[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16908-16963]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 369 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3199.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1220


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3199) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat 
terrorism, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walden of Oregon (Acting 
Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 2 hours, with 1 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

[[Page 16909]]

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 45 minutes and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and 
Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, the attacks of September 11, 2001, tragically affirmed 
the urgency of updating America's laws to address the clear and present 
danger presented by international terrorism. On that day, foreign 
terrorists maliciously and without provocation attacked the United 
States, murdered thousands of our citizens, and destroyed symbols of 
our freedom in a failed effort to break the spirit and resolve of the 
American people.
  We must also recall that these terrorists exploited historic 
divisions between America's law enforcement and intelligence 
communities that had limited the dissemination of vital and timely 
information and increased America's vulnerability to terrorist attack.
  In the wake of the 9/11 atrocities, broad bipartisan majorities in 
both Houses of Congress passed the PATRIOT Act that lowered the wall 
that prohibited our law enforcement and intelligence communities from 
effectively sharing information, and to enhance investigatory tools 
necessary to assess, detect, and prevent future terrorist attacks. U.S. 
law enforcement and intelligence authorities have utilized the expanded 
information sharing provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act to gain 
critical knowledge of the attentions of foreign-based terrorists before 
they occur, while preempting gathering terrorist threats at home.
  While the PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have 
helped avert additional attacks on our soil, that threat has not 
receded. Exactly 2 weeks ago, innocent citizens in London were murdered 
in a series of ruthlessly coordinated attacks. Earlier today, it 
appears, the London subway system came under renewed attack. Last year, 
the Madrid bombings brought unprecedented terror to the people of 
Spain, and ongoing terrorist operations around the globe demonstrate 
the imperative for continued vigilance.
  When the House Committee on the Judiciary reported the PATRIOT Act in 
October 2001, I pledged to rigorously examine its implementation and 
the conduct of the war against terrorism. In my words and in my actions 
as committee Chair, I have maintained this commitment and emphasized 
the importance of better protecting our citizenry from terrorist attack 
while, at the same time preserving the values and liberties that 
distinguish us as Americans. The legislation we consider today reflects 
this careful balance.
  H.R. 3199 is based upon 4 years of comprehensive bipartisan oversight 
consisting of hearing testimony, Inspector General reports, briefings, 
and oversight letters. Since April of this year alone, the committee 
has received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the 
PATRIOT Act. This extensive hearing and oversight record has 
demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective tool against 
terrorists and other criminals. Of no less importance, and 
notwithstanding the vague and general suspicion expressed by some of 
its detractors, the record shows that there is no evidence whatsoever 
that the PATRIOT Act has been abused to violate Americans' civil 
liberties. None whatsoever.
  To further allay concerns expressed by some, this bill makes 
important revisions to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which pertains 
to business records obtained through the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, or FISA. I would note that section 215 is probably 
the most misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented provision of the 
PATRIOT Act. H.R. 3199 clarifies that the information likely to be 
obtained through a FISA warrant must relate to foreign intelligence 
information not concerning a U.S. person, or must be information 
pertaining to an ongoing international terrorism investigation or 
clandestine intelligence activities. The legislation also explicitly 
clarifies that a section 215 order will issue only ``if the judge finds 
that the requirements have been met,'' and provides a judicial review 
process to authorize the court to set aside a section 215 order that 
has been challenged. Contrary to the unfounded allegations of some, 
there is no evidence that a single section 215 order has been served on 
any library since the PATRIOT Act was passed in October of 2001.
  The Committee on the Judiciary last week conducted a nearly 12-hour 
markup of this legislation, at which 43 amendments were offered and 
debated. The reported version of this legislation extends for 10 years 
the sunset on sections 206 and 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
  Section 206 pertains to roving wiretaps under FISA. This crucial 
provision updates the law to reflect contemporary communications 
technology by making a suspected terrorist, rather than a 
communications device, the proper target of a wiretap. This sunset 
provision was approved by the committee by an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 26 to 2. However, while the legislation sets expiration dates 
on certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, congressional oversight of 
the entire PATRIOT Act must be perpetual.
  Let me conclude with the following point: For too long opponents of 
the PATRIOT Act have transformed it into a grossly distorted caricature 
that bears no relationship whatsoever to the legislation itself. The 
PATRIOT Act has been misused by some as a springboard to launch 
limitless allegations that are not only unsubstantiated but are false 
and irresponsible. Our constituents expect and deserve substantive 
consideration of this vital issue, and I hope that today's debate 
reflects the bipartisan seriousness that this issue demands.
  Mr. Chairman, the security of the American people is the most solemn 
responsibility of all entrusted to the Congress. Passage of the USA 
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 is vital 
to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement intelligence reforms that 
have reduced America's vulnerability to terrorist attack. We must never 
return to the pre- 9/11 mindset that ignores the painful lessons of 
that day as well as the tragic experiences of our friends and allies.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
vital legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, let me say from the outset that 
every Member of this body wants to make sure that law enforcement 
officials have the tools they need to protect the American people from 
terrorism. I also know that all of us want to make sure that we protect 
our civil liberties and freedoms as we fight terrorists anywhere in the 
world and in this country as well.

                              {time}  1230

  I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In 
fact, in the first original PATRIOT Act, I helped write many of them in 
a version of the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary 36-0, 
but a bill we never saw after it left the Committee on the Judiciary. 
It was replaced in the middle of the night in the Committee on Rules.
  I did it, I wrote the provisions because I believe as technology 
changes, our laws need to keep up and change as well. I believe our law 
enforcement officials need to be able to talk with one another and 
connect the dots to prevent terrorist attacks.
  In some sense this is not really about the PATRIOT Act, the debate 
that is going on here, or even most of the 16 provisions scheduled to 
sunset this year. It is about four areas that are subject to abuse and 
need greater checks and balances, and I would like to suggest what they 
are.

[[Page 16910]]

  First, the business records, 215, allows the FBI to obtain any record 
considered relevant to an investigation. This includes library books, 
medical records, and bookstore purchases. The provision has been 
difficult to oversee since targets of FBI investigations under the law 
are not permitted to tell anybody about it, even their lawyer. The 
Department of Justice and the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary say that this provision has never been used on libraries and 
bookstores. However, the American Library Association has reported that 
more than 200 requests for library records have been made since 
September 11.
  Now, concerning national security letters, the second very serious 
issue here, which allows the FBI to obtain financial, telephone, 
Internet and other records relevant to any intelligence investigation 
without judicial approval. Again, this is for any intelligence 
investigation, which means it does not even have to deal with 
terrorism, or even a crime. Like section 215, recipients are forever 
prevented from telling anyone they received a letter under penalty of 
law. Thank goodness a New York Federal court struck down this provision 
as unconstitutional. Shame on an administration that keeps using it 
anyway.
  Third, under section 213, the government can sneak and peek into your 
business, your office, your car, your home, anywhere, even if there is 
no emergency. This means the government can break into your home and 
search it without telling you. It was not in the bill originally 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and was slipped in by the 
Department of Justice or the administration when the bill was first 
written a few years back. This provision has been subject to 
exceedingly widespread abuse. It has been used more than 240 times, and 
it has been delayed sometimes for over a year before anybody can be 
told what happened, that they were broken into, they were burglarized, 
they had things taken out of their home.
  Worse yet, only 10 percent of these uses had anything to do with 
terrorism, which is the whole purpose of the PATRIOT Act.
  Finally, it is clear to me that we need to have additional sunsets in 
this legislation. What is wrong with sunsets? That is why we are here, 
because the bill is being sunsetted in more than a dozen ways. If we 
have learned anything over the last 4 years, the only thing that makes 
the administration give us any information on oversight on the use of 
these new powers was the sunset provision.
  We have also learned of abuses during our oversight that has led to 
us making modifications. Given this history, it simply makes no sense 
to make these provisions permanent or near permanent. And 10 years is 
not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent.
  The lessons of September 11 and London, and even today in London, are 
that if we allow law enforcement to do their work free of political 
interference, give them adequate resources and modern technologies, we 
can protect our citizens without intruding on our liberties.
  We all fight terrorism, but we need to fight it the right way 
consistent with our Constitution and in a manner that serves as a model 
for the rest of the world. I believe that the committee-passed 
legislation that is on the floor right now does not meet that test. As 
such, it does not warrant passage until it is corrected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the USA PATRIOT Act of 2005. The 
continued threat of a terrorist attack in the United States and this 
month's terrorist attacks in London remind us of the need to prevent, 
investigate, and prosecute all terrorist acts.
  The PATRIOT Act was a long-overdue measure that enhanced our ability 
to collect crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist 
network. It passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate and by a margin of 
357-66 in the House.
  Even the American Civil Liberties Union last April said, ``Most of 
the voluminous PATRIOT Act is actually unobjectionable from a civil 
liberties point of view. The law makes important changes that give law 
enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist 
attacks.''
  Many of the tools of the act provided to law enforcement officials 
have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers. 
They have been reviewed and approved by the courts and found 
constitutional. For instance, prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could 
get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to 
investigate terrorists. Well, what is good for the Mob should be good 
for terrorists.
  America is a safer country today than before September 11 because of 
the PATRIOT Act. Giving the Department of Justice, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, and the FBI information-sharing powers enabled law 
enforcement officials to disrupt terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, 
Florida, and Virginia. Since September 11, 2001, over 200 people 
charged with crimes stemming from international terrorist 
investigations have been convicted or have pled guilty. The PATRIOT Act 
helped also investigate and apprehend an individual who in Texas 
threatened to attack a mosque.
  Mr. Chairman, our success in preventing another attack on the 
American homeland would have been much less likely without the PATRIOT 
Act. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have 
the powers they need to protect all Americans.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and commend him on his previous eloquent statement.
  I rise this afternoon in opposition to this measure which would 
perpetuate the invasions of civil liberties that are embedded within 
the 4-year-old PATRIOT Act. I have deep concerns about many provisions 
of the original law, such as the use of the appropriately named sneak-
and-peek warrants that allow secret searches of homes with delayed 
notification to the homeowner that a search has occurred. The secret 
search can be in almost any kind of investigation, and the notification 
to the person whose premises are searched can be delayed almost 
indefinitely.
  But I am going to focus my remarks this afternoon on the two 
provisions of the original law which I think cause the deepest civil 
liberties invasion and which the measure before us does not, in my 
opinion, appropriately reform.
  In my view, the single most troubling provision confers on law 
enforcement the ability to use so-called national security letters. No 
prior review by a court is required. The FBI can issue a national 
security letter and then demand records from a business or from another 
record custodian. There is no requirement that the object of the search 
be an agent of a foreign power. The only requirement is that the 
seizure be relevant to a terrorism investigation, but there is no 
procedure by which a court would make that finding of relevance before 
the seizure occurs. Frankly, there is no meaningful way through the use 
of this provision to ensure that privacy and fundamental civil 
liberties are protected. It is the unilateral ability of law 
enforcement to issue these letters and seize records without prior 
court review that I find to be the most troubling.
  I would note that one Federal court has found the section 505 
national security letter provisions to be an abridgement of both the 
first and the fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The bill 
before us does nothing to address this egregious provision or limit its 
use in any way.
  Secondly, I strongly oppose the PATRIOT Act's grant to law 
enforcement of the ability to go to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court and obtain an order permitting the seizure of 
library, bookstore, bank, or medical

[[Page 16911]]

records of a person who is not even the subject of an investigation. 
Moreover, the library or other institution is barred from telling its 
customer that his records have been seized. All law enforcement has to 
do is say to the court that there is a reasonable expectation that 
foreign intelligence about a non-U.S. person will be obtained or that 
the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation and the records 
can be seized. Virtually anyone could have their records seized. You 
could be sitting in a concert near someone who is a suspected foreign 
agent, and potentially your records could be seized. You would never 
learn that seizure has occurred.
  While the custodian of the records could challenge the seizure, the 
library, the hospital, the bookstore, or the bank in possession of 
those records has a lot less incentive to spend resources hiring a 
lawyer in order to resist the seizure than would the person whose 
records are about to be seized; but that person, the real party of 
interest, never knows that the seizure is about to occur.
  The House recently voted by a margin of 238-187 to bar enforcement of 
this overly broad provision, but the bill before us with minor changes 
perpetuates it and, I think, in an inappropriate way.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no need to short-circuit our normal processes 
that are designed to protect privacy and protect civil liberties. Law 
enforcement could go before a court and present evidence of probable 
cause that a crime has been committed, and by that showing obtain the 
records that it needs in both of these situations. These powers 
conferred by the original PATRIOT Act under sections 505 and 515 are 
designed primarily for the convenience of law enforcement, but mere 
convenience should not be a reason for a deep abridgement of privacy 
and individual rights.
  The protection of our freedoms does not require surrender of our 
long-held civil liberties. For these reasons, I oppose the measure 
before us, and I urge others to do so.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is sincere in his 
opposition to this bill, and I respect that. However, neither the 
national security letter scheme nor the delayed notification scheme 
were authorized for the first time by the PATRIOT Act. That was 
legislation that was in place prior to October 2001 when the original 
PATRIOT Act was passed and signed into law by the President.
  What the PATRIOT Act did in both national security letters as well as 
in delayed notification warrants was simply to extend to anti-terrorism 
investigations authorities that already existed and up until that time 
had been found constitutional in investigations such as Mafia 
investigations, racketeering investigations, and drug-trafficking 
investigations.

