Dennis Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds authorized in H.R. 1 to be used for the missile defense program at the Department of Defense. The amendment does not cut overall defense spending but merely places a limitation on spending on the hapless and hopeless missile defense system. According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has spent over $150 billion on ballistic missile defense since 1985, and there is no working, reliable missile defense system to show for all that investment. H.R. 1 dedicates approximately $10 billion more for ballistic missile defense. Some have argued that such systems are necessary for national security. In fact, no missile defense system under development has ever passed an unrigged test. According to experts at CRS, the performance in wartime for our newest capabilities is unknown. In December of last year, our ground-based interceptors known as GMDs failed the test again, a test that cost $100 million. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United States ``is no closer today to being able to effectively defend against long- range ballistic missiles than it was 25 years ago.'' Missile defense systems are unproven and unworkable. They are worthless as national security. But even though we have never in 25 years created a missile defense system that worked, our misguided commitment to spending billions on this failed program is having a counterproductive effort with other countries. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have mistakenly argued and insisted that the ballistic missile defense system is solely for deterrence and protection against potential future threats. This argument contradicts logic. Missile defense concepts are perceived by both our foes and allies as defensive threats. If we increase our arsenal, we encourage other countries to increase theirs. I want to conclude by saying that when will Congress act appropriately in response to the record of failure in missile defense? Shouldn't we apply the same standard to missile defense as we apply to our schools and No Child Left Behind? If you can't pass the test, then you lose your funding. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Could I ask the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want my friend from Wisconsin to know that I don't denigrate his service on this. We have a different way of looking at this. I believe the Patriot Act represents the cracked domestic crown jewel of a disastrous global war on terror which led us to attack Iraq based on lies, invade Afghanistan based on a misreading of history, indulge in occupations which having fueled insurgencies, expand war to Pakistan and other countries, demonstrating a total lack of common sense. So the Patriot Act issues from a pestiferous soil laced with lies and distortions. We've created a national security state which threatens our Constitution and weakens our basic liberties. This is not about whether you're Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, but whether we can actually realize that we have been sold a bill of goods, lies about WMDs, and questions about the nature of an anthrax attack, which caused us all too willingly to limit our civil liberties. I joined other Members of Congress in approving the United States in its launching of attacks on the training camps after 9/11 because we have a right to respond and defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend the Constitution. We have an obligation to defend the truth. Freedom isn't free, and we shouldn't freely give our freedoms away. Francis Scott Key wrote the Star-Spangled Banner. Remember these words: ``O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?'' He connected freedom and democracy. We have to be courageous to stand up for this Constitution. I believe my colleagues on the Republican side are courageous Americans and are good Americans, but I want to say we have to look at the context in which the Patriot Act was passed, and we have to, from that context, challenge the Patriot Act.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on this day when around the world we celebrate the transformative power of love, it is also appropriate for us to think about a world as one, that the world, in fact, is interdependent, interconnected; and if we can have this realization of the power of love, then we can also have a realization of the power of peace. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is an active presence of an understanding of the capacity that we have to relate to each other in a way which is not only nonviolent but which is loving. So on this day when we think about love, let us also think about peace. Let us think about peaceful relations at home and peaceful relations with people around the world.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I think it is fair for us to debate this. I think we have to just be cautious about how far we draw conclusions about the motivations of each other in taking the positions that we do.

Mr. KUCINICH. It is difficult to debate an issue of such importance and have very good friends who are taking an opposite position. But I think that, in this case, we have to look very squarely at the literal reading of the Constitution. The First and Fourth Amendment literal reading makes it very clear that the Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of constitutional principles. There are extraordinary powers being given by the government, and it contravenes not just principles of the Constitution but our own oath to defend the Constitution. I want to speak to the provisions that are set for reauthorization here. Two of the provisions are contained in the Patriot Act, legislation that I opposed when it first came up because I believed that it was over-infringement on basic civil liberties, including freedom of speech. The first one, section 206, known as the John Doe wiretap, allows the FBI to obtain an order from the FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or their device, and I challenged the constitutionality because I believe this provision severely undermines the Fourth Amendment, which requires warrants to describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. This provision of the Patriot Act requires neither the target nor device to be identified. The second provision, section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the business records provision, allows the FBI to order any person or business to turn over any tangible things, as long as it specifies it is for an authorized investigation. Orders executed under section 215 constitute a serious challenge to the Fourth and First Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library records or medical records. The third provision, section 6001, known as the lone wolf surveillance provision, is contained in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that authorized the government to conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected with foreign power or terrorist groups, but effectively allows the government to circumvent the standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would hope that my good friend from California, in his very passionate defense of the Patriot Act, did not mean to imply that the distinguished Mr. Conyers in some way would suborn terrorism, because he chooses to point out that the standards that are required to obtain electronic surveillance orders from criminal courts are really being circumvented under section 601.

