[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 101 (Friday, July 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1577-E1578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM 
                 PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 21, 2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this 
closed rule and H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  The manner in which the amendment process of this bill was handled is 
shameful. Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee had 
jurisdiction over this legislation, yet somehow, the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee

[[Page E1578]]

has managed to twist this bill into one that only he finds acceptable.
  As a Senior Member of the Intelligence Committee, I offered an 
amendment that would have extended the sunset for Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until 2010. 
Section 6001, also known as the ``lone wolf' provision, allows the 
government to define any individual non-US person as a terrorism 
suspect, even if that person has no clear ties to a foreign government. 
This new authority has been in place for a mere seven months and has 
yet to be subjected to meaningful review. Extending the sunset would 
give Congress a significant period of time in which to assess the 
impact of this considerable new authority. Members of the Intelligence 
Committee agreed; and my amendment had the support of almost every 
single Member of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat. 
Inexplicably, the amendment was later removed by the Judiciary 
Committee.
  I asked Chairman Sensenbrenner point blank in the Rules Committee 
hearing yesterday why my amendment was removed from the bill. His 
response--``I don't know.'' He doesn't know, then who does? I guess 
somewhere between the fourth floor of the Capitol and the Judiciary 
Committee, my amendment must have been lost.
  I believe the partisanship and incivility of the Judiciary Committee 
has unfortunately, infected the bipartisan manner in which the 
Intelligence Committee has always approached its work. Regardless, I am 
still committed to pursuing my amendment and working with the 
conference committee in a bipartisan fashion to reinsert my amendment 
into this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, once again, I find myself 
protesting the manner in which legislation has been brought to the 
floor. Over sixty amendments were offered in the Rules Committee 
yesterday yet only twenty have been made in order. Forty amendments, 
including my own, will not be debated today. Even Representative 
Harman, the ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, offered four 
amendments that the Rules Committee refused to make in order. In fact, 
none of the amendments offered by any Intelligence Committee Democrat 
is made in order under this rule. This is absolutely inexcusable.
  America's national security is of paramount importance, but our 
security needs will not be met by limiting debate on the issue. The 
American people deserve a Congress that has fulfilled its 
Constitutional role by considering each and every idea put forth by its 
Members to improve this and all pieces of legislation.
  Without a doubt the underlying bill could be improved. For example, 
this bill amends Section 213 of the Patriot Act to require the 
government to notify the subject of a search warrant within 180 days of 
the search but does not sunset the provision. Statistics provided to 
Congress show that only eleven percent of the searches conducted using 
this power were related to terrorism--eleven percent! Given that this 
overbroad search and seizure power is abused almost ninety percent of 
the time, isn't Section 213 the very model of a section in need of a 
sunset? Again, amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee 
addressing these issues but they were not made in order.
  While no one in this body, Democrat or Republican, objects to this 
country's need to fight terrorism, the sweeping, un-checked powers 
provided to our government through the provisions of the Patriot Act 
and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 are 
beyond worrisome. The inclusion of sunsetting provisions allows us to 
examine the practical effects, both positive and negative, before 
permanently allowing such a broad expansion of government power.
  As a freedom loving society, we must diligently monitor any 
infringement on our civil liberties to ensure it is justified. But this 
bill, allowing the virtually unchecked monitoring of the average 
citizen on the flimsiest of justifications, is too broadly tailored to 
defend. After careful consideration and examination, I cannot support a 
bill that takes away so much while offering so little. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this closed rule and no on H.R. 3199.

                          ____________________