[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H60-H67]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
USA PATRIOT ACT 5-WEEK EXTENSION
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4659) to amend the USA PATRIOT Act to extend the sunset
of certain provisions of such Act.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4659
Be in enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT
ACT.
Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tolls Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law
107-56; 115 Stat. 295) is amended by striking ``February 3,
2006'' and inserting ``March 10, 2006''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
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 H.R. 4659 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4659, to extend until March 10
crucial provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire this Friday.
On December 23 of last year, both Houses unanimously passed a short-
term extension of the PATRIOT Act to preserve critical antiterrorism
initiatives that were set to expire at the end of last year.
Unfortunately, we must
[[Page H61]]
pass another extension today because a minority of Members of the other
body have blocked an up-or-down vote on the conference report for H.R.
3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of
2005 which the full House passed by a broad bipartisan vote of 257-171
on December 14.
The opponents in the other body have repeatedly cited their concern
for civil liberties as a justification for their obstruction.
Ironically, the conference report that has been blocked contains dozens
of vital civil liberty protections, many included at their request.
{time} 1600
The original PATRIOT Act contains none of these protections. As a
result, we are once again forced to extend the current PATRIOT Act
rather than to implement the current important civil liberties
protections contained in the conference report that even its detractors
acknowledge is an improvement over current law.
When the PATRIOT Act was first passed in October of 2001, I pledged
to rigorously examine its implementation to ensure that new law
enforcement authorities did not violate civil liberties. Since April of
2005 alone, the House Judiciary Committee received testimony from 35
witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act. In addition to
hearings, I have requested, along with Ranking Member Conyers, written
responses from the Attorney General to detailed questions regarding use
of the PATRIOT Act and whether any of its provisions have been used to
violate individuals' civil liberties.
A chronology of these legislative and oversight activities follows:
Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act From October, 2001, to November, 2005:
1. November 9, 2005, Department of Justice classified
briefing for Committee on the Judiciary staff on press
accounts of FBI use of NSLs;
2. October 25, 2005, Department of Justice classified
briefing for House & Senate Committees on the Judiciary and
Committees on Intelligence staff on press accounts of FBI use
of NSLs;
3. October 6, 2005, Department of Justice classified
briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on
press accounts of mistakes in FBI applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under the USA PATRIOT Act;
4. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to July 1, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
5. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to May 19, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
6. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions
regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
7. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary
regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
8. July 5, 2005, letter from FBI Director Meuller to Senate
Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding
use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
9. July 1, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions
regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
10. July 1, 2005, letter from House Committee on the
Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act; .
11. June 29, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
responding to April 5, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
12. June 10, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;
13. June 8, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;
14. May 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &
Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions of
the Criminal Code & the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT
Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters; &
Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed
at U.S. Facilities Abroad;
15. May 19, 2005, letter from House Committee on the
Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
16. May 10, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &
Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material
Support to Terrorists & Foreign Terrorist Organizations & on
the DOJ Inspector General's Reports on Civil Liberty
Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act;
17. May 10, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on continued oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;
18. May 5, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &
Homeland Security hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT
Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic
Communications to Protect Life and Limb;
19. May 3, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &
Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, & 223 of
the USA PATRIOT Act & Their Effect on Law Enforcement
Surveillance;
20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
& Homeland Security hearing: Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT
Act--If It Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?;
21. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
& Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 206 and 215
Improved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
Investigations?;
22. April 26, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General
William Moschella to Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to
April 4, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
23. April 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
& Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, &
225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, & Sections 6001 & 6002 of the
Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,
improved FISA Investigations?;
24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
& Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, & the Age of
Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages
Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer
Trespasser Communications; & Section 220: Nationwide Service
of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence);
25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the
Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition;
26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
& Homeland Security hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the
USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing;
27. April 6, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing
with Attorney General Gonzales;
28. April 5, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;
29. March 22, 2005, Department of Justice law enforcement
sensitive briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and
staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
30. September 22, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing: A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation &
Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act & the SAFE Act May
5, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: Aiding
Terrorists--a Review of the Material Support Statute;
31. May 20, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on FBI Oversight: Terrorism;
32. April 14, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on Preventing & Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A
Review of Current Law;
33. February 3, 2004, Department of Justice briefing for
House Committee on the Judiciary staff on its views of S.
