[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 168 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H13179-H13181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   USA PATRIOT ACT 6-MONTH EXTENSION

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2167) to amend the USA PATRIOT 
ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the lone 
wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004 to July 1, 2006, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object in order to 
simply ask at the proper time that I may be allowed to insert a 
statement from Mr. Conyers in the Record with respect to the PATRIOT 
Act.
  And I have been asked by the distinguished minority leader, Ms. 
Pelosi, to read the following statement:
  ``Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to this 1-month extension of 
the PATRIOT Act provision contained in this legislation. We would have 
preferred a 3- or 6-month extension to allow the American people a 
longer time to discuss the very serious impacts of these provisions on 
the civil liberties of the American people. But it appears we will only 
be given 1 month for that national debate.
  ``I also want it to be clear that this legislation involves only a 
small portion of the PATRIOT Act. Ninety percent of that act is law and 
remains law, regardless of what we do here today.
  ``The portion of the law in dispute is the very controversial section 
that affects the basic civil liberties of the American people. The 
rights of our citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, should not 
be shoehorned into a tight timeframe. We should have the time for a 
vigorous and thorough debate. In the meantime, the overwhelming 
majority of the PATRIOT Act is in place, and will remain in effect.
  ``Mr. Speaker, there is a very crucial debate in this country today 
about the rights of American citizens to privacy, and about the proper 
role of the Congress and courts in assuring that no one, not even the 
President, tramples on those basic privacy rights without complying 
with the law. In this atmosphere, it is appropriate to give additional 
time to examine the implications of these controversial provisions of 
the PATRIOT Act.''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

[[Page H13180]]

                                S. 2167

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE 
                   USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE LONE WOLF PROVISION OF 
                   THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM 
                   PREVENTION ACT OF 2004.

       Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
     Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
     Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (18 U.S.C. 
     2510 note) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2006''.

