[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H581-H593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the Senate bill (S. 2271) to clarify that individuals who receive FISA 
orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who 
receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name 
of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic 
communication service providers unless they provide specific services, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2271

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional 
     Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``applicable Act'' means the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to extend and modify authorities needed 
     to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.'' (109th 
     Congress, 2d Session).

     SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS.

       Subsection (f) of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861), as amended by the 
     applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f)(1) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `production order' means an order to produce 
     any tangible thing under this section; and
       ``(B) the term `nondisclosure order' means an order imposed 
     under subsection (d).
       ``(2)(A)(i) A person receiving a production order may 
     challenge the legality of that order by filing a petition 
     with the pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not less than 
     1 year after the date of the issuance of the production 
     order, the recipient of a production order may challenge the 
     nondisclosure order imposed in connection with such 
     production order by filing a petition to modify or set aside 
     such nondisclosure order, consistent with the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), with the pool established by section 
     103(e)(1).
       ``(ii) The presiding judge shall immediately assign a 
     petition under clause (i) to 1 of the judges serving in the 
     pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not later than 72 
     hours after the assignment of such petition, the assigned 
     judge shall conduct an initial review of the petition. If the 
     assigned judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the 
     assigned judge shall immediately deny the petition and affirm 
     the production order or nondisclosure order. If the assigned 
     judge determines the petition is not frivolous, the assigned 
     judge shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with 
     the procedures established under section 103(e)(2).
       ``(iii) The assigned judge shall promptly provide a written 
     statement for the record of the reasons for any determination 
     under this subsection. Upon the request of the Government, 
     any order setting aside a nondisclosure order shall be stayed 
     pending review pursuant to paragraph (3).
       ``(B) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside 
     a production order may grant such petition only if the judge 
     finds that such order does not meet the requirements of this 
     section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not 
     modify or set aside the production order, the judge shall 
     immediately affirm such order, and order the recipient to 
     comply therewith.
       ``(C)(i) A judge considering a petition to modify or set 
     aside a nondisclosure order may grant such petition only if 
     the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that 
     disclosure may endanger the national security of the United 
     States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or 
     counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic 
     relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any 
     person.
       ``(ii) If, upon filing of such a petition, the Attorney 
     General, Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney 
     General, or the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation certifies that disclosure may endanger the 
     national security of the United States or interfere with 
     diplomatic relations, such certification shall be treated as 
     conclusive, unless the judge finds that the certification was 
     made in bad faith.
       ``(iii) If the judge denies a petition to modify or set 
     aside a nondisclosure order, the recipient of such order 
     shall be precluded for a period of 1 year from filing another 
     such petition with respect to such nondisclosure order.
       ``(D) Any production or nondisclosure order not explicitly 
     modified or set aside consistent with this subsection shall 
     remain in full effect.
       ``(3) A petition for review of a decision under paragraph 
     (2) to affirm, modify, or set aside an order by the 
     Government or any person receiving such order shall be made 
     to the court of review established under section 103(b), 
     which shall have jurisdiction to consider such petitions. The 
     court of review shall provide for the record a written 
     statement of the reasons for its decision and, on petition by 
     the Government or any person receiving such order for writ of 
     certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the 
     Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have 
     jurisdiction to review such decision.
       ``(4) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be 
     concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of 
     proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and 
     statements of reasons for decision, shall be

[[Page H582]]

     maintained under security measures established by the Chief 
     Justice of the United States, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(5) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed 
     under seal. In any proceedings under this subsection, the 
     court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte 
     and in camera any Government submission, or portions thereof, 
     which may include classified information.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURES.

       (a) FISA.--Subparagraph (C) of section 501(d)(2) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861(d)(2)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under subparagraph 
     (A) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall identify to the Director or 
     such designee the person to whom such disclosure will be made 
     or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the request.''.
       (b) Title 18.--Paragraph (4) of section 2709(c) of title 
     18, United States Code, as amended by the applicable Act, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure 
     was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal 
     assistance with respect to the request under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (c) Fair Credit Reporting Act.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 626(d) of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)), as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure 
     was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal 
     assistance with respect to the request for the identity of 
     financial institutions or a consumer report respecting any 
     consumer under this section.''.
       (2) Other agencies.--Paragraph (4) of section 627(c) of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681v(c)), as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the authorized government agency, 
     any person making or intending to make a disclosure under 
     this section shall identify to the requesting official of the 
     authorized government agency the person to whom such 
     disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was made 
     prior to the request, except that nothing in this section 
     shall require a person to inform the requesting official of 
     the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was made or 
     will be made to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with 
     respect to the request for information under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (d) Right to Financial Privacy Act.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1114(a)(3) of 
     the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)), as 
     amended by the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) At the request of the authorized Government authority 
     or the Secret Service, any person making or intending to make 
     a disclosure under this section shall identify to the 
     requesting official of the authorized Government authority or 
     the Secret Service the person to whom such disclosure will be 
     made or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the 
     request, except that nothing in this section shall require a 
     person to inform the requesting official of the authorized 
     Government authority or the Secret Service of the identity of 
     an attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to 
     obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the 
     request for financial records under this subsection.''.
       (2) Federal bureau of investigation.--Clause (iv) of 
     section 1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(D)), as amended by the applicable Act, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure 
     was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal 
     assistance with respect to the request for financial records 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
       (e) National Security Act of 1947.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 802(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 436(b)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the authorized investigative 
     agency, any person making or intending to make a disclosure 
     under this section shall identify to the requesting official 
     of the authorized investigative agency the person to whom 
     such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was 
     made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the requesting 
     official of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure 
     was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal 
     assistance with respect to the request under subsection 
     (a).''.

     SEC. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR LIBRARY PATRONS.

       Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Libraries.--A library (as that term is defined in 
     section 213(1) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9122(1)), the services of which include access to the 
     Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or other 
     similar forms of communication in print or digitally by 
     patrons for their use, review, examination, or circulation, 
     is not a wire or electronic communication service provider 
     for purposes of this section, unless the library is providing 
     the services defined in section 2510(15) (`electronic 
     communication service') of this title.''.
       This Act shall become effective immediately upon enactment.

                              {time}  1445

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 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 S. 2271 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 Senate 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act 
Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. On December 14 of last 
year, the House passed the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA 
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 251-174. Last Thursday, the other body followed the 
bipartisan lead of this House and approved the conference report by an 
overwhelming vote of 89-10.
  When the House Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the PATRIOT 
Act a month after the 9/11 attacks, I pledged to vigorously examine its 
implementation to ensure that enhanced law enforcement authority is 
required to reduce America's vulnerability that terrorism did not erode 
our constitutional or civil liberties.
  As the historical record makes amply clear, it was the House, led by 
former majority leader Dick Armey and me, that forcefully insisted that 
much of the PATRIOT Act's expansion of law enforcement authority sunset 
without affirmative congressional reauthorization.
  These sunsets helped complement aggressive Congressional oversight of 
the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. The conference report now passed 
by both houses represents the product of comprehensive bipartisan 
consideration consisting of legislative and oversight hearings, 
briefings, and inspector general reports and committee correspondence. 
This extensive record, a chronology of which I will submit for the 
Record, has demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective 
tool against terrorists and other criminals.
  At the same time, intense congressional and public scrutiny has not 
produced a single substantiated claim that the PATRIOT Act has been 
misused to violate American civil liberties. However, the conference 
report contained over 30 important civil liberties amendments and 
revisions revised to further mitigate the potential for misuse of the 
PATRIOT Act.
  This bill includes three additional clarifications of the conference 
report to address concerns raised by some Members of the other body.
  First, current law does not expressly provide a recipient of a 
section 215 order or a national security letter the