                              {time}  1245

  So these complaints were not caused by the PATRIOT Act. They were 
caused by existing legislation, and we should deal with that, not in 
the context of this bill but elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will reiterate what has been previously said this 
date about the PATRIOT Act, and I do so for emphasis.
  The first point I want to emphasize is the assurance that the House 
Committee on the Judiciary and the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security Subcommittee did not give the PATRIOT Act a mere wink and a 
nod. We, in fact, hosted 12 public hearings; three before the full 
committee, nine before our subcommittee. It was exhaustive, it was 
deliberate, it was thorough. So this matter was not accelerated and 
rushed through by any means, as some people seem to believe.
  I mentioned during the rule debate earlier, Mr. Chairman, about a 
constituent of mine who complained about the PATRIOT Act but he had no 
specifics. He said he had heard it was bad, but he could give me no 
specifics where in any way civil liberties had been compromised or 
abused.
  There has been some talk about sunsetting provisions of the act; 216 
and 206 will, in fact, be sunsetted. But in these two instances, Mr. 
Chairman, there was no evidence of abuse or any violation at all, but 
these two were sunsetted because, among the other sections in the act, 
these two seemed to attract most of the controversy. So these are the 
two that stood out controversially but, I reiterate, still no evidence 
of abuse.
  I think we in the Committee on the Judiciary have done a thorough job 
of exhausting and deliberating a very, very important act, and I 
believe that one reason why we have not been attacked subsequently from 
9/11 is because of the presence of the PATRIOT Act. We expanded the 
provisions under which law enforcement and public safety officers must 
operate and must stay within, and as a result we are better for it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), who has headed the Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, war has been declared on this country by 
the Islamic terrorists, and we must protect the citizens of this 
country. The PATRIOT Act was an attempt in some respects to do this.
  But before commenting on the specifics of the PATRIOT Act, I would be 
derelict if I did not mention that the majority party in this House and 
the Bush administration have really been derelict by not dealing more 
directly with the threats that we face. The biggest threats we face are 
sabotage, bombings in our mass transit systems, sabotage of our 
chemical farms, our nuclear plants that could kill thousands of people, 
yet we do not see funds to deal with this.
  It is easy to be demagogic. The Bush administration does not want to 
throw money at the problem; they want to throw rhetoric at the problem. 
So we have the PATRIOT Act. I wish we had real measures to protect our 
mass transit systems, to protect our vulnerable infrastructure, to 
protect us against what happened in London again this morning.
  The PATRIOT Act was an attempt to do several things, some of which 
were very necessary. Breaking down the wall between intelligence and 
police information was very necessary and was in the PATRIOT Act and is 
not before us today because most of the PATRIOT Act is not before us 
today. Most of the PATRIOT Act is permanentized. It is permanent law. 
But when we are expanding police powers and when we are expanding 
surveillance powers, the power of government to pry into the private 
affairs, the books, the records, the medical histories of individual 
citizens, sometimes it may be necessary for security to do so. But it 
endangers liberty, and that has to be balanced. We should always be 
nervous about expanding police and surveillance powers, and that is one 
of the greatest weaknesses of this bill.
  We were only able to pass the PATRIOT Act 4 years ago because most, 
not all but most of the sections of the PATRIOT Act that expanded the 
powers of the police to pry into the privacy of ordinary Americans, to 
go into their home, into their papers, into their Internet records, 
their telephone records, their bank records, were sunsetted.
  So what? What is the point of sunsetting? It means that every 4 years 
at least Congress has to look at that again, has to revisit it, has to 
have oversight and determine whether those powers are being abused. Mr. 
Sensenbrenner says they are not being abused. He knows. The Justice 
Department said so. They said, We are not abusing it. Glad to hear it. 
But every 4 years we should have to look into it and ask are these 
powers being abused? Should it be fine tuned? Should they be narrowed? 
Have we made the right balance between security and liberty?
  This bill eliminates those sunsets, except for two, which it makes 
10-year sunsets.
  We have had 4 years since the PATRIOT Act was enacted. We did not do

[[Page 16912]]

any oversight in this House until 6 months ago. Why? Because of the 
sunset. If it had not been for the sunsetting, we would not have had 
the oversight. We must have that oversight and we should have had all 
of these things sunsetted, continued another 4 years, another 4 years.
  Secondly, Members have heard about section 215. The powers granted in 
section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is hardly modified by this bill, 
to look into anybody's library and medical records in secret and not 
tell anybody that they have done so, not tell the person whose records 
are pried into is a very disturbing invasion of liberty, and amendments 
to limit it were not made in order. Section 505 of the bill, which 
enables any FBI agent, any FBI field office director, to issue a 
national security letter to let them go and see their Internet records, 
their phone records, and so forth without even going to a judge and 
telling them it is relevant to a national security investigation is 
wrong, and it was declared unconstitutional by a federal court. The 
amendments to make this constitutional, to say that they have to at 
least allow for judicial review and to sunset the gag order were not 
made in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. This should be defeated for those reasons because it is 
not a proper balance between security and liberty.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to heed the gavel.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  This is an important day for us today, not just because of the 
explosions that have taken place in London today or those that took 
place several weeks ago, but rather because of 9/11 and our response to 
that wake-up call of the war on terrorism.
  The Preamble to the United States Constitution posits that both the 
provision for the common defense and the need to secure the blessings 
of liberty are central to the constitutional order.
  Freedom presumes security. The converse is equally true. In the 
delicate balance of these important interests. Our concern for liberty 
must not discount the consequences of a failure to keep Americans 
secure from another terrorist attack. While it is important to avoid 
hyperbole on such a serious matter, the very nature of American life 
and the traditional regard for liberty could itself be threatened. It 
is, therefore, imperative that principles that we take an oath to 
uphold not be reduced to empty platitudes. Rather, they must be applied 
to the facts which confront us in the war on terrorism.
  The 12 oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on the Judiciary 
produced no evidence of abuse relating to the act itself. I hope other 
Members have taken the time to go to the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, as I have, to review the documents that are filed 
pursuant to the PATRIOT Act by the Justice Department, to see for 
themselves whether or not they have found any evidence of abuse. I did 
that. Those are available to any Member who wants to go over there as 
long as they make arrangements. And I keep hearing time and time again 
that, even though the Justice Department has not found any abuses, they 
are out there. It reminds me of those people who used to find 
communists under every bed: We know they are out there, we know they 
are there somewhere.
  And I have heard on the floor people reciting: Well, the IG for the 
Justice Department has not found them, we have not found them, but we 
know they are there. Certainly our debate should be above that.
  The provisions contained in the chairman's bill and the amendments 
adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary provide additional 
protections against any possible abuse in the future. The sunset of 
section 206 dealing with roving wiretaps and section 215, which has 
been referred to, was adopted by the full committee. The bill 
specifically requires that the government meet a relevant standard when 
applying for a court order for records of U.S. citizens under 215. 
Remember, it is an application to a court for an order. We have put in 
the statute the relevant standard, which was the practice we were told, 
but people wanted more. We have put that in there.
  The chairman's bill, coupled with an amendment adopted by the full 
committee, explicitly provides that the subject of a court order under 
section 215 would have the right to consult with an attorney with 
respect to the order. The amendment at committee clarified that a 
recipient of such an order could disclose this information not only to 
comply with the order but to challenge it.
  On these and other parts of this bill, we have done the work in the 
committee to deal with the problems that have been suggested.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren), I am preparing a list of 10 instances of where there have 
been abuses that have been reported.

                     Abuses of the USA Patriot Act

           (Prepared by the House Judiciary Democratic Staff)

       While some have suggested that no abuses have occurred 
     under the USA PATRIOT Act, the simple truth is that it 
     appears that abuses have indeed occurred. The following are 
     examples:


       section 215, seizure of records or ``any tangible thing''

       Since 9/11, the American Library Association found that 
     libraries have received over 200 formal and informal requests 
     for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers.


   section 218, coordinating criminal and intelligence investigations

       Abuse in the Brandon Mayfield case: The FBI used Section 
     218 to secretly break into his house, download the contents 
     of four computer drives, take DNA evidence and take 355 
     digital photographs. Though the FBI admits Mr. Mayfield is 
     innocent, they still will not divulge the secret court order 
     to him, or allow him to defend himself in court. It is 
     unclear how the search was for any reason but to find 
     evidence incriminating Mr. Mayfield.


              section 805, material support for terrorism

       Section 805 has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL by three 
     separate courts. The 9th Circuit found the provision 
     prohibiting ``personnel'' and ``training'' was overly vague. 
     The Central California District Court found the provisions 
     prohibiting ``expert advice and assistance'' was overly 
     vague. A New York District Court found the provisions 
     prohibiting ``personnel'' and acting as a ``quasi-employee'' 
     overly vague. In each instance, the courts found COMPLETELY 
     LEGAL ACTIVITIES would violate Section 805.
       Abuse in Lynne Stewart case: A District Court threw out 
     charges of materials support against Lynne Stewart, holding 
     that the law makes ANY action by a lawyer in support of an 
     alleged foreign terrorist client illegal, including providing 
     legal advice.
       Abuse in Sami Al-Hussayen case: A federal jury in Idaho 
     acquitted University of Idaho graduate student Al-Hussayen on 
     all charges of providing material support for a terrorist 
     organization by running a website for the Islamic Assembly of 
     North America. Importantly, this group is NOT on the list of 
     foreign terrorist organizations, and the links posted by Al-
     Hussayen were available on the GOVERNMENT'S own website.


                section 213, ``sneak and peek'' searches

       In a July 5, 2005 letter to Rep. Bobby Scott, DOJ said 
     Section 213 had been used 153 times as of 1/31/2005; ONLY 
     EIGHTEEN (11.8%) uses involved terrorism investigations. 
     Thus, ALMOST 90% of ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used in 
     ordinary criminal investigations: 97 warrants were used in 
     drug investigations and 38 were used in other criminal 
     investigations.
       Abuse of delays: In April 2005, DOJ said 90-day delays are 
     common, and that delays in notification have lasted for as 
     long as 180 days. In May 2003, DOJ said its longest delay was 
     90 days.
       Abuse of delays for ``unspecified times'': Delays may be 
     sought for an unspecified duration, including until the end 
     of the investigation. In one such case, the delay lasted 406 
     DAYS.
       Abuse of delay extensions: In May 2003, DOJ reported it had 
     asked for 248 delay notification extensions, including 
     multiple extension requests for a single warrant, and that 
     the courts had granted EVERY SINGLE REQUEST.
       Abuse of ``catch-all provision'': In an April 4, 2005 
     letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner,

[[Page 16913]]

     DOJ reports 92 out of 108 (85%) sneak and peek warrants were 
     justified because notification would ``seriously jeopardize 
     the investigation'' and in 28 instances that was the sole 
     ground for delaying notice.


                 section 505, national security letters

       Section 505 has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Southern 
     District of New York held Section 505 violated the 1st and 
     4th Amendments. Section 505 places a prior restraint on free 
     speech with its gag order, and it prevents due process by 
     barring the recipient's access to the courts. Specifically, 
     an Internet Service Provider was unconstitutionally coerced 
     to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing 
     on its system, and the ISP was then gagged from disclosing 
     this abuse to the public.


                    section 411, revocation of visas

       Abuse in Tariq Ramadan case: Professor Ramadan's visa to 
     teach at Notre Dame was revoked upon charges that he 
     supported terrorism; Notre Dame, Scotland Yard, and Swiss 
     intelligence all agree the charges were groundless.
       Abuse in Dora Maria Tellez case: Nicaraguan Professor 
     Tellez was denied her visa to teach at Harvard due to her 
     association with the Sandinistas in the 1980s, where she 
     helped to overthrow a brutal dictator whom the U.S. 
     supported.


                        protection mass transit

       Oddly, New York law enforcement has begun using the 
     provision of the PATRIOT Act that protects against attacks on 
     mass transit to forcefully kick homeless persons out of the 
     New York train stations.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a subcommittee ranking member.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we live in a democracy where we respect checks and 
balances. The PATRIOT Act is part of a pattern of lacking checks and 
balances. Military tribunals, not part of the PATRIOT Act but part of a 
pattern of reduced checks and balances. Military tribunals were 
presented with no public trials, no presumption of innocence, no guilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt. Secret evidence could be used, no judicial 
review.
  Part of that pattern is the enemy combatant where the administration 
designates someone as an enemy combatant, can arrest them and hold them 
indefinitely without charges, never having an opportunity to contest 
the allegations.
  We have seen material witnesses, people arrested under the material 
witness laws, held indefinitely, no charges.
  That is the context that we are considering the PATRIOT Act. Those 
are not in the PATRIOT Act, but we are considering the PATRIOT Act in 
that context.
  We considered a bill on the same day of the second bombing in Great 
Britain with no money for port security, no money to secure our rails 
or bus transportation, no money for first responders.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, frankly not so much for what is in 
the bill but for what is not in the bill, what we are not going to do 
today. We can have plenty of privacy without threatening security, and 
we missed an opportunity to require standards for wiretaps and ``sneak 
and peak'' searches. We missed an opportunity to require probable cause 
of a crime before invading people's privacy. We missed the opportunity 
to limit these provisions and extraordinary powers to terrorism.
  Ninety percent of the ``sneak and peak'' searches have nothing to do 
with terrorism. Remember that when the government invades one's 
privacy, it is not robots and computers; it is government employees who 
may be neighbors looking at one's medical records, listening to their 
private conversations, sneaking and peaking into their homes without 
their knowledge or consent. The PATRIOT Act gives broad expansive 
powers to government agents to invade privacy.
  The major check on any abuse in the act has been the sunset 
provisions. Provisions will expire if they are abused. During our 
deliberations, we got a lot of cooperation on those provisions that are 
sunsetting. When asked information on those, we got the information. 
Some of it came in right before the hearing, but because of the sunset 
we got a lot of cooperation. Because of the sunset we found no abuses 
in the libraries. That is because of the sunset. Although government 
agencies have gone to at least 200 libraries for information, that has 
not been abused because they know if they abused it they would lose the 
benefit of that provision.

