[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10084-H10090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM 
                 PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3199) to extend and modify 
authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree 
to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Boucher

  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk 
which I offer on behalf of myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Boucher moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3199 be 
     instructed to recede from disagreement with the provisions 
     contained in subsections (a) and (b) of section 9 of the 
     Senate amendment (relating to the modification of the PATRIOT 
     Act sunset provision and the extension of the sunset of the 
     ``Lone Wolf'' provision).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion 
to instruct.
  The current House bill provisions for 10 year sunsets on the 215 and 
206 roving wiretap powers is not much better than no sunset at all. 
What we are talking about under the 215 provision is power to get 
access to your personal records from a business, including a public 
library, without you ever knowing about it, or what is done with the 
information. And the librarian or other business operator cannot tell 
you or anyone else other than the business's attorney or appropriate 
superiors, about the FBI's taking your records.
  Under the roving wiretaps provision, after obtaining a roving wiretap 
from the secret FISA court, the FBI can follow the target around and 
tap any phone the target has access to, including yours if he or she 
happens to be a neighbor and comes to your house, without having to 
first determine that the phone is actually being used by the target 
before they start listening in.
  The 4-year sunsets worked to make the Justice Department responsive 
to Congress in providing the information needed to properly perform its 
oversight responsibility for the extraordinary powers extended under 
the PATRIOT Act, but only in the last year of the sunset. For most of 
the 4-year period leading up to the sunsets, the Justice Department 
refused any meaningful oversight of their PATRIOT Act powers and other 
war on terror authorities. Even with Chairman Sensenbrenner threatening 
a subpoena because he was not getting answers to his PATRIOT Act 
questions, it wasn't until the powers were set to expire that we got 
real answers--hard numbers and at least anecdotal evidence of their 
use.
  Take, for example, the effort to try to get information about library 
record requests under the secretive Section 215 powers where the 
recipient of the order is gagged from disclosing any information about 
it: first we were told that information about even the number of these 
orders was secret, so it couldn't be disclosed. It was only in the last 
year of the sunset that we were finally told that there had been no 215 
orders issued to libraries, then we learned that this was misleading 
because most libraries cooperated with FBI requests for information 
without requiring a 215 order, and with all the secrecy and gag orders 
in effect, we still don't know what the full story is. Perhaps some of 
the pending lawsuits will finally reveal what has been going on in this 
area.
  The problem with a 10-year sunset is that it will have no impact on 
the current Administration, or the next one and only have an impact in 
the last year of the 3rd Administration from now. Moreover, with a 20-
year retirement period for most career officials, in 10 years most of 
today's officials will have retired. So, that's really of little 
oversight value if we have to wait that long to get the kind of 
responsive information for oversight we were finally able to get in the 
last year of the current sunsets.
  Accordingly, we should accede to the Senate sunset provisions which 
call for 4-year sunsets on the three most controversial and worrisome 
PATRIOT powers--secret acquisition of library and other business 
records, roving wiretaps, and the ``lone wolf'' provision for terrorism 
investigations, which allows a single individual to fall under the 
extraordinary, secretly administered foreign surveillance powers 
otherwise reserved for use against agents of foreign governments or 
organizations.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I do not intend to oppose the 
motion to instruct, and I ask unanimous consent that I may control the 
30 minutes that I have been allotted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boucher-Rohrabacher-
Mack motion to instruct the conferees to recede to the Senate with 
respect to sunsetting in 4 years the libraries and book stores, roving 
wire taps and loan wolf provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  The most effective way for Congress to maintain oversight of the most 
controversial powers that the PATRIOT Act conveys is to sunset those 
provisions within a reasonable period of time. In past years, well 
before the December 2005 sunsets contained in the original PATRIOT Act, 
we asked the Department of Justice how it was using the authorities 
that had been granted to the Department by the original act. Some 
questions simply went unanswered. Other questions were rebuffed, and we 
were told that the information was classified. And still others were 
avoided by telling us that the information simply was not available.
  All of that changed in April of this year when the Department of 
Justice realized that straight reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act would 
not happen without serious answers to our reasonable questions. 
Suddenly, numbers and examples were no longer unavailable. Suddenly, 
the information we had long been seeking was provided. I have no doubt 
that if 16 provisions of the original act were not scheduled to sunset 
at the end of this year, we would still have little information on how 
these new authorities were being used.
  If we have learned one thing over the last 4 years, it is that we 
will not get answers to our questions unless the Justice Department is 
compelled to come before us and justify its use of the more dangerous 
and intrusive powers that the law confers. Remember, sunsets do not in 
any way hinder law enforcement's use of the powers the PATRIOT Act 
confers. They merely ensure accountability and oversight, which are 
particularly important with respect to the three controversial 
provisions that are at issue today.
  Section 215 of the law puts personal records, including library, 
bookstore and medical records, up for grabs by law enforcement with no 
requirement that the person whose records are sought be suspected of 
involvement in a crime. All law enforcement has to say is that the 
information is relevant to an investigation. It could be an 
investigation of someone the person has never met and about whom the 
person has no knowledge.
  Moreover, an organization may not tell someone they have turned over 
his private information. So people have no way of knowing when their 
privacy has

