[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16897-16908]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM 
                 PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 369

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3199) to extend and modify authorities needed 
     to combat terrorism, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
     in order by this resolution and shall not exceed two hours, 
     with one hour and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, it shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 369 is a structured rule that provides 2 hours 
of general debate; 1 hour and 30 minutes is equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent

[[Page 16898]]

Select Committee on Intelligence. It waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill.
  Further, it provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read. It waives all points of order against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the 
Committee on Rules report.
  It makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the 
Committee on Rules report which may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or 
in the Committee of the Whole.
  It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part 
B of the Committee on Rules report, and it provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this somber day in support of both House 
Resolution 369 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and 
Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, I would 
first like to extend my condolences and prayers to the people of 
Britain who once again have fallen prey to terrorist bombs. I remain 
confident in not only the resolve of the British Government led by Tony 
Blair, but also the resolve of the British people to stand firm against 
these cowards.
  As we consider our own measures against terrorism today, let us not 
forget our commitment to not only the protection of our homeland but 
also the protection of our allies. I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
author of H.R. 3199, and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  I would also like to thank the chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), 
for their leadership on such an important piece of legislation.
  After 4 years of thorough hearings and extensive oversight, H.R. 3199 
represents a collaborative effort to fine-tune our law enforcement 
needs and to ensure the continuation of necessary protections created 
by the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. Additionally, through its important 
oversight role, this Congress has also demonstrated a clear commitment 
to achieving the essential and proper balance between necessary 
protective measures and our cherished civil liberties.
  Mr. Speaker, like most legislation considered before this House, H.R. 
3199 is not perfect; and in an ideal world, it would not be necessary. 
However, today's world is sadly far from ideal and America faces a 
grave threat from a cowardly enemy that operates under the cover of 
shadows biding its time with the intent to kill innocent people in the 
name of an ideology of hate. These murdering terrorists lack any sense 
of decency. They have absolutely no respect for either human life or 
the rule of law.
  Therefore, it is imperative that this Congress act decisively and 
deliberately to update and extend those statutes guaranteeing law 
enforcement has every tool it needs to combat these terrorists and 
bring them to justice.
  When Congress first enacted the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it did so of 
course in response to the attacks of 9/11. Congress included in this 
legislation many sunset provisions to ensure an opportunity to review 
and address the effectiveness of these additional law enforcement 
capabilities after their enactment. Having performed these necessary 
reviews with substantial bipartisan involvement and testimony, both the 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence have produced a bill today that will strengthen our 
ability to fight the war on terrorism here at home.
  Since the events of 9/11, our American law enforcement and 
intelligence operations, along with our international partners, have 
identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells with the 
help of the tools provided by the USA PATRIOT Act. Additionally, H.R. 
3199 reflects a continued need of law enforcement to respond to an 
ever-changing technological landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, terrorists are not relying on courier pigeons and rotary 
telephones to coordinate their acts of destruction. While cellular 
telephones and the Internet make our everyday lives simpler, they also 
provide terrorists with new opportunities to move quickly among the 
shadows while still communicating with their counterparts. Therefore, 
H.R. 3199 will make sure law enforcement and intelligence authorities 
still have the ability to track terrorists through the use of 
multipoint or roving wire taps that follow the terrorists rather than 
the telephone.
  Additionally, H.R. 3199 will allow the law enforcement, intelligence, 
and national defense community to communicate and coordinate among each 
other to protect the American people and our national security. 
Unnecessary barriers should never be allowed to compromise American 
safety. For the most part, the USA PATRIOT Act did not create any new 
law enforcement capabilities, but rather extended techniques that we 
were using against mobsters and drug dealers to terrorists. If law 
enforcement can use these tools to catch some street-corner dope 
pusher, then it should be allowed to use these tools against suspected 
terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also say that I have heard from many people back 
home in the 11th District of Georgia who express some concerns about 
this legislation. While they want our law enforcement to have the tools 
they need, they remain cautious, even dubious of additional government 
power.
  To that point I recently received a letter from David Nahmias. Mr. 
Nahmias is a United States Attorney for the Northern District of 
Georgia. With respect to the USA PATRIOT Act he wrote: ``From my 
perspective as a prosecutor on the front lines of the fight against 
terrorism, it is difficult to overstate how important the USA PATRIOT 
Act has been to the government's ability to preserve and protect our 
Nation's liberty in the face of continuing terrorist threats.''
  His Deputy U.S. Attorney is my good friend, Jim Martin. With over 25 
years' experience as a Federal prosecutor, he also assured me in a 
private conversation of the success of and the need to preserve the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Nahmias goes on to write how the provisions from this act aided 
in recovering a 13-year-old girl who had been lured and held captive by 
a man she met online.
  Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, including the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am also concerned and in 
all honesty extremely hesitant to grant additional powers to the 
government. However, I believe that we in this Congress will continue 
to remain vigilant, continue to execute necessary and thorough 
oversight so that our constitutionally protected civil liberties will 
never be jeopardized or diminished in the fight to stop terrorism and 
to protect the American people.
  That said, I would like to emphasize that since its enactment, there 
have been zero, and let me repeat zero, verified instances of civil 
liberty abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act found by the Inspector General 
of the Justice Department. And I firmly hope as we move forward with 
H.R. 3199 and we continue to operate under the PATRIOT Act that that 
statistic will remain intact.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),

[[Page 16899]]

the ranking member; the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra); 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), 
all for their dedicated work and commitment to both the liberties of 
the American people and the needs of law enforcement and the 
intelligence community. Their efforts on this crucial issue are 
laudable, indeed, heroic, and they are to be commended.
  I remain confident that this Congress will continue to stay on top of 
our security needs and continue to work for a stronger, freer America.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill for the sake of a secure Nation and the safety of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, permit me first to say this morning that our thoughts 
and prayers are with our friends in London who today are coping with 
what seems to be a second terrorist attack in 2 weeks. Thankfully, the 
causalities appear to be minimal. And my colleagues and I in this House 
offer our most sincere hope that no one in London will have to suffer 
this pain again associated with the abominable actions taken 2 weeks 
ago and unsuccessfully attempted again today.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of nothing less than our 
national security, but national security is not just about protecting 
our borders. It is also about protecting our freedoms.
  All of my colleagues understand that the PATRIOT Act has provided the 
law enforcement agencies with many valuable tools which facilitate 
their work in the struggle against terrorism. But with these new tools 
comes a very real danger that the liberty we seek to protect could be 
easily compromised in the overzealous pursuit of greater security. This 
struggle strikes at the heart of the debate over the legislation before 
us today. And while the restrictive rule we are debating this morning 
has allowed us to improve the PATRIOT Act in several important ways, 
the leadership has chosen to prohibit open debate in consideration of 
the most sensitive, controversial, and important issues that surround 
this bill.