[[Page H583]]

right to challenge it. The conference report clearly delineated 
judicial review for such challenges, including the ability of NSL 
recipients to challenge an accompanying nondisclosure order. S. 2271 
would extend the section 215 recipients similar access to judicial 
review, to challenge and attach the nondisclosure order.
  Second, because of national security concerns, the conference report 
contained language that would allow the government to ask a recipient 
of one of these national security orders to identify the persons to 
whom disclosure will be or was made. The Director of National 
Intelligence expressed concern that without this safeguard, a recipient 
could disclose the government's investigative efforts to a person with 
ties to hostile foreign governments or entities.
  The conference report permitted the government to determine whether a 
request is warranted, and if the defendant has made such a request to 
determine whether the disclosure affected an ongoing investigation. An 
exception was included for information that might interfere with 
attorney-client relations, specifically barring the disclosure of the 
identity of an attorney to whom a recipient planned to disclose. This 
bill extends the exception to prevent the government from requesting 
the name of counsels with whom the recipient had already consulted.
  Finally, S. 2271 clarifies current law that a library may only be 
subject to an NSL request if it falls under 18 U.S.C. 2516(15), which 
defines an electronic communications service provider as any service 
which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or 
electronic communication. This change addresses the potential for 
misuse alleged by critics of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years, the PATRIOT Act has been the 
focus of virtually unprecedented congressional and public scrutiny. 
Opponents of this legislation have relied upon exaggeration and 
hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and 
success.
  The Justice Department and other agencies have properly used the 
PATRIOT Act to detect, disrupt and dismantle sales in New York, 
Virginia and Oregon before they struck. The PATRIOT Act helped tear 
down the pre-9/11 wall that prevented law enforcement intelligence 
agencies from sharing critical information necessary to avert terrorist 
attacks on American soil.
  It has become a critical tool of America's law enforcement arsenal 
and a vital deterrent against terrorist subversion. It upheld our 
constitutional values, and none of the provisions authorized by the 
conference report have been held unconstitutional.
  Simply stated, the PATRIOT Act has made America safer while 
safeguarding our civil liberties. The conference report contained 
provisions to address claims that the PATRIOT Act might be misused to 
violate civil liberties, and Senate 2271 contains additional provisions 
to further allay these concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and look forward to the eminent enactment of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 into law.
  The following material is a chronology of the oversight of the 
PATRIOT Act from October of 2001 to November of 2005 and a listing of 
additional civil liberties protections contained in the conference 
report of H.R. 3119:

 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 and 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, 
     and Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions 
     of the Criminal Code and the Implementation of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security 
     Letters; and 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, 
     and Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material 
     Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations and 
     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, 
     and 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, 
     and Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 
     223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law 
     Enforcement Surveillance;
       20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     and 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, 
     and 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; 
     and Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, 
     and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and Sections 6001 and 6002 of 
     the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 
     improved FISA Investigations;
       24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     and Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, and the 
     Age of Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail 
     Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of 
     Computer Trespasser Communications; and Section 220: 
     Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic 
     Evidence);
       25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, and Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the 
     Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition;
       26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     and 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 and 
     Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act and 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 and 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

[[Page H584]]

     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 
     and 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 and staff on 
     the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
       36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, and 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 and collect business records and the effect 
     of the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;
       38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on Law Enforcement and 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 and 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;
       45. October 9, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, and 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, and Property Rights hearing: 
     Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism.

  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 & 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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me just begin by pointing out that 
in the dissent from the bill reported, there are six precise examples 
of when the PATRIOT Act has been abused so that no one will be able to 
say that they don't know where they are. They are on page 2 and 3 of 
the dissents that have been filed with the committee.
  What we have, we have passed the conference report already. It was 
passed on December 14, 2005. Because of the other body, and the serious 
objections that they have raised, we are getting now to three other 
points that are

[[Page H585]]

being raised. Two of the points are the basis of my remarks this 
afternoon.
  The first I would like you to know about in S. 2271 is that amazingly 
enough, after all the debate, this measure that we are considering 
today makes section 215 intelligence orders for any tangible thing 
harder to challenge in court than the current conference report which 
allows a recipient to challenge the gag order immediately. This measure 
before us that we will be voting on would make the recipient wait a 
year, but then to make it really worse, rather than the reviewing court 
immediately allowing the gag order, allowing the gag as the 
government's carte blanche assertion of national security is 
conclusive.
  We have added two things. We make the assertion of national security 
conclusive, plus we make the person that challenges it not able to 
immediately go to court. This is a setback.
  The second thing that we do is that we add no meaningful protection 
for library records. That is to say that the present conference reports 
allow immediate challenge. What we do is that according to the National 
Association of Library Records, we make the protection for library 
records exempt only if, the national security letters, they don't offer 
Internet access. But the American Library Association puts the number 
of libraries without Internet access at nearly zero.
  What we have done is create a fig leaf that really does nothing to 
give the meaningful protection that the library association has 
requested and that we tried to get through in our legislation. So it is 
with great reluctance that even on two out of the three measures that 
are before us in this very small bill, we find that this is 
unsupportable.
  In addition, finally, what this measure doesn't do is address any of 
the core problems with the PATRIOT Act, the main one being that we have 
asked for moderate changes that would have ensured that these 
extraordinary new powers are directed solely at terrorists or to those 
associated with terrorists, and this measure fails to do that. For 
those reasons, I am unable to support this measure and urge that it be 
defeated.
  There is no more difficult task we have as legislators than balancing 
our Nation's need for security against our citizens' civil liberties. 
Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, and in the midst 
of a war against terror without any clear endpoint, it is increasingly 
clear that we are failing in that task.
  We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act while the 
wreck of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when we 
refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own 
government, including the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. 
And today, we are failing yet again, by taking up S. 2771. Not only is 
the bill substantively dangerous, it does nothing to respond to the 
serious flaws in the conference report.
  First, the bill is dangerous because it makes it practically 
impossible to challenge the gag orders that come with secretive 215 
orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full 
year before challenging a gag order, it deems government certifications 
concerning possible harm to national security to be ``conclusive.'' 
This is far worse than what is proposed by the conference report which 
would allow the FISA court to ensure that the law and the Constitution 
are not violated.
  Second, the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious 
problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill 
pretends to protect libraries from receiving National Security Letters, 
but then revokes that protection if the library offers internet access. 
The bill does nothing to prevent the government from using security 
letters to obtain confidential information having nothing to do with 
terrorism; nothing to protect secret physical searches of homes and 
offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving wiretap orders.
  If we are serious about combating terror in the 21st century, we must 
move beyond symbolic gestures and color coded threat levels, and begin 
to make the hard choices needed to protect our Nation. If we really 
want to prevent terrorists from targeting our citizens and our cities, 
we need keep assault weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists. 
And if we really want to protect our people and secure our ports and 
other transportation hubs, the administration needs to honor the letter 
and the spirit of our security laws and fully fund our homeland 
security needs.
  The legislation before us today endangers our civil liberties, while 
doing nothing meaningful to protect our citizens. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chair of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. Speaker, pardon my immodesty. I believe that this bill has been 
thoroughly and consistently examined, but I don't think there has been 
a committee other than the House Judiciary Committee, I don't think 
there has been a subcommittee, other than the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security, that has worked any more diligently 
than have we.
  Now, the chairman used the words vulnerable and vulnerability in his 
opening statement. We are indeed, we were on 9/11, we are today. But as 
the chairman furthermore pointed out, much misleading and inaccurate 
information has been associated and directed to the PATRIOT Act. I used 
this example on the floor earlier, Mr. Speaker. A constituent of mine 
came to me all upset, concerned about the PATRIOT Act.
  We must get rid of the PATRIOT Act, he said to me. I said to him, 
give me an example how it has adversely affected you. He said, I can't 
do it. I said, give me an example of how it has adversely affected 
anyone you know. I can't do it, he replied. I further said, give me an 
example where any third party has been adversely affected. Again he 
came up short.
  This is the misleading information that has convinced many people 
across our land that it is no good. In this era of instant and 
universal communications, if a piece of legislation is as bad as my 
constituents thought it was, surely he would have some evidence as to 
some information to indicate to me why the bill is so onerous.