[[Page H10085]]

been intruded upon. Earlier this year, the House, by a wide margin, 
voted to bar enforcement of this overly broad provision. But the House 
bill reauthorizing the act with some changes perpetuates it for 10 
years, and I think that that is inappropriate. The Senate bill sunsets 
this provision in 4 years. Our motion to instruct directs conferees to 
adopt the 4-year sunset provision.
  Section 206, John Doe roving wiretaps, allows law enforcement to 
obtain a single court order to tap any phone it believes a foreign 
agent would use, instead of getting separate orders for each phone. 
Moreover, the government is not required to name the target which 
allows wiretaps on phones of virtually anyone meeting the description 
of a John Doe. The combination of allowing blanket tapping of, for 
example, all of the pay phones in a target's neighborhood or the phones 
of all of his friends and relatives, combined with the ability to 
wiretap a vaguely described John Doe, means that roving John Doe 
wiretaps require so little specificity that they can easily be abused.
  Sunsetting this provision in 4 years will allow Congress to revisit 
how this authority is being used and whether it continues to be 
necessary.
  Reinstating is about accountability. This motion to instruct would 
simply assure that we have the authority to carry it out.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important for the Members to note that 
the motion to instruct deals specifically with the ``lone wolf'' 
provision and sunsets that. The lone wolf provision was not passed as a 
part of the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, but was included as a part of 
the intelligence bill which was enacted into law a little bit less than 
a year ago. So as a result, the committees and the public have not been 
able to have as extensive oversight and for as long a period of time as 
the other 16 provisions that were sunsetted in the act which the 
President signed in October 2001.
  So I think it is appropriate to have a sunset on the lone wolf 
provision simply because we do not have the experience of being able to 
examine what the Justice Department has done with this new and expanded 
authority.
  On the other hand, let me say that we are negotiating with the Senate 
at the present time on what the length of the sunset is, and I think 
that the sunset on this provision will be longer than 4 years, and the 
sunset on the other two provisions that were contained in the House-
passed bill will be shorter than the 10 years that the House of 
Representatives placed in the bill, which was passed and sent over to 
the other body.
  Having said all of this, I would like to make a couple of points. 
First of all, finding out what a Department or an agency of the 
executive branch is doing is entirely the prerogative of the committee 
that has the responsibility for the oversight and of its Chair. I have 
been extremely vigorous, since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, in 
doing oversight over what the Department of Justice has done relative 
to that law, and I am happy to say that most of the oversight letters 
that have been sent to the Attorney General have been cosigned by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  We have been kind of like tough school marms with the Department of 
Justice because when they were late and when they were nonresponsive to 
the questions, we required the Department of Justice to come up with 
responsive answers, and those responsive answers we placed on the 
committee's Web site so that anybody with Internet access could be able 
to find out what the questions were and what the answers were, with the 
exception of responses that were classified and which were sent to the 
Intelligence Committee rather than to the Judiciary Committee.
  In addition to the oversight which was done, the original PATRIOT Act 
requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to report 
twice a year to the relevant committees of Congress the number of civil 
liberties violations that have been found against the Department of 
Justice as a result of its exercising the increased and new 
requirements and powers in the PATRIOT Act. We have received those 
reports by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice on a 
regular and on a timely basis, and the answer to how many civil 
liberties violations have been proven is none. Repeatedly they have 
said there are no civil liberties violations that the Inspector General 
has been able to uncover.
  Further, I resisted a premature repeal or extension of the sunset 
prior to this Congress because I felt it was important that the 
oversight be done for as long a time as possible so that the Congress 
will be able to look over the shoulder of the Department of Justice and 
find out whether or not they were doing it the right way or whether or 
not they needed a tap on the shoulder from Capitol Hill for 
improvements in their methods of operation.
  When we did get to this Congress with the oversight being completed 
and the sunset approaching, I fulfilled the promise that I made to the 
public and anybody who asked that we would be doing a section-by-
section review of the expiring sections of the PATRIOT Act. The House 
Committee on the Judiciary had 12 separate hearings on the PATRIOT 
Act's sunset provisions. There were minority witnesses at all of the 
hearings except the one where the Attorney General and the one where 
the Deputy Attorney General appeared to testify. There was plenty of 
time for questions by every member of the committee.
  As a result of all of those hearings, we found that all but two or 
three sections of the PATRIOT Act were essentially noncontroversial. 
Nobody was complaining about an abuse of power. Nobody had proved abuse 
of power. Nobody had alleged an abuse of power. And as a result, the 
House-passed bill eliminated the sunsets for those sections of the 
PATRIOT Act for which there was no complaint at these extensive series 
of hearings, and that is good policy. And if it is not good policy, 
then the message that is given downtown as well as to the public is 
that our oversight really does not make any difference. If the 
oversight shows they have been doing a good job, they ought to be 
rewarded.
  Getting rid of the 14 of the 16 sunset provisions that were contained 
in the original PATRIOT Act does not mean that the Justice Department 
is not going to have the committee looking over its shoulder. We will 
do that; but, again, that depends upon the priorities of the committee 
and the priorities of its Chair. And as long as I am the chairman of 
the committee, there will be vigorous oversight of the Department of 
Justice, not only on how they are handling the PATRIOT Act but how they 
are handling all of the other laws that the committee has oversight 
jurisdiction over.
  Because the motion to instruct only relates to the lone wolf 
provision and I believe that because we have had a much shorter period 
of time in viewing how they have dealt with the lone wolf provision 
because it was passed 3 years after the original PATRIOT Act was 
enacted into law, I think this motion to instruct is a proper one, 
although I do think that the difference between 4 years and 7 years 
still should be negotiated with the Senate. But because the gentleman 
from Virginia is 95 percent to where we ought to be, I am going to vote 
for it, and maybe he will be a little bit more flexible with the other 
5 percent.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  For basis of clarification, the motion to instruct that we have put 
forward applies to lone wolf, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
indicates.