                              {time}  1045

  I would also add that today we are considering the 32nd rule this 
year that has either been closed or severely restricted. It is ironic 
that on consideration of a bill which seeks to protect our freedoms, 
our freedom to debate and amend the legislation has been strictly 
curtailed, as is too often the case in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, when the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001, 16 provisions 
were set to expire in 5 years because some of them could possibly be 
used to violate the very freedoms our young men and women in uniform 
too often die to protect. These provisions provide the executive branch 
of this government with unprecedented powers of search, seizure and 
surveillance, too often without the due process we are guaranteed under 
our Constitution.
  By party line votes, the Republicans on the Committee on Rules at the 
direction of the leadership refused to allow consideration of critical 
amendments that address these issues, and there are four particular 
issues I want to discuss this morning, reforms which Democrats believe 
are critical.
  First, we are not considering a provision to allow people who are not 
terrorists to challenge the government when the FBI wants to sift 
through their personal information, including their private medical 
records. But we should be.
  Second is the fact that the important work of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence was cast aside by the House leadership. The 
version of the bill voted out of the committee on a near unanimous vote 
in that committee included a provision which allowed for a sunset 
review of the Lone Wolf provision of this bill, which was not included 
in the final version.
  We are also not considering an amendment that would properly restrict 
the government's ability to come into your home when you are not there 
and execute a warrant, and even remove property without notifying you 
until later, if at all, an officially sanctioned breaking and entering 
if you will. Now, that remains perfectly legal under this bill because 
the Republican leadership would not allow the amendments to change it.
  But perhaps most importantly, we are not even allowed to consider an 
amendment that would require Congress to do its job and fulfill our 
responsibility to the American people by going back and taking a look 
at these laws every few years because the leadership decided that none 
of them can be considered today by the Congress, even though they deal 
with the most sensitive and important security and civil liberty issues 
we face in this country today.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated last night in 
the Committee on Rules that sunset review is not necessary in the 
future because he and his staff are providing all the oversight needed 
of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the PATRIOT Act. With all due 
respect to the esteemed chairman, I do not think that is enough of a 
safeguard for the American people to accept in this case. After all, we 
will not have the benefit of his leadership and wisdom forever, and 
this Congress has a duty to consider and provide for the future. Our 
ability to ensure the proper oversight and protection of liberty must 
be larger in scope than the career or judgment of a single individual.
  Also, agencies have proven to be more responsive to congressional 
oversight when a sunset review is looming on the horizon. The chairman 
has even acknowledged that the Justice Department has been 
uncooperative in his attempts to conduct the appropriate reviews and 
oversight of the bill thus far.
  We have evidence which suggests, in contrast to information coming 
out of the Justice Department, that many of these measures have 
resulted in the violation of the civil liberties of American citizens. 
In addition, we understand that some of the extended search and seizure 
powers used by the law enforcement are apparently not being used for 
their intended purpose, which is strictly to fight terrorism, and that 
is unacceptable.
  Whether this information is true or not, the fact remains that an 
honest discrepancy exists, and that is reason enough to ensure proper 
congressional oversight and why we should include sunset provisions in 
the bill. The Republicans support sunset review for the EPA, it is in 
the President's 2006 budget, but not for the PATRIOT Act. The idea of 
these measures was always that they would be temporary, and yet they 
are seeking to make them last forever.
  Mr. Speaker, forever is an awful long time. We would do well to 
remember that they were passed into law in the frantic weeks after 
September 11, hastily, without our understanding of their potential 
impact or benefit, and that is why we created a sunset review in the 
first place and why we need a sunset review as long as these incredible 
powers are in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The gentleman from Georgia has 
20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if this rule is adopted, the House of Representatives 
will consider the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. The ultimate fate 
of this legislation will determine how effective we will be in 
investigating the clandestine activities of terrorist organizations and 
in preventing catastrophic events in the future.
  There is, Mr. Speaker, no greater or more solemn responsibility that 
we have as representatives of the American people. And, frankly, I have 
been

[[Page 16900]]