                              {time}  1500

  Granted, the bill expanded the parameters of law enforcement, but not 
to the detriment of law-abiding citizens.
  After 9/11, I made the statement that my most pressing fear is that 
the next attack will come by water at ports and/or harbors, the very 
issue that plagues us today with the ports issue. We are indeed still 
vulnerable, but we are not as vulnerable as we were on 9/11, and part 
of that security must be directly related to the PATRIOT Act. We are 
not invincible, by any means; but we are more secure, we are more 
protected than we were then, because I think we now fully appreciate 
the enemy, the terrorism that hangs heavy over our heads; and I think 
the PATRIOT Act, Madam Speaker, will serve a good purpose to that end.
  I again thank the chairman for having yielded time to me, and I thank 
him for his leadership as we have pursued this effort in the past 
several months.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my good friend and my 
respected chair and the Member who just spoke that one of the things 
you have to keep in mind is the information that they are saying hasn't 
been brought forward to the public wouldn't be brought forward to the 
public under what has been essentially a secret manner of 
investigation.
  I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers 
only superficial reform that would have little, if any, impact on 
safeguarding our civil liberties. Furthermore, it has become crystal 
clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse, 
attack, and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this 
country in defiance of our Constitution. This administration is 
illegally wiretapping American citizens, illegally collecting 
information on peace groups, and illegally signing statements to ignore 
the torture ban recently enacted by this Congress.
  Some of my colleagues will stand up here today and argue the PATRIOT 
Act had nothing to do with these nefarious activities, but my 
colleagues are not looking at the big picture. The administration is 
violating the laws Congress has passed and trampling on the 
Constitution of the United States.
  I will not give this administration any additional police powers. 
Congress has failed to do its job as a coequal branch of government. 
The administration's attack on our democracy has to

[[Page H586]]

be reined in. This Congress must not walk away from its role in 
providing a check and balance to the administration's exercise of 
executive power.
  This Congress was not zealous in oversight prior to 2001; but since 
that time, this Congress has ignored its constitutional duty, and 200 
years of American democracy have suffered. The complacency of this 
Congress is clearly viewed by the administration as a license to ignore 
the laws it disagrees with, and then it demands Congress pass expanded 
police powers.
  In the name of the Constitution of the United States of America, I 
reject this complacency. I will not vote to give a single new police 
power to this administration. I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it 
first passed, and I remain even more opposed to this legislation today.
  The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate any American 
for any reason without the checks and balances of the judicial system. 
History tells us that unchecked police powers with little or no 
oversight will be abused and the citizens will be harmed. The 
administration's record in this area is concrete proof that history 
repeats itself.
  I am for police function that protects citizens of this great Nation, 
not a police function that is used to terrorize them. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, to stand up 
for our Constitution, to stand up for our Bill of Rights, to remember 
the long struggle that was instrumental in establishing those 
liberties.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, the statement we just heard is at variance with what 
has happened since the PATRIOT Act was enacted.
  First, none of the 16 provisions that expanded law enforcement powers 
has been held unconstitutional by any Federal Court in the country in 
over 4 years of being tested. Second, the PATRIOT Act requires the 
Justice Department Inspector General to report to Congress twice a year 
on civil liberties violations that have been investigated. We have 
gotten those reports. There haven't been any. Third, there is a 
provision in the PATRIOT Act that said anybody who thinks their civil 
liberties are violated can sue the Justice Department and get $10,000 
of statutory damages in addition to proven economic damages and 
attorneys fees. So far, not a dime has been paid out in judgments or 
settlements under this section.
  This is an example of how the PATRIOT Act has been distorted by those 
who are opposed to it. Let us talk about the PATRIOT Act, because the 
PATRIOT Act has passed muster, and the facts and the court decisions 
show it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
chairman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, after 9/11, one of the most responsible things that 
this Congress did was to pass the PATRIOT Act. It tore down that wall 
that existed between the intelligence community and the law enforcement 
community, a wall that was specifically talked about in the 9/11 
Commission report as one of the failures of our government to prepare 
for the threats that we had prior to 9/11. What we are doing now is 
reaffirming that responsible act by this Congress. This today is the 
final critical piece of the USA PATRIOT Act, reflecting the careful 
balancing of national security and the civil liberties of our citizens.
  In total, over 30 changes, additional civil liberty protections, have 
been made to the base legislation. It reflects the reality that 
security must not be juxtaposed against the notion of rights. It is 
absolutely true that the first civil right of all Americans is the 
right not to be murdered, not to be murdered by terrorists.
  The three additional changes contained in the bill before us, S. 
2271, go beyond the 30 additions that we had in the conference report 
itself. There are civil liberties protections concerning, first, the 
ability to challenge the legality of a section 215 order. Section 215 
deals with business records, including library records. Secondly, it 
adds civil liberties protections concerning the protection of the 
confidentiality of a name of an attorney to whom information has been 
disclosed. Third, it places limitations concerning the use of national 
security letters with respect to libraries.
  These 30-plus changes to the underlying legislation were made despite 
the fact that in this last year we had 13 separate hearings on the 
PATRIOT Act; and in those 13 hearings we found not a single, single, 
incidence of abuse of the law. We placed the Attorney General of the 
United States under oath. We placed the number two person at the 
Justice Department under oath. We heard from supporters of this act; we 
heard from the detractors of this act. We examined the Inspector 
General's reports. We had the opportunity to look at classified data 
that backed up the request for the use of this act.
  I personally did that, as well as other members of the subcommittee 
and the full committee; and we could not find a single example of an 
established abuse of the statute as written or as applied.
  On the basis of the Bali terrorist attacks, the bombing in Spain, the 
terrible 7/7 incident in London, the threat to the safety and security 
of our citizens continues. It didn't end with the passage of the 
PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act, as it has been implemented, has allowed 
us to protect ourselves from future such attacks.
  We must not now lapse into a pre-9/11 lethargy. Unlike normal 
criminal investigations, terrorism presents law enforcement with the 
task of preventing a cataclysmic attack. That is why I rise in support 
of this bill before us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Virginia, I yield myself 45 seconds, because this is getting a little 
bit out of hand.
  The assertion has been made that none of the 16 provisions have 
violated the law, but two Federal District Courts in New York and 
Connecticut have found that the national security letters themselves 
are illegal. Two courts, that the national security letters were held 
to be illegal. And to say that there have been no abuses, read pages 2 
and 3 of the dissent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about 
all of the violations that have gone on.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, the national security letters were not one of the 
additional law enforcement powers that were passed as a part of the 
PATRIOT Act. They were passed in 1986, 15 years before 9/11 and the 
PATRIOT Act was passed.
  The gentleman is correct in saying that national security letters 
were held unconstitutional, and what we did in this reauthorization 
bill is to provide a procedure to challenge them and make them 
constitutional, even though they weren't in the original PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, let me just first say I believe it is inappropriate to 
even discuss the PATRIOT Act until we have had hearings to find out 
what is going on with the NSA wiretaps. The PATRIOT Act could be, in 
fact, irrelevant if you are wiretapping at will, as the President has 
suggested; and we want to know exactly what is going on with those 
wiretaps before we do anything else. But this bill is on the floor, so 
we have to discuss that.
  Unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill because it still continues 
to require no finding of individualized suspicion as a trigger to the 
secret record search powers in sections 215 and 505. That means that 
innocent Americans can have their sensitive records searched without 
any showing that they are an agent of a terrorist organization or 
scheming with terrorist organizations or doing anything illegal. 
Instead, this continues the problems in the original PATRIOT Act. This 
bill addresses several of the problems, but doesn't actually solve 
them.
  One thing it helps is the fact that the recipient of a national 
security letter will be able to consult a lawyer without having to 
notify the government of the attorney's name. This is merely cosmetic, 
because that has actually been the recent practice.

[[Page H587]]

  In terms of these interstate letters, the bill addresses the right to 
challenge the gag order which applies to the secret orders under 215, 
as well as the national security letters; but it says that you can't 
make the challenge for 1 year. It codifies a 1-year period during which 
you can't do anything. That makes the present law worse. Presumably, 
you could go in right away to challenge the NSA and see the secret 
orders; but now you have to wait a year, and at the end of the year, 
you can't do anything, because all the government has to do is certify 
that the gag order needs to stay in effect. The judge has no discretion 
as to overturning that certification. So although this issue is 
addressed, it is actually made worse.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a question on the protection of 
privacy of library patrons in terms of the Internet service providers 
as to whether or not the library is an Internet service provider. The 
language is a little bit confusing.
  Madam Speaker, I would enter into the Record a colloquy between the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from New Hampshire, 
Mr. Sununu, the chief patron of the bill. Assuming that he means what 
he said he meant on the floor of the Senate, we don't have a problem 
with it. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the 
Record the colloquy between the two Senators as to what section 5 
actually means.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I 
have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, is it in order to introduce into 
the Record in this body debate that has been taken in the other body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, it may be done.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, let the 
record be clear that as manager of the bill, I do not necessarily agree 
with the debate that was taken between the two Senators in the other 
body.