                              {time}  1530

  But it also applies to sections 206 and 215. The House sunsets those 
in 10 years, and we would instruct conferees to adopt the Senate 4-year 
sunset. I wanted to be sure that was well understood.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I yield myself a 
moment here to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for the 
time that he has yielded us and shown good faith with us in having an 
honest discussion of this very significant issue.

[[Page H10086]]

  Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct.
  We have heard much from many sides about the USA PATRlOT Act--
concerns about what the bill does, statements about what it does not 
do, and fears about what it could do in the future. We have shared 
these discussions with constituents, state and local officials, 
businesses, librarians, and other government agencies.
  But earlier this year we had an important opportunity to move those 
conversations back to Congress to examine--in a light much more clear 
and objective than that in which we passed the original bill--how the 
PATRlOT Act has protected us from further terrorist attack, and also 
how balance between national security and personal security needs to be 
restored.
  As a result of the opportunity to debate, deliberate, and discuss, we 
made important changes to the original USA PATRlOT Act in H.R. 3199, 
changes that enable law enforcement to continue to investigate and 
prosecute crime while protecting civil liberties. Congress was able to 
go back and make those changes because the original bill included a 
sunset and made many questionable provisions subject to it.
  This sunset served us well, and so I am perplexed that in the same 
bill where we made vital revisions to the USA PATRlOT Act we also 
eliminated many of the sunsets and extended others for a decade or 
more. In doing so, H.R. 3199 takes away from Congress the opportunity 
to periodically review these provisions and ensure that the tools they 
provide law enforcement are necessary and that they are not being 
abused.
  I am glad that, in respect to Sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRlOT 
Act, the Senate did not act as rashly as we did. I strongly urge 
conferees to see the wisdom of four-year sunsets for these sections, as 
passed by the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this motion to instruct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct 
conferees on the PATRIOT Act. Let me note that I am one of several, if 
not many, Members of Congress who feel that it was an act of bad faith 
on the part of those in this body who turned the temporary sunsetted 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act into permanent law for the United States 
of America.
  I supported the PATRIOT Act and would have again voted for the 
PATRIOT Act as it was when we first voted for it, except now we end up 
with a PATRIOT Act that permanently changes the balance of power in the 
United States between the police power and the limitations of power of 
the policing authorities of the Federal Government. That, I do not 
believe, should be tolerated by those of us who love liberty and 
justice and feel that limited government is vital to the protection of 
freedom.
  Second of all, let me note that any, any investigation or hearings 
that we have had so far into the PATRIOT Act are irrelevant to the 
issue at hand, the issue at hand as to whether or not we have 
permanently changed this law and whether in the future there could be 
abuse. I would say, along with many others, that by permanently 
granting these excessive powers, or extended powers, to the Federal 
Government in a time of war and then permanently extending it so that 
now it is the norm for a time of peace is asking for abuse. So whatever 
hearings have been held so far in this conflict are irrelevant.
  On September 11, our country was attacked and we saw 3,000 Americans 
slaughtered before our eyes, and it totally justified the major 
expansion of the police and investigative powers of our government. I 
voted for the PATRIOT Act, as I just said, and I continue to support 
its provisions as a necessary expansion of police powers in order to 
prosecute this war on Islamofacism. They declared war on us every bit 
as much as the Japanese declared war on us on December 7, 1941.
  However, as I said in the original bill, sunset provisions were 