                              {time}  1300

  Medical records have not been abused. There has not been any 
unnecessary sharing of sensitive information of a personal nature. We 
have not run criminal investigations without probable cause using the 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act. They could have, because of the broad 
discretion in the bill, but they did not, because of the sunset.
  Without the sunset provision, the abuse could take place. Fourteen of 
the 16 sunset provisions are removed, and the two that are left, 10-
year sunsets, which will get us through this administration, clean 
through the next Presidential term and most of the way through the 
next.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this bill, go back to the Committee 
on the Judiciary and establish a much better piece of legislation that 
will protect our privacy and ensure our safety.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I note that since the 
9/11 attacks, in part we all know due to the PATRIOT Act, there have 
been no new attacks on America. I also think Americans ought to know 
there is a bookstore in London, in the Leeds section, called the Iqra 
Bookstore; and among the books that Iqra Learning Center sells are 
extremist Muslim materials. We now believe that three out of four of 
the terrorists that attacked London 2 weeks ago and killed 56 people 
visited frequently this bookstore. If the British authorities had known 
about the possible link and had a 215 clause, the main clause being 
attacked by the opponents of the PATRIOT Act, perhaps there would be 56 
people alive today.
  So all the scare tactics can be done away with, all the hysterical 
allegations. Every American needs to know that this 215, which has been 
referred to as the library provision, nowhere mentions libraries. But 
what 215 does do is say a Federal judge must make findings before any 
warrant would ever be issued. This can only affect non-Americans in the 
first place, or Americans would only be affected if there is an ongoing 
terrorism or intelligence investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, every American needs to know that unless there is an 
ongoing terror or intelligence investigation, unless a judge makes a 
decision, no American can ever be affected.
  To the extent that we want to create safe harbors, either in 
bookstores or libraries or anywhere else by eliminating 215, we ought 
to be candid with Americans. We ought to be candid about the fact that 
we expect and are going to sit back as London-type bombings take place 
on our subways and bus systems.
  We may not be able to prevent the next attack, but as long as 
Americans' liberties are protected by a judge ahead of time, as long as 
this is a reasonable provision affecting only non-Americans or during 
an intelligence or ongoing terrorism investigation, it is absolutely 
appropriate. I would not be doing my duty as a Congressman to not fight 
for 215 to be reenacted. We have added some protections. Everybody who 
receives one of these warrants is guaranteed to see a lawyer, and, if 
they want to, challenge the warrant.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, after 9/11, I worked on 
the drafting of the PATRIOT Act in the committee and in the weekend 
drafting session, and I voted for the act on the floor. I think it is 
important to know that most of what is in the PATRIOT Act is not 
actually before us today. It is only the 16 provisions that are so-
called sunsetted, which means that we need to review them and renew 
them, that are actually before the House today.

[[Page 16914]]

  First and foremost, as the Justice Department said in their letter to 
me today, the most important thing in the PATRIOT Act is to help remove 
the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence 
officers from sharing information so they could, so-called, ``connect 
the dots.'' That is important. There are other important things in the 
act.
  I think it is worth noting that there are some things that disturb 
Americans that are happening in the United States relative to the 
arrest of American citizens and the holding of American citizens 
without charge, without access to counsel; but they have nothing 
whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act. They are not in the PATRIOT Act, 
no matter how concerned we might be about them.
  I believe, however, that even though there are important components 
to the PATRIOT Act, there are some things that deserve more attention 
and more fine-tuning than they have received in this bill.
  For example, section 505 of the act grants law enforcement the 
authority to issue national security letters, which are essentially 
administrative subpoenas, for all sorts of personal records about 
anyone without judicial oversight. These records include telephone and 
Internet records, financial documents and consumer records.
  In addition, we enhanced this section in subsequent legislation to 
ensure that even more records could be subpoenaed from travel agencies, 
pawn brokers, casinos, car dealers and more; but all of this is without 
oversight of a court.
  Prior to the act, national security letters could only be used to get 
records when there was reason to believe that the subject of the record 
was an agent of a foreign power. Not only did the PATRIOT Act remove 
the requirement that the subject of the record is a foreign power; it 
lowered the standard by which those records could be obtained to the 
relevancy standard.
  We have not had meaningful oversight, in my opinion, on this 
provision of the act. Assuming that law enforcement does need the 
ability to get some of these records, and I do not dispute that, we do 
need to have some standards in place. As has been mentioned by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), one court has already struck 
down this section of the act as violative of the Constitution.
  We know from our inquiry to the Justice Department that this 
provision has been used hundreds of times. We got six pages back of 
redacted records, but we really do not know the full impact; and we 
need to know more than we do today before we allow this sweeping tool 
to be renewed.
  I also want to mention section 215 of the act. I believe that it may 
be important to obtain certain records, as has been outlined. But, 
again, we need to have a standard that is beyond relevancy.
  So the question here really is about balance. We need to prevent 
terrorism, we all agree on that; but we also need to protect and defend 
the Constitution that has served us so well. So I would urge that we 
have the oversight that we will need by having some sunsets, and 
particularly taking a look at the national security letter. We do not 
need to violate our Constitution to keep our country safe.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time, and especially I rise to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his tireless efforts on behalf 
of the security and the liberty of the American people in developing 
this reauthorizing legislation.
  Today in London we have seen yet again the work of terrorists on the 
soil of a freedom-loving people. The explosions in that city today, 
while less lethal than a few weeks ago, follow the deadly attacks that 
took place on July 7, and the anguish in London is a vivid reminder of 
why we cannot relent in taking the steps necessary to defend our 
homeland from a present terrorist threat.
  We all lived through September 11. I was here at the Capitol that 
day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above 
the Pentagon. And we are reminded yet today that their desire to do 
such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is 
real.
  The PATRIOT Act is essential to our continued success in the war on 
terror here at home. In the last 4 years under the PATRIOT Act, we have 
seen a great increase in the ability of law enforcement officials to 
investigate and track terrorists. For example, aided by provisions of 
the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement officials in Ohio were able to arrest 
Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who authorities said plotted attacks 
on the Brooklyn Bridge and a central Ohio shopping mall. In 2003, he 
pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism and 
conspiracy, acknowledging that he had met with Osama bin Laden in the 
year 2000 at an al Qaeda training camp and then was provided assistance 
by al Qaeda. He is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.
  While 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end 
of this year, the threat of terrorism to our families and our cities 
will not. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005 is as necessary today as the PATRIOT Act 
was when it was originally signed into law in October of 2001.
  This reauthorization legislation does make permanent 14 of the 16 
sections from the original PATRIOT Act that were set to expire this 
year. But under the bill, those sections of the act that have caused 
the greatest concern in the hearts of many millions of Americans are 
set to sunset, sections 206 and 215, within 10 years, thanks to the 
leadership of this committee and of this Congress.
  The concerns that have been raised about abuses simply have not been 
borne out. With over 4 years of oversight hearings and six Department 
of Justice Inspector General reports, there is no evidence of abuse 
under the PATRIOT Act.
  I know what the people of London are feeling today. I felt it that 
day, September 11, and my heart and my prayers go out to them. I am 
absolutely convinced that what we have done in this country in a 
bipartisan way has contributed mightily to the fact that there has not 
been another major terrorist event in our Nation since that awful day.
  The PATRIOT Act and the elements which we will reauthorize today are 
central to the ongoing victory in the war on terror, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank our wonderful ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. I abstained in the 
Committee on the Judiciary this year because I was hoping that some of 
my concerns could be addressed through a rule that would allow some of 
these issues to be brought to the floor. But I am very disappointed to 
say that the rule that was adopted for this very important bill is 
designed to look like it is fair, because it allows a number of 
amendments, but those amendments are either so sweeping that they will 
never get anywhere near and should not get a majority of the House to 
vote for them, or they tinker on the edges of some critical issues.
  There are, to my way of thinking, two critical things that need to be 
done; and this rule does not allow them to be done. One is addressing 
the issue of sunsets.
  The chairman bemoans the fact that out in the Nation so many people 
have such a misunderstanding of what the PATRIOT Act does or does not 
do. He may feel it is because of the bad motives of the people who talk 
about it. I would suggest it comes from this fundamental conflict 
between our desire for enhanced security and our love and commitment 
for continued liberty.
  So people read about detentions of people without being indicted or 
without any deportation proceedings

[[Page 16915]]

against them and wonder what is going on; and he is right, many of the 
things we have read about have nothing whatsoever to do with the 
PATRIOT Act. But part of the reason why the chairman can say we had 
such rigorous oversight, 10 hearings on this subject, continued letters 
from the chair and the ranking member pushing for information from the 
Justice Department, is because of the sunsets.
  The failure of the rule to make the sunsets in order is a tremendous 
failure, not that all of them need to be reenacted, but on key sections 
at a time that is relevant for what the American people want, which is 
within the next 4 or 5 years there should be a chance to have those 
provisions sunsetted.
  I want to get to just as fundamental an issue, to my way of thinking 
and that is the issue of the standards for secret orders from FISA 
courts that allow our law enforcement agencies to pursue terrorist 
investigations and break up terrorist cells.
  Prior to the PATRIOT Act, and even under the SAFE Act, we have a 
standard which does not give law enforcement enough tools to gather the 
information through a carefully developed investigation to find out who 
the future terrorists are, who the people who might be planning 
terrorist attacks are.
  Under the existing law, you have much too broad a standard. You are 
allowing orders that are not based on criminal information to be issued 
by FISA courts, required to be issued by FISA courts, allowing any kind 
of tangible records to be seized, whether or not they are pertaining to 
a specific person, if it is connected with, or, in the case of the base 
bill here, relevant to a terrorist investigation.

                              {time}  1315

  An amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I proposed the 
Committee on Rules did not allow to come into the rule which would have 
provided the proper balance. It would have dealt with the limitations 
that are imposed on law enforcement by too restrictive a standard and, 
at the same time, clarify that even if it has not yet been misused, it 
is wrong to provide such a broad standard that records can be swept up 
that have no connection whatsoever with any relevant target of any 
terrorist investigation.
  The Senate Committee on the Judiciary this morning unanimously passed 
the standard that we see on this chart. The standard says, if the 
target of the FISA order or the national security letter is an agent of 
a foreign power or is in contact with or known to an agent of a foreign 
power, a definition which deals with all the hypotheticals provided by 
my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), in 
criticizing the SAFE Act and pre-PATRIOT Act standard, it provides 
every hypothetical created that I have heard about with the ability to 
be pursued under FISA orders. Why were we not allowed to vote on this? 
Why would the Senate Committee on the Judiciary unanimously pass that 
sensible correction in the PATRIOT Act and this body not be even 
allowed to debate and vote on it?
  For these reasons, I am going to be forced to vote ``no'' on this 
bill for the lack of opportunity to sunset key provisions like the 
lone-wolf provision, like the issue of national security letters to 
provide a forcing mechanism for oversight and for our failure to deal 
with the overly broad standard in the existing law and in the base 
bill. I hope when it comes back from the conference committee, that we 
will have a more balanced product that I will be able to support.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I sit here and listen to this debate, and I have been 
through a number of the 12-or-so hearings that we have had in the 
Committee on the Judiciary on the PATRIOT Act; and I want to compliment 
this Congress, this bipartisan Congress, that met almost with a sense 
of urgency and almost a sense of emergency to write this PATRIOT Act 
just 3-plus years ago.
  And throughout all of those hearings, we needed to put security in 
place, we needed to be able to access information. One of the standards 
was, why can we not access information in an international terrorist 
investigation as we can in a criminal investigation? We set higher 
standards here in this Congress rather than lower standards and, still, 
the debate comes back.
  But I am astonished and amazed and pleased and in admiration by the 
work done by this Congress to put this language in this PATRIOT Act 
that has withstood all legitimate criticism. It has protected people's 
rights. There is not a name of an individual who had their rights 
violated by the PATRIOT Act. We have had the hearings, and we have had 
serious deliberation. I hope we have a serious consideration of these 
amendments and final passage of a very good PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can characterize 
this debate in the manner that it should be, particularly as we rise in 
the backdrop of the tragedy of London, England.
  Might I say that even though we would have preferred, many of us as 
Democrats, a lengthier time for debate in committee, I want to thank 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the ongoing debate and allowing for 
amendments over a period of time to discuss the PATRIOT Act.
  It should be commented on that this is not a definition of 
patriotism, of who is more patriotic than the next person, for the 
underlying bill exists. But there also should be some concerns about 
limiting overreach and overbroadness, with Americans understanding one 
of the issues that we are debating today, and that is the very premise 
of civil liberties juxtaposed against the responsibility of fighting 
the war on terror.
  I would have hoped my colleagues could have fought the war on terror 
by enhancing and making sure that the agencies responsible for sharing 
intelligence are really doing that. We find that that is not the case. 
Whether it is the FBI, the CIA, or other counterterrorism groups, they 
can do a better job. That certainly helps to stop terrorist acts.
  Then, I would have hoped my colleagues would have supported an 
increased funding, which has not been done by the majority, on rail 
security and port security and, of course, the idea of insuring our 
buses and other public transportation modes. These are also components 
of making sure that we are safe.
  But the reason why we raise the question today about the PATRIOT Act 
is that 14 provisions are being made permanent. Mr. Chairman, even 
though it is a different story, the Voter Rights Act in 1965, which 
goes to the core of our democracy, was sunsetted; and it has to be 
reauthorized. We only argue that it is important to reauthorize or to 
sunset so that we can have these debates, so that the American people 
can understand the limitation of their rights or the enhancement of 
their rights.
  For example, I think my colleagues would be troubled by the fact that 
we know that the FBI could get any tangible record by a rubber stamp by 
what we call FISA and that the showing would only be relevance. I have 
signed probable cause warrants as a judge, and you have to ask hard 
questions when a policeman comes in late at night to go into your home.
  We also know that these items can be used against Americans, not just 
a foreign power, or the national security letters that the FBI can get 
financial, telephone, Internet, and consumer goods records relevant to 
intelligence investigations, not just against agents of foreign powers, 
but against Americans. Or what about the sneak-and-peek provision that 
allows someone to come into your home and take anything, of course, 
called search and seizure, without notice, suggesting that it is 
involved in an investigation, and