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to first thank the ranking member, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the amicable manner of comity that you have extended here. It is very much appreciated. I also want to say, as I have listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak in defense of this, I am aware that you love this country, that you want America to be safe, and you want America to continue to be free. And the great thing about this Congress is that we have different ways of viewing how we can go about that. But I have great respect for each of the speakers who has come forward. I want to say that since Congress first passed the Patriot Act in 2001 that we have been continually challenged on this question of our constitutional duties to act as a coequal branch of government and that it is my belief that we have failed to conduct checks and balances over government power. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in that regard and that we have failed to conduct robust and effective oversight. And in connection with the gentleman from Wisconsin, some of the remarks that you have made about what we needed to do, I think you have made some good points on that. I also think that we have a responsibility here to protect the American people from overt infringements on their most basic civil liberties, and I see this continuing extension as being a challenge to that. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 514. Since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we have continually abdicated our constitutional duties to act as a co-equal branch of government by failing to conduct checks and balances over government power, failing to conduct robust and effective oversight, and ultimately, failing to protect the American people from overt infringements on their most basic civil liberties by continuing to extend these provisions without any meaningful reforms. These three provisions were passed in the wake of 9/11, and given sunsets in recognition of their far reaching and unprecedented powers that effectively allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance and demand material from people not connected to any terrorism investigation, including librarians and peace groups. Yet they have been extended Congress after Congress without any reform. Perhaps even more troubling is that we are extending these provisions through the end of the year without addressing the PATRIOT Act as a whole. In a 2007 article by the Washington Post, then Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assistant director stated that he is ``not even sure such an example exists'' that would demonstrate how expanded surveillance has made a difference in our national security. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the type of information the government could request from targets, while at the same time, lowering the standard required to obtain an order to request private records from targets. This means that the government can obtain orders for private records or items from people who are not connected to any investigation, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Orders executed under this provision constitute a serious violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library or medical records. National Security Letters (NSLs), which can be issued under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, allow the government to obtain private information from telecommunication companies, internet and email, and health care providers without judicial warrants or oversight. They can be issued to people who have not been accused of any wrongdoing and are often accompanied by gag orders. According to an article in the Washington Post from 2005, NSLs ``do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress.'' The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution requires prior judicial review and allows warrants to be issued only with probable cause. The government has used NSLs to demand records of patrons from librarians across the country. A decision by a federal district court rules in 2006 that the gag order enforced on librarians in Connecticut violated the First Amendment, forcing the government to withdraw the gag order and its demand for patron records. Despite a successful challenge to the unconstitutionality of the original PATRIOT Act's gag order provisions by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 5% of all NSLs issued by the FBI in 2006 contained ``insufficient explanation to justify imposition of these obligations,'' according to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. The ability to demand records from Americans absent judicial review and probable cause are certain to quell free speech and freedom of association--rights protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. The ``material support'' statute, also contained in the PATRIOT Act, criminalized the act of providing ``material support'' to any foreign organization designated as terrorist by the Secretary of State. ``Material support'' is defined so broadly that it can refer to almost any kind of support, including support that does not further terrorism. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Court ruled in 2000 that criminal bans on ``providing `personnel' and `training' to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the government are unconstitutionally vague and could criminalize free speech as protected by the First Amendment,'' to include human rights advocacy training, humanitarian aid in conflict zones, or even writing an op-ed. A number of the cases brought forth by the government using this statute have been dismissed or ended in mistrial. According to the ACLU, the material support provisions ``impermissibly criminalize a broad range of First Amendment-protected activity, both as a result of their sweeping, vague terms and because they do not require the government to show that a defendant intends to support the criminal activity of a foreign terrorist organization.'' Despite years of documentation by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and respected human rights organizations of abuse by the government of these provisions, we have failed to hold agencies accountable for abusing the far reaching powers allowed under the PATRIOT Act. As Members of Congress, we are sworn to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution. We have a responsibility to exercise our oversight powers fully, and significantly reform the PATRIOT Act to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2007] FBI Audit Prompts Calls for Reform--Some Lawmakers Suggest Limits On Patriot Act (By Dan Eggen and John Solomon) Lawmakers from both parties yesterday called for limits on antiterrorism laws in response to a Justice Department report that the FBI improperly obtained telephone logs, banking records and other personal information on thousands of Americans. The audit by the department's inspector general detailed widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to seize personal details about tens of thousands of people without court oversight through the use of national security letters. It also found that the FBI had hatched an agreement with telephone companies allowing the agency to ask for information on more than 3,000 phone numbers--often without a subpoena, without an emergency or even without an investigative case. In 2006, the FBI then issued blanket letters authorizing many of the requests retroactively, according to agency officials and congressional aides briefed on the effort. The disclosures prompted a public apology from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and promises of reform from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was the focus of a new tide of criticism from Democrats and Republicans already angry about his handling of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. ``I am the person responsible,'' Mueller said in a hastily scheduled news conference. ``I am the person accountable, and I am committed to ensuring that we correct these deficiencies and live up to these responsibilities.'' Democrats and Republicans alike said Gonzales, Mueller and the Bush administration did not properly monitor the FBI and guard the privacy rights of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The report came at the end of a difficult political week for the Bush administration, after the conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case and damaging allegations by fired federal prosecutors. Top lawmakers raised the possibility that Congress would seek to curb the Justice Department's powers, most likely by placing restrictions on the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law. ``This goes above and beyond almost everything they've done already,'' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among a host of Democrats promising investigative hearings. ``It shows just how this administration has no respect for checks and balances.'' Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, told reporters that Congress may ``impose statutory requirements and perhaps take away some of the authority which we've already given to the FBI, since they appear not to be able to know how to use it.'' Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who has been pressing for a review of national security letters since 2005, said the report ``confirms the American people's worst fears about the Patriot Act.'' A national security letter is a type of administrative subpoena that allows the FBI to demand records from banks, credit-reporting agencies and other companies without the supervision of a judge. The Patriot Act significantly expanded the FBI's ability to use them, and a reauthorization of the law last year required the audit that was issued yesterday. The findings by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were so at odds with previous assertions by the Bush administration that Capitol Hill was peppered yesterday with retraction letters from the Justice Department attempting to correct statements in earlier testimony and briefings. Gonzales and other officials had repeatedly portrayed national security letters as a well-regulated tool necessary for the prevention of terrorist attacks. One such retraction letter, sent to Specter by Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Hertling, sought to correct a 2005 letter that attacked a Washington Post story about national security letters. ``We have determined that certain statements in our November 23 letter need clarification,'' Hertling wrote. Fine's 199-page unclassified report found that the FBI's records showed it issued more than 143,000 requests for information on more than 52,000 people through national security letters from 2003 to 2005. But not only did the agency understate that number in required reports to Congress, the number of requests it issued was much higher. Nearly half the people targeted were U.S. citizens or legal residents, and the proportion of such ``U.S. persons'' increased over the three-year period, the report said. In examining a small sample of security letters issued by four FBI offices, Fine discovered that the letters were improperly issued about 16 percent of the time. In the sample of 293 letters, the FBI had identified 26 potential violations but missed 22 others, the report said. The report also details how, after obtaining sweeping new anti-terrorism powers under the Patriot Act in late 2001, the FBI did not establish basic training and record-keeping procedures to ensure that civil liberties were protected. That kept the agency from giving Congress accurate numbers on how often it used national security letters, the investigation found. ``During the time period covered by this review, the FBI had no policy or directive requiring the retention of signed copies of the national security letters or any requirement to upload national security letters to the FBI's case management system,'' the report said. The findings are reminiscent of those in previous reports, including many by Fine's office, that have detailed the FBI's chronic inability to keep track of items ranging from guns to laptops to documents related to the Oklahoma City bombing case. Fine determined that the latest violations were not deliberate but that they could be widespread. Gonzales described the problems as unacceptable and left open the possibility of criminal charges. He ordered further investigation. ``Once we get that information, we'll be in a better position to assess what kinds of steps should be taken,'' Gonzales said after a speech to privacy officials. ``There is no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are going to make things right as quickly as possible.'' At the same time, Gonzales stressed that he thinks ``the kinds of errors we saw here were due to questionable judgment or lack of attention, not intentional wrongdoing.'' Mueller said that ``the number of abuses is exceptionally small'' compared with the broad use of national security letters and that ``no one has been damaged'' by the errors. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued the government over its use of national security letters, said the report shows the need for an independent investigation of the Justice Department's antiterrorism tactics. ``It confirms our greatest suspicions about the abuse of Patriot Act powers and, specifically, national security letter powers,'' Romero said. Aside from the findings about national security letters, the report details for the first time a separate kind of emergency letter used in ``exigent circumstances,'' modeled on letters used by New York FBI agents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The 739 emergency letters were issued as part of an agreement with three unidentified telephone companies and requested information with the promise of subpoenas, which rarely materialized, the report said. Mueller indicated that ``we stopped the use of these letters'' in May 2006. An FBI official later clarified those comments, saying emergency letters are still used but now promise a national security letter rather than a subpoena sometime in the future. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2007] Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On--Records Collection Brought Internal Questions but Little Scrutiny (By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon) FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department officials and documents. FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did not closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials acknowledged. They also did not understand the scope of the problem until the Justice Department launched an investigation, FBI officials said. Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism agents last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the information the bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI headquarters official-- whom the bureau declined to name--signed these ``national security letters'' without including the required proof that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations, an FBI official said. The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for records, called ``exigent circumstance'' letters, which contained false or undocumented claims. They also included national security letters that were issued without FBI rules being followed. Both types of request were served on three phone companies. Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: ``It is . . . difficult to imagine why there should not have been swift and severe consequences for anyone who knowingly signed . . . a letter containing false statements. Anyone at the FBI who knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an obligation to put a stop to it and report it immediately.'' A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the exigency letters ``circumvented'' the law that governs the FBI's access to personal information about U.S. residents. The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. There is no basis in the law to compel phone companies to turn over information using such letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents never followed up with the promised subpoenas, he said. But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security letters last year. Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a news conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took responsibility for the lapses. Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act. In a letter to Fine that was released along with the March 9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's agents had used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters. Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this month, although he defended their value and denied that the agency had intentionally violated the law. Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they involved procedural and documentation failures, not intentional misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide audit, which began Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of exigency letters went beyond one headquarters unit. ``We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner, corrections had been made and the process was more transparent,'' FBI Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday. Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain records related to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials acknowledged that the process was so flawed that they may have to destroy some phone records to keep them from being used in the future, if the bureau does not find proof they were gathered in connection with an authorized investigation. Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters Friday. Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort to block some of its data requests, said that if the bureau cannot prove a link between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its requests were ``a total fishing expedition.'' The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the matter, would speak for the agency. Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters and why the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice. Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee copies of all FBI e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as transcripts of the interviews Fine conducted on the issue. The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends to question Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni. FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue were drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which comprises about a dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records and other communications for counterterrorism investigators. They sent the secret requests to three companies--AT&T, Verizon and a third firm whose identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of supplying such records almost instantaneously in a form that its agents can readily examine, according to the report and the senior FBI official. In each letter, the FBI asserted that ``due to exigent circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be provided.'' The bureau promised in most of the letters that subpoenas for the same information ``have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally.'' But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters were ``not sent in exigent circumstances'' and that ``there sometimes were no open or pending national security investigations tied to the request,'' contrary to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had actually been requested before the letters were sent. The phone companies nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, FBI officials said. The use of such letters was virtually ``uncontrolled,'' said an FBI official who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU agents had begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had collected for a year or more that were not covered by the appropriate documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials. A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis, who would not confirm nor deny the existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said that ``every day Verizon subpoena units respond to emergency requests from federal, state and local law enforcement for particular calling records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI emergency requests in terrorist matters, and we had every reason to believe they were legitimate emergency situations.'' The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency letters was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York office used to obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist bombings. When officials from that office were later reassigned to create the CAU in Washington, the senior FBI official said, ``they brought their business practices with them'' and continued to use the same letter ``for reasons that I cannot explain.'' But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests, and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the promised legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so speedily, and in many cases ignored the request altogether. ``In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do the paperwork is reduced,'' the senior FBI official said. When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications were frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents to ``change their process,'' the senior official said. ``Our advice was instead to . . . use these letters only in true emergencies'' and institute ``covering practices.'' These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to provide legal backing for the demand. Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the tardy legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in early 2005, according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn. ``He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that to his chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no action,'' Kohn said, adding that ``their initial response was to deny the scope of the problem.'' Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a promotion because of discrimination based on his ethnicity. Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-around: Its lawyers proposed creating special, catch-all investigative files that could be used to authorize quick phone-records seizures that did not involve open field investigations. But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine emergency requests for the records ``were few and far between,'' according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by The Washington Post, and the idea was never implemented. The account referred to efforts by one of the bureau's top lawyers to brief ``higher ups'' in the agency about the problem. ``At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters'' still in use, the senior official said. ``We believed the problem had resolved itself . . . in retrospect, it never got resolved.'' One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office did not review until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent to the phone companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were unaware that some of the letters contained false statements about forthcoming subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said. Bureau officials ultimately decided to ``clean up'' the problem by writing seven national security letters designed to provide legal backing for all the telephone records requests that still needed it, the senior FBI official said. In every case, these requests in 2006 covered records already in the FBI's possession and lacked the required cover memos spelling out the investigative requirements for the requests. At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit attempt to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been used, with the result that Mueller and others in senior management did not learn about the scope of the problem until two months ago, when Fine informed them, the senior official said.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of Bill Portman, the father of our fellow colleague Senator Rob Portman. Bill was a loving father who taught his son the value of hard work and devotion to his community. Bill exemplified the American dream. He founded his own business, Portman Equipment Company. Through his hard work he was able to turn his business into a successful enterprise, one that eventually employed over 300 people in the Cincinnati community. Throughout this venture, his son, Rob was working right beside him, learning the virtue of hard work through his father. On top of being a successful businessman, he was also a loving and caring father. In fact, he always put his family first. He strove to teach his children the values that allowed him to be so successful. He made sure to pass on these values and educate his children on the importance of honesty, integrity, faith, respect for others and community service. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembrance Bill Portman. His achievements and legacy will forever be remembered. I extend my sincerest condolences to our colleague Rob Portman and the entire Portman family as they mourn the loss of this extraordinary and loving individual.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Any review of our regulatory structures or the orders that are issued therefrom must weigh the cost of regulations against their benefits. Everyone who makes or installs air bags in cars, smoke detectors in office buildings, HVAC units in businesses and homes and tamper-proof packaging for food and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few, has a job, thanks to regulation. And when we don't have adequate regulations, bad things happen. We don't have to look that far. Look at our financial crisis. Look at the recession. A financial disaster was created by a lack of regulation and by erroneously relying on the narrow self-interests of corporate management to protect their own businesses, let alone the common good. And this is according to Alan Greenspan, because Mr. Greenspan told our Oversight Committee a few years ago, ``I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.'' Last year, the Office of Management and Budget performed a cost- benefit analysis of Federal regulations, which showed that the benefits of regulations far outweigh their costs. Between 1999 and 2009, the estimated cost of regulations were between $43 billion and $55 billion, while the estimated economic benefits were between $128 billion and $616 billion. That means during that 10-year period the cost-to-benefit ratio of regulations was one-to-two, based on OMB's lowest estimations, and one- to-fourteen based on OMB's highest estimations. So as we go into this great adventure about all of these regulations, we must look at the benefits of regulations--the economic benefits, the social benefits, the health benefits--if we're to come up with an accurate picture of the role of regulations in our society.