thprobable cause context, but we are going before the fisa court. mr. rogers explained specifically that the need to take these same information of probable cause before a court and even if that phone is anged aftethe fact, we have to report back to the judge. about what has been done with that phone. the protections have been built in with what congress did. i was in the justice department when we came before you and you fixed these provisions. significantly. and lastly, i now chair a subcommittee on homeland security dealing with the issue of terrorism and the lone wolf provision. it was janet napolitano who talked about the changing nature of the threat and this being one of the most serious times since 9/11. mr. speaker, we must stand together and support those that are on the frontline with these commonsense changes that have already been put into the bill. we are not going over new territory here. what we are doing is allowing those on the frontline to use the tools before them to keep america safe. i urge support for this provision. th

the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance act court that deals with people conducting espionageare here maybe conducting terrorist operations. then you have the criminal court that we are familiar with. the standards for each court are the same. it is just the nature of what they investigate are different. what the patriot act says is if you are switching phones every five minutes that the government, if we have already proven to a judge that you are doing bad things with the phones, every time you switch we should be able to switch with you. that is what the patriot act does. host: here is the f.b.i. director talking about the patriot act provisions. >> last thing i would say as you and others have mentioned the threat increasingly is of lone wolfs, persons who are radicalized domestically and the tools up for reauthorization are essential for our ability to identify terroristses -- terrorists in general and lone wolves. guest: first, the patriot act is an issue that concerns many americans because they are concerned over the overreefing of the f.b.i. and others. there is the b

i live in a state where we paid one of fisa -- we get back one of the highest rates from our federal tax dollars paid. we have to pay for america. if we want to be afraid, if we want to let a few control our message, so be it. we must chinn. it belongs to all of us. if we have to pay more in taxes, so be it. if i have to pay for alabama schools, so be it. the drilling is nonsensical. we have to turn that corner. the states that say to drill are the same ones that need our tax dollars to help clean up the oil spills. we have to stop being divided. we have to help pay for the mess. this is ours. take ownership. if we have to pay for something that is good and decent, like education, -- when was the last time you heard my fellow americans -- heard "my fellow americans" from a politician? we need to stop fighting with each other. take a careful assessment of what we all can do and do it. please, be american and buy american. host: linda, thanks for the call. no state has a bigger budget problem that california, a $26 billion shortfall. there is this a headline in the "new york times" --

the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance act court that deals with people conducting espionage and foreigners who are here maybe conducting terrorist operations. then you have the criminal court that we are familiar with. the standards for each court are the same. it is just the nature of what they investigate are different. what the patriot act says is if you are switching phones every five minutes that the government, if we have already proven to a judge that you are doing bad things with the phones, every time you switch we should be able to switch with you. that is what the patriot act does. host: here is the f.b.i. director talking about the patriot act provisions. >> last thing i would say as you and others have mentioned the threat increasingly is of lone wolfs, persons who are radicalized domestically and the tools up for reauthorization are essential for our ability to identify terroristses -- terrorists in general and lone wolves. guest: first, the patriot act is an issue that concerns many americans because they are concerned over the overreefing of the f.b.i. and ot

high number of security to be defined by also specifically a note appreciation for colonel tester fisa within my jurisdiction and she has done a great job. let me publicly say i look forward to touring the cargo space you've been in fighting in the hope to be there shortly. but i want to follow up very quickly and now these are the quick question status report on the tsa repair station we been working on that repair station security a long time and if i can just get one or two updates. on the international front after yemen we rushed overseas to establish, and also the christmas day bomber incident, the last point of departure in foreign countries, and i'd like to know what we have done, what about our agreement on how we in congress can be helpful and what tools or resources to help you achieve passenger baggage and the security at the foreign airports and i know some of those are international agreements, but we need to know how we can ramp it up and move all labeth faster. i have always been concerned in making sure that america and the american federal government look like america

fisa a wide range of market indicators supports the view to the federal reserve security purchases have been effective at easing financial conditions. for a simple, since august when we now start the policy of reinvesting the securities and signaled that we were considering more purchases equity prices have risen significantly, volatility in the equity market has fallen a corporate bond spreads have narrowed and inflation compensation as measured in the market for inflation securities has risen from low to more normal levels. yields of five-to-10 treasury securities initially to point as the market's priced and prospective purchases. these subsequently rose as investors became more optimistic about economic growth and as the traders still lack their expectations of the future security purchases. all of these developments are what one would expect to see when will the republicans more accommodative. in a more conventional means. interestingly, these developments are also remarkably similar in the following months in the march 2005 announcement of significant expansion of the security pur

recent study recommending that the financial professionals who provide personalized interest matej fisa about securities adhere to the fiduciary standard of conduct no less stringent than those upon the investment advisers. and in the months ahead we will also be finalizing rules that will allow us to leverage the resources of whistle-blowers. after all, these individuals are often the closest to fraud and can be a source of information for our enforcement and inspection efforts. this is particularly important because we can't be everywhere tall times given our limited resources. of course, it is important that our new program coexist with the important role of internal compliance programs in fraud. but the rules should send a clear message to the whistle-blowers' that they play a critical role in protecting investors. indeed i believe once the commission clarifies the contour of the program we will see an even greater influx of the whistle-blower tips than we have already witnessed. all of these tasks, all of the confidence enhancing measures require resources. but unfortunately we hav

fisa a wide range of market indicators supports the view to the federal reserve security purchases have been effective at easing financial conditions. for a simple, since august when we now start the policy of reinvesting the securities and signaled that we were considering more purchases equity prices have risen significantly, volatility in the equity market has fallen a corporate bond spreads have narrowed and inflation compensation as measured in the market for inflation securities has risen from low to more normal levels. yields of five-to-10 treasury securities initially to point as the market's priced and prospective purchases. these subsequently rose as investors became more optimistic about economic growth and as the traders still lack their expectations of the future security purchases. all of these developments are what one would expect to see when will the republicans more accommodative. in a more conventional means. interestingly, these developments are also remarkably similar in the following months in the march 2005 announcement of significant expansion of the security pur

in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and even in 2008 that, look, there were some who wanted to do away with fisa once and the court system that and as the president said, it is important that we have a mechanism that watches the watchers. that is, in this instance, an important aspect of what the judicial branch does. >> i mean, you know, at some point did you allow scrutiny on this outside? >> again, the role in government to do that is through a very specialized set of developed courts in order to ensure that what is done meets the law. >> you -- [inaudible] >> again, you know, obviously this is, we -- there are important activities that need to be reauthorized. >> [inaudible] >> the president and first lady requested an absentee ballot. i don't know if that's been filled out, but i can put that on the list. >> on the unemployment proposal, are you at all concerned that this is going to be read as an increased tax on businesses at a time when the administration is working hard to mend this? >> no, this policy if enacted would prevent further federal tax increases, would help states make up for

were we capturing terrorists under fisa? it was rare that fisa ever turned down a warrant. but we just gave up. this is a big deal. john adams sthaid this was the spark that got the revolution going when james otis was talking about writs of assistance in the 1760's. the king was granting writs of assistance through his soldiers. now we have essentially government agents akin to soldiers writing warntdzs. it is rife for abuse. even the f.b.i. when they did their own internal investigation, they areviewed 1,000 f these national security letters and found that 10% of them were in error. the area thing for those who say, oh, this is just a subpoena, it's just your bank records, no big deal, should be wary of this: people have gone through the fisa court and been turned down under section 215 and not gotten a warrant and done an end-around and gotten national security letters. i think it is something so basic to our constitutional republic. i tell people on and on, i am a big defender of the second amendment of but you can't have the second amendment unless you defend the first