astonished at the characterization of the bill and the record of the 
Justice Department. As a member of the committee and the subcommittee 
of jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I have spent countless hours going over the records, 
including looking at top secret reports that are lodged with this 
Congress, and I will state for the record I can find no evidence of a 
violation of civil liberties. And I would suggest any Member who comes 
to the floor be very careful about suggesting that there are, without 
evidence.
  That is a criticism of our Department of Justice, that is a criticism 
of our investigative agencies and our intelligence agencies that is not 
borne out by the record. I think we should make that very clear, 
particularly today when we have another instance, presumably, in 
London, of what we are facing. This is serious business, and 
allegations that are easily thrust in this body, in my judgment, are 
irresponsible.
  I authored the amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary to require 
two sunsets of the two most controversial provisions in this bill, but 
I did not do that based on any suggestion there is any record of a 
violation of civil liberties. I did that because, it seems to me, it 
was an indication to the public from us that we would consider doing 
effective oversight, which we have done.
  Some have suggested in 1-minutes this morning that there is something 
wrong with the process here. I do not understand that. Now, I have been 
absent for 16 years, but I can recall how things were done 20 years 
ago. In the Committee on the Judiciary, with respect to this bill, the 
bill was available on a Friday. We marked it up on a Wednesday. I can 
recall being a member of that committee when I was in the minority when 
we received the bill on the midnight before we were supposed to 
consider things. This is hardly a wrong or improper process.
  Mr. Speaker, we considered over 50 amendments in the Committee on the 
Judiciary. We on the majority side were willing to stay there for 
several more days. It was the minority who made the motion to call the 
previous question and withdrew consideration of more amendments on 
their side. This is a structured bill that has something on the order 
of 20 amendments available, covering many of the issues that people are 
concerned about. I would hardly suggest that we are moving with undue 
dispatch here or that somehow we are not considering this in proper 
order.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but before 
I speak on the rule itself, let me say to our friends in Great Britain, 
one of our strongest allies in the fight against terrorism, we are with 
you. We empathize with the pain that has been visited upon you once 
again. We are in this fight against terrorists together.
  Everybody on this floor views themselves and acts as a patriot on 
behalf of America, its values, and its people. All 435 Members of this 
House. They will see things differently as we consider this bill, but 
they are all 100 percent committed to defeating terrorism, to ferreting 
out terrorists, to getting them off our streets, out of our country and 
incarcerated, as they should be. Make no mistake about the commonality 
of that commitment. I know that the Members of this House on both sides 
of the aisle are united in that commitment.
  Today, on this House floor the American people will see no division 
in our willingness to do what is necessary to fight terrorism. What 
they will see today, however, Mr. Speaker, is an abuse of power by the 
Republican majority, which has deliberately and purposefully chosen to 
stifle a full debate on this critical legislation.
  I voted for the PATRIOT Act. I think we need to reauthorize the 
sections involved, but we ought to look at them carefully. A Republican 
rule that has been offered today is nothing less, and I use my words 
carefully, than a craven failure of our congressional oversight 
responsibility on legislation that involves the government's power to 
intrude on the lives of Americans. We must protect Americans, we must 
confront terrorists, but we must also ensure our constitutional values.
  Every single year, Mr. Speaker, this Congress reauthorizes the 
Department of Defense programs. This reauthorization process allows us 
to assess, reexamine, and to recalibrate our defense policies to 
changing circumstances. Today, however, we are being asked to give up 
that oversight responsibility and permanently authorize many sections 
of this bill.
  Now, let me make it clear to the public that the overwhelming 
majority of the PATRIOT Act is in law right now and will not be 
affected by this legislation. Sixteen sections only are the subject of 
this legislation. We are being asked to extend two provisions, 
particularly one that involves roving wiretaps, and the other dealing 
with the FBI's power to demand business records for 10 years.
  Democrats have suggested we ought to sunset these provisions. Why are 
you afraid to have a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives 
on that provision? Why are you fearful? Why do you fear the democratic 
process? I do not know.
  The Sanders amendment. You failed to offer that, yet 238 Members of 
this House, just days ago, voted for that provision. Why are you afraid 
to have another vote on the floor? Are you afraid you cannot get your 
Members to change their minds? Are you afraid of the democratic process 
in this, the people's House? Do you undermine that democracy which we 
confront terrorists for doing?
  My friends, this rule is not consistent with the open democratic 
process in adopting one of the most important bills that we will 
consider. I agree with the gentleman from California. That is why I 
voted for the PATRIOT Act, to give law enforcement the capability and 
assurance we could confront and catch terrorists and protect Americans 
in our country, but we should have come with a better rule. It is 
lamentable that we did not.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, about 9 or 10 months ago, a constituent of mine 
approached me back home and he said, Howard, we have got to get rid of 
this PATRIOT Act. I said, give me one example of how the PATRIOT Act 
has adversely affected you. He said, well, I cannot do that. I said, 
give me an example of how the PATRIOT Act has adversely affected anyone 
known to you. He said, well, I cannot do it. I said, you are not 
helping me.
  I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that this is how the PATRIOT Act has been 
portrayed: Accusations of compromising our freedoms, but virtually no 
hard facts or evidence to support these accusations. And at the 
conclusion of our conversation, my constituent said to me, well, I 
guess maybe I have heard wrong information. I said, well, if you cannot 
come forward with anything other than just rank hearsay that is 
unsupported, I am going to have to embrace your conclusion.
  The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security hosted 
nine public hearings. The full House Committee on the Judiciary, 
furthermore, hosted three public hearings. Now, this is one dozen 
public hearings, Mr. Speaker, where the PATRIOT Act was the beneficiary 
or the target of an exhaustive, deliberate examination, in detail.

                              {time}  1100

  Are we thoroughly and completely safe today? No. Are we safer today 
than we were prior to 9/11? Unquestionably.
  One of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is the presence of 
the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act has indeed broadened the parameters 
through which and under which law enforcement and public safety 
officers are allowed to work.
  Compromising freedoms? No evidence of it. The hearings indicated no 
abuse on the part of the Federal Government,

[[Page 16901]]

the U.S. Government, to protect us. I have the fear that one of these 
days these evil people driven by fanaticism will attack us again, but 
they have not since 9/11; and I think for that we should all be very 
thankful, and I think for that we should attribute some of that to the 
presence of the PATRIOT Act.
  I urge the passage of this rule, Mr. Speaker. Again I thank the 
gentleman from Georgia for having yielded time to me.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule, and 
I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Protecting our homeland 
from another terrorist attack is among the most important priorities we 
face. We must support our law enforcement officials by providing them 
with the proper resources and modern technologies to combat terrorism. 
There is a delicate balance that must be maintained between security 
and liberty. I believe that this bill sacrifices too much of our 
liberty.
  I know there is a lot of anguish in the House today about this bill. 
This morning's incidents on the London subway only serve to heighten 
that anxiety. But democracy takes courage, Mr. Speaker. It takes the 
courage not to abandon our most deeply held principles. It takes the 
courage not to subject our citizens to unwarranted intrusions into 
their privacy. It takes the courage to say to the terrorists, You will 
not succeed in changing our way of life.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear all the time from all types of people that 9/11 
has changed everything. I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I hope that those 
terrible attacks have not served to undermine our Constitution, to 
weaken our respect for civil liberties, to chip away at the values that 
not only make this country unique but also make us a beacon of hope for 
the rest of the world. While the government should be provided with the 
necessary resources to protect the homeland, it should not be given a 
free pass to threaten and abuse the rights and liberties of our own 
citizens. Safeguards are key, and Congress in its vital function of 
oversight is one of government's most important safeguards.
  Many of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act were sunsetted back in 2001 
so that Congress could evaluate and fix them if necessary. These time 
limits on certain provisions serve as critical checks on the executive 
branch. They serve as a reminder that Congress is paying attention and 
that if the new powers are abused, they will not be renewed. We know 
from our own history that abuses of law enforcement powers are all too 
common. We must remember the wiretaps and secret surveillance on 
leaders in the civil rights and antiwar movements, and we must vow to 
never let those abuses happen again.
  Some of the powers granted to the executive branch in this bill are 
simply too broad: secret surveillance of library and bookstore records; 
roving wiretaps; sneak-and-peek searches; and overly broad subpoena 
power. However, I realize there is little chance of removing the 
majority of these dangerous provisions from this bill. At the very 
least, I urge my colleagues to fulfill their responsibilities and vote 
to sunset all of these provisions again for a short period of time.
  Further, since the PATRIOT Act was adopted, Congress has received far 
too little information about its uses. How can we make these provisions 
permanent when the Department of Justice, FBI, and other government 
agencies will not report to Congress or the American people how these 
provisions are being implemented?
  Mr. Speaker, privacy is not a convenient luxury. It is a fundamental 
right. We need a bill that achieves the appropriate balance between 
liberty and security, a bill that combats terrorism vigilantly, but 
that is also consistent with the rights and liberties provided in the 
Constitution of the United States. In my opinion, this bill is not it. 
I fear that if this bill becomes law, a part of our tree of liberty 
will die.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the legislation.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In reference to a comment made a little bit earlier, not by the 
previous speaker but by the distinguished minority whip concerning his 
concern over the fact that the Sanders amendment was not made in order, 
I want to point out the bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), 
that is amendment No. 59 that was made in order and that will be 
debated later on this afternoon, stating that the director of the FBI 
must personally approve any library or bookstore request for records by 
the FBI under section 215.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee 
for yielding me this time, and I would like to say this is a good 
debate not only that we are having right now but that we will have 
throughout the day on a very important act, that being the USA PATRIOT 
Act. I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 
provides America with the necessary tools to protect our homeland from 
terrorist threats while maintaining our cherished freedoms. I would 
like to say in discussion on what occurred in the Rules Committee, the 
minority asked that we extend the debate on the PATRIOT Act to 2 hours, 
and we are going to be seeing that later this afternoon. I think the 
PATRIOT Act is debated every day in the Halls not only of Congress but 
workplaces, certainly law enforcement officers; and I think all of us 
are trying to strike that balance between protecting personal liberties 
and protecting the homeland. Times have changed.
  In this bill that we are about to consider, we will be considering an 
amendment that I am putting forth. The amendment that I wish to address 
is extremely timely today, unfortunately, for those living in Great 
Britain in that it will reform the wrecking trains statute of 1940 to 
impose greater penalties for those who seek to terrorize individuals on 
mass transportation, particularly trains. We are seeing this morning 
the news out of London that another attack has been orchestrated, 
although I did not see the details of exactly who and what is 
accountable for that. But it sends shivers down the spine, I think, of 
every American knowing the pain and suffering that is going on in 
London as we speak.
  It is important in this amendment that I am going to be offering to 
realize that current legal practices are not punitive enough to be any 
kind of a deterrent to anybody who is considering a massive or a large 
attack on trains or mass transportation. So I think we can agree that 
more stringent penalties would be in order.
  I support this rule, I support the debate that we are going to see 
going forth, and I support the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001 
in response to the horrendous terrorist attacks on our country. Its aim 
was to give the women and men of our law enforcement community the 
authority and tools needed to prevent future attacks and save and 
secure the lives of American citizens.
  There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that many of the provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act have been useful to law enforcement and have helped to 
prevent terrorist attacks and secure our Nation. But we must also be 
vigilantly aware that some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have 
the potential to be abused and violate the civil liberties of innocent 
American citizens, the same citizens it is meant to protect. Congress 
understood this when it