[[Page 16916]]

most of you would not know, most of America would not know that this is 
not limited to terrorism. But it is far-reaching; it could be anyone.
  So the question on debate today, I hope that we can center it around 
the question of restraint, but yet be vigorous in our fight for the war 
on terror. I hope that we will have that opportunity, and I hope as 
well that in the amendment that I offer that we will be able to say 
that if you are impacted by a terrorist act, that you can sue and 
enforce your civil judgement, and I hope to have mutual support on 
that. 3
  Mr. Chairman, I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, 
and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing this 
legislation, H.R. 3199, for several reasons. First, we never have been 
given the facts necessary to fully evaluate the operation of the 
underlying bill, the USA PATRIOT Act. Second, there are numerous 
provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the PATRIOT Act 
that have little to do with combating terrorism, intrude on our privacy 
and civil liberties, and have been subject to repeated abuse and misuse 
by the Justice Department. Third, the legislation does nothing to 
address the many unilateral civil rights and civil liberties abuses by 
the administration since the September 11 attacks. Finally, the bill 
does not provide law enforcement with any additional real and 
meaningful tools necessary to help our Nation prevail in the war 
against terrorism. Since 2002, 389 communities and 7 States have passed 
resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 
million people. Additionally, numerous groups ranging the political 
spectrum have come forward to oppose certain sections of the PATRIOT 
Act and to demand that Congress conduct more oversight on its use, 
including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative 
Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library 
Association, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and 
Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of 
America, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous 
groups concerned about immigrants' rights. I sit as Ranking Democrat on 
the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Of 
particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions 
that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation 
of people engaging in innocent associational activity and 
constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite 
detention of immigrants and non-citizens who are not terrorists.
  Among these troubling provisions are those that:
  Authorize the Attorney General (AG) to arrest and detain non-citizens 
based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention 
``irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In 
order to grant someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge 
must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone 
who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from 
deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued 
detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.
  Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been 
arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within 7 
days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on 
terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a 
terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration 
violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove 
otherwise.
  Make material support for groups that have not been officially 
designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under 
this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable 
organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be 
presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions 
on material support should be limited to those organizations that have 
officially been designated terrorist organizations.
  Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely 
on speech protected by the First Amendment. The laws punish those who 
``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist 
activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech 
that includes violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of 
inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States' 
efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is 
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a 
chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
  Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic 
groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs 
to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere 
payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and 
overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should 
punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their 
beliefs or associations.
  In addition, the current administration has taken some deeply 
troubling steps since September 11. Along with supporting the USA 
PATRIOT Act, it has initiated new policies and practices that negate 
fundamental due process protections and jeopardize basic civil 
liberties for non-citizens in the United States. These constitutionally 
dubious initiatives undermine our historical commitment to the fair 
treatment of every individual before the law and do not enhance our 
security. Issued without Congressional consultation or approval, these 
new measures include regulations that increase secrecy, limit 
accountability, and erode important due process principles that set our 
Nation apart from other counties.
  I co-sponsored the Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA), 
reintroduced from the 108th Congress by Representatives Howard Berman 
(D-CA) and William Delahunt (D-MA), that seeks to roll back some of 
these egregious post-9/11 policies and to strike an appropriate balance 
between security needs and liberty interests. The CLRA would secure due 
process protections and civil liberties for non-citizens in the U.S., 
enhance the effectiveness of our nation's enforcement activities, 
restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our 
Government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and 
democracy around the world.
  While every step must be taken to protect the American public from 
further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the 
Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections 
that make American democracy so unique.
  My ``safe havens'' amendment that was made in order by the Committee 
on Rules relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981 and 
would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach 
judgments to collect compensory damages for which a terrorist 
organization has been adjudged liable.
  It seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgment for 
damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or 
domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 
981(G). Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign 
or domestic, of any individual, entity, or organization that has 
engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or 
international terrorism against the United States, citizens or 
residents of the United States.
  The legislation, H.R. 3199, 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.
  In the Sobero case, a U.S. national was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, an 
Al-Qaeda affiliate, leaving his children fatherless. The Administration 
responded to this incident by sending 1,000 Special Forces officers to 
track down the perpetrators, and the eldest child of the victim was 
invited to the State of the Union Address. Abu Sayyaf's funds have been 
seized and are held by the U.S. Treasury at this time. The family of 
the victim should have access to those funds, at the very least, at the 
President's discretion.
  Similarly, 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 cause 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 the 
incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for 
their suffering.
  Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored 
bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining 
justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the 
attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan 
government, the Administration lifted sanctions against Libya without 
requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American

[[Page 16917]]

 victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all 
talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer 
considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American servicemen and 
women and their families were left without recourse to obtain justice. 
The La Belle victims received no compensation for their suffering.
  In addition, a group of American prisoners who were tortured in Iraq 
during the Persian Gulf war were barred from collecting their judgment 
from the Iraqi government. Although the 17 veterans won their case in 
the District Court of the District of Columbia, the Administration 
argued that the Iraqi assets should remain frozen in a U.S. bank 
account to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Claiming that the 
judgment should be overturned, the Administration deems that rebuilding 
Iraq is more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter 
pilots who, during the 12-year imprisonment, suffered beatings, burns, 
and threats of dismemberment.
  Finally, the World Trade Center victims were barred from obtaining 
judgment against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi 
government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in 
connection with the September 2001 attacks. However, they were rebuffed 
in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment 
was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower 
court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. 
Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were 
unavailable for judicial attachment.
  While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is 
heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been 
repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider 
the following:
  It's been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's 
home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do 
with terrorism.
  It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to 
tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his 
children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
  It's been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the 
admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim 
Scholar to teach at the Notre Dame University.
  It's been used to unconstitutionally coerce an internet service 
provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing 
on its system, and then to gag the provider from even disclosing the 
abuse to the public.
  Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it's 
been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but 
we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of 
Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader 
information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.
  It's been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in 
Idaho for posting Internet website links to objectionable materials, 
even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's web 
site.
  Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of 
power by the Administration. Since September 11, our government has 
detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants 
without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and target 
tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and 
immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate 
Muslim and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our 
country--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized racial 
and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism 
conviction.
  Nor it is helpful when our government condones the torture of 
prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of mosques and 
religious sties without any indication of criminal activity, and 
detains scores of individuals as material witnesses because it does not 
have evidence to indict them. This makes our citizens less safe not 
more safe, and undermines our role as a beacon of democracy and 
freedom.
  Right now, H.R. 3199 is the most appropriate and timely vehicle in 
which to address this issue and allow U.S. victims of terrorism to 
obtain justice from terrorist-supporting or terrorist-housing nations. 
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues work to 
negotiate real fixes to the sunsetted provisions.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for this 
opportunity to address the PATRIOT Act. We must especially make sure 
our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the resources they 
need to arrest, detain, and interrogate those who would do us harm 
before the deadly acts are committed.
  I am very cognizant of the concerns brought to me by many of my 
constituents in Michigan regarding the PATRIOT Act. They have a concern 
which I believe we all share, that any legislation we pass to combat 
and prevent terror should not infringe upon the rights we cherish as 
Americans, the very same freedoms the terrorists themselves seek to 
destroy.
  I appreciate the gentleman letting me inquire about these provisions 
in the bill that you have reported out of committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am pleased 
that this bill and the USA PATRIOT Act will continue to protect civil 
liberties, while also providing law enforcement the tools they need to 
fight terrorists intent on harming Americans.
  I yield further to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act 
pertains to the government's abilities to gain access to what we 
commonly refer to as business records, records compiled by a business 
or an institution pertaining to a customer or visitor to that entity. 
This provision has come to be known as the ``library provision'' 
because many librarians and civil libertarians are concerned that this 
provision of the PATRIOT Act could authorize the government to pour 
through the library records of everyday private citizens.
  Now, it is my understanding that your version of the bill has added 
protections to ensure that law-abiding citizens and residents of the 
United States do not see their cherished civil liberties violated. 
Specifically, the bill states that no search can be conducted unless, I 
repeat, unless a Federal judge impaneled at the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court makes a finding that the information likely to be 
obtained concerns an ongoing investigation; repeat, an ongoing 
investigation to prevent international terrorism, and that that 
investigation is geared toward gathering foreign intelligence.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is an 
accurate reading of the bill.
  I further yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Is it 
also the case that the recipient of such an order, such as a business 
or video store, is allowed to consult a lawyer and to contest these 
orders, and that judges are authorized to review such challenge? In 
other words, we are not devolving to the executive branch powers of the 
judicial branch?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, further reclaiming my time, again, 
that is an accurate reading of the bill. I further yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
time. I have, and I hope the American people have, an accurate 
understanding of the safeguards put in place by the USA PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a former prosecutor and a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment and express my 
appreciation for the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) when 
he suggested that this has been a good process. We have significant 
disagreements, and they are healthy disagreements, I would add.
  But I think he made the point. There is no one, no Democrat and no 
Republican who wants to reconstruct that metaphorical wall that 
prevented the sharing of information. I do not know of anyone on either 
side. And that was the key and the linchpin, I would suggest, of the 
success of the PATRIOT Act.
  Now, some have suggested that there has been no abuse discovered by 
the

[[Page 16918]]

Department of Justice, and I will accept that premise. But I would also 
put forth that the reality of the sunsets were an encouragement on the 
part of the Department of Justice to ensure full compliance with the 
law as it was then written. If you will, one could argue that it served 
as a deterrence, that it encouraged good behavior; and that is why some 
of us here on this side of the aisle are so passionate about the issue 
of sunsets.
  It is my understanding that this morning in the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary, there were a number of sunsets on various provisions 
that were approved, and they were full-year sunsets. I dare say, if 
various amendments relative to sunsets had been allowed and made in 
order, this debate could have been cut in half in terms of the time.
  I also want to speak to the issue of library records. My good friend 
and colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Feeney), talked about some using the library provision, if you will, as 
a red herring. Well, the reality is that library records under section 
215 can be gleaned under section 215. Yes, according to the Attorney 
General, it has never been used, which just leads me to ask the 
question, well, why do we need it? But, yes, it ought to be a concern.
  I would further suggest that in terms of if there is no concern about 
libraries, if it is a red herring, why does the first amendment that we 
will consider that was made in order have to do with the issue?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for putting 
together this excellent extension and reauthorization of the USA 
PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Chairman, America faced a new kind of enemy on September 11, one 
that mercilessly attacked civilians on our own shores. In response, the 
Congress, I was not here at the time, passed the PATRIOT Act to give 
law enforcement agents appropriate tools to fight the new war on 
terror.
  Today, we have a great opportunity to send a strong message of 
support for several provisions of this bill which would have expired on 
December 1.
  I specifically want to mention the library section. For some reason, 
section 215 has come to be known as that.