                              {time}  1515

  But if the gentleman from Virginia wishes to insert that in the 
Record for its hortatory nature, I will not object.
  Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, it will be 
entered.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce this. 
It represents the intent of the chief sponsor of the bill, which we 
agree with, although I understand the manager of the bill in the House 
may not.

 Colloquy Between Senators John Sununu and Dick Durbin on Section 5 of 
                       S. 2271, February 16, 2006

       Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment, I wish to 
     address the bill pending before the Senate, and that is S. 
     2271.
       I commend Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who is here 
     in the Chamber. Were it not for his hard work, we would not 
     be here today. For weeks, while many of us were doing other 
     things back home, Senator Sununu was working assiduously with 
     the White House to find a way to address some very vexing and 
     challenging issues when it came to modifying the PATRIOT Act. 
     He has done an excellent job. I commend him and tell him that 
     I have enjoyed working with him over the last 2 years, where 
     we have crossed party lines and tried to find ways to keep 
     the PATRIOT Act as a tool to make America safe but also at 
     the same time to protect our basic liberties.
       Every step of the way, as we considered changes to the 
     PATRIOT Act, we have been supported by our Nation's 
     librarians. These are wonderful men and women--
     professionals--who are dedicated to the libraries across 
     America, which are such rich resources. I thank the 
     librarians of America, especially for their heroic efforts to 
     amend the PATRIOT Act in a responsible way and, equally as 
     important, to defend our Constitution.
       I understand that section 5 of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 
     2271, will help protect the privacy of Americans' library 
     records. I ask the indulgence of the Chair that I might enter 
     into a colloquy with Senator Sununu relative to section 5.
       I would like to ask Senator Sununu, through the Chair, if 
     he could explain to me what section 5 will accomplish.
       Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor 
     today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of 
     the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of 
     Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that 
     will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization 
     conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He 
     specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he 
     began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current 
     law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters 
     to libraries.
       A National Security Letter is a type of administrative 
     subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement 
     officials, to get access to documents. It is a document 
     signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide 
     certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the 
     Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge 
     before being issued.
       What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language 
     that states that libraries operating in their traditional 
     functions: lending books, providing access to digital books 
     or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access 
     to the Internet would not be subject to a national security 
     letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing 
     in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain 
     library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from 
     Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing 
     National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it 
     could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as 
     they do communication service providers such as a telephone 
     company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom 
     consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet 
     and send and receive e-mail.
       Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library 
     providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a 
     national security letter, simply by virtue of making that 
     access available to the public.
       Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. It is 
     my understanding that most public libraries, as he explained, 
     offer Internet access to the public. Because of this, they 
     are concerned that the Government might consider them to be 
     communications service providers similar to the traditional 
     providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, and AOL.
       So if I understand it correctly, your bill clarifies that 
     libraries, simply because they provide basic Internet access, 
     are not communications service providers under the law and 
     are not subject to national security letters as a result. I 
     ask the Senator from New Hampshire, through the Chair, is 
     that a correct conclusion?
       Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the 
     conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct, A library 
     providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a 
     National Security Letter as a result of that particular 
     service and other services that are very much in keeping with 
     the traditional role of libraries.
       Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access 
     gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail 
     by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service. 
     But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is 
     providing the communication service--the Internet 
     communication service provider itself--and not the library, 
     which is simply making available a computer with access to 
     the Internet.
       So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from 
     Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on 
     this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the 
     law as he described, in addition to providing other 
     improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil 
     liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing 
     law enforcement with the tools that they need in their 
     terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing 
     those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I 
     think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to 
     the law in giving access to the courts to object to section 
     215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive 
     provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient 
     of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their 
     attorney to the FBI.
       All of these are improvements to the underlying 
     legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming, 
     bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I 
     anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the 
     days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a 
     much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.
       Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, as 
     well, because that clarification is important. So if a 
     library offers basic Internet access, and within that access 
     a patron can, for example, send and receive e-mail by 
     accessing an Internet-based e-mail service such as Hotmail, 
     for example, that does not mean the library is a 
     communications service provider and, therefore, it does not 
     mean that a library could be subject to these national 
     security letters of investigation.
       By way of comparison, a gas station that has a pay phone 
     isn't a telephone company. So a library that has Internet 
     access, where a person can find an Internet e-mail service, 
     is not a communications service provider; therefore, it would 
     not fall under the purview of the NSL provision in 18 U.S.C. 
     2709. It is a critically important distinction. I thank the 
     Senator from New Hampshire for making that clear and for all 
     of his good work on this bill.
       Libraries are fundamental to America. They symbolize our 
     access to education. They are available to everyone, 
     regardless of social or economic status.
       When we first introduced the SAFE Act, I went to the 
     Chicago Public Library to make the announcement. The library 
     was established in 1873, and for over 130 years it has

[[Page H588]]

     given the people of the City of Chicago the ability to read 
     and learn and communicate. Here is what the mission statement 
     says at that public library:
       We welcome and support all people and their enjoyment of 
     reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. We believe in the 
     freedom to read, to learn, and to discover.
       We have to ensure, in the Senate and in Congress, in the 
     bills that we pass, including the PATRIOT Act, that this 
     freedom to read, learn, and discover is preserved for our 
     children and our grandchildren.
       Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence 
     of a quorum.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the continued 
effort to reauthorize the United States PATRIOT Act. It is well overdue 
for this Congress to ensure those trying to protect the American people 
have all the tools necessary to combat terrorism.
  With the passage of this bill, Congress will have demonstrated its 
overwhelming desire to protect our civil liberties while protecting our 
homeland. We have taken every precaution to ensure an overzealous 
government cannot overstep its constitutional responsibility.
  Among other provisions, this legislation allows a person receiving a 
FISA production order to produce any tangible item that they deem 
necessary to challenge that order before a district court.
  This bill also removes libraries from the definition of a wire or 
electronic service communication provider for purposes of granting the 
national security letters, unless, unless the library actually provides 
electronic communication service.
  These are commonsense amendments that will continue to fine-tune the 
balance between our homeland security and our constitutional rights as 
American citizens. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for yielding me the 
time and for his outstanding work on this vital issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, just to keep the record straight, in 1986, national 
security letters were limited to terrorists. The PATRIOT Act lowered 
the standard to anything relevant to an investigation, and now over 
30,000 are issued every year. The sham fix does not help us at all.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in a serious war with 
terrorism. But we are going after the wrong targets. We are not 
protecting ourselves, but we are attacking our liberties. We are not 
doing anything adequate to secure the loose nuclear materials all over 
the former Soviet Union before they are smuggled to al Qaeda to make 
atomic bombs.
  We search only 5 percent of the 9 million shipping containers that 
come into our country every year, any one of which could contain a 
weapon of mass destruction.
  But what are we doing? Well, the President has orchestrated a secret 
conspiracy to violate the criminal law by ordering clearly illegal 
domestic surveillance.
  And now we renew the PATRIOT Act with some of the worst provisions 
only cosmetically changed and continuing to threaten civil liberties. 
Section 215 allows the government to obtain business reports about 
people, including library, medical and various other types of business 
records, as long as they are ``sought for a terrorism investigation.''
  The government simply has to come up with a statement of facts 
showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that tangible things 
sought are relevant to an authorized investigation. Relevant? Almost 
anything can be relevant.
  To make matters worse, the recipients of a section 215 order are 
subject to an almost unreviewable automatic gag order. Now we are told, 
under this bill, that judicial review can take place after a year. At 
best. A year? And in order to prevail in challenging a gag order, a 
certification by the government that disclosure would harm national 
security or impair diplomatic relations would be conclusive, unless 
shown it would be in bad faith.
  Conclusive? No evidentiary showing, no evidentiary test. That is 
absurd. That means there is no test at all. Section 505 authorizes FBI 
field office directors to collect in secret almost limitless sensitive 
personal information from entities simply by issuing national security 
letters.
  The FBI can simply say they want your private and sensitive 
information and they can get it. This is very much like the writ of 
assistance the British used to grant in 1761 that helped start the 
American Revolution. Under the conference report, recipients would 
theoretically have the ability to challenge these gag orders, but again 
that will be virtually impossible.
  As with section 215, the government's assertion that the gag order is 
necessary to protect the national security would be a conclusive 
presumption that the government is telling the truth that the gag order 
could stand.
  You can only challenge the government's bad faith. This automatic 
permanent gag rule very likely violates the first amendment, as two 
courts have already found. We ought to have real protections. We ought 
to have some procedural safeguards in the PATRIOT Act such as our 
entire American tradition demands.
  The conference report does not replace the section 215 showing of 
relevance standard with the three-part test that was the basis of the 
Senate compromise which provided some meaningful due process 
protections. It should.
  The conference report does not restore the section 505 previous 
standard of specific and articulable facts connecting the records 
sought to a suspected terrorist. It should.
  The conference report does not allow recipients of section 215 orders 
and national security letters a meaningful court challenge to the gag 
order. It should.
  And, finally, the conference report does not sunset section 505, 
national security letters, in 4 years. It should.
  I very much urge defeat of this PATRIOT Act reauthorization so that 
we can mend the bill so it doesn't destroy our constitutional 
liberties. Mend it, not end it. But this doesn't help.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I would just say to this side, this bill 
has gone through so many iterations, and so many times we have looked 
at this. It includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards. And, you 
know, I admit that your fighting against this bill has probably 
improved it a little bit.
  But at this point, we have done so much to help it. I think it is a 
very good bill. I commend the author, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his 
patience all during this process.
  These new civil liberty safeguards include allowing recipients of 
search requests or national security letters to seek legal counsel for 
appealing the decision to the FISA court and mandated reporting to the 
public and Congress on the use of national security letters, data-
mining and delayed-notice search warrants.
  This is a vigilant protector of civil rights and national security, 
and it is the right balance. It is critical that we pass this bill 
today. I would say in passing that part of the PATRIOT Act was a cargo 
amendment that I included. I thank the chairman for allowing me to do 
that.
  In Florida alone, local and State agencies joined together and 
developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against 
cargo theft, resulting in about a 25 percent decrease in cargo thefts. 
Unfortunately, my colleagues, the FBI estimates, and these are only 
estimates because we do not have any way to track this information, 
overall national loss from cargo theft remains at almost $6 billion 
annually.
  The interagency cooperation must be expanded from the State level to 
include nation-wide enforcement. Cargo theft imperils our Nation's 
security, and data indicates profits from cargo theft often go to 
organized crime or to terrorist activities.
  So for that reason, for 2 years I have been working on this 
amendment, which is included as part of the PATRIOT Act, to, first of 
all, combat this crime by increasing mandatory minimum sentencing and 
directing consolidation of cargo theft trend data--simple collection of 
this cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting 
system, so in fact that system we have a better understanding of