[[Page 16902]]

passed the PATRIOT Act and required that 16 provisions of the act be 
made to sunset, forcing us to revisit them.
  I am very proud to be standing here today with the opportunity to 
debate the fine balance that must be struck between security and civil 
liberties. The acts of September 11 were not the only events in our 
history where our Nation's leaders were asked to strike this balance. 
During World War II, under the banner of security, the civil liberties 
of 120,000 Japanese Americans vanished. I clearly know how deeply this 
affected my parents, both American citizens born and raised in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, once again we are in a time of crisis. I implore all of 
us to proceed with caution. It is this type of bill, one that affects 
the most cherished rights we have as Americans, that requires constant 
and vigilant oversight by Congress. That is our duty. The surest way to 
ensure this oversight is to place sunsets on those provisions of the 
legislation that can be abused. Unfortunately, this bill places sunsets 
on only two of the original 16 provisions, making the rest permanent.
  I also have concern about what this measure does not address, the 
ability to secure library records and allow sneak-and-peek searches. 
These provisions are wrought with great potential for abuse. Mr. 
Speaker, the civil liberties of the American people are too important 
and the potential for abuse too great for us not to place sunsets on 
all of the 16 provisions. Like our Constitution, our liberties are a 
symbol of America. The freedoms in our country are known throughout the 
world. What we do today sends a message throughout the world. We here 
in this body have a sacred responsibility to protect what our Nation 
stands for. We are certainly responsible for the safety of this Nation, 
but we are also certainly responsible for shaping the laws that 
determine what it means to be an American.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us agree that we must do all we can to secure and 
protect the United States, but we must also be mindful of those rights 
and privileges upon which this great Nation was founded.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation, the USA PATRIOT Act. I want to thank and 
congratulate my colleague from Georgia for his fine management of this 
very important rule. We obviously are at a critical juncture in our 
Nation's history. September 11 changed the world for all of us here, 
and it changed the rest of the world. Obviously, what happened 2 weeks 
ago today in London made a big change for them and what is going on at 
this moment in London brought about a big change for them. We have made 
a commitment that, because of the fact that we are in the midst of a 
global war on terror, we need to do everything within our power to 
redouble our efforts to ensure that we win that global war on terror.
  We passed the PATRIOT Act, Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks after September 11 of 
2001. At that time, I was very insistent on the need for sunset 
provisions. In fact, I remember going at it with our former colleague, 
now the Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss. He was not a 
strong proponent of sunset provisions at that time. And I said: we are 
so close to the tragic day of September 11 that it is absolutely 
essential that we ensure that we are doing the right thing with this 
legislation. And we are obviously passing it under the immediate shadow 
of September 11, and so it seems to me that it is the right thing for 
us to do to sunset the provisions here.

                              {time}  1115

  We have gone through this nearly 5-year period, and we have looked 
for the issue that my colleague the gentlewoman from Sacramento (Ms. 
Matsui) raised as the number one priority concern, the civil liberties 
of the American people.
  I consider myself a small ``l'' libertarian Republican. I am very, 
very committed to the civil liberties of all the American people, and I 
believe, just as my colleagues have said, that that is at the core of 
what the United States of America is all about. I believe passionately 
that protecting our homeland and protecting civil liberties are not 
mutually exclusive.
  The PATRIOT Act that we have before us is a very responsible measure. 
We do have sunset provisions remaining intact for two very important 
provisions after 10 years. Some argue that is too long, but we have 
those maintained. But we have to realize that if we are going to deal 
with this challenge, uncertainty is something that people in law 
enforcement cannot live with.
  If we had seen failure, if we had seen violations of civil liberties, 
then I believe that making modifications would be appropriate, but we 
continue to have report after report saying there are no instances of 
civil liberties being violated.
  Let me make a statement about this rule. This is obviously a very 
delicate issue. We had 47 amendments that were submitted to us in the 
Committee on Rules, and I am very proud of the fact that we were able 
to work with our colleagues addressing concerns that they raised.
  The primary committee of jurisdiction here is the Committee on the 
Judiciary. We all know that. The Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence shares very important jurisdiction as well, and I 
understand that. I know there was concern that was raised last night in 
the Committee on Rules on the so-called ``Lone Wolf amendment'' that 
was addressed, a desire to have it sunsetted by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings). The Committee on Rules chose to comply with the 
request of the primary committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the 
Judiciary, on this issue.
  But now having looked at this rule with 47 amendments, nearly half of 
the amendments that were submitted to us, 11 of the amendments that are 
made in order under this rule are either amendments offered by 
Democrats or offered by Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan 
amendments, and 10 of the amendments that are made in order are offered 
by Republicans. So I believe that we have got a good balance on a very 
important critical issue that must be addressed.
  I believe that the PATRIOT Act itself is actually looking out for 
America, it is not looking after Americans. That is something that we 
need to realize as part of the very important goal here. I believe this 
measure will go a long way towards protecting our homeland and ensuring 
the civil liberties of every single American.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as many have said, we are all watching events unfold in 
London this morning, hoping that this is not another gruesome act of 
terrorism. If they can strike twice in the heart of London, a city on 
high alert, then just think what they might try to do in any city in 
America. That is why we need tough tools here at home to uncover terror 
cells and disrupt their plans.
  The PATRIOT Act modernizes law enforcement's tools to uncover those 
plots. Most of the act is not objectionable, but it is far from 
perfect, and there are several key provisions that allow the government 
to engage in unnecessarily broad searches and surveillance of innocent 
Americans. That is why I strongly believe we should mend it, not end 
it.
  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tried to mend it, but 
the Committee on Rules did not make any of our amendments in order. 
Nine of us offered responsible, common-sense amendments:
  To establish the traditional FISA standard for search warrants and 
trap and trace/pen register authorities, to ensure that the government 
cannot seize your personal records unless they are related to a foreign 
power;

