Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Holds First Procedural Vote on Patriot Act; Senate Holds First Procedural Vote on Patriot Act. Interview with Representative Ed Royce. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 31, 2015 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:26] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Six o'clock Eastern, I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

We begin this hour in our nation's capital. The debate over government surveillance of American citizens has come down to the wire. You are looking at live pictures of Capitol Hill, where lawmakers right now are meeting behind closed doors, trying to decide whether or not to extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at midnight tonight.

The most controversial provision, Section 215, allows the National Security Agency to collect telephone records, Internet records of millions of American citizens, bulk collection. The other two provisions deal with roving wire taps and surveillance of suspected lone wolf terrorists. Supporters say these programs are vital to our national security.

But Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul has vowed to fight any extension of the current law, calling it an illegal spy program. He delivered a fiery speech tonight on the Senate floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And realize that they were dishonest about the program until we caught them. They kept saying over and over again, we're not doing this. We're not collecting your records, and they were. The head of the intelligence agency lied to the American people, and he still works here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: In just a moment, we are going to bring you Senator Paul's full remarks from the Senate. But in the meantime, let's discuss with CNN senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny, senior law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes, CNN political analyst Ben Ferguson. They are standing by.

I do want to begin with CNN's Athena Jones. She's live on Capitol Hill.

Athena, they are looking at and it looks like they have the votes for what lawmakers on both sides are calling a compromise, the USA Freedom Act. What does that do?

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Now, that's the bill that passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, 338 votes to 88, it was. It had support from both Republicans and Democrats.

What it does is it takes the holding of the data -- the phone data that's being collected -- it takes it out of the hands of the government, out of the hands of the National Security Agency and leaves it with the telephone companies themselves. The government then has to have a warrant to access that data.

So, that is one of the big changes that it makes. This is for people who wanted to see the Patriot Act provision reformed.

But that bill failed to pass here in the Senate just a week ago. Just fell three votes short. Now, it's looking like it's going to have the votes it needs, the 60 votes it needs, when they have a series of votes later this hour, we expect them to come back later this hour, the 6:00 p.m. hour, and pass votes that will allow them to begin debate on that bill.

Some folks have changed their vote. One of them, Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who had voted against it last time, now says he's going to vote for it. A lot of the Republican senators have said, you know, people -- it's come down to the wire, people have realized that this is what it's going to take to keep this program running.

Bottom line, though, you mentioned Senator Rand Paul. His goal has been to delay this as long as possible, to stand in the way as long as possible. And it looks as though even if they reach that 60-vote threshold, that the law itself will expire tonight because there are a series of procedural hurdles that have to take place until they get to a final vote, that might not be until Wednesday or Thursday.

So, it looks like Senator Paul will be able to block -- that can keep the law from -- cause the law to expire tonight, but he won't be able to block it forever -- Poppy.

HARLOW: Athena Jones, thank you very much.

Jeff Zeleny, I want to go to you -- if I have you with me, Jeff -- just to talk about the politics of all of this. I mean, this is Rand Paul, coming from someone who is also running for president. And as you said last hour, this is sort of his campaign converging with his job right now as a U.S. senator.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: No question about it, Poppy. This is the hallmark, the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, but this is fraught with political risk. I mean, never mind the actual substance of what's going on here, but the politics of this are very, very uncertain for Rand Paul. He's been making strides over the last months and even longer, some inroads with the Republican establishment. He's been trying to make the argument that he is prepared to serve, or would be prepared to serve as a commander, if he was elected, he would be prepared to serve in the White House.

But when he's doing something like this on the Patriot Act, certainly many people agree with him, many libertarians agree with him, but most mainstream Republicans do not. So many Republican senators are furious at what he's doing now, not to mention the intelligence community and others.

[18:05:01] So I think that it is a potentially strong short-term, positive for him, a boost for him. This will get him a lot of online supporters, probably some fund-raising. He is fund-raising off of this. But the long-term strategy, I'm not sure that a lot of Republican voters want to see their president doing something like this.

HARLOW: All right. Stand by, Jeff. I want our viewers to listen to every word of what Rand Paul said on the Senate floor tonight. So, we'll play it for you in full. It's about five minutes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Let us be very clear why we're here this evening. We are here this evening because this is an important debate. This is a debate over the Bill of Rights. This is a debate over the Fourth Amendment. This is a debate over your right to be left alone.

Just as Brandeis said, that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights. The right to be left alone is the most prized to civilized men.

Let us be clear, we are here tonight because the president continues to conduct an illegal program. The president has been rebuked by the court. The president has been told in no -- in explicit terms, the president has been told that the program he is conducting is illegal.