[[Page H589]]

it, and we can coordinate between different law enforcement agencies.
  These are vital steps to fight this growing nation-wide threat, and I 
am pleased to have it included in the PATRIOT Act.
  I ask my colleagues to realize the amount of work that has gone into 
this bill. It is absolutely necessary we pass it. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for it.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman for your efforts to pass this 
critical legislation.
  Our founding fathers knew our young Nation faced dangerous security 
challenges from its amorphous and expansive border and aggressive 
European powers. With that in mind, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The price 
of freedom is eternal vigilance.''
  The situation confronting us today mirrors that of our founders. Our 
border is even larger and more difficult to control. With additional 
points of entry at every airport, prohibiting entry of those intent on 
doing harm is even more complex. Advanced technologies allow 
individuals across the oceans to coordinate attacks within our cities. 
This is an eventuality impossible for our founding fathers to foresee, 
and yet necessary for us to combat. We must keep pace with the changing 
environment. The PATRIOT Act equips us to do that by breaking down 
communication barriers between law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, a weakness identified by the 9/11 Commission.
  In Florida, law enforcement increased interagency cooperation with 
impressive results. In 2001, local and state agencies joined together 
and developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against 
cargo theft, resulting in a 25% decrease in cargo thefts. 
Unfortunately, the FBI estimates overall national loss from cargo theft 
remains more than $6 billion annually. Interagency cooperation must be 
expanded from the state level to include nationwide enforcement. Cargo 
theft imperils our national security, and data indicates profits from 
cargo theft often funds organized crime or terrorist activities. For 
two years, I have worked to pass legislation combating this crime by 
increasing mandatory minimum sentences and directing consolidation of 
cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting system 
to better coordinate enforcement activities. These are vital steps to 
fight this growing nationwide threat, and I am pleased they were 
included in this PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
  As we debate these amendments to the PATRIOT Act, I hear echoes of 
another founding father's words. Benjamin Franklin's assertion that, 
``They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,'' resounds as an admonition 
to those of us standing in this chamber to ensure proper oversight and 
protect civil liberties.
  This legislation includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards. 
These include: allowing recipients of search requests or National 
Security Letters to seek legal counsel for appealing the decision to 
the FISA Court, and mandated reporting to the public and Congress on 
the use of National Security Letters, data mining, and delayed notice 
search warrants.
  As vigilant protectors of national security, and critical guardians 
of civil liberties, with full realization of the immediate threat we 
face, I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Due 
diligence has been observed . . . investigated . . . executed . . . and 
critiqued. Now it is time to pass this Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important debate. I 
want to begin by expressing my disappointment that this bill is being 
considered as a suspension along with the naming of post offices. Well, 
you know what, this is not a post-office-naming bill. This is a bill 
that deals with constitutional rights. It is an issue about which seven 
States in this country have raised concerns, as have hundreds of 
municipalities from one end of America to the other.
  This is a bill that should allow for amendments and serious debate 
and not be considered simply as a suspension.
  Madam Speaker, many Americans are wondering how it could be that in 
terms of national security, our President believes that it is okay for 
a foreign government with terrorist ties to run major ports in America; 
that that is okay. But when some of us say that maybe kids or just 
ordinary American citizens should be allowed to read the books that 
they want in libraries without being investigated by government agents, 
without any evidence that they are engaged in terrorist activities or 
have any ties to terrorism, that we cannot protect.
  Madam Speaker, there is growing concern in this country with regard 
to the state of our civil liberties and our constitutional rights. 
Whether it is the President of the United States engaging, through the 
NSA, in illegal wiretaps without court orders, or the widespread use of 
national security letters, millions of Americans, whether they are 
progressives, whether they are conservatives or in between, are very 
concerned about Big Brother investigating the private lives, the 
private reading habits of ordinary Americans.
  Madam Speaker, in June of 2005, I offered an amendment that passed 
with a very strong bipartisan vote, which said that libraries and book 
stores should be exempt from section 215, that it is wrong for the 
government to be able to access the reading records or the book 
purchases of innocent Americans unless they can establish that those 
individuals have ties with terrorism.
  All of us want our government to be vigorous in protecting the 
American people against terrorism. But we want to do that in a way that 
does not undermine the constitutional rights of the American people. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership took that amendment, which 
passed with strong bipartisan support, and they tossed it out. They 
rejected the will of a vast majority of the Members of the House of 
Representatives and did not incorporate that language into the final 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is an issue of huge consequence. Fighting 
terrorism is an enormously important issue, but we can and must do it 
without undermining the constitutional rights of the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as I indicated before, we need 
to have hearings on the NSA wiretaps. The question there is not whether 
or not the wiretaps can take place, but whether or not they take place 
in the concept of checks and balances.
  Also, we need to know what kinds of wiretaps are going on, and it 
would be nice to have hearings on that before we consider the PATRIOT 
Act. But when one of the previous speakers talked about the due process 
involved, we have to remind people that the due process is not for the 
person whose records are being gathered, but due process on the library 
that does not have enough money to operate the library, whether or not 
they have a right to go out and hire a lawyer to protect somebody 
else's rights.
  The person affected does not have any rights in this situation. It is 
just the library and their own good will. If they want to go out and 
protect somebody's rights, they have that opportunity. These are 
extraordinary rights, police rights and police powers; and we need to 
make sure that people actually understand what is going on here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Madam Speaker, it has been said that there have been no abuses of the 
PATRIOT Act. Let me just run down what has already been reported, and 
probably there have been more, since we filed our report.
  It was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, to tap his 
phone, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his 
children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
  It has 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. It has been used to 
unconstitutionally coerce an Internet service provider to divulge 
information about e-mail activity and Web surfing on its system, and 
then gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