[[Page 16903]]

  To tighten the ability of the FBI to conduct roving wiretaps, to 
ensure that only terror suspects and their enablers, not innocent 
Americans, are wiretapped;
  To re-sunset the key provisions in the act in another 4 years to 
assure accountability and effective congressional oversight, and 
specifically to sunset the Lone Wolf provision, enacted only 8 months 
ago, in 2010;
  Finally, to prohibit the FBI from using the broad FISA powers to get 
bookstore or library documentary records, a provision which passed this 
House last month on a strong bipartisan vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Hastings amendment to sunset the Lone Wolf provision 
was accepted by the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He accepted the amendment and it passed on a 
bipartisan vote. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is a valued 
member of the Committee on Rules, but his own committee stripped out 
his amendment in the base bill and did not even allow him to offer it 
on the floor.
  This is about intelligence. The Committee on Rules should not be able 
to block the will of Democrats and Republicans on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence to improve the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule undermines the will of the House and blocks us 
from mending and improving critical tools in this era of terror.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who will speak about one of the 
bipartisan amendments made in order under this rule.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am often critical of this 
process and have been known to be critical of the Committee on Rules on 
particular bills that have come through, but I have to say with this 
process and with the committee on which I sit, the Committee on the 
Judiciary, we have seen a very transparent, open process. We have had a 
series of 12 hearings over the past year, and we had a markup that went 
over 12 hours in which we considered more than 50 amendments, I 
believe, there.
  I was successful, with a few of my Democrat colleagues, in attaching 
a few amendments at that time. I believe there are four that have my 
name on it that have been approved for today. A few of them have to do 
with Section 215.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has. I in fact voted for his 
amendment on the floor the other day with regard to 215 and library and 
bookstore searches and sales. I believe that we have addressed it 
sufficiently in this bill in the amendments that will be offered.
  We will offer an amendment later, myself and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), that will require the Director of the FBI to 
actually sign off on any request for documents from a bookstore or 
library. That will help substantially.
  We also have another amendment to 215 we did in committee that 
clarifies it to make sure you can consult your lawyer, not just to 
respond to the order, but to challenge it as well. We have various 
other amendments that have been approved today, national security 
letters on the so-called delayed notification that have already been 
approved.
  I look forward to this process. I hope my colleagues will support 
this rule. I know it is a tough job the Committee on Rules has. I have 
worked, frankly, with a lot more Democrats than I have with Republicans 
on this issue over the past year. We formed the PATRIOT Act Reform 
Caucus, and a lot of us have worked very hard on these issues, and I am 
pleased to say that many of these amendments have been approved and 
will be offered today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentlewoman from New York yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Frederick Douglass 
once said, ``The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is 
honest, truthful and virtuous.''
  I have heard a lot of comments the last few weeks from folks saying 
this bill is needed for the war on terrorism. The way they talk about 
it sounds like our Nation might fall to pieces without it.
  As the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security and 
someone who has seen firsthand what our government is and is not doing 
to keep us safe at home, I am here to set the record straight. The bill 
today is about eliminating the sunsets of a handful of provisions in 
the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 bill. Some of these provisions are 
untested and we do not know how helpful they are because the President 
has not provided information. Others, such as the library snooping 
provision, have never even been used, according to the administration. 
How good of a terrorism fighting tool is it if it has not been part of 
our war on terror yet?
  I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
refused to allow an amendment offered to extend the sunsets for a few 
years. Extending them will allow the President to use them, but at the 
same time hold them accountable for their use. The sunsets are critical 
in keeping this administration honest and truthful in its efforts to 
protect our Nation.
  Anyway, is the goal here today to protect Americans from terrorism at 
home? The attack on London 2 weeks ago was a wake-up call, yet the 
administration did not expand our own Nation's efforts to protect our 
transit system. The Nation lacks a transportation security plan for 
protecting its 30 million daily commuters. It was due in Congress 3 
months ago. Today London was attacked again.
  It is time for the administration to stop hitting the snooze button. 
Let us give transit security the attention it needs. Let us not confuse 
the bill today with the real efforts to protect our Nation against 
terrorism. If we ask Americans, they will prefer Congress to protect 
subways or buses.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get it right. Let us protect Americans at home 
from real terrorist threats.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, in the entire realm of human history there 
exists periods of time when evil people bent on destroying good, 
wholesome, wonderful ways of life get enough power to try to do that 
and to create chaos and to literally try to send us into a dark age. It 
happens where books are burned and people live in squalor and fear, and 
it has happened where al Qaeda has gotten a stronghold. We cannot let 
that happen here.
  Now, as a former judge and appellate judge, chief justice, I am very 
sensitive to the issues of due process, but we are in a war. Going back 
to the Civil War when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, it 
is in the Constitution, ``The privilege of writ of habeas corpus shall 
not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the 
public safety may require it.'' He felt it did. We have not suspended 
writs of habeas corpus, even though we are in a war for our very 
existence.
  Now, there has been oversight. There will be oversight, because many 
of us are deeply concerned about our safety and about our liberties.
  So when the minority whip says, and he says he chooses his words 
carefully, and he says that this represents a craven, and I know I may 
look stupid, but I know what ``craven'' means, he says this represents 
a craven failure of our oversight responsibilities, then it tells me 
there might be a craven failure of his recognizing the oversight that 
we have conducted.
  I have been there. There have been 11 hearings and 35 witnesses. We 
have delved deeply into this. Among Republicans, we have been deeply 
divided. We have taken each other on.
  I wanted sunsets. We have got sunsets on the two most controversial 
provisions. We do not have to wait 10