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to get back to first principles here. The First Amendment, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' This Patriot Act represents a wholesale abandonment of the right to assemble peaceably, of the right of freedom of association. This Patriot Act is a square violation of the Fourth Amendment, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Now, I can trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are decent people. This isn't about Democrat versus Republican. It's not about a Democratic President. It's not about if there was a Republican President or if we will have one in the future. This is about something actually much more important than all of us and then whoever might be an executive. It's about the Constitution of the United States. Congress made a mistake when it passed the Patriot Act. Instead of sunsetting it and being done with it, we kept the provisions going. Some of them were made permanent. This law today, we seek to reauthorize certain sections of the Patriot Act. What I maintain is that what we have here is a destructive undermining of constitutional principles. We can't just say, well, let's trust our friends to do the right thing. This is about the Constitution. This is beyond friendship. This is beyond party. This is beyond who is the President. So I disagree with President Obama on this. It's interesting. At this very moment that our President is on television celebrating the tremendous movement towards the free will of the people of Egypt who have suffered real repression and suppression of their basic liberties, we can celebrate something happening thousands of miles away, but it would be much better for America if we celebrated our Constitution. What we have done with the Patriot Act, we have given the government enormous power. We have given the government the authority to reach deeply into people's private lives, into their business affairs without a court order. We need to think about that. Some people say they don't want government involved in certain things. Well, government is involved in a way that is devastating when you come to the devastation of constitutional principles, you give the FBI the ability to reach into people's private lives without a court order. I'm telling you, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, this is a very dangerous thing that we're doing here. Stand up for the Constitution. [From the New York Times, Jan. 9, 2011] Twitter Shines a Spotlight on Secret F.B.I. Subpoenas (By Noam Cohen) The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks easel including its founder, Julian Assange, isn't noteworthy because the government's request was unusual or intrusive. It is noteworthy because it became public. Even as Web sites, social networking services and telephone companies amass more and more information about their users, the government--in the course of conducting inquiries--has been able to looke through much of the information without the knowledge of the people being investigated. For the Twitter request, the government obtained a secret subpoena from a federal court. Twitter challenged the secrecy, not the subpoena itself, and won the right to inform the people whose records the government was seeking. WikiLeaks says it suspects that other large sites like Google and Facebook have received similar requests and simply went along with the government. This kind of order is far more common than one may think, and in the case of terrorism and espionage investigations the government can issue them without a court order. The government says more than 50,000 of these requests, known as national security letters, are sent each year, but they come with gag orders that prevent those contacted from revealing what the agency has been seeking or even the existence of the gag orders. ``It's a perfect example of how the government can use its broad powers to silence people,'' said Nicholas Merrill, who was the first person to file a constitutional challenge against the use of national security letters, authorized by the USA Patriot Act. Until August, he was forbidden to acknowledge the existence of a 2004 letter that the company he founded, the Calyx Internet Access Corporation, received from the F.B.I. Mr. Merrill is now free to speak about the request, but part of the gag order remains in place, and he is still barred from discussing what information he had been asked to provide. As a result, he said, before he gives a talk he consults a six-page guide prepared by his lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union to be sure that he complies with the order to avoid risking a punishment of five years in prison. The government cites national security as the reason the contents of the letters--even their existence--are kept secret. The F.B.I. is trying to prevent plots as they are being hatched, according to Valerie Caproni, the general counsel of the agency, and thus needs stealth. In the case of a small Internet service provider like Calyx, which was located in downtown Manhattan and had hundreds of customers, even mentioning that the F.B.I. had been sniffing around could harm an investigation, she said, especially if ``the target is antsy anyway.'' Mr. Merrill, a 38-year-old from Brooklyn who studied computer science and philosophy, said he created Calyx in 1994 when it was ``really pretty easy, there wasn't really any competition.'' His clients included ``dozens of nonprofit organizations and alternative media outlets.'' Mr. Merrill challenged the constitutionality of the letter he received in 2004, saying the request raised ``red flags'' of being politically motivated. As a result of his suit and two later ones, the law governing the letters has been overturned and then revised by Congress. In 2007, the F.B.I.'s inspector general found that the agency had abused its own guidelines by including too many peripheral people in its searches. The letters now receive the ``individualized scrutiny'' of the agents who are filing them, Ms. Caproni said. All sides agree that it has become significantly easier to challenge the letters' requests as well as their secrecy. At the moment, there are no new challenges in the court system, the government and the A.C.L.U. say. The program, whose use has ``ticked up'' a bit in recent years, Ms. Caproni said, is humming along. She added, however, that the government had become more selective about the types of companies to which it sent letters. ``All other things being the same, one of the things investigators think about is, `Who are we serving this? Are they comfortable with this?' '' she said. ``Most of these N.S.L.'s are filed on large companies. Why would they want to disclose that? Most companies view it as good corporate citizenry.'' One critic of the law, former Senator Russ Feingold, said in a statement that it was long past time for Congress ``to rein in the use of national security letters.'' ``This is not a partisan issue,'' Mr. Feingold said, ``it is about the legislative branch providing an adequate check on the executive branch. Republicans advocating limited government should take a close look at these statutes and consider supporting changes.'' Mr. Merrill argues that the blanket gag orders have prevented a full public debate on the subject. He himself largely left the I.S.P. business in 2004, independent of his legal case, and only now has returned to hosting a couple of clients as part of a nonprofit project, the Calyx Institute, which aims to study how to protect consumers' privacy. Regarding the news about Twitter, he wrote in an e-mail: ``I commend Twitter's policy of notifying their customers of government requests for their private data and for their challenging and subsequently removing the gag order. This is a great example of the government's misuse of secrecy provisions and of exemplary privacy ethics on behalf of Twitter.'' Ms. Caproni, who has testified before Congress about the program, said that it had been more than amply debated. ``People at the A.C.L.U. and the press'' think the letters are ``a bigger deal than the companies.'' To one of Mr. Merrill's A.C.L.U. lawyers, Jameel Jaffer, the smooth operation of the system is a sign that it is not working. The privacy rights at stake are not those of the companies who hold the information, Mr. Jaffer said, but ``about people whose records are held.'' And those people should be told, he said. ``People used to be the custodians of their own records, their own diaries. Now third parties are custodians of all that,'' he said. ``Everything you do online is entrusted to someone else--unless you want to go completely off the grid, and I'm not even sure that is possible.''