                              {time}  1530

  Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it has

[[Page H590]]

been used to obtain reading records from libraries 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 reading 
information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.
  Finally, it has been used to charge and detain and prosecute Muslim 
students in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable 
material.
  Let us not support this PATRIOT Act today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I can't believe what I have heard from my friends on 
the other side of the aisle. If they succeed in defeating this bill, it 
is a case of be sorry for getting what you ask for. This bill actually 
puts more civil liberties protections into the PATRIOT Act than the 
conference report which has already been passed by both Houses and is 
ready to be enrolled and sent to the President for his signature.
  So if you have your way and you vote down the bill that was authored 
by the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu, you are not going 
to have the additional civil liberties protections that are contained 
in Senate 2271. That is not going to stop the conference report which 
you opposed in December, as is your right, from going to the President 
and being signed without these additional civil liberties protections.
  If you are for more civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act, 
vote for this bill. If you are against them, vote against this bill. 
But the fate of this bill has no bearing on the fact that the 
conference report on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has been cleared 
by both Houses and is ready to go to the White House. So think before 
you vote ``no.'' I am voting ``aye'' because this is a good bill, and 
we ought to vote on this bill based upon what is in it rather than what 
is in other legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to S. 2271, a bill that circumvents the regular legislative process and 
fails to truly improve the PATRIOT Act.
  Last year, I rejected the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and the 
conference report because I thought Congress could strike a more 
reasonable balance in empowering law enforcement and protecting civil 
liberties. I was concerned then, as I am now, that the reauthorization 
language would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT 
Act, which was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation 
in 2001. These sunset provisions ensure that Congress will continuously 
be able to take a closer look at how law enforcement powers are 
implemented and the effectiveness of balancing security and freedom. I 
continue to believe that Congressional oversight over one of the most 
fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but 
enhance it.
  First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today--an 
amendment to a conference report. Conference reports are not amendable. 
Conference reports are the product of conference committees that have 
hammered out the differences between House and Senate versions of 
legislation. A conference report is one of the last stages of the 
legislative process and it must be wholly rejected or accepted by the 
two chambers.
  Since the Majority and the Administration cannot pass the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization conference report on its merits through the regular 
legislative process, the House must now consider a bill that amends the 
report. Instead of being honest with the American people that the 
conference report is flawed, the Majority is attempting to maneuver 
legislation through the House that they purport will ``fix'' the 
underlying problems of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and fast-track 
the bill to President Bush's desk.
  Even if this ``fix'' was added to the conference report, many 
discrepancies in the protection of privacy, civil liberties and 
Congressional oversight still remain. For example, with no meaningful 
changes to the conference report, access is still allowed to sensitive 
personal records, including medical, business and library records 
(Section 215) and national security letters that request personal 
information are still issued with no judicial review (Section 505).
  Today, I reject the idea that the Majority and the Administration can 
use this bill as political cover to gain enough support for passage of 
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. The fact remains that the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization still needs more work, more safeguards, and more 
oversight. As the 109th Congress continues to discuss protecting the 
homeland and civil liberties, I challenge my colleagues to have an open 
review and debate on improving the PATRIOT Act, and to work together--
in a bipartisan manner--to strengthen national security in a way that 
is consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms this country was 
founded on.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the PATRIOT Act, which 
plays an instrumental role in the detection and prevention of terrorist 
attacks.
  Terrorists will strike again. It is not a question of if, but of 
when, where and of what magnitude. We are in a race to stop the 
terrorists before they use weapons of mass destruction against us.
  The PATRIOT Act empowers our intelligence and law enforcement 
communities to play vital roles in helping the United States win this 
race.
  To fight the war on terrorism, our intelligence agencies must have 
the right tools. However, with these added tools, there must be added 
oversight. The protection of our civil liberties is of utmost concern 
to me.
  For this reason, Congresswoman Maloney and I have offered H.R. 1310, 
the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, which would reconstitute the 
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as an independent agency 
within the Executive Branch.
  The establishment and adequate funding of the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Board was a crucial recommendation by the 9/11 Commission. In 
its Final Report on 9/11 Commission recommendations, the commission 
notes ``very little urgency'' and ``insufficient'' funding as it 
relates to the establishment of the Board.
  The bottom line is, we can no longer think in terms of the Cold War 
paradigm of containment, reaction and mutually-assured destruction. The 
modern threat requires us to detect and prevent attacks.
  The PATRIOT Act improves our anti-terrorism capabilities by focusing 
on intelligence gathering, immigration, criminal justice and the 
financial infrastructure.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271, 
the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.
  I am strongly committed to fighting and winning the war on terror. 
The most solemn obligation of government is to protect the citizenry, 
and we need to make sure that law enforcement has the powers it needs 
to do so.
  At the same time, governments throughout history, including our own, 
have abused their authority in the name of promoting such security. 
Americans should feel comfortable that while government is protecting 
them from others, their private lives are protected from unwarranted 
government intrusion. The right to privacy is one of our most precious 
rights, a hallmark of the American experiment.
  I opposed the initial USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 because it threatened 
our civil liberties. As I have said before, while the compromise makes 
some improvements to the original USA PATRIOT Act, it does not go far 
enough to preserve civil liberties.
  It will remain too easy for the government to fish through the 
private information of innocent Americans. This includes medical, gun, 
library, and financial records. Institutions that receive requests for 
information are still prevented from talking about them, and their 
ability to successfully challenge these ``gag orders'' is limited or 
nonexistent. Government's power to conduct secret searches of one's 
personal effects without prior notice, so called ``sneak and peak'' 
authority, remains too expansive.
  S. 2271 only makes three changes to the prior act. First, it allows 
recipients of Section 215 orders to challenge accompanying ``gag 
orders.'' However, it delays any action for at least one year and makes 
a successful challenge virtually impossible. Second, it clarifies that 
recipients of Section 215 orders and National Security Letters (NSLs) 
do not have to disclose to the government the identities of attorneys 
consulted to assist in responding to these requests. Finally, it seeks 
to exclude libraries from the reach of NSLs. Unfortunately, there is 
considerable disagreement about whether the language in S. 2271 
actually will accomplish its goal of clarifying that libraries are not 
subject to NSLs.
  These changes, taken as a whole, are at best small improvements 
which, most significantly, do not address the larger concerns I 
discussed earlier. As such, I cannot endorse S. 2271 and this 
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  I am pleased that Senator Specter and others have said they will 
revisit the USA PATRIOT Act to deal with the many problems that remain. 
I look forward to a new bill that more properly balances our need to 
protect civil liberties and provide tools necessary in fighting 
terrorism.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, the Patriot Act Conference Report which 
Congress will amend today deals with the outcry leveled at provisions 
in the original Patriot Act that allow the government to have access to 
library records.
  I strongly agree that the original PATRIOT Act was too broad: it 
permitted the FBI and

