[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2325-E2326]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 9, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this motion to 
instruct because I think it is absolutely necessary, although I do not 
think it is sufficient. The motion will instruct the House's conferees 
to accept the provisions in the Senate version of the legislation that 
will establish four-year sunsets on three things.
  These sunsets would apply to:
  (1) Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the secret Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue orders for any tangible 
thing--including business, library, and medical records--to anyone, as 
long as it is relevant to a terrorist investigation;
  (2) Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement 
officials to track a particular suspect by tapping multiple 
communication devices, as opposed to a single mode of communication; 
and
  (3) The so-called ``Lone Wolf'' Provision of the Intelligence reform 
legislation, which allows the government to conduct surveillance on 
``lone wolf'' terrorist suspects, who are not connected with a foreign 
power or recognized organization.
  One of the reasons I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it was first 
considered by the House was my concern that the ``sunset'' clauses were 
too generous, meaning that the provisions covered by those clauses 
would remain in effect too long without the need for Congressional 
reconsideration. That was also a major reason I voted against H.R. 3199 
earlier this year.
  So, I definitely agree that the conferees should accept the Senate 
bill's shorter sunset

[[Page E2326]]

periods for these three provisions. However, I think it would be even 
better for the conferees to go further.
  In particular, I think the conference report should include 
provisions along the lines of the bipartisan reform measure, known as 
the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2005 (H.R. 1526), of 
which I am a cosponsor. That bill would amend the PATRIOT Act to modify 
provisions regarding roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to require that:
  (1) an order approving an electronic surveillance specify either the 
identity of the target, or the place to be wiretapped; and
  (2) surveillance be conducted only when the suspect is present at the 
place to be wiretapped.
  It also would revise the PATRIOT Act's provisions governing search 
warrants to--
  (1) Limit the authority to delay notice of the issuance of such a 
search warrant to circumstances where providing immediate notice of the 
warrant will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, 
result in flight from prosecution or the intimidation of a potential 
witness, or result in the destruction of or tampering with the evidence 
sought under the warrant; and
  (2) Require such delayed notification to be issued within seven days 
(instead of a ``reasonable period''), with extensions by the court for 
additional periods of up to 21 calendar days each time that the court 
finds reasonable cause to believe that notice of the execution of the 
warrant would have such consequences. It also would require the 
Attorney General, on a semiannual basis, to transmit to Congress and 
make public a report concerning all requests for delays of notice and 
for extensions of such delays.
  The SAFE bill also would amend FISA to require, with respect to 
access by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to business records for 
foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations, that 
there be specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that 
the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or agent.
  It would specify that libraries will not be treated as wire or 
electronic communication service providers under provisions granting 
counterintelligence access to provider subscriber information, toll 
billing records information, or electronic communication transactional 
records.
  And it would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean only activities 
that involve acts dangerous to human life and that constitute a Federal 
crime of terrorism.
  The broad support for such changes in the Patriot Act is shown by the 
fact that the SAFE bill is cosponsored by many Members from both sides 
of the aisle. It is also shown by the fact that over the last four 
years more than 300 communities and seven States, including Colorado--
governments representing over 62 million people--have passed 
resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act.
  Much of that public concern--a concern I share--has focused on the 
possible effects on the privacy of patrons and customers from the 
application of section 215 of the ``PATRIOT Act'' to libraries and 
bookstores. I think the conference report should include restrictions 
on the application of section 215 similar to those that would have been 
imposed by the Sanders amendment to the Justice Department's fiscal 
year 2006 appropriations bill--an amendment that the House approved 
earlier this year by a vote of 238 to 187.
  Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this bill earlier this year, I 
said that my reaction to it was similar to the one I had to the 
original ``PATRIOT Act'' legislation 4 years ago. As I did then, I 
strongly support combating terrorism, here at home as well as abroad. 
But I continue to think that it is essential that we remember and 
respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as we wage 
war against those who would destroy both our Constitution and our 
country. In fact, I think that if we don't do that we will lose much of 
what we are seeking to defend.
  I voted against the bill as it came to the House floor because I 
concluded that it did not strike the right balance, and should not 
become law in its present form. But I am hopeful that the bill will be 
further improved and the conferees will produce a revised version that 
deserves the support of all Members of Congress.

                          ____________________