[[Page 16904]]

years, even though that is what the sunset provision says. We can come 
back before then. But I am grateful, I am glad for the amendments we 
were able to inject on providing for an attorney and allowing for 
appeal under 215.
  Anyway, the gentleman across the aisle says if this is approved, part 
of our tree of liberty will die. I think it is quite clear, if we do 
not approve this, American people will die. If you do not believe it, 
go look at the reports, as I have.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the head of the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to and utter 
disgust with this bill. Just as a bad movie is often followed by an 
even worse sequel, so it is with the PATRIOT Act.
  PATRIOT II does nothing to correct the major flaws in the original 
legislation. Basic civil liberties continues to be in jeopardy. The 
bill expands police powers, it continues to authorize invasive 
violations of our medical records, our library borrowing habits and 
other private affairs. PATRIOT II restricts freedom, instead of 
expanding it.
  The irony is cruel, Mr. Speaker. In defense of freedom, we are 
undermining freedom. I believe many of my colleagues voted for the 
original PATRIOT Act because of the sunset provisions, because they 
were assured this was a temporary measure for extraordinary times.

                              {time}  1130

  Now, all but two of the sunsets have been stripped from the bill, and 
those two come only after 10 years. So now we know the truth: the 
PATRIOT Act was never intended as an emergency, post-9/11 action; as a 
matter of fact, it is not limited to terrorism. It appears now that its 
authors were always interested in a permanent clampdown on civil 
liberties.
  This bill is constitutional graffiti, Mr. Speaker. Patriotism means 
affirming and celebrating the values that have made America strong for 
more than 2 centuries. Legislation that violates several constitutional 
amendments has no business calling itself the PATRIOT Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the overall 
bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. I will tell my 
colleagues that over the last 8 months, we have had between 12 and 13 
hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary and some 35 witnesses over 
an extended period of time; and 50 members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary have had a chance to not just question those witnesses, but 
to go back in the secure intelligence records, which I have done, and 
review all the FISA reports and the other information that is very 
sensitive and an important part of our oversight.
  We have considered some 50 different amendments as part of this 
extensive hearing process. Today we will be debating all day on the 
PATRIOT Act and into the evening. We will consider some 20 other 
proposed amendments.
  The fact of the matter is, Congress has done a very diligent job 
balancing civil liberties during this time of great national threat. We 
watch and pray for our friends in Britain as we do this, but we do it 
only after serious and thoughtful consideration.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation. I rise in opposition not just because an 
important amendment that I offered, along with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Udall), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) was not 
accepted by the Committee on Rules, but because this very same 
amendment has already been passed on the floor of this House by a 51-
vote margin just a few weeks ago.
  On June 15, by a vote of 238-187, this body voted overwhelmingly for 
the exact same amendment which would stop the FBI and other government 
agencies from going into our libraries and book stores without probable 
cause. We voted on that by a 238-187 vote; and now, a few weeks later, 
this provision is not included in the bill, and the Republican 
leadership has refused to allow the Members to even vote on it.
  This, my friends, is an outrageous abuse of power and denies the 
majority of Members here the right to put into the bill what they want. 
There is no excuse for that. If you wanted to speak against it, let it 
come up, argue against it. But it has passed once; it will likely pass 
again. But the Republican leadership has not allowed that issue to be 
debated.
  This whole discussion about the USA PATRIOT Act deals with two 
issues. Number one, every Member of this body is pledged to do 
everything that he or she can to protect the American people from the 
horrendous scourge of terrorism, but some of us have more confidence in 
our law enforcement agencies and the American people than others do. We 
believe that we can fight terrorism and protect the American people 
without undermining the basic constitutional rights which make us a 
free country.
  Let all of us remember that in the 1940s innocent Japanese Americans, 
without any pretext, were herded into internment camps. In the 1960s, a 
President of the United States had a file on him, President Kennedy, by 
the FBI. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr., who some of us consider 
to be one of the great heroes of the 20th century, was hounded and 
investigated by the FBI.
  The issue today is how do we effectively fight terrorism, but do it 
in a way which protects the constitutional rights which make us a free 
country.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that 
since his amendment passed on June 15, Great Britain has been attacked 
twice, so circumstances have changed.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, we understand what happened today. Tell me 
why you will not allow that amendment to come up for a vote, despite 
the fact that the majority of the Members support it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership that we are 
getting on this.
  This is a very difficult time for me because I have been a Republican 
all my life, and one of the things that I have fought for more than 
anything else is fairness. Do I always agree with one side or the 
other? Not always. My entire political career I have spent trying to 
just maintain balance.
  The interesting thing that was brought up earlier in the debate, as I 
watched it from my office on this rule, was that the very thing that 
the PATRIOT Act is supposed to give to this country, that the 
proponents of it say gives to this country, is being denied on this 
floor today, and it is being denied because I think people are afraid 
to be exposed to the truth.
  John Stuart Mill one time said, in certain occasions, there are 
people that are unfit for liberty. Let us not prove to ourselves 
because of temporary panic or momentary discouragement or in a fit of 
enthusiasm for an individual, we are suddenly unworthy of our Founding 
Fathers' efforts in order to provide liberty to the folks first, not 
from the government, but from our birthright.
  So I am embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle from this aspect 
today.

[[Page 16905]]