Now, the president opines on television. The president wants to blame -- he says, anybody but me. But you know what? The president started this program without congressional permission. Even the authors of the Patriot Act say that the Patriot Act in no way gives authority to the president to collect all of your phone records all of the time.

If there ever was a general warrant, if there ever was a generalized collection of information from people to which there is no suspicion, this is it. We are not collecting the information of spies. We are not collecting the information of terrorists. We are collecting all American citizens' records all of the time.

This is what we fought the revolution over. Are we going to so blindly give up our freedom? Are we going to so blindly go along and just say, take it?

Well, I'm not going to take it anymore. I don't think the American people are going to take it anymore. Eighty percent of those under 40 say we've gone too far, that this whole collection of all of our records all the time is too much. The court has said, how can records be relevant to an investigation that hasn't started? The court has said that even under these lower standards, even under these standards of saying that it would be relevant, that all of the stuff they are collecting is precisely irrelevant.

Now, people say, well, they're not looking at it. They're not listening to it.

It's the tip of the iceberg what we're talking about here. And realize that they were dishonest about the program until we caught 'em. They kept saying over and over again, we're not doing this, we're not collecting your records, and they were.

The head of the intelligence agency lied to the American people and he still works here. We should be upset. We should be marching in the streets and saying, he's got to go. We can't allow this. We can't allow the rule of law to be so trod upon that we live in an arbitrary government world where they collect anything they want anytime they want.

This is the tip of the iceberg. They're collecting records through executive order. They're collecting records through section 702.

People say, how will we protect ourselves without these programs? What about using the Constitution? What about using judicial warrants? The Tsarnaev boy, the Boston bomber, they say how will we look at his phone records? Get a warrant! Put his name on it!

You can get a warrant! There's no reason in the world -- the guy had already bombed us. Do you think anybody was going to turn down a warrant! We should have gotten a warrant before.

Get warrants on people we have suspicion on. The Simpson guy that was shot in Garland, he had already been arrested, we had suspicion, let's hire a thousand more FBI agents. Let's hire people to do the investigation and quit wasting time on innocent American people.

[18:10:02] Let's be very clear while we're here. President Obama set this program up. The President Obama who once was against the Patriot Act, the President Obama who once said, you know what, we should have judges write warrants. The President Obama who once believed in the Fourth Amendment is the president now scooping up all your records illegally.

And then he feigns concern and says, oh, we need to pass this new bill. He could stop it now. Why won't someone asked the president, why do you continue? Why won't you stop this program now? The president has every ability to do it. We have every ability --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time has --

PAUL: -- and I intend on protecting the Constitution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometime has expired. The Senate stands in recess subject to the call of chair.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HARLOW: Let's discuss. Jeff Zeleny back with me, Tom Fuentes and Ben Ferguson.

Ben, let me begin with you. Most of Senator Paul's Republican colleagues do not agree with him at all. You're seeing a huge divide in the GOP over this, a lot of it generational. I wonder how significant you think that is heading into 2016.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's significant for his campaign. I mean, this is something that Paul has been very consistent on. This is something that he even campaigned on these issues when he was running for the Senate. And he's never wavered on this.

But the reality is, many Republicans are saying it's not as simple as you're describing it. Yes, there could be some reforms that we may need here. The House passed some of those reforms. But to blanketly come out and say, this is something I'm going to do everything in my power to stop -- I think there's a lot of people that are going to have problems with that, that are going to look at him for the White House.

At the same time, and there are going to be a lot of people tonight who are going to write checks and go online and donate to Rand Paul's campaign, because they say finally, someone's willing to stand up to the big machine, or the NSA, or the Washington insiders, or the FBI, or this over-reaching government.

And so, there will be people that will love him even more after this tonight.

HARLOW: Jeff, that's exactly what I was going to ask you, especially for, you know, motivating those young voters to get out.

ZELENY: No doubt, there are going to be people who love him more after tonight. But the question is, are those people voters in early primary and caucus states? And the answer probably is no. The short- term strategy of this for a Rand Paul, whose presidential campaign has languished a bit, is a good one. He's definitely going to get more attention here and he certainly believes this. I'm not saying he's doing this only for political reasons.

But the question is, do Republican voters, do voters in general want or believe that this is the type of leadership that they want on this?

And I'm not sure I've seen anything as similar to -- he's on an island. He's essentially on an island. So many Republican senators who are trying to compromise here, you know, are trying to get something done. He's essentially asking for something that is not even possible. So, he's grandstanding and it's -- he's infuriating pretty much everyone.