1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of
2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both
bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act;
34. November 20, 2003, request by Chairmen Sensenbrenner &
Hostettler to GAO requesting a study of the implementation of
the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. Report
was released on June 6, 2005;
35. October 29, 2003, Department of Justice classified
briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on
the use of FlSA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, & Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two
Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots;
37. August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for
House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding
the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct
delayed searches & collect business records & the effect of
the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;
38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on Law Enforcement & Terrorism;
39. June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security,
Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
40. June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified
briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on
the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
41. June 5, 2003, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on the U.S. Department of Justice, including its use of the
provisions authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act;
42. May 20, 2003, House Subcommittee on the Constitution
hearing: Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth
Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government
Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks;
43. May 13, 2003, letter from Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Jamie Brown to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
44. April 1, 2003, letter from the House Committee on the
Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
[[Page H62]]
45. October 9, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: Tools Against
Terror: How the Administration is Implementing New Laws in
the Fight to Protect our Homeland;
46. September 20, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the
Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT
Act;
47. September 10, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act in Practice: Shedding Light on
the FISA Process;
48. August 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on
the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA
PATRIOT Act;
49. July 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General
Daniel Bryant to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
50. July 25, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on the Department of Justice, including its
implementation of the authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT
Act;
51. June 13, 2002, letter from the House Committee on the
Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
52. April 17, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts hearing: ``Should the Office of
Homeland Security Have More Power? A Case Study in
Information Sharing;''
53. December 6, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While
Defending Against Terrorism;
54. December 4, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While
Defending Against Terrorism;
55. November 28, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While
Defending Against Terrorism; and
56. October 3, 2001, Senate Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, & Property Rights hearing:
Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Inspector General has issued six reports and
found no evidence that law enforcement has abused the PATRIOT Act.
Opponents of the PATRIOT Act have repeatedly pointed to the Brandon
Mayfield case as an example of abuse of the act. Members of Congress
asked the DOJ Inspector General to examine whether the PATRIOT Act was
abused in this case. On January 6, 2006, the Inspector General
concluded: ``We do not find any evidence that the FBI misused any of
the provisions of the PATRIOT Act in conducting its investigation of
Mayfield.''
Even though no credible evidence of abuse of the PATRIOT Act has been
received by Congress, the conference report adopted over 30 new
additional civil liberty protections to address concerns about the
potential for misuse. For example, the conference report contained
several new reporting requirements that will provide additional
information for congressional oversight of the act. These provisions
establish specific procedures to consult legal counsel and seek
judicial review for those wishing to challenge the national security
letter or a section 215 order, two of the authorities most criticized
by opponents.
Additionally, the conference report increases accountability by
requiring the FBI director, deputy director, or executive assistant
director to authorize applications that request the FISA court to issue
a section 215 order for certain records, including library records,
medical records, educational record and tax return records. The
conference report also requires public reporting of the aggregate use
of section 215 orders.
Because time does not permit me to detail all of the civil liberty
protections contained in the conference report, the following list
details each of those safeguards.
Additional Civil Liberties Protections Contained in the Conference
Report on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005''
The conference report contains the following additional
safeguards:
Requires a description of a specific target in both the
application and the court order for ``roving wiretaps,'' and
specific facts in the application that show that the target's
actions may thwart surveillance efforts--if the target's true
identity is unknown.
Requires that the FBI must notify the court within 10 days
after beginning surveillance of any new phone for all
``roving wiretaps.'' The notice must include the total number
of electronic surveillances conducted under the court's
multipoint order.
Includes new reporting requirements to Congress, including
new details about the use of ``roving'' authority.
Requires that for delayed notice search warrants that
notice of the search be given within 30 days of its
execution, unless the facts justify a later date, eliminating
the open-ended period of delay permissible under current law.
Allows for extensions of the delay period in giving notice
of a search, but only upon an updated showing of the need for
further delay. Also, it limits any extension to 90 days or
less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay.
Adds new reporting requirements to Congress on the use of
delayed notice search warrants.
Requires for section 215 orders, relating to investigator's
access to business records, a statement of facts showing
reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other
things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to
protect against international terrorism or espionage. This
provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT
Act, which required the government only to certify that the
records at issue were sought for an authorized
investigation--without any factual showing.
Requires a three part test for section 215 orders that
ensures the records are sought for: a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power; the activities of a suspected agent
of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized
investigation; or an individual in contact with, or known to,
a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an
authorized investigation. This test combined with the newly
required statement of facts should mitigate concerns of
government ``fishing expeditions,'' while maintaining the
flexibility for legitimate terrorism investigations.
Explicitly guarantees the right for recipients of section
215 orders to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review.
Requires high level approval by either the FBI Director,
Deputy Director, or Executive Assistant Director for requests
for certain records, including library records, medical
records, educational records, and tax return records.