placed in all of these expanded police powers that were going to enable 
us to protect our people in this time of war. It was a consensus that 
when the war was won, it was a consensus when this war was won, those 
powers would be rescinded and their purposes would have then been 
served.
  The expanded authority we are talking about in terms of eliminating 
these sunsets in the current bill, this has nothing to do with fighting 
the war or winning the War on Terror. It has everything to do with 
using that war as an excuse to permanently change the way we do 
business in the United States. The standard we set for a war when we 
are at war with radical Islam should not be the new standard set for 
America once that war is over. It is as simple as that.
  I support the expansion of those powers until we win that war. But we 
cannot, and this is what we have been handed, a bill that permanently 
does it so our way of life is changed after the war is over.
  The special grants of police power that we have approved we believe 
should only last for the duration of the war, and we must demand at 
least a forced reexamination of these provisions to ensure that winning 
the War on Terror does not result in a permanent change of our way of 
life.
  Of course, we are not here to debate the PATRIOT Act again. Today, we 
are limited to instructing conferees to adopt the Senate's version of 
the bill, which would sunset in 4 years the same two provisions that 
the House bill would sunset in 10 years. The rest of the expansion of 
the police powers, such as the sneak-and-peak searches, Internet and 
credit card seizures, the lowering of standards for logging all calls 
dialed from one particular phone, and the rules against discussing 
property seizure, all without the traditional warrants that would be 
required for those activities, have been made permanent in U.S. law. 
The two provisions being allowed to sunset, as one might expect, are 
the most questionable of the lot.
  Specifically, section 206 of the House version of the PATRIOT Act 
extends to Federal authorities for 10 years until 2015 the right to 
employ roving wiretaps, whether they have the name of a specific 
suspect or location notwithstanding. This should be reexamined before 
10 years has lapsed if for no other reason than to just understand 
whether or not this tool is working for us in the War on Terror. Is it 
achieving the goals that it set out to achieve in this war?
  The Senate version sunsets the clause in 4 years; that is much more 
responsible. Let us come back and reassess it. That is reasonable.
  Section 215 will also be sunsetted in 2015 in the House version 
rather than in the 5 years in the Senate bill. This section allows for 
law enforcement to examine library and financial records of any person 
in connection with a Federal investigation. This provision is possibly 
the most controversial in the entire bill. My colleagues on one side of 
the aisle say that this is an unconscionable invasion of privacy, never 
justified, even in wartime. Others, however, argue that this particular 
provision is rarely, if ever, used, so why worry about it?
  Well, let us be frank and admit that searching library and financial 
records of our citizens is hugely intrusive, even if it is rarely used. 
Nonetheless, this section 215 may be needed in a time of war to secure 
our country and to make sure our people are safe.
  While granting the expansion of this police power with a reasonable 
time limit, such as the expansion of a shorter term of years to ensure 
section 215 is not abused, that seems reasonable. But it may, again, 
215 may be justified now. We may have a justification to find out if 
someone who checked out a book on radical Islam has also checked out 
books on how to make bombs. That is why sunsetting this provision 4 
years from now, rather than 10 years, is the right thing to do. We do 
not want to have that kind of power in the hands of the Federal police 
authorities after this war is over.
  Finally, we need to ask, why do the radical Islamists hate us? They 
hate the openness of our society. They hate our tolerances, our belief 
in the equality before the law, the right of those of other faiths to 
worship, and the right of us to express our beliefs. In short, radical 
Islam is the enemy of freedom; thus, they are our enemy.
  If we permanently alter the traditional limitations of our government 
here in America, the terrorists have won. They have changed our way of

[[Page H10087]]