(CROSSTALK)

ZELENY: So, he may be -- he has support online, but not from -- this is not something that donors like to see any everything else. FERGUSON: Poppy, this is something that you couldn't plan. The

expiration of this and the timing of this, obviously, Paul did not plan this, but it's a perfect storm for his early presidential campaign and to connect with those donors, the same people that inspired his father's campaign.

I mean, he could not have asked -- I want to make sure, I don't necessarily think that he's grandstanding, he's always believed this, but the timing of this couldn't have been better for his political aspirations.

HARLOW: Tom, to you, the crux of Rand Paul's argument is, we already have enough powers to combat would-be terrorists. We have the constitution, we have warrants. Use a warrant, get a warrant. You argue, former assistant FBI director, that is not enough.

Why is it not enough?

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I'll also say in this, when he says, get a warrant. In the Boston case, get a warrant -- that's fine. But, you know, actually, even with a metadata program, you still have to get a court document to look at who owns the records.

So, Poppy, your phone bill from two years ago, that's sitting in an NSA computer right now, if something comes up and they want -- they think you're linked to a terrorist organization, they need to get a subpoena to find out what those calls went to. All that's in the data is that your -- the phone listed to you, and might not even be called by you, but that phone called another phone on a certain day at a certain time for a certain length of time. Or a text message was sent. It doesn't tell you who's on the other end of that call, doesn't tell you what was said in the call or what was printed in the text.

So, then, the FBI gets a subpoena for the records to identify the subscriber to the other numbers, that doesn't mean that that person answered the phone. It could be a family phone plan, it could be an Internet phone plan, where everybody uses the same router. So --

[18:15:00] HARLOW: Tom, I'm sorry, I got to interrupt. We got to listen in to Mitch McConnell on the floor right now speaking.

FUENTES: OK.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: -- with the House bill.

So, I would propose that we extend at least the lone wolf and the roving wire tap authorities while we continue to litigate the differing views on section 215. More specifically, I would propose that we extend those two provisions, lone wolf and roving wire taps for up to two weeks.

So, Mr. President, having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill which is at the desk, to extend the expiring provisions related to lone wolf and roving wire taps for two weeks, and that the bill be read a third time and passed. The motion to reconsider be considered made with no intervening action or debate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there objection?

PAUL: Mr. President?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The senator from Kentucky.

PAUL: Reserving the right to object, one of the promises that was given when the Patriot Act was originally passed was that in exchange for allowing a less than constitutional standard, we would only use --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there an objection?

PAUL: -- against terrorists and foreigners. We found, though, that 99 percent of the time, section 213 is being used for domestic crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Senate from Kentucky --

PAUL: I believe that no section of the Patriot Act should be passed unless our targets are terrorists, not Americans. I object.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection is heard.

MCCONNELL: Last week, I proposed giving the intelligence committee the time it would need to work toward the bipartisan legislative compromise Americans deserve. A compromise that would preserve important counterterrorism tools that are necessary to protect American lives. That effort was blocked.

Just now I proposed an even narrower extension that would have only extended some of the least controversial -- least controversial -- but still critical tools to ensure they do not lapse as senators work toward a more comprehensive legislative outcome. But even that very narrow offer was blocked.

I think it should be worrying for our country, because the nature of the threat we face is very serious. It's aggressive, it's sophisticated, it's geographically dispersed. And it's not -- not -- going away.

As "The L.A. Times" reported, quote, "The Obama administration has dramatically stepped up warnings of potential terrorist attacks on American soil after several years of relative calm." And the paper reported that this is occurring in the wake of FBI arrests of at least 30 Americans on terrorism-related charges this year, in an array -- an array -- of lone wolf plots.

So these aren't theoretical threats, Mr. President. They're not theoretical threat. They're with us every day. We have to face up to them.

We shouldn't be disarming unilaterally, as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive. And we certainly should not be doing so based on a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation launched in the wake of the unlawful actions of Edward Snowden who was last seen in Russia.

The opponents of this program have not been able to provide any -- any -- examples of the NSA abusing the authorities provided under Section 215. And the record will show that there has, in fact, not been one documented instance of abuse of it.

I think it's also important to remember that the content of calls are not captured. That's the general view, but it's an incorrect one. I'll say it again -- the content of calls are not captured.

I say to the American people, if you've been told that, that is not correct. That's what I mean about a campaign of disinformation.

The only things in question are the number dialed, the number from which the call was made, the length of the call, and the date. That's it. That's it. Detailed oversight procedures have been put in place too, in order to protect the privacy of Americans.