Limits the scope of section 215 orders to materials that
could be obtained via grand jury subpoena or a similar court
order for the production of records.
Limits retention, and prohibits dissemination, of
information concerning U.S. persons.
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.
Requires enhanced reporting to Congress of section 215
orders, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library
records, medical records, educational records, and other
sensitive types of records.
Requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section
215 orders.
Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to
consult with legal counsel.
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.
Provides for judicial review of the nondisclosure
requirements.
Adds a ``knowing and willfully'' standard that must be
proven before someone who discloses an NSL can be subject to
a 1-year misdemeanor offense.
Requires the DOJ IG to conduct two comprehensive audits of
the FBI's use of NSLs.
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 and 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.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I would remind Members, Mr. Speaker, of both
Houses that the conference committee dissolved after the conference
report was filed and the House acted in a bipartisan manner to approve
it. I believe it is healthy to continue to debate the merits of the
PATRIOT Act and to continue vigorous congressional oversight of its
authorities. But it is also imperative that we not play political games
with the vital tools our law enforcement and intelligence communities
need to keep us safe from additional attacks on American soil.
We must not rebuild the wall of separation between the FBI and CIA
and return to the pre-9/11 mindset that made
[[Page H63]]
America vulnerable to a terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this extension of the PATRIOT Act so as to give the
other body the time to expeditiously pass the conference report on H.R.
3199. As recent events have highlighted, the threat of terrorism has
not receded, nor has the urgency of continued vigilance.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this short extension today. And
doing so will give the Members an opportunity to work together to work
on the conference report from the last Congress to include some
commonsense improvements to ensure that there are appropriate
protections for our citizens' civil rights and civil liberties.
Now, many of the provisions of the original PATRIOT Act for which
concerns had been expressed have proven to be noncontroversial and have
not operated to threaten civil liberties. Other provisions, however,
have become more problematic. This extension will give us the time to
look at things like the searches for libraries and other intrusive
records; second, a standard for issuing national security letters which
are essentially subpoenas without probable cause and without the normal
checks and balances and a mechanism for making sure that personal
information obtained under these letters is destroyed or properly
protected.
A review of wire taps, I think, is appropriate, the roving wiretaps
and also review of wiretaps under the President's new NSA policy which
many legal scholars believe are just illegal. Those are spying on
domestic law-abiding citizens. If there is probable cause that someone
is breaking the law, obviously a criminal warrant could be given. We
need to look and see exactly what is being done and review the law to
determine whether or not they are, in fact, illegal. The elimination of
totally unnecessary provisions in the conference report involving
habeas corpus and expanding the death penalty had nothing to do with
the original PATRIOT Act.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has indicated, there are improvements in
the PATRIOT Act that are in the conference report, but we need to make
sure that we have a version that can pass. We can pass a PATRIOT Act.
The Senate has passed the PATRIOT Act several times on virtually a
unanimous vote or even unanimous consent. The House Judiciary Committee
passed unanimously the original PATRIOT Act until a late-night switch
to another version that no one had read. But we can pass a PATRIOT Act;
and if we use our time effectively, we can develop an act which serves
the needs of law enforcement without allowing the unnecessary spying on
law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to remind my colleagues of
two home truths that may have been forgotten in the 4 years and 4
months since September 11, 2001.
The first of these is that we are a Nation at war. Decades of dealing
with terror networks like al Qaeda as a matter of law enforcement or
criminal justice helped bring us to September 11. We passed the PATRIOT
Act because we understood that we are at war with international
terrorism and that wartime measures were required.
The second home truth is that this war is being fought in a
technological environment as different from World War II as the
technology of World War II is different from the technology of the War
Between the States. In a high velocity age of digital communications,
the President and those most directly responsible for forestalling
another attack of this sort that Osama bin Laden recently threatened
must have the means appropriate to the life-or-death task at hand.
If my colleagues will permit me, there has been something surreal,
even unreal, about the recent debate on this front. We seem to have
forgotten that the terrorists who hijacked the plane that was flown
into the Pentagon on September 11 received more than a dozen calls from
al Qaeda operatives in Yemen while the terrorists were living in San
Diego, and that the NSA, fearful of being accused of domestic spying,
did not act.
Do we want a repeat of that? I do not think any of us do. But those
who seem to imagine that President Bush is a greater threat to civil
liberties than Osama bin Laden is to American lives and liberties need
to stop politicizing this issue and work with the rest of us to strike
a rational balance between a legitimate concern for civil liberties and
the imperative need to equip the agencies responsible for our national
security with the technological tools necessary to do their job in an
environment where a few hours' delay might prove lethal.