[[Page H591]]

other agencies to issue National Security Letters (NSL)--secret 
administrative subpoenas--without court approval to obtain a wide range 
of data from libraries that had little or nothing to do with fighting 
terrorists.
  But embedded in the law was something I felt and still feel was 
essential to prevent and disrupt terrorist plots: it covered Internet 
sites at libraries that also function as Internet Service Providers 
(ISPs), places terrorists use to communicate with each other--something 
they have done effectively in the effort to evade being monitored.
  Though it was extremely unpopular, I voted against early efforts to 
repeal Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act--the so called Library 
Provision--because those efforts included ISPs. Last year, Congressman 
Bernie Sanders' amendment Section 215 expressly did not include ISPs, 
and I spoke for it on the floor.
  Today's bill modifies the PATRIOT Act by barring the government from 
using NSLs to obtain records from libraries functioning in their 
traditional roles. Only libraries that also function as ISPs are now 
covered. This compromise is right and the law ensures that we can 
continue to monitor terrorist activity on the Internet.
  In my view, however, we need to do more. Congress should fold 
additional checks and balances into the NSL process to protect business 
and other records in the same way this bill protects libraries. Checks 
and balances--such as those contained in legislation sponsored by the 
Intelligence Committee Democrats and senior Judiciary Committee 
Democrats--would subject NSLs to judicial oversight and enhanced 
congressional scrutiny.
  The specter of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is very real. It is a 
prospect that keeps me up at night. Clearly, we need modem tools to 
track 21st century threats, but not at the expense of our precious 
liberties, which are the essential foundation of American democracy. 
Today's bill to amend the PATRIOT Act is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, today, the House considers S. 2271, 
The USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.
  I opposed the original 2001 PATRIOT Act because it failed to strike 
an appropriate balance between giving law enforcement agencies the 
tools necessary to protect Americans from terrorism and maintaining the 
freedoms that protect America from tyranny. Like the 2001 bill, the 
PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is unacceptable, and the 
amendments proposed by S. 2771 again fall short of the mark.
  Last year, the Senate unanimously agreed to legislation striking an 
appropriate balance between security and liberty. That bill offered an 
opportunity to fight terrorism effectively without giving up our rights 
and freedoms. By contrast, S. 2271 would make minor changes to the 
PATRIOT Act, and the final result falls well short of the standard set 
by the Senate legislation.
  We should insist on real PATRIOT Act reform that protects both our 
safety and our freedom. Until then, I cannot support fig leaf 
legislation intended to cover up the basic problems of the PATRIOT Act.
  You not only have to do the right thing, you have to do it in the 
right way. This act and these amendments do neither.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose S. 2271, Additional 
Reauthorizing Amendments to the PATRIOT Act. This legislation fails to 
address any of the core fundamental flaws with the original PATRIOT Act 
and makes controversial provisions permanent which threaten American's 
civil liberties. By making the sunset provisions permanent, we are 
losing the opportunity for a meaningful review.
  Time and time again, we have extended the reauthorization deadline in 
an effort to fix the flaws and yet once more we have brought forth 
legislation that compromises our civil rights in exchange for 
government control.
  As we saw last year, the administration was cavalier with domestic 
spying through the National Security Administration. Their ability to 
undermine the American public should worry my colleagues and makes me 
question the reasoning behind giving additional authority with the USA 
Patriot Act.
  In S. 2271, a recipient of national security letters (NSL) is able to 
challenge a nondisclosure (gag) order but they must wait a year until 
they can file a petition and that order can be renewed indefinitely at 
the government's discretion, making it harder to challenge.
  In addition, S. 2271 fails to provide meaningful protection for the 
privacy of library patrons and library records. It exempts libraries 
that operate in their traditional role, but does not exempt those who 
use or offer electronic communication services such as Internet access.
  This legislation gives the administration too much flexibility and 
does not force Congress to review the act as needed. In a country that 
prides itself on civil rights and freedom of speech we must have the 
ability to question and modify legislation. We must maintain a system 
with checks and balances to ensure that our government works for our 
citizens in a transparent way.
  The lack of transparency is further demonstrated with the Combat 
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. Methamphetamine has taken Oregon, as well 
as this country, by storm. I fully support efforts to combat this 
epidemic; however, I will not vote for the egregious PATRIOT Act just 
because it includes methamphetamine provisions. This is a cheap tactic 
and we should not be using victims of this epidemic as political chess 
pieces.
  I have no doubt that we can keep America safe without compromising 
our civil liberties. Sadly, the bill does compromise our rights.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, while I will vote for this 
bill, I cannot be enthusiastic about it because it does very little to 
improve the laws it amends. And I cannot help regretting that the House 
is not being allowed to even consider improving the bill itself.
  By refusing to allow any amendments to be considered, the Republican 
leadership not only is missing an opportunity to refine and clarify the 
language of this Senate bill, it is insisting on preventing any attempt 
to broaden the bill so it will do more to strike the right balance 
between fighting terrorism and respecting civil liberties. This is not 
the right way for us to do our work.
  The bill in effect amends the conference report on H.R. 3199, the 
bill to revise and renew various provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT Act'' 
(more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act'') that was passed by 
the House last year.
  I voted against that conference report.
  I support renewing the new tools the PATRIOT Act provided to fight 
terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--Congress 
should take care to protect Americans' civil liberties. And, after 
careful review, I concluded that the conference report did not do 
enough to reduce the potential that the authority it gives to the FBI 
and other agencies could be abused or misused in ways that intrude on 
Americans' privacy and civil liberties--a potential that has led more 
than 300 communities as well as Colorado and six other States--
governments that in all represent over 62 million people--to pass 
resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act.
  I had hoped I could vote for the conference report, because earlier 
the Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in 
responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still 
providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the 
threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad.
  I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate, 
and I hoped that the conference report would closely resemble that 
Senate-passed bill. Unhappily, those hopes were not fulfilled--but I 
took new hope when the Senate refused to cut off debate on the 
conference report and it became clear that there would be an effort to 
revise it to address concerns about its effects on civil liberties.
  Specifically, I hoped that the conference report would be revised to 
include provisions like those in H.R. 1526, the ``Security and Freedom 
Ensured Act of 2005,'' or SAFE Act. I am a cosponsor of that bill, 
which would amend the PATRIOT Act in several important ways.
  It would modify the provisions regarding ``roving wiretaps'' 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 is to be conducted only when the suspect is present.
  It would revise provisions governing so-called ``sneak and peek'' 
search warrants to: (1) limit them to cases where immediate notice of 
issuance would endanger someone's life or physical safety, result in 
flight from prosecution or intimidation of a potential witness, or lead 
to destruction of or tampering with evidence sought; and (2) require 
notice of the warrant within 7 days (instead of just a ``reasonable 
period'') after execution, with extensions for additional periods of up 
to 21 days if the court finds reasonable cause.
  It would require the FBI to have a more specific reason to seek to 
obtain that person's business records for foreign intelligence and 
international terrorism investigations.
  It would provide that libraries shall not be treated as wire or 
electronic communication service providers under provisions granting 
counterintelligence access to provider subscriber information, toll 
billing records, or electronic communication transactional records.
  It would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean activities that 
involve acts dangerous to human life that constitute a Federal crime of 
terrorism. And it would add several provisions to the list subject to 
``sunset,'' so that Congress would have more incentive to review their 
implementation and to consider possible changes.
  I think the SAFE Act sets an appropriate standard for legislation to 
revise and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
  Unfortunately, the conference report did not meet that standard, and 
even more unfortunately the negotiations that followed the Senate's 
refusal to end debate on the conference

[[Page H592]]