                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In section 1, strike ``July 1, 2006'' and insert ``February 
     3, 2006''.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object to this one-month 
extension of the PATRIOT Act provision contained in this legislation. 
We would have preferred a three or six month extension to allow the 
American people a longer time to discuss the very serious impacts of 
these provisions on the civil liberties of the American people. But it 
appears we will only be given one month for that national debate.
  I also want it to be clear that this legislation involves only a 
small portion of the PATRIOT Act. Ninety percent of that Act is law and 
remains law, regardless of what we do here today.
  The portion of the law in dispute is the very controversial section 
that affects the basic civil liberties of the American people. The 
rights of our citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, should not 
be shoehorned into a tight timeframe: we should have the time for a 
vigorous and thorough debate. In the meantime, the overwhelming 
majority of the PATRIOT Act is in place, and will remain in effect.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a very crucial debate in this country today 
about the rights of American citizens to privacy, and about the proper 
role of the Congress and the courts in assuring that no one--not even 
the President--tramples on those basic privacy rights without complying 
with the law. In this atmosphere, it is appropriate to give additional 
time to examine the implications of these controversial provisions of 
the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 
attacks, Congress recognized that our Nation's intelligence and law 
enforcement communities lacked the statutory tools necessary to meet 
and defeat the international terrorist threat. Large majorities in both 
Houses passed the PATRIOT Act to lower the wall of separation between 
the intelligence and law enforcement communities that prevented the 
sharing of threat information that might have averted these attacks. I 
supported the inclusion of sunsets in the PATRIOT Act because I 
recognized that the enlargement of federal law enforcement authority 
and the attendant risk to civil liberties required comprehensive 
examination and affirmative congressional reauthorization.
  Since passage of the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001, I have led 
aggressive congressional oversight of the implementation of the PATRIOT 
Act before the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the legislation 
has been exhaustively examined by the House Committee on Intelligence, 
as well as companion committees in the other body. The PATRIOT Act 
conference report is more protective of civil liberties than current 
law in dozens of areas, and is the product of extensive and bipartisan 
legislative and oversight, as well as intensive bipartisan and 
bicameral negotiations. On December 14, the House passed the PATRIOT 
Act conference report by a bipartisan vote of 251-174.
  Last night, the other body ignored the will of the House, a majority 
of PATRIOT Act House-Senate conferees, and a clear majority of Senators 
by passing a six-month extension of the PATRIOT Act that contained none 
of the important civil liberties provisions carefully negotiated by 
House and Senate conferees.
  The security of the American people should not be subordinated to the 
partisan brinksmanship of a minority of obstructionist Senators. It is 
imperative that the PATRIOT Act not be permitted to expire in order to 
ensure that our Nation's law enforcement and intelligence communities 
are provided the statutory mandate necessary to detect and defeat 
terrorist threats.
  Let me respond to assertions that the conference report does not 
strengthen the civil liberties provisions of the original PATRIOT Act.
  Senator Schumer and others have said that we ought to ``mend it, not 
end it.'' Senator Schumer and others fail to recognize that conferees 
have already extensively mended it, and that further mending will have 
the effect of ending the vital antiterrorism provisions contained in 
this legislation and heighten the risk of future terrorist attack.
  With respect to civil liberties enhancements, the PATRIOT Act 
conference report contains at least 30 additional civil liberties 
safeguards, many of which were requested by minority conferees. This 
conference report tightens the criteria necessary to obtain a 
multipoint wiretap, heightens reporting requirements of their use, 
increases safeguards for the use of delayed notice search warrants, 
imposes stringent requirements for the acquisition of business records 
under section 215 of the legislation, requires the approval of such 
orders from the FBI Director or other senior executive official if they 
pertain to library, medical, educational or other records, limits the 
scope of material obtained through these orders, and prohibits the 
dissemination of information obtained.
  The conference report also requires that the DOJ Inspector General 
conduct two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders that 
will examine: any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to 215 
orders, including any improper or illegal use of the authority; the 
manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and 
disseminated by the FBI; and an assessment of whether the minimization 
procedures protect the constitutional rights of United States persons.
  Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to consult with 
legal counsel and creates an explicit right to judicial review of NSL 
requests.
  Permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside an NSL if compliance 
would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful--this is the 
same standard used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case.
  Requires the DOJ Inspector General to conduct two comprehensive 
audits of the FBI's use of NSLs and requires the Attorney General and 
the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on 
the feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSLs to ensure 
the protection of constitutional rights of U.S. persons.
  Adds a new ``sunshine'' provision that requires annual public 
reporting on NSLs. Provides for expanded congressional access to 
significant FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence 
Committees.
  Includes a provision requiring the FISA Court to submit its rules & 
procedures to Congress. Creates new reporting requirements for the use 
of emergency authorities under FISA. Requires new reporting on the use 
of emergency disclosures of communications information made under 
section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  Requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress on 
the Department's data-mining activities.
  As you can see from this list of changes, the conference report does 
more than just mend the PATRIOT Act, it overhauls it in important ways 
that a minority of Senators refuse to recognize.
  In order to ensure that this vital antiterrorism legislation does not 
expire at the end of this month, I offer an amendment to the Senate-
passed reauthorization that extends the PATRIOT Act until February 3, 
2005. The PATRIOT Act has already been subject to the most exhaustive 
congressional consideration of any modern legislation. A five-week 
extension provides ample time for both bodies to again examine the 
legislation to ensure that it enhances the security of the American 
people while preserving our civil liberties. It will also ensure that 
the vital antiterrorism provisions contained in the Act do not expire 
as some in the other body have openly advocated.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to renew 
the critical antiterrorism tools contained in the PATRIOT Act by 
supporting passage of this amendment to S. 2167.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to learn that the 
Senate voted to extend the PATRIOT Act for just six months, rather than 
making it permanent or at least extending key provisions for the next 
few years.
  As everyone in the House and Senate knows, the provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act have been used against drug lords and mafia kingpins for 
years, it is common sense that we are allowed to use these same tools 
in the war on terror.
  I am also chagrinned to see that the bill that the Senate sent over 
does not contain any of the cargo theft or port security provisions 
that we passed overwhelmingly in this body.
  Back in July, we passed the port security/cargo theft provisions onto 
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization by a remarkable 381-45 vote. These 
measures were so important that, even though the Senate did not include 
them in their version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, conferees 
from both the House and Senate decided to put these provisions in the 
final conference report.
  From a personal perspective, the issue of cargo theft is one that I 
have worked on for two years. I will not rest until these cargo theft 
prevention measures have been signed into law by the president.
  These cargo theft provisions would have gone a long way in helping 
law enforcement fight the widespread and costly crime.

[[Page H13181]]

  But if we must delay further action for six more months, that is six 
more months where criminals can steal cargo and make billions. That is 
half a year of handicapping our law enforcement, hurting our businesses 
and passing the cost on to American consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for his tireless 
efforts providing oversight over the PATRIOT Act and working on 
reauthorizing this critical legislation, including by now extending the 
PATRIOT Act for just one month. This allows us to work on making these 
provisions permanent and on including the cargo theft measures as soon 
as possible.
  I also commend Chairman Coble, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Schiff, as well as 
all the law enforcement and industry groups that worked on the port 
security and cargo theft provisions.
  I say to our fellow Americans and our law enforcement communities, 
that I will do everything that I can to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, 
and that I will not rest until we finally enact these cargo theft 
prevention measures into law.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________