Let us refuse to tie our hands again as our hands were tied before
September 11, with the gravest results. The PATRIOT Act is as necessary
today as the reauthorization of the draft was in the dangerous months
before Pearl Harbor. A few months before that devastating surprise
attack, this House came within one vote of essentially dismantling the
U.S. Army by refusing to reauthorize conscription. Wiser counsels
prevailed.
Let us rise to our responsibility as those who saw more clearly in
mid-1941 rose to theirs, and let us give those charged with the weighty
responsibility of providing for our national security in a new kind of
war, fought with new kinds of weapons, the tools and the legal
authority they need to do their crucial job.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support powerful, flexible, and
modern tools to detect the plans and intentions of terrorists who may
be operating in our country. For that reason, I voted for the PATRIOT
Act, even though I believed and still believe there is room for
improvement.
We are being asked today to extend the PATRIOT Act for 5 weeks so
that Congress can continue to work on some of its most controversial
provisions. I think this extension makes good sense. We must extend it,
mend it, but not end it.
To that end, I hope we can soon reach agreement on critical issues.
First, we should modify the report to explicitly require that records
sought under Section 215--commonly called the Library provision--be
connected to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is
the traditional FISA standard. A looser standard invites ``fishing
expeditions.''
Second, we should explicitly state 215 recipients have the right to
challenge a gag order in court.
Third, we should ensure that National Security Leaders are not used
as back doors for getting library circulation, medical, tax and
educational institutions records, and to modify the ``conclusive
presumption'' language which makes it virtually impossible for NSL
recipients to challenge ``gag'' orders in court. These and other
critical changes to NSLs are included H.R. 4570--a bill that I, my
colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Conyers and
other congressional leaders introduced in December.
As part of the negotiations, Congress must also insist that the
President provide the facts on his NSA terrorist surveillance program.
His refusal to brief the 36 Members of the intelligence committees,
even though hundreds of people in the executive branch have been
briefed, violates the requirements of the National Security Act of
1947.
The President also needs to explain why current law, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not provide an adequate framework
for his program. Some claim that FISA cannot handle modern
communications. But the fact is that the administration requested, and
Congress passed as part of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, numerous changes to
FISA to deal with phones, e-mail and the Internet. For example,
Congress lowered the legal standards for FISA pen registers and trap-
and-trace devices to make it easier to track the calls of terrorists
who may be in the U.S. We also expanded these pen traps to cover e-mail
and the Internet,
[[Page H64]]
and we granted roving John Doe wiretap authority to deal with the issue
of unidentified terrorists switching phones.
Moreover, in the 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, we extended the
FISA emergency provision to 72 hours, so that surveillance is not
delayed by the paperwork involved in getting a warrant. All of these
authorities were powers that the President asked for and supported.
Mr. Speaker, FISA is modern, flexible, and effective. Since 1979,
19,000 warrants have been approved. Those who prepare the warrants tell
me the process is efficient. If the President believes otherwise, he
must come to Congress and explain why.
Mr. Speaker, the message conferees, and I am one, must send is that
the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America.
Let me repeat: the American people want to do whatever is necessary to
defend America. But we also want our President to follow the law.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any of
us in the backdrop of 9/11 have changed our attitude about the
consistency and the value and the importance and the crucialness of
fighting the war on terror. With not enough time to pursue that debate,
let me simply say that this extension is crucial for a reasonable
response to the needs of the American people to have their liberty
protected. And I read very quickly a statement from ``On Liberty,''
written in 1859: ``Protection therefore against the tyranny of the
magistrate is not enough. There needs protection against also the
tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.''
This is an important extension, and I wish it were longer because it
is crucial that we investigate beyond the infringement on library
records, beyond the infringement in terms of wiretapping, is the
President's NSA terrorist surveillance program and the lack of use of
FISA.
{time} 1615
FISA is an effective tool, and as I heard the President use the term,
to be hit again, obviously striking at the fear and the hearts of
Americans. None of us want to be hit again, but we do want to protect
our civil liberties. This extension will allow that very effective
debate, and we will get the right way to fix the PATRIOT Act and
protect America.
One of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, made the following
statement regarding the importance of civil liberties:
Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of
a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the
nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in
proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation.