report did not result in legislation that would bring the conference 
report into line with the ``SAFE'' Act.
  Instead, those negotiations resulted in the bill now before the 
House, on which the only choice allowed by the Republican leadership is 
``yes'' or ``no.''
  The bill would make some revisions in the conference report. 
Specifically, it would--(1) allow recipients of a production order 
under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to ask a judge of the special 
court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 
to modify or quash the ``gag rule'' that bars disclosure of the order; 
(2) end the rule that recipients of a Section 215 order or national 
security letter (NSL) must name any attorney consulted about the order 
or NSL; and (3) clarify that libraries, the services of which include 
offering patrons access to the Internet, are not subject to NSLs, 
unless they are functioning as electronic communication service 
providers.
  However, a challenge to the gag rule could not be brought until a 
year after an order or NSL is issued, and the bill would establish as 
conclusive a government certification that a waiver may endanger 
national security unless it was made in bad faith.
  At best, these are very minor improvements in the conference report. 
And the language of the bill is not without ambiguity on several 
points--which is why the Republican leadership should have allowed 
consideration of clarifying amendments.
  But, unfortunately, both the House and the Senate have approved the 
conference report and it is ready to go to the President to be signed 
into law. So, the choice now before the House is whether to pass this 
bill or whether we instead will allow the conference report to become 
law without even these minor improvements.
  And on that question, I think our country is better served by 
enactment of this inadequate and incomplete bill than by its defeat--
and so I will vote for it.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, contrary to its proponents' claims, S. 2271 
fails to address the constitutional flaws in the PATRIOT Act or protect 
innocent Americans against future abuses of their civil liberties. 
Rather, passing this bill makes the permanent authorization of most of 
the act inevitable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 
2271 in order to force the House and Senate to craft a new legislation 
giving the government the tools necessary to fight terrorism without 
sacrificing constitutional liberties.
  The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee essentially admitted 
that S. 2271 does nothing to address the core concerns 
constitutionalists and civil libertarians have with the PATRIOT Act. In 
fact, he has announced his intention to introduce his own PATRIOT Act 
reform bill! However, if S. 2271 passes and PATRIOT Act extension 
becomes law, it is highly unlikely that this Congress will consider any 
other PATRIOT Act reform legislation.
  USA Today's Editorial of March 1, ``Patriot Act `compromise' trades 
liberty for safety,'' accurately describes how people concerned about 
individual liberty should react to S. 2271's ``reforms'': ``Big Deal. 
By any standard of respect for the Bill of Rights, those provisions 
never should have been in the law in the first place. What is it about 
the Fourth Amendment (`The right of the people to be secure . . . 
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated') that 
Congress doesn't get?''
  Among S. 2271's flaws are provisions restricting recipients of a 
``gag'' order regarding government seizure of private records from 
seeking judicial review of such orders for a year and requiring that 
recipients prove government officials acted in ``bad faith,'' a 
ridiculously high standard, simply to be able to communicate that the 
government has ordered them to turn over private records. The bill also 
requires that recipients of National Security Letters, which can be 
abused to sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, provide 
the FBI with the names of any attorneys from whom they have sought 
legal counsel from. S. 2271 would thus prohibit a National Security 
Letter recipient from even asking a lawyer for advice on complying with 
the letter without having to report it to the FBI. In fact, S. 2271 
requires National Security Letter recipients to give the FBI the names 
of anyone they tell about the letter. This provision will likely have a 
chilling effect on a recipient of a National Security Letters ability 
to seek legal advice or other assistance in challenging or even 
complying with the National Security Letter.
  Madam Speaker, S. 2271 does not address the fundamental 
constitutional problems with the PATRIOT Act. To the contrary, S. 2271 
will make most of the PATRIOT Act's dramatic expansions of federal 
power a permanent feature of American life. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this bill and work to ensure government can 
effectively fight terrorism without sacrificing the liberty of law-
abiding Americans.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the PATRIOT 
Act Amendments.
  James Madison, our 4th President, said, ``I believe there are more 
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and 
silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden 
usurpations.''
  The PATRIOT Act and its subsequent amendments are exactly what the 
``Father of the Constitution'' was talking about.
  Democracy means the ``common people rule''. And the ``common people'' 
of the 17th district have proclaimed that Americans should not have to 
compromise their civil liberties in order to combat extremism. The 
local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and 
Watsonville, California have all passed resolutions expressing their 
concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty nature of the PATRIOT 
Act.
  As we promote democracy at other countries, should we not ourselves 
be practicing and preserving democracy within our own society?
  Madam Speaker, I urge a no vote on the PATRIOT Act amendments.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the USA 
PATRIOT Act. Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. This bill 
is a great example of what happens when you put Republican Senators in 
a room with Dick Cheney to negotiate over Constitutional rights. It's 
like two foxes negotiating over who can do more damage to the henhouse 
without upsetting the neighbors.
  Examining this deal more closely, we see that giving the American 
people the right to consult a lawyer or challenge a gag order in court 
is somehow considered a concession by the Bush Administration. Other 
than that, it's the same old PATRIOT Act that criminalizes speech, 
protest, and meetings of citizens while also eliminating the right to 
due process and a search warrant.
  This bill permanently extends 14 of 16 expiring provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. Government can still listen in on your phone conversations 
without any proof that a terrorist is using the phone and can conduct 
secret searches of your property. The law will still allow our 
Government to send a letter to your bank, Internet Service Provider, 
insurance company, or any other business demanding information about 
you. The only difference is that businesses no longer have to tell the 
FBI when they consult an attorney about the request.
  A government official can still forbid a business from telling anyone 
that records have been obtained, although this gag would last for an 
initial one-year period rather than indefinitely. However, the gag can 
be renewed and doing so is actually made easier by this supposed grand 
compromise. Finally, the Bush Administration has magnanimously agreed 
not to look at your library borrowing records, although this agreement 
makes it easier for them to find out what websites you visit while at 
the library.
  Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act can never be fixed because it starts 
with the fundamental presumption that the Constitution gets in the way 
of protecting Americans. In fact, we need the Constitution more than 
ever to protect us from politicians who think they're above the law.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271. This bill 
makes a few cosmetic changes, but the changes do little to address the 
serious civil liberties concerns that I and countless Americans have 
raised during the debate over the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
  For example, nothing has been done to integrate needed checks and 
balances into the National Security Letter (NSL) process. NSLs are 
requests for financial, telecommunications, credit, and other business 
records issued directly by government agencies in national security 
investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, 
the FBI and other issuing agencies could issue an NSL only if there was 
some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT 
Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an 
investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all-
time high number of NSLs issued. Passage of this legislation will do 
nothing to change this disturbing trend or enhance congressional or 
judicial oversight over NSLs.
  This bill also fails to address issues related to the President's 
National Security Agency (NSA) domestic surveillance program. I 
strongly believe this program must be subject to statutory 
restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
(FISA). Congress should not stand by in silence and allow this 
controversial program to continue unchecked.
  Unfortunately, in spite of having adequate time to engage in 
constructive discussions to fix the PATRIOT Act reauthorization 
Conference Report, the sponsors of S. 2271 chose again to exclude 
Democrats from negotiations. Instead, they've offered a bill that

[[Page H593]]

makes only a few superficial changes to the Conference Report, and 
because this bill is being considered under suspension of the rules, we 
don't have an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments that could 
greatly improve the PATRIOT Act and ensure the protection of privacy 
and civil liberties as well as our national security.
  I oppose this bill and find it regrettable that an important 
opportunity to initiate real reforms to this legislation has been 
squandered.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, later this afternoon we will consider 
additional reauthorizing amendments to the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act 
Conference Report is a balance between liberty and security. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and those of us serving on the House Judiciary Committee 
dedicated ourselves to achieving this end. The additional safeguards 
that we will agree to today will further enhance the safety and 
security of the American people, and I enthusiastically support that. 
It is time, after two extensions and a debate worthy of the high 
standards of American democracy, that we send the PATRIOT Act to the 
President for his signature.
  We all lived through September 11th. I was here at the Capitol that 
day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above 
the Pentagon. And we are reminded yet today that their desire to do 
such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is 
real.
  Since September 11th, we have seen attacks on buses and subway cars 
in London, attacks on commuter trains in Madrid, hotel bombings in 
Amman, and nightclub bombings in Bali. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-
Zawahire have spoken recently in videotapes expressing their desire to 
bring further terrorist destruction upon America. There is no doubt 
that we are under an extreme threat each day. However, there also is no 
doubt about America's determination to protect itself.

  Just recently the President recounted how a planned al Qaeda attack 
on an office tower in Los Angeles was thwarted, thanks in part to the 
tools provided under the PATRIOT Act. The information sharing 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act also have enabled investigators to break-
up terror cells in Portland, Oregon and Lackawanna, New York. Thwarting 
terrorist attacks such as these at home is accomplished by the hard 
work of the men and women in the law enforcement and intelligence 
communities. But, it also is done by making sure that these brave men 
and women have available to them the powers necessary to do the job, 
such as those in the PATRIOT Act.
  For that reason, making permanent 14 of the 16 expiring PATRIOT Act 
provisions is so important. The two remaining provisions, Section 206 
which authorizes roving wiretaps used by law enforcement to perform 
surveillance on terrorists or spies who throwaway their cell phones and 
change locations frequently and Section 215 which authorizes the FBI to 
ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts to issue an order for 
business records of terrorists to be used by the FBI in its 
investigations, are extended for 4 years.
  We must equip law enforcement and intelligence officials with the 
tools necessary for them to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. 
We also must safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that 
make our lives so free and fulfilling. We are doing both today. Madam 
Speaker, our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and 
safeguard their civil liberties, and today we fulfill that duty by 
passing this bill and sending the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act to 
the President to sign.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2271.
  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. Madam 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.

                          ____________________