[18:20:09] Now, I believe this is a program that strikes a critical balance between privacy on the one hand, and national security on the other. That doesn't mean the Senate still shouldn't have the opportunity to make some changes to it. That's precisely the outcome I've been hoping to facilitate by seeking several short-term extensions.

And considering all that's come to light about the House-passed bill in recent weeks, I believe this was more than reasonable.

The administration's inability to answer even the most basic questions about the alternative bulk data system it would have to build under that legislation is to say, at the very least, pretty troubling -- pretty troubling. That's not just my view. That's the view of many in this body, including colleagues who have been favorably predisposed to the House bill.

In particular, I know senators from both parties have been disturbed by the administration's continuing inability to guarantee whether the new system would work as well as the current one. Or whether there would even be any data available to analyze. Because while the administration has let it be known that this non-existent system could only be built in time if telephone providers cooperate in building it, providers have made it abundantly clear that they're not going to commit to retaining the data. They're not going to commit to retaining the data for any period of time unless legally required to do so. And there's no such requirement in the House-passed bill. None at all.

Here's how one provider put it, "We're not prepared to commit to voluntarily retain documents for any particular period of time, pursuant to the proposed U.S. Freedom Act if not required by law." "If not required by law", quote, unquote.

Now, these are just a few of the reasons I thought it was prudent to try and give the Senate more space to advance better legislation through committee consideration and regular order with input from both sides. But, my colleagues, it is now clear that that will not be possible in the face of determined opposition from those who simply wish to end the counterterrorism program altogether. No time to try to improve the House-passed bill will be allowed because some would like to end the program altogether.

So, this is where we find ourselves. This is the reality. And so it essentially leaves us with two options.

Option one: allow the program to expire altogether without attempting to replace it. That would mean disarming completely and arbitrarily, based on a campaign of disinformation, in the face of growing, aggressive, and sophisticated threats -- growing, aggressive and sophisticated threats. That's a totally unacceptable outcome -- completely and totally unacceptable outcome. So we won't be doing that.

And so, we're left with option two: the House-passed bill. It's certainly not ideal. But along with votes on some modest amendments that attempt to ensure the program can actually work as promised, it's now the only realistic way forward.

So I remain determined to continue working toward the best outcome for the American people possible under the circumstances.

This is where we are, colleagues. A House-passed bill with some serious flaws. An inability to get a short-term extension to try to improve the House-passed bill, and the way we would normally do this through some kind of consultative process.

[18:25:01] So, bearing that in mind, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider vote number 194, the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to HR-2048.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is on the motion. All those in favor say aye.

HARLOW: All right. We're going to monitor this, but I do want to bring in our Athena Jones, whose live on Capitol Hill as this is unfolding, to help explain what it happening procedurally here, Athena.

JONES: So, right now, what's going on Poppy, is they're beginning a series of these three procedural votes on the USA Freedom Act. That's the bill the house passed that reforms these data collection programs, but Senator McConnell was saying, it doesn't reform them enough. He would like to see even more reforms to make sure that it works as well as they would like to see it work.

So, they're just beginning that series of votes. It gets technical, but the bottom line, the third vote is the one we're looking for. That's the one that has to get to 60 to move to debate on that bill.

It looks as though my colleague Ted Barrett in the Senate is telling me that they're going to try to amend that bill to improve it, to make some of the changes --

HARLOW: Right. JONES: -- that people like McConnell want to see. But we're going to have to wait and see what happens.

But bottom line, you heard Senator McConnell say, letting this program expire is not an option. It would mean disarming in the face of terrorists. He's echoing what Speaker Boehner said earlier about, you know, people who want to see this program lapse or not, taking the terrorist threat seriously, al Qaeda, ISIS, other terrorists.

And so that is what is taking place right now. We're watching as these three votes come about. But it's very clear that Senator McConnell did not want to have to vote on the USA Freedom Act. He was the one who supported a week ago an extension of the law as it is, without any reforms.

That's a bill -- that extension would never have passed the House. People in the House wanted to see reforms to this program. That's why we are where we are now.

He's ultimately going to have to bring up a vote on a bill that he didn't support --

HARLOW: Right.

JONES: -- but this he says it's the only option at this point.

HARLOW: Right. He says it has serious flaws, but there are two options on the table. The first option, which is what Rand Paul wants, he says it's completely unacceptable, to let this program end.

Athena Jones, thank you. Stand by.