                              {time}  1330

  Actually, it is one that allows law enforcement officers to gain 
access to business records. Why would we not want to have library 
records and bookstore records be available if there is a suspected 
terrorist? By doing so, we would only be making bookstores and 
libraries sanctuaries for these terrorists. The purpose of this 
legislation was when it was originally created and now as we extend it 
to protect Americans. We cannot afford to make libraries and bookstores 
havens for those bent on harming U.S. citizens.
  Opponents have waged a campaign of misinformation. Recently, some 
Members on the other side have actually admitted that it has not been 
abused. We want to make sure that Americans are protected. For that 
reason, I fully support the reauthorization of the expiring PATRIOT 
Act, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) 
for his work on this issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of this bill. We 
have had some great debate, 11 hearings, and I appreciate my friend the 
gentleman from Massachusetts' point about Section 215, but the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) is right. I mean, library records 
are being used as a red herring. We have seen over and over that 
libraries have been used by terrorists and this will help address that. 
The thing is so far that provision of 215 has not been used with regard 
to libraries. But if a terrorist is using that information, as a former 
judge, I would not hesitate if the information were there, raising 
probable cause. But there are safeguards in 215. There is a court. 
There is a judge reviewing.
  I was terribly concerned about the right to an attorney not being in 
there. That is being amended to include that. I was concerned about not 
having a provision for appealing that power under 215. That has been 
added and amended. And so we are coming to a great bill here, and it 
has come about through great debate, back and forth.
  And I would also point out though, with regard to the London bombings 
and the further activity today, you know, our hearts and prayers go out 
to our friends across the ocean. But we cannot lose sight of the fact 
either, we have not had one yet here, not since 9/11. And if you are in 
a position to review top secret records, you will see that this has 
been used effectively.
  And as far as 215 and the passion my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), had about we have got to have a sunset, 
good news. The sunset is in here for 206 and 215. So I am proud to rise 
in support. I have had great concerns about some areas. They are being 
addressed. We do have some sunsets to provide some protection, and I am 
proud that this administration has not abused any of these until we can 
get these holes filled.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair will advise Members that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong 
support of the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. These changes that were 
enacted in response to the horrific terrorist attacks on our Nation of 
September 11, 2001 provided critical tools to our law enforcement in 
bringing the terrorists to justice and to stopping future attacks, and 
the result of this law cannot be disputed. Worldwide we have captured 
or killed nearly two-thirds of the al Qaeda's top leadership. We have 
broken up terrorist cells in Buffalo, in Seattle, in Portland, Northern 
Virginia and in Detroit, my home State of Michigan.
  These tools have been critical in gathering knowledge on the 
activities and the targets of the terrorists. These tools have assisted 
in dismantling the terrorist financial network. And as I meet with 
constituents in my district they are continually saying what are we 
doing to help fight the terrorists?
  However, I have never heard from one man or woman in my district who 
has said that their constitutional rights have been violated by any 
aspect of the PATRIOT Act. And while I care deeply about protecting the 
civil rights of law abiding Americans, I do not care one iota about the 
civil rights of terrorists bent on destroying our way of life.
  Just yesterday over 300 Members of this House voted for an amendment 
that supported the capture and the detention and the interrogation of 
international terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, today we face a new type of enemy, an enemy who preys 
on the innocent, an enemy who lives in the shadows, an enemy whose 
tactics are the tactics of cowards. And as we saw in London on July 11 
and as we are seeing again today, the terrorists are still out there 
targeting the murder of the innocent. And in fact I will predict that 
other countries will follow the lead of America and what we are doing 
on the floor of this House today as they enact similar protections for 
their citizens against these murderers. And now is not the time to take 
away tools that law enforcement needs to protect us. Now is the time to 
send a message to the terrorists that the we are not backing down from 
the fight.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199, 
the U.S. PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. This act 
grants

[[Page 16919]]

the government overbroad and even unconstitutional powers that have not 
been adequately addressed.
  The PATRIOT Act is misleading American citizens and causing them to 
forfeit their civil liberties in the interest of what has become a 
political war on terrorism. At the same time, the President's war on 
terrorism fails to fund protection for our transportation systems, our 
ports and, still today, uninspected cargo is being placed in the belly 
of the airplanes of all of our airlines.
  Yet we continue in this act to violate the privacy of our citizens 
with section 505, the National Security Letters section of the PATRIOT 
Act, which allows law enforcement to demand detailed information about 
an individual's private records without judicial review, without the 
individual ever being suspected of a crime, without a requirement that 
law enforcement notify the individual that they are the subject of an 
investigation.
  Furthermore, this section contains an automatic permanent gag order 
on the recipient of a national security letter, not even allowing the 
recipient to consult with an attorney. And this act is very confusing. 
In one section of the law, 215, they can get an attorney. In section 
505 they cannot. I do not know what we are doing here today.
  Mr. Chairman, this power represents a clear violation of the fourth 
amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as 
threatening speech protected under the first amendment. In fact, a U.S. 
district judge struck down section 505 in a case involving the 
government's collection of sensitive customer records from Internet 
service providers without judicial oversight. The judge found that the 
government seizure of these records constituted an unreasonable search 
and seizure under the fourth amendment, and found the broad gag 
provision to be an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
  To address this, I proposed an amendment that would have provided the 
recipients of national security letters that would allow them to 
consult with their attorneys and any person that was necessary to 
produce the required records. This amendment would not have greatly 
changed the real meaning of section 505. It was simply a common sense 
amendment that would have provided some legal recourse and balance for 
the recipients of national security letters. However, the amendment was 
not made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, what makes this country so great is our respect and 
protection of individual rights and civil liberties, and we must 
continue to provide adequate safeguards and protection to these rights. 
While I agree that our national security is a top concern, we must find 
the appropriate balance.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this important 
legislation, and I rise today in support of this bill.
  I served in the Justice Department before and after 9/11. I led the 
Department's counterterrorism efforts in the United States Attorney's 
Office in the State of Texas. I worked with the Joint Terrorism Task 
Forces fighting this war on terror in the trenches. I know firsthand 
that this PATRIOT Act provides the necessary tools to win this war on 
terror at home.
  Significantly, the PATRIOT Act tore down the wall between the 
criminal division and the intelligence side of the house. Prior to this 
it was dysfunctional. The left hand literally did not know what the 
right was doing. The 
9/11 Commission reported this wall may have contributed to 9/11. An FBI 
agent testified that efforts to conduct a criminal investigation into 
two of the hijackers were blocked due to concerns over the wall. 
Frustrated, he wrote to the FBI headquarters and he said, some day 
someone will die. And wall or not, the public will not understand why 
we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain 
problems. Let us hope that the national security law unit will then 
stand behind their decisions, especially since the biggest threat to us 
now is Osama Bin Laden.
  Today, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, this wall has come down. It helps 
us connect the dots by removing the legal barriers that prevented law 
enforcement and the Intelligence Community from sharing information.
  But the PATRIOT Act provides many other tools for law enforcement in 
this war on terrorism. It updates the law to the technology of today. 
The PATRIOT Act also takes laws which have long applied in drug cases 
and organized crime cases and applies them to the terrorists, such as 
the roving wiretaps, such as the delayed notification for searches. It 
makes no sense for us to apply these laws only in drug cases and not in 
the most important cases affecting our national security, cases 
involving terrorists. And contrary to critics' assertions, the Justice 
Department cannot do anything without court supervision. The U.S. 
PATRIOT Act does not abrogate the role played by the judiciary in the 
oversight of the activities of Federal law enforcement.
  And while we are talking about libraries, let us not forget al Qaeda 
operative Mohammed Babar who used a computer in a library and when 
asked after he was arrested why, he said because the libraries will 
scrub the hard drives.
  I can envision no bigger national security mistake than to go back to 
the way things were. We owe it to the citizens of this country to 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, for if we do not and another terrorist 
attack occurs on our shores we will surely all be held accountable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I suspect that the American people do not realize just 
how much the process of legislating is about reacting to events that 
take place around us. When something like Enron happens, we react to 
that. When accounting scandals happen, we react to it. When the events 
of 9/11 occurred, we obviously reacted to those events. And quite often 
when we react, we are looking for an appropriate new balance that takes 
into account some outrageous activity that took place.
  And so when we passed the PATRIOT Act originally, our effort was to 
try to find a new security balance for people here in our country, and 
we thought we had done a tremendous job of doing that in the Judiciary 
Committee, only to find that the Rules Committee, which did not even 
have any jurisdiction over the matter or had any hearings about the 
matter, took the bill, rewrote it, brought it to the floor and struck a 
completely different balance between the rights of government on one 
hand and law enforcement and the rights of individuals on the other 
hand.

                              {time}  1345

  I voted against the original PATRIOT Act, and I still believe that 
the balance that was struck in that bill was inappropriate. I think the 
balance that we have struck in this bill is not the appropriate 
balance. And a number of my colleagues have said that, well, there have 
not been any abuses by law enforcement of the powers that we gave them. 
But the truth of the matter is that depends on how you define an abuse. 
And I do not like to define an abuse as something outrageous.
  If we wait on something outrageous to happen, then we will react back 
in the opposite direction of against government and law enforcement in 
unreasonable ways, just as we are reacting in favor of law enforcement 
now.
  So here are a couple of statistics that you need to know about: the 
American Library Association found that libraries have received over 
200 formal and informal requests for materials including 49 requests 
from Federal officers. Well, maybe they did not find anything. Maybe 
that was not an abuse that people are going to get outraged about, but 
I think that is outrageous.
  In section 213 it talks about sneak-and-peek searches. In a letter to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the Department of Justice said 
on July

[[Page 16920]]

5, 2005 that that section had been used 153 times as of January 2005. 
Only 18 of those times were the uses for terrorism investigations.
  Well, what is happening with the other 80 percent is in my estimation 
an abuse of this provision because we passed the law so that we could 
make it easier for law enforcement to get to terrorists. The law is 
being used in ways that, but for the events of 9/11 and the terrorism 
that occurred, we would not have accepted as residents of this country.
  I just think we have struck the wrong balance. We need to sunset this 
bill again for a shorter period of time, and I hope my colleagues will 
take that into account and vote against it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rarely disagree with my friend from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt), but I want to take some time to correct the record.
  The delayed notification or so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' warrants 
were authorized in the late seventies for purposes of racketeering and 
drug-trafficking investigations and were held constitutional by the 
Supreme Court in the early eighties as not violative of the fourth 
amendment.
  What the PATRIOT Act did was expand this previously existing 
authority to terrorism investigations. So if the PATRIOT Act never 
existed, the 18 instances where the delayed-notification warrants were 
used for terrorism investigations would have been illegal. But all of 
the other investigations that the gentleman from North Carolina 
referred to would have been legal under existing practice which have 
been held constitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
bill.
  In 2001 after an attack on the United States and the slaughter of 
innocent civilians, this Congress passed the PATRIOT Act, which I 
supported at that time. It gave our investigative agencies a wide 
variety of special powers to fight terrorism and to win this war on 
terrorism. However, these powers were not to be permanent. They were 
designed to help us win the war, not to change our country permanently.
  Now we have the PATRIOT Act being handed to us again, but instead it 
is being handed to us in a permanent form. You do not make policy for 
the United States Government protecting the rights and freedoms of our 
people in an extraordinary time as this, a time of war, and then 
mandate it so it is going to be the rule of our country once we live in 
peacetime.
  Our country was founded on the idea of limited government and 
individual liberty. I gladly supported PATRIOT I. Now they have taken 
all but two of the sunset provisions which would make those 
extraordinary new powers that we gave the government lapse once we have 
peace in this country.
  Any real patriot will vote against this expansion of government at 
the expense of the individual even when peacetime comes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to 
rebut my good friend from California.
  Mr. Chairman, effective oversight is a function of effective 
congressional leadership and not as a result of legislative sunsets. If 
we restricted oversight to legislative sunsets, only about 5 percent of 
the laws that we pass are sunset, and most of those are appropriations 
bills.
  Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is the chairman 
of an oversight subcommittee on the Committee on International 
Relations. I do not see any sunsets coming on bills coming out of the 
Committee on International Relations because I have faith in the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) being able to do 
effective oversight.
  The Committee on the Judiciary has done a huge amount of oversight. 
We have had extensive hearings. There has been more process and more 
hearings and more witnesses on more sides of the issue on the PATRIOT 
Act than practically any other piece of legislation that I have faced 
in my 26-plus years as a Member of Congress.
  Thirty-five witnesses, 12 hearings, oversight letters, responses, 
inspectors general reports. I wish I had brought all of the paper that 
has come about as a result of the Committee on the Judiciary's 
oversight, because it would stack this high off the table here in the 
House Chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, the following is a listing of the oversight activities 
so that the American public and everybody can see that this committee 
has done its job. It has done its job effectively, and it has made sure 
that the civil liberties of the people of this country have not been 
infringed upon.