life. During no war in the past, whether World War II or the Cold War, 
were the police powers of the Federal Government permanently changed so 
that after the war a new standard of government would exist.
  Well, Ronald Reagan would never have supported such an expansion of 
Federal power and neither should we.
  I ask my colleagues to vote on this motion to instruct conferees, and 
I would ask them to search their consciences about voting for a new 
PATRIOT Act at all that threatens to permanently change the American 
way of life.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), whom I consider to be my 
friend, has said that the extensive oversight and the 12 hearings that 
the Judiciary Committee has done on a bipartisan basis is irrelevant. 
Because what he is saying is that the results of that oversight and the 
results of those hearings really do not make any difference when we are 
dealing with the extension of the PATRIOT Act.
  I think they do. Because if you accept the argument that he has made, 
then the Congress should never do oversight because the results of the 
oversight are not going to make any difference in the policy.
  To repeat myself, first, the Inspector General has not found a civil 
liberties violation. Secondly, of the 16 provisions where law 
enforcement powers were expanded, there were no allegations of misuse 
by the Justice Department in 14 of those 16 provisions. And when we had 
the hearings before the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, the 
minority had at least one and, in some cases, two witnesses that could 
come in and present any information that they wanted to present.
  Now, the way we make sure that there is not government overreaching 
in our system of government is to give the courts the power to declare 
unconstitutional overreaching by government agencies. The fourth 
amendment is alive and well, and the Supreme Court of the United States 
will never allow the Congress or State legislatures to ignore the 
provisions of the fourth amendment.
  There has been not one of the 16 expanded powers in the PATRIOT Act, 
signed by President Bush in October of 2001, that has been declared 
unconstitutional. There has been no declaration of unconstitutionality 
of any of those powers. But what has been declared unconstitutional was 
a provision on national security letters that was put in the PATRIOT 
Act as a renumbering, but which was enacted as a result of a bill that 
originated in the other body in 1986. That bill was signed by President 
Ronald Reagan.
  To the gentleman from California, you are wrong.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on Intelligence, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I commend him for his leadership. And I am pleased to see 
that, so far, this debate has all been in favor of support of this 
motion to instruct, which I think is a very important statement for 
this House to make.
  Madam Speaker, I take my responsibilities as ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee very seriously. I spend a lot of my day and a 
lot of my weekend, and most of my nights thinking and dreaming about 
how I can add value to protecting Americans and American interests.
  Earlier today, hotels in Amman, Jordan, were bombed. Over 50 people 
are dead, scores are wounded. The terrorists are there, and let us not 
make any mistake about it, they are trying to be here again. So it is 
absolutely correct that we need modern and appropriate legal 
authorities to find them, and prevent and disrupt their plans before 
they are able to execute them. Prevention and disruption is much better 
than response, and I think everyone in this Chamber is dedicated to 
making sure we have the right tools. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed 
45 days after 9/11, overwhelmingly, and that is why the House bill 
passed again recently by a large margin.
  However, consistent with statements that Mr. Rohrabacher has just 
made, as we give these expanded authorities, we also need to assure the 
law-abiding public of America that we will be vigilant in supervising 
these authorities. Not just today, not just in the oversight hearings 
we held during this last year and, yes, we held a lot of them, but 
tomorrow and next year and the year after.
  Having sunsets for these controversial provisions matters. That is 
why in the Intelligence Committee Mr. Ruppersberger and Mr. Hastings 
offered amendments to impose sunsets. Some amendments passed, but they 
did not survive in the final House bill.
  Sunsets are a good idea, and I think with very strong bipartisan 
support in this Chamber, that these new authorities need to carry with 
them the promise that Congress will be vigilant and, that 4 years from 
now, we will reconsider whether they are necessary.
  Let me also add a word about national security letters, which were a 
remedy designed in the 1970s.
  I think national security letters, a tool not in the PATRIOT Act, 
need to be reviewed as well by this House, and I think we need to 
consider whether the authority is too broad or whether, using a 
magistrate system or some other system, they should be reviewed before 
they are issued. They should not become the backdoor route to using 
PATRIOT Act authorities without going through this careful system we 
have set up.
  So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, it is a dangerous world. We need 
the tools necessary to find the so-called ``bad guys'' before they 
attack us, but we also need the tools necessary to assure law-abiding 
Americans that we are paying careful attention, and that the Congress, 
an independent branch, will not now, not ever, let down our 
responsibility to safeguard civil liberty for American citizens.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  Mr. MACK. Madam Speaker, first of all I want to associate myself with 
the comments made by my colleague from California and also to state for 
the record that I support the motion to instruct. I also would like to 
thank the chairman for his comments today regarding the motion to 
instruct.
  I ran on a platform of freedom like most people did in this Congress. 
And I believe it was Ronald Reagan, and I am paraphrasing, who said 
freedom is a fragile thing that must be defended by each generation. 
And that is what I am here to do. That is what I am here to do today. I 
believe that we ought to look for other or additional sections of this 
bill to sunset, but I am happy to see that this Congress is taking a 
hard look at the provisions and the sections that have already been 
mentioned to ensure that the freedoms that our families enjoy and the 
people in this country enjoy so much will be protected.
  I also understand the arguments that have been made about the 
oversight of the committee; and, Mr. Chairman, I know that as the chair 
of that committee that will be done. My concern is for future 
generations and to make sure that none of the freedoms that Americans 
enjoy today will ever be taken away from them in the future.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct. This bill makes permanent the most dangerous and intrusive 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, 14 of the 16 previously sunsetted 
provisions. The remaining two sunsetting provisions are renewed for 10 
years. Ten years is not a sunset. Ten years is quasi-permanent.
  These provisions are particularly worrisome because they expand the 
powers of the police to pry into the privacy of ordinary Americans, to 
go into their homes, into their papers, into their Internet records, 
their telephone records, their medical records, their bank records.
  Reinstating the sunset is about accountability. The breadth of these 
provisions providing for roving wiretaps,