I have in my hand a copy of chapter 1 of John Stuart Mill's On
Liberty, written in 1859. Selections of this chapter are quite fitting
for today's proceeding:
Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the
magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against
the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against
the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil
penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on
those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and,
if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not
in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to
fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a
limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion
with individual independence; and to find that limit, and
maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a
good condition of human affairs, as protection against
political despotism. (emphasis added).
We passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 6 weeks after the terrorist attacks
of September 11. While the actual bill passed by wide margins in both
Chambers of Congress, I made the record clearly reflect my strong
reservations about provisions that pose serious threats to fundamental
freedoms and civil liberties.
In my capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I joined
a caucus of members in submitting letters to the administration and to
the Department of Justice requesting documentation and statements that
speak to the protection of individual rights in light of the
potentially dangerous provisions contained within the bill.
Congress included in the bill a ``sunset clause'' that provides an
expiration date for over a dozen provisions on December 31, 2005 unless
we act to renew them. This fact was the impetus behind several hearings
held by the committee in the first session of the 109th Congress. One
of the most talked about issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act is the
President's authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance
searches--in essence, execute an order that allows the National
Security Agency, NSA, to monitor, without a warrant, the international,
and sometimes domestic, telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds
and possibly even thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the
United States.
I do not oppose the monitoring of telephone calls and e-mail messages
when it is necessary for national security reasons. I oppose engaging
in such monitoring without a warrant as the law specifies. We have a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was established for the
sole purpose of issuing such warrants when they are justified. That
court should have been allowed to decide whether the telephone calls
and e-mail messages of American citizens and legal residents is
justified by security needs. Doing this kind of surveillance without a
warrant is illegal.
The day after this monitoring became public, President Bush admitted
that he had authorized it but argued that he had the authority to do
so. According to the President, his order was ``fully consistent with
my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.'' But his
constitutional duty is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully
executed'', article II, section 3; the law here clearly establishes
well-defined procedures for eavesdropping on U.S. persons, and the fact
is, President Bush ordered that those procedures not be followed.
Further, from a statutory argument point of view, it is not credible
that the 2001 authorization to use force provides authority for the
President to ignore the requirements of FISA. It is very doubtful that
the courts would sustain the President on this basis. From a
constitutional standpoint, the President can try to make a case,
although it is weak, that he does have constitutional authority to
conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens in the U.S.. for
national security purposes. Because the Supreme Court has never said he
does not have this power, some regard it as an open question. However,
passage of FISA seriously undermines this argument.
In closing let me note that this 6-week extension is not enough time
to resolve the important issues that surround the PATRIOT Act. Further
I am very disappointed, but not surprised that the Republicans have not
been willing to come to the table to meet with us in an effort to come
to some middle ground.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, none of us here deny that some of the
provisions of the PATRIOT Act are very useful in fighting the war on
terrorism. No one wants the PATRIOT Act to be eliminated, but the
PATRIOT Act should be amended to safeguard civil liberties.
Section 215 should be amended to provide meaningful protection from
abuse by an overzealous government seeking sensitive and personal
documentation. We should replace the mere showing of relevance standard
with a three-part test that was the basis of the Senate compromise.
Recipients of section 215 orders and of section 505 national security
letters must be allowed a meaningful court challenge to the gag order,
and the national security letter authority should sunset in order to
guarantee Congressional oversight.
We also must be mindful, while debating this, of the President's
claim of extraordinary power to wiretap Americans in conversation he
says with people who are terrorists abroad. We do not know that is the
only wiretapping that is going on. It may be thousands, may be hundreds
of thousands of Americans are being wiretapped. We do not know. This is
all secret. It only got out because it leaked.
The President claims the power to do this against the apparently
plain language of the law. Many of us think it is illegal. Many people
think this is illegal the President claims inherent power or that we
authorized this when we authorized the use of force in Afghanistan.
Well, maybe, but we ought to be holding hearings. It is an abdication
of responsibility for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees of this
House not to be holding hearings on this.
Why should the hearings only occur in the Senate? Is this House not
an
[[Page H65]]
equal branch of the government? So I urge this bill. This extension
ought to pass so that we can work out the problem of modification of
the PATRIOT Act, and we ought not to abdicate our responsibility. I
urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings so that
we can examine these issues.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
legislation, because it should become crystal clear that the
administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and
outright deny the civil liberties of American citizens in defiance of
our Constitution. This administration is illegally wiretapping American
citizens, illegally collecting information on peace groups and
illegally using signing statements to ignore the torture ban recently
enacted by the Congress. The administration is violating the laws
Congress has passed, and they are violating the U.S. Constitution.