Hearing Chronology: House Judiciary Committee Consideration of the USA 
                    Patriot Act, As of June 21, 2005


                      full committee consideration

       June 10, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the 
     Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Carlina Tapia-Ruano, 
     First Vice-President of the American Immigration Lawyers 
     Association (Minority witness); Dr. James J. Zogby, President 
     of the Arab American Institute (Minority witness); Deborah 
     Pearlstein, Director of Human Rights First (Minority 
     witness); and Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty 
     International USA.
       June 8, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the 
     Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Deputy Attorney 
     General James B. Corney.
       April 6, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the 
     Department of Justice, The Use of the Law Enforcement 
     Authorities Granted under the USA PATRIOT Act: Attorney 
     General Alberto Gonzales.


                       subcommittee consideration

       May 26, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Material Witness 
     Provisions of the Criminal Code and the Implementation of the 
     USA PATRIOT Act: Section 505 that Addresses National Security 
     Letters, and Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over 
     Crimes Committed at U.S. Facilities Abroad: Chuck Rosenberg, 
     Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General of the 
     Department of Justice (Majority witness); Matthew Berry, 
     Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General of the Department 
     of Justice (Majority witness); Gregory Nojeim, Acting 
     Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American 
     Civil Liberties Union (Minority witness); and Shayana 
     Kadidal, Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights 
     (Minority witness).
       May 10, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on the Prohibition of 
     Material Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist 
     Organizations and on the DOJ Inspector General's report on 
     Civil Liberty Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act: Honorable 
     Glenn Fine, Inspector General of the Department of Justice 
     (Majority witness); Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division of the Department 
     of Justice (Majority witness); Barry Sabin, Chief of the 
     Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division of the 
     Department of Justice (Majority witness); and Ahilan 
     Arulanantham, Staff Attorney for the American Civil Liberties 
     Union of Southern California (Minority witness).
       May 5, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Section 212 of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic 
     Communications to Protect Life and Limb: Honorable William 
     Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative 
     Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); 
     Willie Hulon, Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism 
     Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority witness); 
     Professor Orrin Kerr, Professor of Law at the George 
     Washington University Law School (Majority witness); and 
     James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center for 
     Democracy and Technology (Minority witness).
       May 3, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, 
     and 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law 
     Enforcement Surveillance: Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, U.S. 
     Attorney for the District of Massachusetts (Majority 
     witness); Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy 
     Attorney General (Majority witness); Heather Mac Donald, John 
     M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute (Majority witness); 
     and the Honorable Bob Barr, former Representative of 
     Georgia's Seventh District (Minority witness).
       April 28, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Section 218 of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act--If it Expires will the ``Wall'' Return?: 
     Honorable Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
     District of lllinois (Majority witness); David Kris, former 
     Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of 
     Justice (Majority witness); Kate Martin, Director of the 
     Center for National Security Studies (Minority witness); and 
     Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University 
     (Minority witness).

[[Page 16921]]

       April 28, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Have sections 206 and 215 
     improved FISA Investigations? (Part II): Honorable Kenneth L. 
     Wainstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
     (Majority witness); James Baker, Office for Intelligence 
     Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority 
     witness); Robert Khuzami, former Assistant United States 
     Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the 
     Southern District of New York (Majority witness); and Greg 
     Nojeim, the Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel 
     of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National 
     Office (Minority witness).
       April 26, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Have sections 204, 207, 214 
     and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act. and Sections 6001 and 6002 of 
     the Intellience Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 
     improved FISA Investigations? (Part I): Honorable Mary Beth 
     Buchanan, United States Attorney for the Western District of 
     Pennsylvania (Majority witness); James Baker, Office for 
     Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice 
     (Majority witness); and Suzanne Spaulding, Managing Director, 
     the Harbour Group, LLC (Minority witness).
       April 21, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Crime, Terrorism, and the 
     Age of Technology--Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail 
     Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of 
     Computer Trespasser Communications: and Section 220: 
     Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic 
     Evidence: Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of 
     the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority 
     witness); Steven M. Martinez, Deputy Assistant Director of 
     the Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority 
     witness); James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center 
     for Democracy and Technology (Majority witness as a favor to 
     Minority); and Peter Swire, Professor of Law, Mortiz College 
     of Law, the Ohio State University (Minority witness).
       April 19, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Sections 203 (b) and (d) 
     of the USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information 
     Sharing: Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section 
     of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice 
     (Majority witness); Maureen Baginski, Executive Assistant 
     Director of FBI Intelligence (Majority witness); Congressman 
     Michael McCaul (Majority witness); and Timothy Edgar, the 
     National Security Policy Counsel for American Civil Liberties 
     Union (Minority witness).
     Witnesses (alphabetical)
       1. Arulanantham, Ahilan T.--Staff Attorney, American Civil 
     Liberties Union
       2. Baker, James A.--Counsel for Intelligence Policy, 
     Department of Justice *testified twice
       3. Baginski, Maureen--Executive Assistant Director for the 
     Office of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       4. Barr, Bob--Former Member of Congress, Atlanta, Georgia
       5. Berry, Matthew--Counselor to the Assistant Attorney 
     General, United States Department of Justice
       6. Buchanan, Mary Beth--United States Attorney, Western 
     District of Pennsylvania
       7. Comey, James B.--Deputy Attorney General, United States 
     Department of Justice
       8. Dempsey, Jim--Executive Director, Center for Democracy 
     and Technology *testified twice
       9. Edgar, Timothy--National Security Policy Counsel, 
     American Civil Liberties Union
       10. Fine, Glenn A.--Inspector General, United States 
     Department of Justice
       11. Fitzgerald, Patrick--U.S. Attorney, Northern District 
     of Illinois
       12. Gonzales, Alberto--Attorney General of the United 
     States
       13. Hulon, Willie T.--Assistant Director of 
     Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       14. Kadidal, Shayana--Staff Attorney, Center for 
     Constitutional Rights
       15. Katsas, Gregory--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
     United States Department of Justice
       16. Kerr, Orin S.--Associate Professor of Law, The George 
     Washington University
       17. Khuzami, Robert S.--Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, 
     Southern District of New York
       18. Kris, David--Vice President for Corporate Compliance, 
     Time Warner Corporation
       19. Mac Donald, Heather--John M. Olin Fellow, The Manhattan 
     Institute
       20. Martin, Kate--Director, Center for National Security 
     Studies
       21. Martinez, Steven M.--Deputy Assistant Director of Cyber 
     Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       22. McCaul, Michael--U.S. Representative & former Chief of 
     Counterterrorism and National Security for the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office in Western Judicial District of Texas
       23. Moschella, William--Assistant Attorney General, United 
     States Department of Justice
       24. Nojeim, Gregory T.--Associate Director/Chief 
     Legisaltive Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 
     *testified twice
       25. Parsky, Laura H.--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
     Department of Justice
       26. Pearlstein, Deborah--Director, U.S. Law and Security 
     Program
       27. Pitts, Chip--Chair of the Board, Amnesty International 
     USA
       28. Rosenberg, Chuck--Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney 
     General, United States Department of Justice *testified twice
       29. Sabin, Barry--Chief of the Counterterrorism Section for 
     the Criminal Division, Department of Justice *testified twice
       30. Spaulding, Suzanne--Managing Director, the Harbour 
     Group, LLC
       31. Sullivan, Michael--United States Attorney, District of 
     Massachusetts
       32. Swire, Peter--Professor of Law, Ohio State University 
     *testified twice
       33. Tapia-Ruano, Carlina--First Vice President, American 
     Immigration Lawyers Association
       34. Wainstein, Kenneth L.--Interim U.S. Attorney, District 
     of Columbia
       35. Zogby, Dr. James J.--President, Arab American Institute
     Government Witnesses
       1. Baker, James A.--Counsel for Intelligence Policy, 
     Department of Justice *testified twice
       2. Baginski, Maureen--Executive Assistant Director for the 
     Office of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       3. Berry, Matthew--Counselor to the Assistant Attorney 
     General, United States Department of Justice
       4. Buchanan, Mary Beth--United States Attorney, Western 
     District of Pennsylvania
       5. Comey, James B.--Deputy Attorney General, United States 
     Department of Justice
       6. Fine, Glenn A.--Inspector General, United States 
     Department of Justice
       7. Fitzgerald, Patrick--U.S. Attorney, Northern District of 
     Illinois
       8. Gonzales, Alberto--Attorney General of the United States
       9. Hulon, Willie T.--Assistant Director of Counterrorism 
     Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       10. Katsas, Gregory--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
     United States Department of Justice
       11. Martinez, Steven M.--Deputy Assistant Director of Cyber 
     Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
       12. Moschella, William--Assistant Attorney General, United 
     States Department of Justice
       13. Parsky, Laura H.--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
     Department of Justice
       14. Rosenberg, Chuck--Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney 
     General, United States Department of Justice *testified twice
       15. Sabin, Barry--Chief of the Counterterrorism Section for 
     the Criminal Division, Department of Justice *testified twice
       16. Sullivan, MichaeL--United States Attorney, District of 
     Massachusetts
       17. Wainstein, Kenneth L.--Interim U.S. Attorney, District 
     of Columbia
     Witnesses Testifying in Their Capacity as Former Government 
         Officials
       1. Khuzami, Robert S.--Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, 
     Southern District of New York
       2. McCaul, Michael--U.S. Representative & former Chief of 
     Counterterrorism and National Security for the U.S Attorney's 
     Office in Western Judicial District of Texas
     Non-Government Witnesses
       1. Arulanantham, Ahilan T.--Staff Attorney, American Civil 
     Liberties Union
       2. Barr, Bob--Former Member of Congress, Atlanta, Georgia
       3. Dempsey, Jim--Executive Director, Center for Democracy 
     and Technology *testified twice
       4. Edgar, Timothy--National Security Policy Counsel, 
     American Civil Liberties Union
       5. Kadidal, Shayana--Staff Attorney, Center for 
     Constitutional Rights
       6. Kerr, Orin S.--Associate Professor of Law, The George 
     Washington University
       7. Kris, David--Vice President for Corporate Compliance, 
     Time Warner Corporation
       8. Mac Donald, Heather--John M. Olin Fellow, The Manhattan 
     Institute
       9. Martin, Kate--Director, Center for National Security 
     Studies
       10. Nojeim, Gregory T.--Associate Director/Chief 
     Legisaltive Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 
     *testified twice
       11. Pearlstein, Deborah--Director, U.S. Law and Security 
     Program
       12. Pitts, Chip--Chair of the Board, Amnesty International 
     USA
       13. Spaulding, Suzanne--Managing Director, the Harbour 
     Group, LLC
       14. Swire, Peter--Professor of Law, Ohio State University 
     *testified twice
       15. Tapia-Ruano, Carlina--First Vice President, American 
     Immigration Lawyers Association
       16. Zogby, Dr. James J.--President, Arab American Institute
     Organizations represented
       1. American Civil Liberties Union (*3 different witnesses)
       2. Center for Democracy and Technology
       3. Center for Constitutional Rights
       4. Time Warner Corporation
       5. The Manhattan Institute
       6. Center for National Security Studies
       7. U.S. Law and Security Program
       8. Amnesty International USA
       9. the Harbour Group, LLC

[[Page 16922]]


       10. American Immigration Lawyers Association
       11. President, Arab American Institute
       *Not sure how to classify Universities that have professors 
     testifying, since their testimony does not necessarily 
     reflect the views of the institution. Also, was Barr 
     representing anyone?


 OVERSIGHT: House Judiciary Committee Oversight of the USA Patriot Act

         OVERSIGHT THROUGH LETTERS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       House Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General, John 
     Ashcroft, a letter on June 13, 2002, with 50 detailed 
     questions on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The 
     questions were a result of extensive consultation between the 
     majority and minority Committee counsel. Assistant Attorney 
     General, Daniel Bryant, responded to Chairman Sensenbrenner 
     and Ranking Member Mr. Conyers on July 26, 2002, providing 
     lengthy responses to 28 out of the 50 questions submitted. On 
     August 26, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the responses to the 
     remaining questions, after sending responses to six of the 
     questions to the House Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent 
     the minority additional information regarding the Department 
     of Justice's responses to these questions.
       On April 1, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member 
     Mr. Conyers sent a second letter to the Department of Justice 
     with additional questions regarding the use of pre-existing 
     authorities and the new authorities conferred by the USA 
     PATRIOT Act. Once again, the questions were the product of 
     bipartisan coordination by Committee counsel. Acting 
     Assistant Attorney General, Jamie E. Brown, responded with a 
     May 13, 2003 letter that answered the questions she deemed 
     relevant to the Department of Justice and forwarded the 
     remaining questions to the appropriate officials at the 
     Department of Homeland Security. On June 13, 2003, the 
     Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department 
     of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, sent responses to the 
     forwarded questions.
       On November 20, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
     Congressman Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
     Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, sent a letter to 
     the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability 
     Office (GAO) requesting a GAO study of the implementation of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. This 
     report was released on June 6, 2005.


                       OVERSIGHT THROUGH HEARINGS

       On May 20, 2003, the Committee's Subcommittee on the 
     Constitution held an oversight hearing entitled, ``Anti-
     Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After 
     September 11th: Where and When Can Government Go to Prevent 
     Terrorist Attacks.''
       On June 5, 2003, the Attorney General testified before the 
     full Committee on the Judiciary at an oversight hearing on 
     the United States Department of Justice. Both the hearing on 
     May 20 and the hearing on June 5 discussed oversight aspects 
     of the USA PATRIOT Act.