[[Page H10088]]

for sneak-and-peek searches, for invading library privacy and section 
505, expanding the use of national security letters invites abuse.
  The administration assures us, the chairman assures us that these 
provisions have not been abused. But how do we know? It is all secret. 
We were told repeatedly that section 215 we should not worry about; it 
is rarely if ever used to demand library records. Now we know why.
  The Washington Post revealed last Sunday that the FBI issues more 
than 30,000 section 505 national security letters a year, many to 
libraries for ``preliminary investigations and threat assessments'' 
before deciding whether or not to launch an investigation. These tens 
of thousands of invasive government demands for sensitive and private 
information which never even go before a judge have resulted in the 
collection of probably hundreds of millions of personal facts regarding 
innocent Americans, innocent American residents, citizens, and 
businesses. And the Bush administration has decided to file all this 
personal information in government databases even if no basis is found 
for a real investigation and they will not even rule out selling this 
information to private conditions.
  Sunsets have been the major check, albeit probably inadequate checks, 
on abuse of the PATRIOT Act. They mean that at least every 4 years 
Congress is required to look at the law again, to revisit it, and has 
the opportunity to ask tough questions on the use or abuse of these 
powers, and most important, the administration cannot stonewall these 
questions except for every 4 years.
  We should have to look into these burdens on our civil liberties at 
least one in four years and ask are these powers being abused, should 
they be fine tuned? Should they be narrowed? Have we made the right 
balance between security and liberty? What can we do to ensure that our 
constitutional rights are not violated?
  I wish, Madam Speaker, that this motion to instruct were broader than 
it is, that it kept all the sunsetting provisions from being made 
permanent. The FBI will still have all the powers it needs. It will 
simply have to hold itself accountable to Congress and the American 
people every 4 years about how these powers are used. Why is that so 
terrible?
  I call on all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and 
conservatives, to begin to safeguard the national security, not 
adequately, but to begin to safeguard the civil liberties of all 
Americans by voting for this very, very skimpy motion to instruct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The discussion today is not whether or not the Federal Government 
after 9/11 should have had expanded police powers and investigative 
authority. That is not the issue. And I voted for that expansion of the 
police power, just as most of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle did, almost 
all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle voted. That is not the 
question, because when we voted for those expansions, we put in a 
sunset clause that after a certain number of years, 4 years, that the 
issues of those expanded authorities would be re-examined.
  The only question at hand in the debate today is whether or not those 
expanded powers for wartime expansion in the war against radical Islam 
should be made permanent even now in this time of crisis. This is not a 
good strategy for free government to change permanently its law during 
a moment of crisis. I would vote for the PATRIOT Act again because I 
think that these powers that were just described are needed at this 
moment, even the ones that were just described by my friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
  But that still does in no way justify permanently expanding those 
powers so that once the gentleman from Wisconsin is no longer here to 
conduct hearings that the Federal Government still has those powers 
perhaps for people who are less, let us say less responsible than Mr. 
Sensenbrenner in overseeing those expanded powers. Our Founding Fathers 
understood limitations on government is a guarantee of freedom. Now is 
not the time for us to permanently change law and permanently put 
freedom at risk.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote for this important motion to instruct on the 
PATRIOT Act. Like so many, I voted for the PATRIOT Act the first time 
and the second time. But I agree with the gentleman from California and 
the gentleman from Virginia, and as I understand it, perhaps the 
chairman as well. I simply do not understand the reticence to include 
sunset provisions on a law that affects the civil liberties of every 
American citizen.
  In fact, when we reauthorized the PATRIOT Act in July, the Republican 
bill permanently authorized 14 of the 16 provisions. The other two 
provisions, one for roving wiretaps and the other dealing with the 
FBI's power to demand business records, were extended for 10 years. 
Democrats fought to sunset these provisions last summer; and we do so 
again today, apparently successfully, because, I think, people have, 
upon reflection, thought that this is a better policy. Because when it 
comes to the government's power to intrude on the private lives of 
citizens, the United States Congress should not give the government 
unchecked power to do so.
  Just last Sunday the Washington Post documented, and it has been 
referenced here, the hundredfold increase in the issuance of national 
security letters seeking information about U.S. citizens and visitors 
who are not even alleged to be terrorist or spies. There are 
terrorists. Terrorism is a serious threat, and we need to be serious in 
our response. But privacy concerns must not be casually dismissed. In 
fact, it was not until several sections of the PATRIOT Act were set to 
expire that the Justice Department began to respond to congressional 
inquiries and we had the opportunity to assess, examine, and 
recalibrate our policies.
  I submit to my colleagues they have given the Justice Department 
carte blanche. No matter how good the leadership is in the Justice 
Department, it is not a policy that we ought to pursue and would be an 
abdication of our congressional oversight responsibility and contrary 
to the interests of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, this motion would recede to the Senate and create a 4-
year sunset on the most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act, 
orders by the secret Foreign Intelligence Court, blank wiretap orders 
and the surveillance of agents of a foreign power who act alone. This 
motion, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction, and I hope the 
Members support it.
  As I said, and I will echo the comments of so many here, terrorism is 
an immediate and proximate threat, as we lawyers say; and we need to 
respond effectively to keep America safe. But in the process, we must 
also protect the basic rights that our Founding Fathers knew were the 
bedrock of the United States democracy.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am the author of the sunsets that were put in the 
PATRIOT Act that was signed by the President in October of 2001 because 
I agreed with what I heard from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), that we ought to look at what the Justice Department had done 
with these expanded powers. We have looked at those actions. We have 
looked at how those expanded powers have been utilized; and in 14 of 
the 16 cases, nobody had any complaint about how those expanded powers 
have been utilized.
  Now, sunsets are very rare in congressional action. I am proud of the 
fact that I put the sunsets in almost 4 years ago. But what I will say 
is that we do not sunset a whole host of other programs. Social 
Security is not sunsetted, nor should it be. Amtrak is not sunsetted, 
maybe it should be, but it is not. And I have, I am looking at the 
Federal criminal code and the national security letters that have been 
complained of by people on the other side of the aisle; they are not 
sunsetted. The authority for the national security letters was passed 
in 1986 when, I recall, the current minority party had a significant 
majority in the House of Representatives.