I will not vote to give this administration any police powers until I
am assured that their attack on our democracy is reined in. This
Congress is walking away from the checks and balances of our democracy.
I do not believe that this Congress was zealous in oversight
investigation prior to 2001. I am not a partisan. I have joined my
colleagues in an oversight role prior to 2001. However, since that time
we have ignored our constitutional duty, and 200 years of American
democracy has suffered. The complacency of Congress is clearly viewed
by the administration as a license to ignore the laws it disagrees with
and demand Congress pass extended police powers.
I reject this complacency in defense of the United States
Constitution. I will not vote to give a single new police power to this
administration. The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate
any American for any reason, without the checks and balances of a
judicial system. History tells us that unchecked police powers with
little or no oversight will be abused, and citizens will be harmed.
The administration's record in this area is concrete proof that
history repeats itself. I am for a strong police function that protects
citizens of this great Nation, not a police function which nullifies
our constitutional rights.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in a difficult week, well, weeks, following
September 11th, Congress passed the U.S. PATRIOT Act in an effort to
comfort and protect a shocked and grieving Nation. Yet even in the face
of all that, Congress found 16 of the PATRIOT Act's provisions to be so
egregious and far-reaching that they were not made permanent, and were
slated to expire within 4 years.
Yet somehow, here we are, in the midst of having learned that our
President has authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant,
still debating if it is a good idea to further compromise our privacy,
and make permanent some of the PATRIOT Act's worse provisions, such as
roving wiretaps and expanded access to personal information like
medical, library, financial records.
Threats to our civil liberties and freedoms are mounting, an open-
ended war, a President copping a ``I can because I say I can''
attitude, and a dangerous view of what executive powers are bestowed on
our President in the U.S. Constitution. We cannot continue on this
slippery slope.
As the elected leaders this country, we must vote to protect
Americans from dangerous infringements of civil rights and liberties.
That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose extending the PATRIOT
Act today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would hope that we would give this brief extension to the PATRIOT
Act and that we would use this time effectively to review the NSA
wiretaps and also to use this time effectively to develop a bill that
can pass both Chambers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the two speakers who proposed this brief 5-week
extension of the PATRIOT Act are symptomatic of the problems that the
opponents of the PATRIOT Act have attempted to tar it with. They are
wrong.
First, no Federal court has declared unconstitutional as violative of
civil rights any of the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act that the
sunsets were applied to, none whatsoever.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice is required by the PATRIOT Act to report on civil
rights violations to the two Judiciary Committees twice per year. We
have received six of those reports on time, and the number of civil
rights violations that have been found by the DOJ Inspector General
have been zero.
Furthermore, there is a provision in the PATRIOT Act that anybody
whose civil rights have been violated can obtain a statutory judgment
of $10,000 in addition to any proven monetary damages against the
Justice Department if they are successful in a lawsuit. The Justice
Department has not paid out one dime in either monetary or statutory
damages under this law.
The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with NSA wiretaps, and anybody who
has been familiar with the operation of the PATRIOT Act knows very,
very clearly that it does not have anything to do with NSA wiretaps,
and I really wish that the opponents would read the law and stick to
the proven testimony of the operation of this act. To say that the
Judiciary Committee has not conducted oversight is living in a dream
world, and it does not comport with the facts.
Mr. Conyers and I have sent joint oversight letters to the Justice
Department and published the nonclassified results of those oversight
letters on the committee's website. Last year we had 12 hearings on the
PATRIOT Act and the 16 provisions that expire. And guess what? There
was no criticism about 14 of the 16 provisions, which the conference
report makes permanent. And to say that the 16 provisions that were
passed in the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001 were so egregious that
sunsets had to be applied really does not talk about what happened
then. Every expansion of law enforcement authority contained in the
2001 bill contained a sunset, and we did the oversight, and we found
that in 14 of the 16 provisions there was not a problem. And even the
witnesses the Democrats brought before the Judiciary Committee said
that there was no problem in 14 of the 16 provisions. In the two
provisions where there is a sunset in the conference report, there have
not been any civil rights violations proven. I have just said that, but
one would think that the people's rights were being trampled on. No
courts found that, the DOJ Inspector General has not found that, and I
really wish that people who do not like the PATRIOT Act would stick to
the facts.
Now I would like to talk a little bit about what good the PATRIOT Act
has done, and I am going to give credit to Deroy Murdock, who is a New
York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior
fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington,
Virginia. It says: ``Let the Numbers do the Talking.''