Jeff Zeleny, CNN senior Washington correspondent, I want to get you in here. Because it's really extraordinary what we just saw happen. We just saw two Republican senators from Kentucky battling it out against one another and remember, Mitch McConnell has endorsed Rand Paul for president.

ZELENY: You're right, Poppy. That exchange was quite something. Mitch McConnell essentially on the Senate floor just accused, suggested that Senator Rand Paul was conducting a misinformation campaign on these -- on all of these surveillance programs.

Keep in mind one thing just occurred to me, he's endorsed his presidential campaign and why did Mitch McConnell endorse Rand Paul? Because it's a bit of a payback. Last year, when Mitch McConnell was in a tough midterm election fight back home in Kentucky, Rand Paul endorsed him. So, that is one of the interesting sort of sub currents going on here. But this is a serious fight between the two of those.

And as Mitch McConnell was speaking, Mitt Romney actually weighed in on the debate, and he urged Republicans to vote for this and extend this program. He said, don't let this expire by midnight.

So, this is going to be a very central interesting issue coming up among all Republicans in this 2016 presidential campaign in the months to come, Poppy.

HARLOW: Jeff, stay with me.

I also want to bring in our panel, we have Tom Fuentes with us, former FBI assistant director. Ben Ferguson, CNN political commentator is with us as well.

Ben, what do you make of what we're seeing unfold here? I mean, this is -- this is the American system at play, right?

FERGUSON: Yes, this is --

HARLOW: This is what we want to see lawmakers debating, right? Maybe not up against the wire on something, but it's extraordinary.

FERGUSON: Yes, this is big-boy politics. In you look at the people there, Orrin Hatch behind, you see Roger Wicker presiding over the Senate. You saw his colleague from Mississippi sitting right behind Mitch McConnell.

Mitch has people around him right now that are really trying to push this very hard, saw John McCain down there. Rarely do you see this many senators on the floor during a debate unless it's something at this magnitude. They all understand how important this is. And they're all going to be a part of it.

I also think you can tell they really don't know how this is going to end tonight. And you could hear that in what Mitch McConnell was saying. Rarely do you have someone like that going toe to toe with a colleague and what many would say a friend from the same exact state, in this way.

That was a very declarative statement by him, saying, this is unacceptable. I've got a lot of top key allies behind me. We're going to figure something out, and we'll try to do it by midnight, but you put us in a corner and we're not happy with you.

[18:30:00] I think this one of those issues where you see it, you go, you don't really -- I'm not sure they even know exactly what's going to happen as they move forward.

HARLOW: Tom Fuentes, to you -- you've been very clear in your position. I mean, you believe that the program as it exists now should be -- should be extended. It doesn't look like that's what's going to happen. It looks like they have enough votes in the Senate ultimately to get this -- changed the law passed, this USA Freedom Act, even if the Senate changes it a bit.

Why do you think that is so important that all of these provisions of the Patriot Act remain the way they are?

FUENTES: Well, interestingly, Poppy, you know, I think that the metadata part of this, which is the most controversial, you could argue that for a while because the phone companies will still have these records 30 days from now, 60 days from now while you might have the time to appeal your phone bill. But the roving wire tap authority and the lone wolf provisions, those involve active, immediate investigations ongoing right now. Those are critical. They should be extended, argued later whether you want them or not.

That roving wire tap authority, when I ran the FBI's organized crime program, we had that authority in the era of cloning phones and throwing them away. The drug program could use roving wire tap. But in a terrorist investigation, you couldn't. And so all that did was bring that in line, bring terrorism investigations in line with organized crime and drug investigations. And the lone wolf thing we had in the Zacarias Moussaoui case out of Minnesota, where the FBI would have been unlawful to go on a wire tap because the FBI could not determine whether he was specifically a member of al Qaeda or an agent of a foreign power.

So both of those provisions are immediate and have an effect on ongoing cases right now. The metadata, argue that for the next 60 days, I don't think that will be as critical.

HARLOW: All right. Gentlemen, stand by. Thank you for that. We're not going to go far from this. We're going to keep watching what is playing out in this rare Sunday session in the Senate. We will bring you the developments as they come.

Also, we want to talk about this development this evening. Those five Taliban leaders once detained at Guantanamo Bay are in Qatar where they've been for the last year. Well, we have breaking news on where they're going to go from there. Have -- has the United States and Qatar reached an agreement on monitoring them? Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:36:06] HARLOW: The travel ban for the Taliban five has been temporarily extended. We just learned that this evening. So those five former Taliban members will be staying in Qatar for now while they are under surveillance.