[[Page H10089]]

  Now, if sunsets were so important when we are dealing with the civil 
liberties of the people of the United States of America, why did you 
forget about them 19 years ago?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct. Let me say up front that I think the PATRIOT Act provided 
essential tools that were not available before the 9/11 terrorist 
attacks. These tools are essential to identifying and tracking 
terrorists inside the United States, and that is the way it should be. 
It has to be national security first. But the PATRIOT Act was passed 
just 7 weeks after 9/11. When it was passed, there were concerns that 
some of the authorities were too broad or too susceptible to abuse. The 
proposal emerged to sunset 16 of the most controversial provisions. 
That was a sensible idea. The sunsets would allow the Justice 
Department and the public to evaluate the effectiveness of these 
provisions and decide whether there was a continuing need for them or a 
need to modify them.
  The House bill includes important refinements to the PATRIOT Act 
passed 4 years ago. Honest people can disagree about whether these 
provisions were too broad or just right; but the point is, the sunset 
provisions worked. They compelled Congress to take a second look at key 
provisions in the PATRIOT Act and improve them. The sunsets forced us 
to have accountability as we expanded law enforcement authorities. That 
is a game plan that we should stick with. We should continue to 
scrutinize these authorities from time to time. That is why I offered 
an amendment to extend the PATRIOT Act sunsets during the Intelligence 
Committee markup of H.R. 3199.