Certainly, I know that there are well-intended people on both sides, 
and I tried to work out a lot of things on both sides of this aisle on 
the PATRIOT Act. But I can tell my colleagues that with this rule and 
the lack of full and complete discussion, we have put a gag rule, the 
same gag rule that the FBI and the CIA and the NSA or any other 
government agent can put on the folks at the library or down at your 
local business and say, I want all of those records, but you are not 
allowed to use them.
  So it is unfortunate that we have come to this. It is unfortunate 
that we have come to this time at this moment, because we have done so 
much and we have so many reasons to be proud. But this is a very 
embarrassing moment when we are afraid to confront the truth and the 
full and unabashed debate on a subject that is so dear to us as this 
deserves.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider 
the Sanders amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last 
night on a straight party-line vote. I might also add that the 
extraordinarily important Otter amendment on the egregious sneak-and-
peak law was voted down on a 9 to 4 vote last night.
  This amendment would exclude booksellers and libraries from the scope 
of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to 
conduct broad searches of the records of bookstores and libraries 
without demonstrating probable cause, and it forbids libraries and 
bookstore owners from even telling their patrons that their records 
have been searched.
  Mr. Speaker, an identical version of this amendment was passed in the 
House a month ago during consideration of the Science, State, Justice, 
and Commerce Appropriations bill. By a substantial vote of 238 to 187, 
the Members of this body expressed their support for the provisions of 
the Sanders amendment. It is clear that the PATRIOT Act's provisions on 
the search of library and bookstore records are overly broad and 
undermine our basic constitutional rights. For the sake of civil 
liberties and the privacy rights of our fellow citizens, this House 
needs to debate the Sanders amendment.
  I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from 
considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, and it will not block 
any amendment made in order under this rule. But a ``yes'' vote will 
block the House from considering the Sanders amendment.
  Please vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the 
importance of the underlying bill.
  This debate has clearly demonstrated exactly what is at stake. This 
House has an opportunity to ensure that law enforcement has the 
ordinary, but necessary, tools to fight terrorism.
  We cannot, Mr. Speaker, and will not return to a situation that binds 
the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement communities. We 
cannot and we will not allow an ever-adapting and determined enemy to 
gain the advantage because our law enforcement did not have the 
necessary tools.
  The USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act will 
allow us to continue to make inroads into terrorist cells and 
operations. The goal has been and will continue to be to prevent 
another attack.
  In 2001, the House joined together in a bipartisan way to pass the 
USA PATRIOT Act with 357 for, 66 against. This House must come together 
again to pass H.R. 3199 and continue to fight against those who would 
seek to destroy us.
  The legislative process for this bill has been both thorough and 
fair. Republicans, Democrats, Department of Justice, the ACLU, and 
various other organizations have been able to speak freely and openly 
during the development of this bill.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, the final product is solid and it will serve 
as an important framework to fight terrorism, protect civil liberties, 
and, ultimately, strengthen America.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in protest of Rules 
Committee's refusal to make the Sanders library amendment in order.
  Just last month, this body passed an amendment that would have barred 
funds from being spent on the controversial 215 orders against 
libraries and bookstores. It simply would have protected the reading 
habits of our own citizens from government snooping.
  It passed by a vote of 238-187. I cannot protest enough that we are 
not debating and voting on this amendment again.
  Section 215 allows a secret court to issue secret orders to anyone to 
turn over anything. It need not even be directed at a suspected 
terrorist.
  Mr. Sanders and I introduced an amendment that would have exempted 
library and bookstore reading records from these secret orders. The FBI 
still would have been able to get a regular warrant for reading 
records. However, the administration doesn't even want to have to show 
any criminal activity before it starts digging into our reading 
records. It wants a free pass, and I will not willingly give it to 
them.
  Consider this: the American Library Association has confirmed that 
the government, under some authority, has gone to a library, and asked 
for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden. 
Clearly, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, many innocent people 
are checking out books on Osama bin Laden. And therefore, many innocent 
people had their right to privacy violated by our own government.
  And there may be thousands more. We know that nearly 200 libraries 
have been contacted by local and Federal officers since 9/11. We must 
demand that they show some wrong doing on behalf of library patrons 
before they dive into their personal habits.
  Let me also note that we tried to offer an amendment to increase the 
safety and security of our Nation's ports, rails, and mass transit 
systems by providing those segments of the transportation industry with 
the necessary tools and resources to reduce identified risks and 
vulnerabilities, but were shut down by the majority. The American 
people deserve these improvements, but the majority party will not even 
let us vote on the issue. In light of today's bombing incident in 
London, it is all the more objectionable that the majority would 
foreclose critical amendments for the Patriot Act reauthorization on 
the floor.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive 
rule.
  I am disappointed that this rule is preventing many of us from even 
offering amendments that are very important to any discussion of the 
Patriot Act.
  Yesterday I went to the Rules Committee seeking an opportunity to 
offer two amendments.
  One that dealt with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 
that was created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act.
  It was the third such time that I, in a bipartisan way with 
Congressmen Shays and Tom Udall, that we have sought the opportunity to 
debate this issue, but each time the Committee has not made it in 
order.
  I don't understand why this body refuses to even discuss this issue.
  If our amendment was made in order, it would:
  1. Give the Board subpoena power. Currently the board needs the 
permission of the Attorney General to issue a subpoena.
  2. Create the Board as an independent agency in the executive branch. 
Currently the board is in the Executive Office of the President.
  3. Require that all 5 members of the Board be confirmed by the 
Senate. Currently only the Chair and the Vice Chair will be confirmed.
  4. Require that no more than 3 members can be from the same political 
party.
  5. Set a term for Board members at 6 years. Currently members will 
serve at the pleasure of the President.
  6. Create the chairman as a full-time member of the Board.

[[Page 16906]]

  7. Restore the qualifications of Board members that were originally 
included in the Senate bill.
  8. Restore reporting requirements to Congress.
  9. Require each executive department or agency with law enforcement 
or antiterrorism functions--should designate a privacy and civil 
liberties officer.
  The reason why we sought to offer this amendment is because the Civil 
Liberties board that we have right now does not have the teeth it needs 
to do its job. In fact, the board that we have right now has never even 
met and we are still waiting on confirmation of the Chair and the Vice 
Chair.
  As we fight to prevent future terrorist attacks, we must also protect 
the rights we are fighting for.
  The 9/11 Commission got it exactly right when they wrote:

       We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, 
     since the success of one helps protects the other. . . . If 
     our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values we are 
     struggling to defend.