These are the five of them. They are former Guantanamo Bay detainees. They were released one year ago today in exchange for U.S. Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Qatar agreed to temporarily extend its monitoring of them until a more permanent solution can be agreed upon.

Also, "The Washington Post" is reporting that four Americans are being held prisoner by Houthi rebels in Yemen. The reports says that none of those four Americans are government employees and efforts to secure their release have faltered.

This as an American journalist is on trial in Iran, he is one of four Americans believed to be detained or missing in Iran. Some of his distraught family members will speak before Congress on Tuesday.

Let's talk about all of it with Congressman Ed Royce, he joins me now, and he is the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.

I appreciate you being with me, sir. Let's begin with this. Let's begin with the Taliban five. You have said they are a great risk to this country. You have said that four of the five of them have ties to al Qaeda. What should happen to them?

REP. ED ROYCE (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Well, the director of National Intelligence says, if they're released, there's an 80 percent chance that one comes back into the fight and 90 percent chance for the other four.

You know, if we look, Poppy, at their background as senior commanders, as deputy ministers of defense, of security, of intelligence, for the Taliban, some with these ties to al Qaeda as well, I think in a situation like this they should not have been released. That's the bottom line. And I think when you begin to negotiate with terrorists, it's a bad precedent. And in this case, that's what the administration did.

HARLOW: General Stanley McChrystal, the former head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, has said that he doesn't expect these five to ever go back into what he calls a key operational role in the Taliban. Do you disagree with him?

ROYCE: I agree with the director of National Intelligence. Look, you may not find them in precisely the role they had before, but there's little question in my mind that there are going to be a threat. We recently had this situation in Uruguay. Again, with six Taliban terrorists who were released there, and there have been about 40 reports now that they've been close to the U.S. embassy. They've been -- they've been -- near the compound.

This is a real risk. Because between them, these five individuals gave orders, the five we're talking about here, that are held right now in Yemen, gave orders that took -- or held in Qatar, gave orders that took the lives of several thousand civilians and so in that kind of a circumstance, I think you're throwing caution to the wind if you allow -- if you allow people like that to be released.

HARLOW: The United States, it seems like the key hold-up here on these negotiations between the United States and the government of Qatar in terms of what to do with these people long term, is that the U.S. wants stepped-up surveillance of them, stepped-up travel bans for them. How much sway do you think the United States has right now in that negotiation? I wonder if you think they're going to get their way on that.

ROYCE: Well, I think it's very important we all lean in with Qatar on this issue. Many of us have had conversations with the government there. I think they know the risk that we feel this presents and I hope they act on it and continue, at least for now, to keep them under surveillance.

HARLOW: Congressman, stay with us. We're going to take a quick break and then we want to talk about another key story. As I just mentioned these four Americans that are believed to be detained in Yemen right now. And also Americans in Iran.

[18:40:03] The congressman is going to have a hearing on that on Tuesday. We'll talk about it with him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right. You're looking at live pictures of the Capitol where the Senate is in a rare Sunday session. They're working through procedural measures on what they're going to do about three key provisions of the Patriot Act that will expire tonight at midnight. We're monitoring this very closely. We will bring you the latest as soon as we have it.

Also, this important story to bring you. "The Washington Post" is reporting today that four Americans are being held captive by Houthi rebels in Yemen. The State Department says it is aware of the reports but it is not commenting. CNN has not confirmed this, but this is what is coming to us from "The Washington Post." Officials say due to privacy concerns, they cannot release any information, but they of course are aware of the reports and working on it.

Congressman Ed Royce joins me again, he's chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

What information, sir, can you give us, if any, about this report in "The Washington Post," that these four Americans, not government workers, working for private companies, are imprisoned essentially by these rebels in Yemen?

ROYCE: That is what we've heard. And in one particular case, one of the four, it looked like he was going to be let out of the country, escorted toward the airport and then Yemeni officials changed their minds.

Remember, these Houthi officials are, in fact, led by some 200 Iranian forces, Iranian Quds forces or Iranian special officers who are of like mind. The Houthis are a Shia militia. So in the morning they have this chant, death to America, just like the Iranians do. And they have the same attitude towards Americans. So just as four Americans are held now by Iran, they're also being held here by these Houthi, you know, Shia militiamen.

[18:45:05] And so I think it's going to be difficult trying to extract them from this situation. Obviously, our government needs to lean in and try to do that.

HARLOW: And this comes at a precarious time, when you're at the final stages of nuclear negotiations with Iran. You've got Iran supporting these Houthi rebels, at the same time, your committee is holding a hearing on Tuesday on these four Americans missing or detained in Iran, some of the family members are going to speak.