First, the total number of individuals who Islamic fanatics murdered
on September 11, 2001: 2,977 people whose civil rights were snuffed out
because they were murdered;
The cash sum that PATRIOT Act section 371 let Customs agents seize
when terror-tied New Jersey imam Alaa al-Sadawi tried to smuggle funds
into Egypt in his father's airline luggage: $659,000;
Pounds of heroin the three al Qaeda- and Taliban-linked San Diego
weapons dealers offered undercover FBI agents as partial payment for
four Stinger anti-aircraft missiles until PATRIOT Act sections 218 and
504 helped authorities unravel their conspiracy: 1,320 pounds of
heroin;
Total terror-related defendants captured with the help of PATRIOT Act
provisions: 401;
Total terror-related defendants who have pled guilty or who have been
convicted with the aid of PATRIOT Act provisions: 212;
Total feet the Brooklyn Bridge would have plunged into the New York
City's East River had the PATRIOT Act not helped authorities stop Iyman
Faris's
[[Page H66]]
plan to sever the span's cables with acetylene torches: 119. That is
New York City.
According to Federal prosecutor Ken Wainstein's January 3 comments
after meeting with President Bush, the number of U.S. attorneys who use
``the PATRIOT Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts'': 93,
out of 93 U.S. attorneys;
As U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf notes, total years of prison time
earned under the PATRIOT Act by Osama bin Laden's self-proclaimed
spiritual adviser, Mohammed al-Moayad, for trying to funnel $20 million
to al Qaeda and Hamas: 75;
Number of scholars, former Cabinet members, and other prominent
Americans, including Democratic ex-CIA Directors James Woolsey and
James Schlesinger, who joined in signing a January 25 open letter
advocating the PATRIOT Act's reauthorization: 68;
Years that David Wayne Hull, former Imperial Wizard of the White
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, will spend behind bars after PATRIOT Act
section 201 helped convict him for plotting to blow up abortion clinics
with hand grenades: 12;
Number of Northern Virginia Islamofascists jailed after the PATRIOT
Act's information-sharing provisions let spies and cops jointly
determine that they had trained in Afghan and Pakistani terror camps
between 1999 and 2001: Eight;
Total al Qaeda associates in Lackawanna, New York who were jailed for
7 to 10 years after the PATRIOT Act finally let cops and intelligence
officers sit in the same room to discuss each other's investigations:
Six;
According to the Associated Press, the number of tickets for American
Airlines Flight 77 that Pentagon-bound 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar
and Nawaf al-Hazmi purchased online, using William Patterson
University's library computers, that might have been detected had
PATRIOT Act section 215 been in place: Two;
The number of the Portland Seven extremists who escaped the PATRIOT
Act by being killed by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003: One.
{time} 1630
The number of individuals whom Muslim terrorists have killed on
American soil since the adoption of the PATRIOT Act: zero.
Mr. Speaker, this law is working. This law has not violated anybody's
civil liberty rights. It has not been held unconstitutional by any
Federal court in the country. All of the arguments against the PATRIOT
Act are a red herring. It has kept us safer. We ought to continue it.
We ought to vote for this bill.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to the extension of
this unpatriotic act.
The NSA's warrantless domestic spying scandal has shown how this
President has a tendency to overstep the rule of law.
Expanding the administration's powers, in light of these recent
developments, may even be unnecessary.
That said, we should be repealing these undemocratic provisions, not
continuing to expand government's reach into the private lives of the
American people.
Since 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to
secretly search private homes, and nearly 90 percent of those cases had
nothing to do with terrorism.
Americans have rejected provisions in this legislation like sneak-
and-peek searches, national security letters, and roving John Doe
wiretaps.
And Americans have rejected unwarranted searches of private
residences, libraries, businesses, and medical records.
I don't know how much clearer we need to be.
All the administration's word games and sugar-coating will do nothing
to change the fact that we can protect our nation and protect civil
liberties at the same time.
The PATRIOT Act fails to do so.
Vote ``no'' on this extension, and keep our civil liberties and our
civil rights off the chopping board.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to the lack of
opportunity that a five-week sunset will provide but to the underlying
legislation that it extends, the USA PATRIOT Act passed during the
107th Congress, Public Law 107-56. Similarly, I felt that the prior-
enacted five-week extension, Public Law 109-160, that expires this
Friday, February 3, 2006, was inadequate. For the sake of the American
people and pursuant to the words of the President of the United States
just last night in his State of the Union Address, I hope that the
draconian provisions that were contained in the House-passed measure
have been removed or drastically improved. Alas, even the process of
negotiating the betterment of this very important legislation was kept
a secret until brought to the Floor.