                      OVERSIGHT THROUGH BRIEFINGS

       The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
     of this Committee requested that officials from the 
     Department of Justice appear and answer questions regarding 
     the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. In response to our 
     request, the Department of Justice gave two separate 
     briefings to Members, counsel, and staff:
       During the briefing held on August 7, 2003, Department 
     officials covered the long-standing authority for law 
     enforcement to conduct delayed searches and collect business 
     records, as well as the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act on 
     those authorities.
       During the second briefing, held on February 3, 2004, the 
     Department of Justice discussed its views of S. 1709, the 
     ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003'' and H.R. 
     3352, the House companion bill, as both bills proposed 
     changes to the USA PATRIOT Act.
       The Department of Justice has also provided three 
     classified briefings on the use of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (FISA) under the USA PATRIOT Act for Members 
     of the Judiciary Committee:
       On June 10, 2003, October 29, 2003, and June 7, 2005 the 
     Justice Department provided these briefings.
       The Department also provided a law enforcement sensitive 
     briefing on FISA to the House Judiciary Committee Members and 
     staff on March 22, 2005.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that we do not have to sunset all 
the legislation going through this Congress, but we have to pay 
particular attention to that legislation that affects the civil 
liberties of our people. And if we are going to in some way expand the 
power of government over our people in time of war because it is 
necessary, that should be sunsetted once the war is over. By 
permanently changing America, we are not furthering the cause of 
freedom in this country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a former member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3199. As the 
gentleman just mentioned, I was a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary on September 11, 2001. And in the weeks that followed, I 
joined my colleagues in committee to carefully craft a bill to give law 
enforcement personnel additional and powerful tools to fight terror. 
But as many of you recall, the work product of our committee was 
rejected at the eleventh hour in favor of a far more expansive act 
which has continued to raise concerns among those who cherish our 
constitutional liberties.
  Through the PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures, we have 
become a country that permits secret surveillance, secret searches, 
denial of court review, monitoring of conversations between citizens 
and their attorneys, and searching of library and medical records of 
citizens. This does not sound like America to me.
  Mr. Chairman, reauthorization of this act is an opportunity; it is an 
opportunity to restore the checks and balances that must exist in a 
free society. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to allow us that 
chance.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, September 11 made it clear that the world 
had changed, that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed 
to change accordingly.
  Democrats and Republicans agreed on the need to update the tools 
necessary for law enforcement to address the threat of terrorism on 
American soil. What started as an effort to protect our country from 
terror has become a virtually uncontrolled vehicle for government to 
invade the privacy of every American.
  It was with that possibility in mind that the Congress included in 
the PATRIOT Act a provision requiring a review after a few years to 
determine which parts should be retained, which parts should be 
modified, and which should be repealed. It is evident to me and to many 
Americans that the PATRIOT Act is inadequate in its protection of civil 
liberties.
  Section 206's blanket, roving wiretaps, section 213's sneak-and-peek 
searches, and section 215's expansive power allowing the government to 
obtain any piece of information on any American are just three examples 
of how the PATRIOT Act is out of control.
  Last week, the Committee on the Judiciary met to address these and 
other issues in an attempt to bring back some balance to the law 
enforcement power and civil liberties. Democrats on the committee 
offered dozens of amendments in an attempt to control this bill and 
bring balance to it. Virtually every single one of these amendments was 
rejected on a party-line vote. Most troubling was the extension of 
sunsetted provisions that should have been allowed to expire or at 
least require reauthorization in the next 4 years.
  Periodically revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. To preserve 
our commitment to making the best and most up-to-date assessment of our 
law enforcement and intelligence policies, we should include more, not 
fewer, sunsets and make them shorter, not longer.
  The PATRIOT Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question 
our democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel 
safe? Too much freedom, giving up too much power given to the Justice 
Department.
  Today we are asking not to hinder the pursuit of terrorists, but to 
return some sanity and balance to the law.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard another attack on delayed notification or 
sneak-and-peek warrants. Let me tell you what has happened earlier this

[[Page 16923]]

month. A U.S. district judge in Washington State executed or authorized 
a delayed-notification warrant to look into a building on the U.S. side 
of the northern border. And what was discovered but a rather 
sophisticated tunnel between Canada and the United States to smuggle 
contraband, and perhaps terrorists, through the border and into this 
country without being detected by our border patrol.
  Using a delayed-notice search warrant, the DEA and other agents 
entered the home on July 2 to examine the tunnel. Shortly thereafter, a 
U.S. district judge authorized the installation of cameras and 
listening devices in the home to monitor the activities in the home.
  Using these twice, Federal, State and local law enforcement officials 
observed multiple trips by three defendants through the tunnel carrying 
large hockey bags or garbage bags. These bags were loaded into a van on 
the U.S. side and driven south for delivery.
  Ninety-three pounds of marijuana were found in these bags when the 
Washington State Patrol stopped the car. That never would have happened 
without a delayed-notification warrant. And if they can bring 93 pounds 
of marijuana in, they can bring terrorists in as well.
  These warrants are good. They protect us. They ought to be kept.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) each will 
control 15 minutes of debate from the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the only former FBI member on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his great work on this, and I want to 
thank my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle for the work they 
have given for the PATRIOT Act. Thanks for at least bringing this 
debate up.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former FBI agent, I had occasion to work some 
pretty bad folks in the City of Chicago in working organized crime and 
public corruption. I developed the sources for wiretaps and applied 
wiretaps for things like murder and extortion, gambling, prostitution, 
racketeering, child pornography.
  There was a case of a child pornographer who was producing child 
pornography tapes where we used the legal system, a legal instrument, 
through due process of law, to get records that we needed from 
businesses, from his home, from other places to make sure that we could 
find the entire network of distribution of criminals who were preying 
on our children. America said something interesting. The people of 
America said, you know, Agent Rogers, at the time we trust you, but we 
trust our Constitution more, so you have to follow the law. You have to 
follow the Constitution even to go after these child molesters and 
people who are promoting child pornography, people who are involved in 
murder and racketeering. And we did, and we used the law as we knew it 
to put somebody in jail.
  We said if a child molester goes into the library and sits down next 
to your child, there is going to be no safe haven in America. We are 
going to use due process according to the Constitution and make sure 
our children, our libraries, our personnel are safe. We used that 
before the PATRIOT Act got here.
  I worked a bombing case where they were trying to sell bombs to 
individuals who were blowing up other gangsters; gangsters blowing up 
gangsters and gangsters blowing up strip clubs and other things to gain 
influence over them. We used all the processes, including a delayed 
search warrant, because we needed to know who they were getting their 
materials from. We used due process under the Constitution and we 
brought them to justice. And America is grateful for that, and it made 
an impact. And we never, ever, ever once deviated from the 
Constitution.
  This whole debate is almost ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. All we do in 
the PATRIOT Act is say, look, if we can go after child molesters 
sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak and peak on a 
warrant, we ought to be able to go after terrorists. That is all the 
PATRIOT Act did. There is no subversion of the Constitution, no 
suspension of the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, it is maddening to me that somebody in America and in 
England and around the world is getting up in the morning thinking, I 
am going to kill somebody in an act of terror, and that we somehow 
fiddle while Rome is burning and argue should it be 10 years or 5 years 
on a renewal or a sunset. This is ridiculous. We have people who are 
committed to killing Americans today. We are at war. This bill helps 
protect America and does not suspend the Constitution of the United 
States.
  For those who argue there are some emergency powers in here, you are 
wrong. You should get up and argue against the criminal code every day 
on this floor, and you should put in bills to remove our ability as 
agents of the FBI to do that. You do not because it is legal and it is 
proper under our Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, we must support this act. We must do it today for the 
future safety of the United States of America.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the London attacks this morning, be they copycat 
terrorism or yet another al Qaeda attempt, are one more reminder of how 
vulnerable we are. We need effective tools to combat terrorism. The 
terrorist threat is real, and if we are going to demand that the FBI 
uncover terror cells in the U.S., we need to give them the tools to do 
that.
  The al Qaeda organization that attacked us on 9/11 has changed. It is 
no longer a top-down centralized terror group planning acts from 
overseas. Instead, we face a loose network of home-grown terror cells, 
or what I call franchise terrorism. Their attacks draw inspiration from 
al Qaeda, but they act independently, making it tougher to disrupt 
their plans.
  I want to make two points about the PATRIOT Act. First, it gave law 
enforcement some important new legal authorities. But new legal 
authorities, Mr. Chairman, on their own, will not protect us from 
terrorism. We need to shift priorities, to develop better strategies 
and devote greater resources to protect our soft targets, like rail, 
subways, and ports, and that we have not yet done.
  Second, on the issue of reauthorizing the 16 provisions that are 
sunsetting, my view is ``mend it, don't end it.'' The PATRIOT Act was 
passed 45 days after 9/11, with little debate. We were bracing for more 
terror. The invasion of Afghanistan had begun and Capitol Hill was hit 
with anthrax attacks. Congress did a fairly decent job, and I supported 
the bill, but we can do better.
  We should reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, which modernized law 
enforcement tools, but we should clarify and tailor the authorities so 
that the government does not have a license to engage in fishing 
expeditions for your personal information or conduct FBI surveillance 
on innocent Americans.
  The bill on the floor today is better than the original PATRIOT Act. 
And if some of the amendments we will consider pass, it will be even 
better. But my colleagues on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence will describe in a moment amendments which we offered in 
committee and before the Committee on Rules. Those amendments are 
solid, moderate, and bipartisan, and they should be able to be debated 
today. The good news is that the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a 
bipartisan basis, has just reported a bill that includes many of them. 
That bill, I hope, will serve as the model in conference committee. 
That bill could have been the House bill.
  In conclusion, protecting America from terrorism is not a Democrat or 
Republican issue, it is an American issue. As I have often said, the 
terrorists are not going to check our party registration before they 
blow us up. So

[[Page 16924]]

when we defend America, let us forget party labels and focus on what 
will provide security and liberty for the American people. Balancing 
liberty and security is not a zero sum game. You either get more of 
both or less. The American people deserve more of both.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I listened to my colleagues on the committee, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt), and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), 
and they have legitimate concerns. I do not think there is anybody in 
this body on either side of this issue that does not have concerns. I 
would like to see, in particular, a sunset provision, although I do not 
know what the timing should be. God willing, there should be a day we 
will not need a PATRIOT Act, and it is easier to vote it back than it 
is to get rid of it.
  Mr. Chairman, 26 nations have been attacked by al Qaeda, and we just 
saw today England, but look at France and Japan. It also tells us the 
United States is behind in its security for our mass rail and bus 
transportation systems, not just aviation but those as well.
  Let me cite an example of what happened before 9/11 and how the 
PATRIOT Act, in my opinion, would have stopped an event, not just may 
have.
  Agencies knew of an outspoken extremist group. They were outspoken in 
support of Osama bin Laden before 9/11, and they were outspoken about 
their ethnic intolerance and raising money for al Qaeda. Agencies like 
CIA, FBI and law enforcement had thousands of leads and limited 
manpower. Their primary issue at the time was getting out two agents in 
a foreign country that were under extreme conditions. They were 
concerned also about if they questioned this group that they would be 
taken to court on profiling. The rhetoric was there, but no action. The 
FBI and the CIA were limited in their ability to check out this group.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular group was the group that was training 
in Arizona, the pilots and the crews that flew into New York City, that 
flew into the Pentagon, and that crashed in Pennsylvania. Mohammed Atta 
is another example. His roommate, the limitations that our agencies had 
on questioning him, he knew about the 9/11 bombings, is another reason 
why I think that we need this act.
  I am conflicted, just like my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) and others, because there are things that all 
of us are concerned about. But Khalid Sheik Mohammed is the guy who 
planned 9/11. We caught this rascal. His replacement was a guy named 
Abu al-Libbi, and we caught that rascal. And some of the documents 
showed that it is only a matter of time, Mr. Chairman, until this 
country is hit, so we must be diligent. This act helps us do that, and 
weighing the concerns and is the reason I think all of us need to 
support the PATRIOT Act.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of our committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time on this very important issue. I also rise, like my colleagues, 
understanding that we face a situation that is potentially very 
dangerous, especially given the events of this morning again in London. 
But I also think it is important and prudent that we craft legislation 
that protects our country not just from the terrorists but also from 
abuses.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to express my disappointment with this 
House for not allowing my fellow colleague on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
to offer an amendment which is important to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT 
Act reauthorization. His amendment would have extended until 2010 the 
sunset date of section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act, also known as the ``Lone Wolf'' provision. Instead, the 
bill before us makes that provision permanent. It has only been in 
effect for 7 months, which is, in my opinion, an inadequate amount of 
time for the government and the public to assess the impact this 
significant expansion of government authorities has.
  We are having this debate today, Mr. Chairman, because 4 years ago 
Congress had the wisdom to include sunset provisions in the PATRIOT 
Act. These sunsets are key to ensuring individual rights and liberties 
as well as allowing Congress to continue to evaluate the effectiveness 
of this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the need for this legislation, and I will 
support the passage today. However, I hope that my colleagues 
understand that if we are to continue much further down this road we 
may be doing irreparable damage to civil liberties in this country 
without sunset provisions.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), another member of the committee.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  Over the last several months, the Committee on the Judiciary has had 
numerous oversight hearings, as has the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, to look at the PATRIOT Act and see where we 
need to improve it and what we need to do to extend the expiring 
provisions.
  My colleague from southern California said that we should have 
sunsets on this because once we have peace we should not have these 
provisions. Once the war is over. Once the war is over.
  The war against foreign terrorists and spies will not end, any more 
than the police's efforts to combat organized crime or drug kingpins. 
The tools that we have put into the PATRIOT Act are identical to the 
tools that law enforcement have had for a long time in criminal cases, 
but we did not have those authorities in foreign intelligence and 
counterterrorism cases.
  There are plenty of myths about the PATRIOT Act, and I think we need 
to put a few of them to rest. One of them is the myth that the local 
sheriff can go into your library and find out what you have been 
reading. They cannot. Under the PATRIOT Act, they need a court order in 
order to get any business records or library records or anything else, 
under the supervision of a Federal judge. And it has to be as part of a 
foreign terrorist investigation or counterintelligence investigation 
against foreign spies. It is directed not against Americans but against 
those who might come to this country to do us harm.
  The most important thing that the PATRIOT Act did was to break down 
the walls between law enforcement and intelligence to be able to share 
information across that wall in order to protect us before the attack 
comes. The intention of the PATRIOT Act is to prevent the next 
terrorist attack, instead of just letting the FBI gather the criminal 
evidence to convict somebody after thousands more have died.