Mr. KUCINICH. When we look at section 206, which allows the FBI to obtain an order from FISA to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or device; when we look at section 6001, which authorizes the government to conduct investigations of non-U.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 criminal 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 would repeal the whole thing. November 3, 2009. Hon. John Conyers, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Conyers: I applaud you for your leadership on reconsideration of various provisions of the Patriot Amendments Act and FISA Amendments Act of 2009. These bills provide a number of significant reforms that are important steps toward restoring Congressional oversight of government surveillance and civil liberties protections. I urge you to protect the Constitutional rights and the civil liberties of all Americans by ensuring that the legislation includes the following essential reforms: Enact stringent requirements for obtaining ``Roving Wiretaps'': Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act, known as the ``John Doe wiretap'' currently allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to wiretap a target without having to specify the target or the device. Any reauthorization must include reforms that require the FBI to identify the device(s) to be wiretapped and to provide evidence that the person they are targeting is ``an agent of a foreign power'' and is using the device prior to wiretapping the device(s). ``Lone Wolf'' surveillance provision must not be reauthorized: Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorizes the government to conduct investigations of non-U.S. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group. The government has never had to use this provision. The likelihood of someone acting alone while engaging in international terrorism is highly unlikely. This provision must not be reauthorized. Repeal blanket authorities in Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act: Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, known as the ``Business Records'' provision, allows the FBI to order any entity (person or business) to turn over ``any tangible things'' as long as it specifies it is for ``an authorized investigation.'' Section 215 orders constitute a serious violation of Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights`` by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights such as library records and medical records. Authorization that allows the FBI to demand information from or about innocent Americans who are not a target of an investigation or who are not ``agents of a foreign power'' must be repealed. Reform National Security Letter (NSL) Issuance: The Justice Department's Inspector General has found that upwards of 50,000 NSLs are issued every year, many against innocent people two and three times removed from a terror suspect. The Department of Justice Inspector General report in 2008 on the FBI's use of NSLs stated that 57 percent of all NSLs were issued to gather information on Americans. Judicial review must be reinstated and any legislation that includes this powerful tool that can collect communication, financial and credit information must only be used against suspected terrorists. Reform NSL Gag Orders: NSLs come with a draconian gag order that is almost impossible to fight in court because they simply are not allowed to communicate about it. If the government certifies to a judge that national security would be harmed without a gag on the recipient of an NSL, the court must find that certification conclusive. This bill must force the government to justify a gag order to a judge and permit that judge to engage in long standing First amendment analysis before ruling. Reform Material Support Statute: The government has used the material support statute of the USA PATRIOT Act to criminalize humanitarian aid by penalizing individuals or groups that provide aid to communities in conflict zones. Inside these zones, groups that are often included on the Treasury's Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list control schools, refugee camps and hospitals. The statute as currently written does not require the government to prove the individual or group accused of supporting an FTO had any specific intention of directing aid to the FTO. This statute must be reformed by requiring the government to provide ``specific and articulable'' facts that make the case that there was a specific intention to direct aid to an FTO. Repeal de-facto immunity to telecomm companies for illegal spying: The FISA Amendments Act of 2009 repeals de-facto immunity afforded to telecommunication companies that spy on Americans as allowed by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The government and telecommunication companies must be held accountable for violating privacy and First Amendment rights of Americans. This year's reauthorization must ensure that immunity for telecommunication companies is repealed. Enact a ban on ``bulk collection'' under FISA: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 allowed the dragnet collection of all international phone calls and emails of U.S. residents without warrants or even suspicion. We must ensure that the surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad does not infringe the civil liberties and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. Any language regarding surveillance of international phone calls and emails of U.S. residents must ensure that the government is required to provide evidence that the targeted communication pertains to a foreign power. Thank you for consideration of these legislative benchmarks. I and my staff stand ready to work with you in your efforts to restore Constitutional protections and civil liberties to the American people. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich, Member of Congress.

Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman makes a point; and that is, if you are under a gag order, how are we supposed to know if there are any abuses? Hello. What Mr. Gohmert said a moment ago, I want to associate myself with much of his remarks. And I have here, to submit for the Record, correspondence that I submitted on November 3, 2009, asking for review of the provisions of the Patriot Act that actually we are looking at today. We create government to secure our rights, not to give them away. The Patriot Act represents giving away rights, not securing them. It's said, well, it hasn't been adjudicated. The laws that we make derive from our constitutional authority, and that's not just a matter of political will but it's about moral reasoning. And when we look at section 215, which lets the government obtain orders for private records or items from people who are not connected to any investigation----

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I report the passing of one of Cleveland's most important promoters of the local and live music scene, Martin Juredine, co-owner of the Barking Spider Tavern on the campus of Case Western Reserve University. Martin died on February 1, 2011, after a long illness. Martin founded the Barking Spider with partner Bruce Madorsky in 1986. The Spider is tucked away along the footpath between Juniper and Bellflower Avenues in an old coach house. Always an art lover and appreciator of music and musicians, the idea behind the Spider was to have a place for people to meet for drinks and to play and hear live music. His vision was fulfilled. Upon opening the Spider in 1986, Martin provided a venue for live music without a cover charge on Sundays and Tuesdays. By 1991, the Barking Spider boasted live music 7 nights a week and sometimes during the day on weekends, never charging a cover, but always passing around the jar so the musicians got paid. A recently created memorial Facebook page already boasts hundreds of friends writing tributes, many of them musicians who got their start at the Barking Spider. All had the opportunity, through Martin's vision and inspiration, of getting up on a friendly stage while reaching for the stars. Others were simply looking for a place to hear music and found like-minded souls. All found warmth in Martin's smile, a warm room in which to get together, and in warm weather, a fantastic patio in the heart of University Circle. Martin Juredine grew up in Cleveland Heights, played football with the Heights Tigers, and went on to Colgate University. He traveled the world with his then-wife Nancy. While on the road, they started their family. They returned to Cleveland to raise their daughters Shisha and Jenna. Martin worked a variety of jobs, including milkman and railroader. But in 1986, he realized his dream when he opened the Barking Spider. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in mourning the loss of Martin Juredine. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his daughters Jenna and Shisha Adorjan, his granddaughter Aiyanna Adorjan, his son-in-law Ricky Adorjan, his ex-wife Nancy, his brother David, his sister-in-law Carol and nephews Adam and Jason.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Victor J. Labutta and in recognition of his devotion to family, community and country. Victor was born in Collier, Pennsylvania. He attended both the California University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh, where he earned a master's degree in school administration. He entered the armed forces and fought on the sands of Iwo Jima. He was honored for his service during World War II in 1995 by the Joint Veteran's Commission of Cuyahoga County. After returning from the war, he took up teaching back home in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. In 1956, he moved to Parma, Ohio, where he would spend the rest of his life teaching and assisting the community. He taught shop class at Pleasant Valley Junior High, Hillside Junior High and at Parma Senior High. He was known to his students as Mr. La-Bow-Tie, for the trademark bow tie he wore to class every day. Victor also served on Parma's City Council for 16 years. He assisted his community by securing tax abatements for General Motors, a major employer in his district. He also fed the livelihood of the community by supporting housing integration in his city. Furthermore, Tim Dobeck, a colleague of his, commented that Victor ``took every new councilman under his wing.'' Mr. Labutta was not only a leader in his community, he was also an active member among his neighbors. He was a member of the Parma American-Slovak Club for over 30 years. Victor was a devoted catholic and one of Kildare Catholic Church's founding members. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Victor Labutta, whose legacy of dedication to family, city and country serve as an example. I extend my sincere condolences to Victor's wife, Mary Ann Steiger; his three sons; his daughter; ten grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Amanda Ros, the mother of our colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Amanda was a proud mother, who taught her daughter Ileana to live life to the fullest. Amanda was known for her loving personality and her positive outlook on life. Ileana has said that her mother was the glue that held her family together and that she always placed Ileana and her brother in the center of her universe. Amanda was a devoted and faithful wife. She was married to her husband, Enrique Ros, for 65 years, overcoming the naysayers that said a marriage between a Catholic man and Jewish woman could not last. In fact, Enrique held his wife in the highest esteem and has stated that she was always able to bring out the best in him. Amanda's life was also marked by her devotion to freedom and democracy. Throughout her life she strove with her husband to bring freedom, democracy and liberty to Cuba. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembering Amanda Ros, whose legacy as a loving mother and wife, and firm believer in freedom and liberty will continue to benefit others well into the future. I extend my sincerest condolences to our colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, her brother, her father Enrique Ros and Amanda's four grandchildren.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the promise of peace in our society begins with our own personal commitment to living a life of nonviolence--by rejecting our nation's reliance on weapons and war, and by making a commitment to more peaceful methods of conflict resolution. During the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race, a homemaker named Dagmar Wilson picked up the telephone and organized a group of over 50,000 women across the country for a one-day demonstration calling on President Kennedy to end the arms race. Demonstrations were held in 60 cities across the country. Through the simple use of person-to-person communication, Wilson and her allies created a movement for nonproliferation at a time when the nation most needed it. She later went on to co-found Women Strike for Peace, a group with around 500,000 members. Mrs. Wilson died earlier this week, but her legacy of grass roots organizing for peace remains. As the cosponsor of legislation to establish a cabinet-level Department of Peace, I believe that government has a role in addressing violence and lessening its impact on our lives. Let us all act as Mrs. Wilson did and reach out to our family and friends and organize for peace.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of one of our most esteemed colleagues, Congressman Tom Lantos, on the anniversary of his 83rd birthday on February 1, 2011. In 1980, Tom was elected to the House of Representatives, the first and only Holocaust survivor to serve in the United States Congress. He was a staunch supporter of an enlightened foreign policy and human rights. Tom served as Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and was a co-founder of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The work he began and his legacy live on today through the great work of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice. Three years ago, we lost a trusted colleague and very good friend. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in remembrance of our honorable and esteemed friend. He humbly served the country in this chamber for more than 25 years. It has been three years since we lost Tom and he is greatly missed by his colleagues, friends, family and the countless lives his work has touched.