I voted in favor of a motion to recommit this Conference Report with
instructions, which would have replaced the text of the conference
report with the text of the original bill passed by the Senate. The
original Senate bill included many more civil liberties protections
than does this conference report. That Senate measure would have
included a process of judicial review for recipients of a National
Security Letter as well as a standard requiring the Government to show
a connection to a suspected terrorist or organization when requesting
business or library records. The sunsets to the Conference Report that
we consider today still require the Government to demonstrate
``relevance'' in an investigation.
The underlying conference report seeks to make 14 of 16 controversial
PATRIOT Act provisions permanent. In making these provisions permanent,
Congress will relinquish its responsibility to review their use,
granting more permanent power to the executive branch. Congressional
oversight has been maintained only through the two provisions scheduled
to sunset in 4 years, as well as through the inclusion of a ``lone
wolf'' provision, also scheduled to sunset in 4 years. Congress has a
responsibility to check the power of the executive branch, not cede
that authority, potentially threatening the civil liberties of our
citizens. The underlying conference report unfortunately still fails to
safeguard individual privacy rights, and allows the Government, with
little burden of proof, to scrutinize nearly every aspect of a person's
life.
The President stated in his ``State of the Union'' address last night
that ``Our country must . . . remain on the offensive against terrorism
here at home.'' However, in doing so, we cannot allow terrorism to
erode our national security or our civil liberties.
I would like to address the following words stated by the President,
again in his address:
. . . based on authority given to me by the Constitution
and by statute--I have authorized a terrorist surveillance
program to aggressively pursue the international
communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and
affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used
the same constitutional authority. I have--and Federal courts
have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members
of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist
surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It
remains essential to the security of America.
I authored a letter to the President that is currently being
circulated and has already been signed by 50 of my colleagues that
categorically negates these assertions based on well-settled caselaw,
Federal statutes that remain in the books, and the words of the U.S.
Constitution.
At no point during the floor debate of the Authorization to Use
Military Force, AUMF, Resolution was there any discussion that the
authorization to use military force would extend to the use of
warrantless searches and vest the President with the broad authority to
intercept telephone calls and other electronic communications of
American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant.
To the contrary, it was stated during the debate that the authorization
``provides no new or additional grants of power to the President.''
(see Congressional Record dated Sept. 14, 2001, page H5677)
It is our duty to uphold the provisions of the U.S. Constitution,
preserve the system of checks and balances between branches of our
Government, and to protect the rights of the American people to the
greatest extent possible. We must remain committed to protect the
United States from terrorist attacks and to exercise our legislative
responsibility to support any lawful means of preventing any future
terrorist activity. However, it is our duty to clarify the
mischaracterization of our actions. Congress simply did not intend for
the AUMF to be used as justification for programs such as the one
currently in use by the NSA.
I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many
victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing the underlying
conference report for H.R. 3199.
Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related
provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and
deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and
constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite
detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists.
(Carlina Tapia Ruano, Statement for Oversight Hearing on the
Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act before the House Committee on
the Judiciary, June 10, 2005.)
Among these troubling provisions are those that:
Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens
based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in
detention irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or
granted.'' (In order to grant
[[Page H67]]
someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that
the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged
in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from deportation is
granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based
merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.
Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been
arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within seven
days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on
terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a
terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration
violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove
otherwise.
Make material support for groups that have not been officially
designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under
this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable
organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be
presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions
on material support should be limited to those organizations that have
officially been designated terrorist organizations.
Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely
on speech protected by the First Amendment. The laws punish those who
``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist
activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech
that incites violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of
inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States'
efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a
chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic
groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs
to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere
payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and
overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should
punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their
beliefs or associations.
While every step must be taken to protect the American public from
further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the
Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections
that make American democracy so unique.
While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is
heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been
repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider
the following:
Its been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's
home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do
with terrorism.
It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to
tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his
children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
Its been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the
admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim
Scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.
Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service
Provider to divulge information about email activity and Web surfing on
its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the
abuse to the public.
Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its
been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but
we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of
Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader
information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.
Its been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in
Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable materials,
even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's Web
site.
Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of
power by the Administration. Since September 11, our Government has
detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants
without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted
tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and
immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate
Muslim and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our
own county--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized
racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism
conviction.
Mr. Speaker, the sunset proposed in the bill before us is
insufficient to allow adequate consideration by the House; therefore, I
oppose it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4659.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________