                              {time}  1600

  Like my amendment, this instruction to conferees to accept the Senate 
sunsets would not alter the original PATRIOT Act authorities. After 
all, national security has to be our number one priority, but accepting 
the Senate sunsets would also force us to reevaluate again 4 years from 
now whether they are truly effective in fighting terrorism. Oversight 
and accountability is an essential element of the PATRIOT Act.
  I would also like to respond to the chairman's point that there were 
not any abuses. The issue is not whether there were abuses. The issue 
is setting a system that we need to have in effect.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), another distinguished member of the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the 
Judiciary Committee for the wisdom of this motion, and I applaud the 
joining by the chairman of the full committee and offer an explanation 
for the reason our colleagues should join us in supporting this motion 
to instruct, and frame it in the context of the crisis of the recent 
weeks, asking Congress to accept its responsibility to investigate the 
CIA leaks and now to investigate further the leaking of the CIA sites, 
some call it sites of torture, incarceration, of individuals around the 
world who have been charged or are alleged to have committed acts of 
terrorism.
  It is important now to speak to the American people and argue that 
this motion to instruct does simply one thing. It now brings the 
American people into the focus of being the priority of the actions of 
this Congress.
  Yes, the PATRIOT Act in some minds has offered to provide us more 
protection. There were aspects of the PATRIOT Act that I did support. 
The original writing was a bipartisan product. Unfortunately, the 
ultimate product was not as bipartisan.
  But what is bipartisan is our responsibility to protect the American 
people. The 4-year sunset gives us that opportunity so that we can 
begin in 4 years to assess whether authorizing secret intelligence, 
going into libraries and getting a list of your library books helps or 
hurts the American people; whether the authorizing of a blank wiretap 
helps or hurts the American people; whether or not the lone wolf, where 
you can be one individual, not part of a terrorist organization or an 
association or to be part of a large massive group, but one individual 
who may be part of, words may have suggested that they are giving some 
comfort to those whose views we disagree with can be hauled in as a 
terrorist. This sunset allows us to protect the American people.
  Many of us are familiar with the recent film that said ``Good Night 
and Good Luck.'' It reminded us of the days of the McCarthy era when no 
one seemed to want to rise to support the rights of the American 
people. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and 
sunset in 4 years so Congress can have the ability to protect the 
rights of the American people.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct 
currently pending.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a pretty extensive debate on this motion to 
instruct. I think the motion to instruct is constructive and would urge 
the Members to support it.
  On the other hand, after listening to the debate that has been going 
on here for the last 40 or 45 minutes or so, what we have heard from 
the people who have complained about the PATRIOT Act is the potential 
for abuse rather than abuse itself. I would point out that there is a 
potential for abuse of practically everything law enforcement does.
  There is a tremendous amount of discretion that the law and the 
Constitution have given to our law enforcement personnel, to our 
prosecutors, to those who apply for search warrants as well as other 
tools that law enforcement utilizes to keep us safe and to try to track 
down those who commit crimes or who conspire to commit crimes or acts 
of terrorism.
  I do not know why there seems to be a greater suspicion that law 
enforcement already abuses provisions under the PATRIOT Act rather than 
other provisions of law which are not sunset, including the national 
security letters, because the facts simply are not there that there has 
been abuse.
  What I would like to ask the Members as we are debating the PATRIOT 
Act as it goes forward through conference and to the floor is to look 
at what the Justice Department has done; and where the Justice 
Department has done it right, the Justice Department should be told 
they have done it right. And that means eliminating the sunsets from 
those areas where it has done it right.
  And where there has to be a greater scrutiny on it, such as the two 
provisions in the House-passed bill and the lone wolf provision that 
are being talked about, we can talk about future sunsets; and I support 
the concept of doing that.
  But simply going around and painting with a broad brush the Justice 
Department for the potential of abuse which has not happened, I think, 
is unfair and does not go to the debate of whether the PATRIOT Act has 
actually served to protect the people of the United States without 
trampling on their civil liberties. It has done that.
  That is why it is a good law and that is why some provisions should 
be made permanent and some provisions should be sunsetted to be looked 
at in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, again I urge the Members to support the motion to 
instruct. When we come back with a conference report, I will urge the 
Members to support that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) 
for

[[Page H10090]]

partnering with us and structuring this motion to instruct conferees. I 
want to express appreciation to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his constructive comments and for his support of the 
motion to instruct.
  The motion to instruct promotes accountability. It assures that we 
remain in a strong position in our oversight function. Recent history 
clearly shows that in the absence of a near-term sunset we will not get 
answers to our questions about how controversial law enforcement powers 
are being used. In the absence of a near-term sunset, we cannot ensure 
that civil liberties are being protected.
  This is not a matter about what the Department of Justice has done in 
the past, and I differ with the gentleman from Wisconsin on this 
matter. This is all about what the Department of Justice may do in the 
future. And having near-term sunsets will ensure that we can perform 
oversight over that performance.
  Sunsets do not prevent law enforcement from using the broad powers 
the PATRIOT Act confers, but sunsets promote accountability. They 
ensure we get the information necessary to conduct oversight and to 
make decisions about whether powers that are subject to abuse should be 
contended.
  Adopt this motion, let us adopt the Senate's 4-year sunsets and, in 
doing so, further the cause of protecting Americans' civil liberties. 
Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the motion to instruct.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
motion to instruct.
  The American people want us to protect them from the terrorists--but 
the American people also want us to protect their liberties and 
constitutional rights from an overreaching government.
  Our system of government is made up of checks and balances and this 
motion to instruct only expands these checks and balances.
  A review every 4 years is the right action to assure American 
citizens that their civil liberties are protected.
  Let me close with a quote attributed to Patrick Henry:

       The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to 
     restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to 
     restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives 
     and interests.

  I ask that we restore the Senate's Sunsets in the Conference Report.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of the House 
bill (except section 132) and the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference: Messrs. Sensenbrenner, Coble, Smith of Texas, 
Gallegly, Chabot, Jenkins, Conyers, Berman, Boucher, and Nadler.
  Provided that Mr. Scott of Virginia is appointed in lieu of Mr. 
Nadler for consideration of sections 105, 109, 111-114, 120, 121, 124, 
131, and title II of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
conference.
  From the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for 
consideration of sections 102, 103, 106, 107, 109, and 132 of the House 
bill, and sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Mr. Hoekstra, Mrs. Wilson of New 
Mexico, and Ms. Harman.
  From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration of 
sections 124 and 231 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Norwood, Shadegg, and Dingell.
  From the Committee on Financial Services, for consideration of 
section 117 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. Oxley, Bachus, and Frank of Massachusetts.
  From the Committee on Homeland Security, for consideration of 
sections 127-129 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
conference: Messrs. King of New York, Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren of California.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________