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Vietnamese New Year: Tet, 2011, Year of the Cat. As the Vietnamese community in Greater Cleveland gathers to celebrate, I join them in honoring their rich history and culture. Tet is the time of the year to pay homage to ancestors, reconnect with friends and family and celebrate every hope and possibility rising with the new year. This year's gathering will once again honor community volunteers and leaders, showcasing many Vietnamese cultural treasures including Vietnamese culinary cuisine, music and dance. 2011 also marks thirty-six years of service to the community by the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc. This organization has been an invaluable resource for hundreds of Clevelanders of Vietnamese descent, linking them to needed resources and preserving the rich heritage of the Vietnamese people. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize Le Nguyen, President of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Cleveland, Inc., and every member, past and present, for their dedication to Vietnamese- Americans of Northeast Ohio. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in celebration of the Vietnamese New Year, Tet 2011: Year of the Cat. May every American of Vietnamese heritage hold memories of their past forever in their hearts, and find peace and happiness within every new day of the rising new year.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. You need to look more carefully at the YouCut program. You know, the U.S. can't withdraw from the world, nor can we be the policemen of the world; but we can protect the people who work at the U.N. in New York. Is this a YouCut for sovereignty? Will you seek to cut funds for the WTO which doesn't allow Buy America? Let's talk real sovereignty. Will you withdraw from China trade? No. Will you withdraw from NAFTA and GATT? No. Reduce the power of the Fed? No. Let's talk real savings. Will you cut funds from the Pentagon? No. Will you cut money for the war in Iraq? No. Will you cut funds for the war in Afghanistan? No. Will you cut money for U.S. bases around the world? No. But you are going to cut funds for the New York City Police to protect citizens. When you do that, you cut off your nose to spite your face. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 359, which would repeal the presidential public funding system. Thanks to Wall Street, unemployment is nominally at 9.4 percent but in actuality is much higher and foreclosures continue to defy efforts to get them under control. Thousands die from no or inadequate access to medical care every year because the health insurance companies have given rise to one of the most expensive, least accessible, and lowest quality health care systems in the developed world. Defense companies profit handsomely off of two major wars, one of which is still expanding almost 10 years on. Fossil fuel companies continue to alter the planet at a pace that has been declared not only a major environmental and economic issue, but also a national security issue. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``in 2007, the top 5 percent of wealth owners accounted for about 60 percent of all wealth accumulated by households.'' These are also industries who happen to contribute mightily to campaigns of both parties. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that special interests spent $281.6 million during the 2010 election cycle. These industries are not contributing out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their large investments pay dividends. It is the cost of doing business. This is not a situation in which it is a good idea to give the wealthy more influence over the public's governance. But H.R. 359 will do that. By reducing the opt-in, voluntary contribution to presidential campaigns, this Congress will declare that the vast majority of Americans should have less influence over the selection of its government and the corporations should have more. Instead, we should be demanding full public financing of elections with small maximum contributions. We should be amending the Constitution to clarify that our founders did not intend to create a system in which one dollar equals one vote. And we must reverse the corrosive decision to grant corporations the same rights as people in the eyes of the law. We can do better. A thriving democracy demands it.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, banks repossessed more than 1 million homes and issued nearly 3 million foreclosure notices in 2010. These record-breaking numbers defy a massive effort over the last two years by the Obama Administration to prevent foreclosures. Nearly $12 billion dollars has been spent on a system to incentivize banks into lowering the monthly payments of troubled borrowers. But the program hasn't made a serious dent, and here's why: banks make more money on foreclosure than they do on mortgage loan modification. Banks who give mortgages to homeowners also own many of the companies, known as servicers, which collect the monthly payments by borrowers. This seems like a logical arrangement, until you understand that servicers make more profit if a homeowner defaults on their mortgage and gets foreclosed on, than if the bank gives that struggling homeowner a mortgage modification. Yet one in five homeowners owe more on their mortgage than their home is even worth. This has kept well-intentioned mortgage modification efforts by the Obama Administration will not be able to seriously reduce foreclosures until the banks are forced to write down the value of mortgages.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, recent headlines have celebrated the most recent unemployment statistics from January, which showed the number of unemployed Americans to 9 percent. The rate is down from 9.8 percent in November, at its lowest level since April 2009. This is the biggest two-month decline in the unemployment rate since 1958. This news was celebrated along with news of the stock market breaking high levels not seen in years. But the upbeat headlines celebrating these figures are little comfort to the nearly 15 million unemployed Americans. Pull back the headlines and you discover a grim reality. More than 40 million Americans are in poverty, and that number is actually closer to 50 million, once health care, transportation, child care and other costs are included. The labor force participation rate, a measure of the number of working-age Americans who are employed, are willing to work or are actively looking for work, is the lowest it has been in over a generation. The job situation has been so grim for so long, that of the more than 6 million Americans who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, many have given up hope of ever finding a job, and are no longer being counted. So before we start patting ourselves on the back for climbing out of the Great Recession, let's remember that for too many Americans, behavioral economics and celebratory newspaper headlines are not something you can eat.

Mr. KUCINICH

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the House will debate the extension of the Patriot Act. I have here a report from the latimes.com that says that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently and to a greater extent than was previously assumed. The report goes on to say that, in 2007, the Justice Department's Inspector General told Congress the FBI may have violated the law or government policy as many as 3,000 times since 2003 in the course of secretly collecting telephone, bank and credit card records without warrants--instead, using so-called ``national security'' letters that give them the ability to demand this kind of information and get it. The Patriot Act is a destructive undermining of the Constitution. We started this Congress off with a discussion about reading the Constitution. Many of us carry Constitutions with us in our pockets. How about today we take a stand for the Constitution to say that all Americans should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to make certain that the attempt to reauthorize the Patriot Act is beaten down. It is time that we really remember the essence of what that motto ``don't tread on me'' means. It means you protect your liberties; you stand for freedom.