What can you tell us about those four individuals at this point in time?

ROYCE: For example, Jason's brother will speak, he's "The Washington Post" reporter who is held there. And he's held under propaganda against the establishment. They're very touchy in Iran if any reporters are critical of, you know, their foreign policy. And so he's been under very harsh interrogation. Spent about eight months without being allowed to talk to an attorney, and then had an attorney for one hour. It's kind of a show trial.

We have a young Marine who's being held. His family is from there. He was there to visit family. He has been beaten on the soles of his feet. He faced -- I guess he's been convicted with a 10-year sentence. And we have a pastor, who's got an eight-year sentence from the United States, and he's being told that he needs to recant his faith or they could add additional years on this.

So you get the sense here that given the attitude that the Iranian regime has in their judiciary system, we hope that international inspectors are going to be able to go forward and actually inspect. Obviously if they're arrested as journalists are and subjected to this kind of pressure, it's going to be very hard in this negotiation, to get an agreement where you can actually go out to the military bases or elsewhere. I think that's one of the concerns that editorial boards are raising right now.

HARLOW: What -- Congressman, what are you hoping to achieve from this hearing that you're holding on Tuesday, where some of these family members of those detained or missing in Iran are going to be speaking? What do you want to come of that?

ROYCE: I want to see them released. In none of the examples that I'm aware of is there any indication that anything's going on here except with Iran in 1979.

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: But do you think Iran's going to listen to that -- and you think Iran's going to be listening to that? I mean, do you want more support from elsewhere?

ROYCE: But think about what happened in 1979, when our hostages were taken. Basically they're taking Americans as hostages again. And I think if we are not forceful in this, they're going to get the idea that they can intimidate the United States, for example, in these negotiations as well, over the nuclear issue. So I think -- I think we need to provide a forum for the family members to explain to the world exactly what's happening there and hopefully this might force the hand of the Iranian regime to say, look, all right, we're going to -- we're going to allow these four Americans to go.

HARLOW: Congressman Ed Royce, thank you very much, sir. Good to have you on the program.

ROYCE: Thank you, Poppy.

HARLOW: Coming up, the Senate holding a rare Sunday session right now. You're looking at live pictures from Capitol Hill, debating whether or not to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act. We'll bring you the latest from Washington right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:02] HARLOW: Happening right now, the U.S. Senate is in session in a rare Sunday session. They are debating whether or not to renew certain provisions of the Patriot Act.

Let's bring in our correspondents, CNN justice correspondent Pamela Brown is with me, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen, CNN senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny and CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson.

Guys, we watch and we wait, let me begin with you, Jeff Zeleny. It has been pretty extraordinary to see this play out. Two Republicans, two senators from the state of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, battling right next to each other on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell endorsing Rand in his run for president. Who comes out on top here?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, he's endorsed him previously you have to wonder if he's sort of rethinking that, but I'm not sure that either of them are going to come out on top politically here. I mean, the -- at some point the Senate is going to have to move forward at some point, Rand Paul is going to have to stop sort of blocking these things here.

So Mitch McConnell is the majority leader. He is the one who is feared throughout the corridors of the Capitol. So I think that Rand Paul probably is on a little bit of shaky ground with Mitch McConnell right now. He's not been forthcoming with him. And we'll see what happens in the coming hours here as -- you know, we have just about five hours until these provisions expire.

HARLOW: So let's talk about the provisions.

Pamela, can you tick through the three of them for us and their significance?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So there are three main ones, Poppy. And the first one, 215, it's the most controversial, but what counterterrorism officials say is the most significant and frequency used than those three provisions. And basically, the NSA interpreted this section to allow for bulk collection of metadata, but for the FBI it gives the capability on a case-by-case basis to collect business records relevant to a terrorist organization.

In most cases the feds have to hand over a FISA order to -- 215 order to Internet providers such as Google and Verizon in order to compel them to hand over transactional records for a person such as calls to and from and e-mails related to an investigation. And then of course, the second one is the roving wiretap authority. This allows the FBI to focus on the person, not the device. It's designed to allow the FBI to continuously monitor phones, even if a person switches phones several times.

Without this authority, the feds would have to get approval from a judge every time they need to go up on a new phone. That can take time. This is an important tool, I'm told, but it's not often use. The third is the lone wolf provision. This has never been used before, Poppy. This provision allows the FBI to go up on a non-U.S. citizen with no connection to a foreign terrorist organization. This was put into place after 9/11 because authorities were prevented

from going up on convicted 9/11 conspirators, Zacarias Moussaoui, since they couldn't connect him to a terrorist group.