  This is why we need a robust board.
  That is why this body at the very least should be allowed to have 
this discussion.
  My other amendments dealt with humanitarian relief that we owe the 
victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
  This amendment was also offered in a bipartisan manner with my 
colleague from New York, Peter King.
  Temporary relief for non-citizens, who were here legally or not, was 
included in the original Patriot Act.
  I could think of no better time than now, during reauthorization of 
the act that gave many temporary relief, to make this relief permanent.
  The Maloney/Peter King amendment, provides adjustment in immigration 
status to ``an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' and a 
stay of removal to the surviving spouses and children of individuals 
who died in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
  To receive this adjusted status, the individual must be either 
lawfully present or be deemed a beneficiary of the September 11th 
Victims Compensation Fund.
  These families have already suffered once, suffering the loss of a 
loved-one in the attacks of 9/11, we should not prolong their 
suffering.
  This body should have made this amendment in order. This body should 
be taking up the important issues that surround this bill.
  Instead, we have a restrictive rule.
  All we are requesting is an honest debate and unfortunately this rule 
does not provide this.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my 
colleagues in strongly opposing the restrictive rule set forth on H.R. 
3199, the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 
2005.'' As you know, in light of the world we live in now, this is a 
very important piece of legislation. Having such a rule truly goes too 
far and limits the protections of the American people. There were many 
important and relevant amendments that were not ruled in order and I 
believe this could prove to be detrimental in the end. I must also 
express my dismay with the fact an amendment by my good friend, Mr. 
Conyers, was not ruled in order. This amendment, which centers on rail 
and port security, should have been allowed in. Both rail and port 
security are areas we as a country need to focus more attention on 
particularly after what took place in London 2 weeks ago and apparently 
another incident has taken place this morning.
  Let me take a moment to discuss an important amendment of mine that 
was not ruled in order. My amendment 141, dealing with racial 
profiling, would have required the Inspector General to appoint an 
official to produce a report to the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees showing a statistical breakdown of the race, nationality, or 
ethnic background of the subject of orders issued by the Court under 
Section 107. Every day, across the country, people of color are the 
victims of racial profiling and law enforcement brutality. Skin color 
and national origin are seen by some law enforcement agents as a cause 
for suspicion and a reason to violate people's rights. As a matter of 
policy and law, this body must use this very clear opportunity to set 
the record straight with respect to exercising good faith law 
enforcement practices. This amendment would have made that sentiment a 
reality.
  Before closing, I am pleased to see that my ``Safe Haven'' amendment 
was ruled in order. This amendment seeks to allow the attachment of 
property and the enforcement of a judgment against a judgment debtor 
that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or 
international terrorism under the ``forfeiture clause'' of 18 U.S.C. 
981. The legislation, as drafted, fails to deal with the current 
limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and 
family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several 
examples of how the current administration has sought to bar victims 
from satisfying judgments obtained against the Government of Iran, for 
example. The administration barred the Iran hostages that were held 
from 1979-1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, 
the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist State exception 
to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a Federal district court 
held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that 
the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a 
terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the 
Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which 
required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that 
incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for 
their suffering.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this 
closed rule and H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  The manner in which the amendment process of this bill was handled is 
shameful. Both the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee had 
jurisdiction over this legislation, yet somehow, the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee has managed to twist this bill into one that only 
he finds acceptable.
  As a Senior Member of the Intelligence Committee, I offered an 
amendment that would have extended the sunset for Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until 2010. 
Section 6001, also known as the ``lone wolf' provision, allows the 
government to define any individual non-US person as a terrorism 
suspect, even if that person has no clear ties to a foreign government. 
This new authority has been in place for a mere seven months and has 
yet to be subjected to meaningful review. Extending the sunset would 
give Congress a significant period of time in which to assess the 
impact of this considerable new authority. Members of the Intelligence 
Committee agreed; and my amendment had the support of almost every 
single Member of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat. 
Inexplicably, the amendment was later removed by the Judiciary 
Committee.
  I asked Chairman Sensenbrenner point blank in the Rules Committee 
hearing yesterday why my amendment was removed from the bill. His 
response--``I don't know.'' He doesn't know, then who does? I guess 
somewhere between the fourth floor of the Capitol and the Judiciary 
Committee, my amendment must have been lost.
  I believe the partisanship and incivility of the Judiciary Committee 
has unfortunately, infected the bipartisan manner in which the 
Intelligence Committee has always approached its work. Regardless, I am 
still committed to pursuing my amendment and working with the 
conference committee in a bipartisan fashion to reinsert my amendment 
into this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, once again, I find myself 
protesting the manner in which legislation has been brought to the 
floor. Over sixty amendments were offered in the Rules Committee 
yesterday yet only twenty have been made in order. Forty amendments, 
including my own, will not be debated today. Even Representative 
Harman, the ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, offered four 
amendments that the Rules Committee refused to make in order. In fact, 
none of the amendments offered by any Intelligence Committee Democrat 
is made in order under this rule. This is absolutely inexcusable.
  America's national security is of paramount importance, but our 
security needs will not be met by limiting debate on the issue. The 
American people deserve a Congress that has fulfilled its 
Constitutional role by considering each and every idea put forth by its 
Members to improve this and all pieces of legislation.
  Without a doubt the underlying bill could be improved. For example, 
this bill amends Section 213 of the Patriot Act to require the 
government to notify the subject of a search warrant within 180 days of 
the search but does not sunset the provision. Statistics provided to 
Congress show that only eleven percent of the searches conducted using 
this power were related to terrorism--eleven percent! Given that this 
overbroad search and seizure power is abused almost ninety percent of 
the time, isn't Section 213 the very model of a section in need of a 
sunset? Again, amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee 
addressing these issues but they were not made in order.
  While no one in this body, Democrat or Republican, objects to this 
country's need to fight terrorism, the sweeping, un-checked powers 
provided to our government through the provisions of the Patriot Act 
and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

[[Page 16907]]

are beyond worrisome. The inclusion of sunsetting provisions allows us 
to examine the practical effects, both positive and negative, before 
permanently allowing such a broad expansion of government power.
  As a freedom loving society, we must diligently monitor any 
infringement on our civil liberties to ensure it is justified. But this 
bill, allowing the virtually unchecked monitoring of the average 
citizen on the flimsiest of justifications, is too broadly tailored to 
defend. After careful consideration and examination, I cannot support a 
bill that takes away so much while offering so little. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this closed rule and no on H.R. 3199.
  The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is 
as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 20 in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
     Representative Sanders of Vermont or a designee. That 
     amendment shall be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       ``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of section 8 add the following new subsection:

       (e) Library and Bookseller Records.--Section 501 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g)(1) No application may be made under this section with 
     either the purpose or effect of searching for, or seizing 
     from, a bookseller or library documentary materials (except 
     for records of Internet use) that contain personally 
     identifiable information concerning a patron of a bookseller 
     or library.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     precluding a physical search for documentary materials 
     referred to in paragraph (1) under other provisions of law, 
     including under section 303.
       ``(3) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `bookseller' means any person or entity 
     engaged in the sale, rental or delivery of books, journals, 
     magazines or other similar forms of communication in print or 
     digitally.
       ``(B) The term `library' has the meaning given that term 
     under section 213(2) of the Library Services and Technology 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)) whose services include access to the 
     Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or other 
     similar forms of communication in print or digitally to 
     patrons for their use, review, examination or circulation.
       ``(C) The term `patron' means any purchaser, renter, 
     borrower, user or subscriber of goods or services from a 
     library or bookseller.
       ``(D) The term `documentary materials' means any document, 
     tape, or other communication created by a bookseller or 
     library in connection with print or digital dissemination of 
     a book, journal, magazine, newspaper, or other similar form 
     of communication.
       ``(E) The term `personally identifiable information' 
     includes information that identifies a person as having used, 
     requested or obtained specific reading materials or services 
     from a bookseller or library.''.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 197, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 401]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Gerlach
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hyde
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Rogers (KY)

[[Page 16908]]



                              {time}  1205

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 196, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                               AYES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Otter
     Paul
     Rohrabacher

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Brown (SC)
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hyde
     Ortiz
     Pascrell


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1217

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on July 
21, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcalls 401 
and 402.

                          ____________________