HARLOW: Right.

BROWN: According to our law enforcement analyst, Tom Fuentes -- Poppy.

HARLOW: So, Pamela, thank you for that. And to you, Ben Ferguson, I think it's fascinating to see the divide that this has created within the Republican Party in the GOP that is largely generational in terms of where people fall on this.

[18:55:09] FERGUSON: It's very much generational. It's many new, younger faces in the GOP that are saying that they think that the Patriot Act is abused, the way that it was sold to the American people and even some of those that actually were the authors of the Patriot Act said that things are now being used in ways they never even dreamed of, and for younger people running for office, they've used this to be a real issue to connect with voters saying the government has gotten too big and too powerful, and they can look into too much of your data when you're not even close to terrorists or talking to terrorists or anyone else.

But at the same time, there are some of these provisions, and I think you see some of the older senators tonight saying, you don't screw around with this. We were here on 9/11. And many of the people that you're seeing tonight who are backing Mitch, they were there on 9/11. They're saying, you do not play with national security on this issue, and they are talking to different people that are younger, that are saying, well, guess what, a lot of these things you guys don't use anyway.

So it is a great divide and a fight here. Ultimately I do think this is very much generational and within the GOP, and that's why I think you saw the House come together with a compromise saying, OK, we agreed with a lot of this, but not all of it.

HARLOW: Right.

FERGUSON: Here it is, and the Senate now is dealing with that.

HARLOW: And so, Athena Jones on Capitol Hill, I want to go to you just to explain for our viewers what is happening right now. This is largely procedural, but correct me if I'm wrong. At this point, these provisions are going to lapse, and another bill, even amending them, isn't going to get passed tonight, is it?

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it doesn't look like that right now. It's hard to know what Senator Paul is going to do. I can tell you that we were talking about three procedural votes that would take place, well, instead, they just went ahead and jumped to this last, most important vote, cloture, a vote to move to debate on that USA Freedom Act. Last counter I heard was 76 yeses, that's far beyond the 60 they

needed. It does look like they've called the vote finally but that still tells you they have enough votes to proceed to this bill, but it's unclear what's going to happen next. It certainly would seem to go in line with what he's been doing, that Rand Paul would stand in way of any sort of more immediate vote on final passage of the USA Freedom Act, but then you also have heard from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who has some issues with this bill.

He wants to see it strengthened. So it's looking as though they're going to possibly consider some amendments that would -- might make the bill more palatable to people like Senator McConnell and some other Republicans. But of course if they do pass an amendment before final passage of the bill in the Senate, it's going to have to go back to the House and we'll have to see whether the House supports those amendments.

So this is far from over, and it certainly looks as though it's likely that in the next few hours, this law is going to lapse and that several days from now is when they'll reach final passage.

HARLOW: Athena, thank you.

Peter Bergen, to you, our national security analyst, someone who has extensive knowledge about how these terrorist networks operate. What is your take on whether these provisions expiring at midnight tonight and potentially for good, what is that mean for protecting the United States?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, the roving wiretap is certainly important, but I mean, the big issue is really about the -- the phone meta data.

HARLOW: Right.

BERGEN: Section 215. And, you know, as a fractional matter, Poppy, that has only stopped one case of terrorism in the United States since 9/11, which was somebody transferring $8500 to Somalia to a terrorist group there. And if that's the sum total of the cases you can show based on taking every American's phone data for five years, you know, it's pretty thin pickings. And so that's really the point here is people feel uncomfortable with this government intrusion.

There's no claim that the government is misusing this information, but governments can, and so the idea of putting in the phone companies instead of having the government keep it is basically a very good one. That's what the Obama administration has been proposing, that's what the House bill is proposing. And it seems, to me, you know, a very sensible approach, and so Mitch McConnell's idea of, you know, extending the lone wolf, and extending the roving wiretap for the moment, and you know, the issue of Section 215, the phone metadata, that's the issue where people have the most disagreement.

But at the end of the day, this has not been, you know, something that stopped terrorist attacks in the United States, no way you can claim that. It has stopped one case of terrorism financing, and so it's pretty thin pickings.

HARLOW: Peter Bergen, thank you for that analyst. Pamela Brown, Athena Jones, Ben Ferguson, Jeff Zeleny, our entire team in Washington, thank you.

We will continue to monitor this as this plays out in a rare Sunday session on the Senate floor. Stay with CNN.com for continuing coverage of this debate in Washington on these key provisions of the Patriot Act.

I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. Thanks so much for being with me.