                              {time}  1415

  We need to reauthorize this act, and we also collectively as 
Americans need to dispel the myths about the act and make some 
important strengthening of the act so that in the future it can 
continue to protect us.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), a valued member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and the only one of us successful enough to 
get his language adopted in the bill before us today.
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time to discuss this very important issue.
  The PATRIOT Act has sparked important discussion about protecting 
ourselves from terrorists and protecting our civil liberties. It is 
clear we

[[Page 16925]]

can make reforms to better ensure we are giving law enforcement all of 
the tools they need while maintaining the appropriate safeguards to 
protect the very freedoms we cherish.
  Last week as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Intelligence with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) as the 
chairman, I was able to include a reform so the PATRIOT Act ensures 
greater judicial oversight of government wiretaps. The so-called John 
Doe roving wiretaps are a critical tool in our efforts to fight 
terrorism because they allow surveillance when neither the target's 
identity nor location of the interception is known.
  This amendment allows these wiretaps to continue, but requires the 
government to report back to the courts with an explanation of the 
facts and circumstances surrounding the rationale of the wiretap. This 
will allow greater oversight of the wiretaps without impeding the 
government's need to obtain information on potential terrorist plots 
quickly. If we focus on commonsense reforms, we can protect our 
communities from terrorists, and we can protect our civil liberties.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  One of the most prudent things, in my view, that Congress did in 
passing the original PATRIOT Act was to sunset certain provisions, thus 
ensuring that a future Congress would review and revise them and have a 
very healthy and sobering debate. Rather than sunsetting these 
provisions again, this bill makes permanent 14 of the 16 provisions set 
to expire without addressing the important civil liberty issues.
  I am somewhat taken aback as I listen to different parts of the 
debate on the floor. One would think that the Constitution is something 
that can be set aside when it is not convenient to follow. The 
Constitution is the soul of our Nation. There are magnificently written 
constitutions around the world, but their countries do not heed their 
constitution. The American people take our Constitution seriously.
  And so this debate, not allowing the sunsets in the future, I think 
is very, very important to bring up today. The bill continues to allow 
the FBI to get financial, telephone, Internet and consumer records 
relevant to an intelligence investigation without judicial approval.
  Prior to the PATRIOT Act, these requests had to be directed at agents 
of a foreign power. Under the PATRIOT Act, they can be used against 
anyone, including American citizens.
  The bill continues to allow the FBI to execute a search and seizure 
warrant without notifying the target of a warrant for 6 months if it is 
deemed that providing advance notice would interfere with the 
investigation. This section is not limited to terrorism investigations 
and is not scheduled to sunset.
  The bill does not sufficiently address the issues in section 206 
which deal with the roving John Doe wiretaps. Under the PATRIOT Act, 
the FBI can obtain a warrant and intelligence investigations without 
identifying the person or the phone in question.
  This bill dose nothing to protect library records and bookstore 
receipts. I offered an amendment in the Intelligence Committee to 
modify Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to prohibit the FBI from using 
this section to obtain library circulation records, library patron 
lists, book sales records, or book customer lists, but the amendment 
was not allowed by the Rules Committee.
  In conclusion, the American people love and cherish their liberties, 
and they want and deserve to be safe. I think we can do both. I do not 
believe this bill does both. We need a better bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time.
  Over the past 3 years, the PATRIOT Act has played a key role in the 
prevention of terrorist attacks right here in the United States. Prior 
to the PATRIOT Act, the ability of government agencies to share 
information with each other was limited, which kept investigators from 
fully understanding what terrorists might be planning and to prevent 
their attacks.
  The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, Joseph Van 
Bokkelen, explained, ``If an assistant U.S. Attorney learned through 
the use of a grand jury that there was a planned terrorist attack in 
northern Indiana, he or she could not share that information with the 
CIA.''
  The PATRIOT Act brought down the wall separating intelligence 
agencies from law enforcement and other entities charged with 
protecting the Nation from terrorism. It has given law enforcement the 
tools they need to investigate terrorist activities while striking a 
delicate balance between preventing another attack and preserving 
citizens' constitutional rights. And to date, there has not been one 
verified case of civil liberties abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and to give our government the tools 
it needs to succeed in the war on terrorism.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another valued member of our committee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the PATRIOT Act. Even 
if all of the amendments before us today are passed, it will not bring 
this bill into the shape that it should be.
  We worked on this in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
I am sorry to say that most of our reasonable amendments were voted 
down on a party-line basis. But to make matters worse, even those 
improvements made in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did 
not find their way through the Committee on Rules to the floor. So I 
remain deeply concerned about what this bill does to the American 
people.
  The police and prosecution powers of government are among the most 
important powers for preserving life and liberty, but they are also 
among the most fearsome. Section 213, the so-called sneak-and-peek 
searches, it would allow investigators to come into your home, my home, 
take pictures, seize personal items, and when they discover they have 
made a mistake, there is no time in which they have to notify you that 
they have been there. One does not have to be a paranoid to be 
concerned that somebody has been in your house.
  Members might say it only applies to terrorists; it does not apply to 
law-abiding citizens like you and me. Well, tell that to Brandon 
Mayfield, tell that to the Portland attorney who was detained by 
investigators under the PATRIOT Act. Now, the FBI in that case 
apologized, but this is something that hits home, and we have a 
responsibility to preserve the freedoms of people at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the reauthorization of 
the PATRIOT Act. As you know, the PATRIOT Act was passed in the 
aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Act was an 
immediate reaction to the state of shock the country was in--being 
drafted, briefly debated, approved, and signed into law by October 26, 
2001, just weeks after the attacks. At the time I, and many other 
Members of Congress, voted for the Act under the condition that a 
number of the provisions contained within it would sunset and thus 
would need to be reviewed and reauthorized.
  The police and prosecution powers of the government are important and 
necessary to preserving life and liberty, but they are also the most 
fearsome powers of government and, if abused, can rob us of life and 
liberty. For generations, thousands upon thousands of people have come 
to America's shores to be free of the oppressive hand of authorities in 
other countries, to be free of the fear of the knock on the door in the 
middle of the night, to be free of the humiliation and costs and stigma 
of inappropriate investigations.
  As the only Member of Congress from New Jersey, a state which 
suffered great loss on September 11th, on the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, I looked forward to working within the 
committee during

[[Page 16926]]

our mark up of the PATRIOT Act to address a number of valid concerns 
that have arisen over the last few years about the sun-setting 
provisions. However, most of the important amendments that were offered 
were defeated on party lines. And what we did accomplish--the 
improvements we made--did not make it through the Rules Committee for 
consideration on the floor.
  I remain deeply concerned about many of the provisions in the PATRIOT 
Act as reported to the House, but I would like to specifically discuss 
two of them. I am deeply troubled by Section 213, which will be 
permanently reauthorized by this legislation. The so called ``sneak and 
peek'' searches allow federal agents to literally go in to your home, 
my home, anyone's home and conduct a secret search. Investigators can 
take pictures and even seize personal items or records and unbelievably 
they do not need to tell you about it for an indefinite period of time. 
When they discover they made a mistake or they discover you are not 
engaged in terrorist actions, they are under no obligation to ever let 
you know promptly.
  Another provision of the PATRIOT Act, Section 215, allows 
investigators broad access to any record without probable cause of a 
crime. This means that investigators can review your deeply personal 
medical records and also library records without telling you about it 
and without any probable reason to do it. Investigators under Section 
215 would be able to access all the medical records at a local hospital 
with only the indication that there may be potentially valuable records 
contained therein. In other words, most of the records searched are of 
innocent people, but because there is a terrorist investigation 
underway or a terrorists records might be somewhere in the batch, they 
get swept up in the search.
  These provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms 
and civil liberties all Americans. Some will say we need these 
provisions to track down terrorist and build cases against them. But 
what goes unsaid is that these provisions will also be used against 
people who have committed no crime and who are completely innocent. It 
is because of this that the PATRIOT Act must be understood as affecting 
all of us. A small number of unnecessary intrusions can have a broadly 
chilling effect. Proponents of the Patriot bill before us will say that 
it is directed at terrorists, not law abiding citizens, but they should 
try to tell that to Mr. Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon.
  Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney, was detained by investigators 
last year as a material witness under authority granted by the PATRIOT 
Act. They alleged that his finger prints were found on a bag linked to 
the terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain last year. More so called 
evidence was collected when his residence was searched, without his 
knowledge, under Section 213 of the Act. However, the investigators 
were wrong. The FBI has issued an apology for his wrongful detention. 
But this is no conciliation for a lawyer and Muslim American whose 
reputation was tarnished by this investigation, made possible by the 
overly-broad powers granted under the PATRIOT Act. How can we allow 
this to happen in America? Of course, some mistakes will occur, but 
this bill strikes the wrong balance and makes those errors more likely.
  In 2001, I voted in favor of the PATRIOT Act with reservations, and 
my reservations have only increased over time. At the time, I said that 
in the anxious aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we were 
likely to get wrong the balance between freedom and security. I 
insisted on a sunset clause so that the law would expire after several 
years and Congress would adjust the balance. Because those sunsets were 
adopted we have an opportunity to revisit this important legislation 
today. Unfortunately, the Majority has prevented many amendments which 
have bipartisan support from being offered. These amendments would have 
helped restore the proper balance between freedom and security that the 
bill gets wrong. And they would have provided the important sunsets 
that would force review of the bill in four years.
  James Madison, speaking in 1788 before the Virginia Convention (not 
all that far from where we are today) explained what I believe is the 
unanswered problem with the PATRIOT Act. He said, ``I believe there are 
more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by 
gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and 
sudden usurpations.'' As Madison said over 200 years ago, the liberty 
and freedoms we as Americans cherish are being eroded today not at the 
barricade, but in the library, and at our local doctor's office. It is 
for this reason that I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PATRIOT 
Act.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this action as well as others that involve the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  I want to remind Members why we are here. We are here because the 
PATRIOT Act will sunset. It will sunset so we can see if there were any 
violations of civil liberties during the time it was in effect, which 
will be approximately 4 years by the end of this year.
  There were over 7,000 alleged violations filed by the American Civil 
Liberties Union, as Members heard before from the gentleman from 
Indiana. However, we have no violations of civil liberties under the 
PATRIOT Act. Of those 7,000 allegations, some were under other parts of 
the law, but none under the PATRIOT Act. So what we are talking about 
in this bill is sort of splitting hairs.
  We have heard comments about how there is no judicial oversight for 
what is going on. There is judicial oversight for almost everything 
involved in the PATRIOT Act with few exceptions, like national security 
letters, which does require a certification of relevance before they 
move forward.
  We use these tools in the PATRIOT Act so we can catch terrorists and 
prevent acts of violence against American citizens. We use these same 
tools in other parts of the law, like when we are trying to find patent 
infringement, when we are trying to catch organized criminals, when we 
are trying to stop drug trafficking. This is a good law. I hope my 
colleagues will support it. It does protect civil liberties, and we 
should pass it.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, to the last speaker, I agree it is good, 
but I think it could be a lot better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Ruppersberger), the former rookie of our committee.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, we are all watching what is 
happening in London; and with that backdrop, we are discussing 
reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act today. We are all committed to finding 
and fighting terrorists. No one party, Democrats or Republicans, has 
exclusivity over this issue. We are all for stopping terrorists and 
protecting our citizens.
  While we are all committed to this fight, it is still our 
congressional duty to exercise our oversight responsibilities. We can 
do this effectively with sunset provisions. Sunset provisions hold 
Congress accountable for reexamining and determining the effectiveness 
and impact of the PATRIOT Act.
  As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I hold 
this oversight responsibility as one, if not my most, important 
function. Let me say up front that I think the PATRIOT Act provides 
essential tools for law enforcement authorities that were not available 
before the 9/11 attacks. These tools are essential to identifying and 
tracking terrorists inside the United States.
  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held two open 
hearings for the PATRIOT Act. These hearings led me to conclude that 
the PATRIOT Act, while good, is not perfect. Additional time is needed 
to assess many of these provisions' effectiveness and impact on civil 
liberties, and that is why we need to call for sunsets.
  It is clear to me that we still face serious threats and we need some 
of the powers of the PATRIOT Act. Sunset provisions are important 
because they allow for review and oversight. Oversight allows us to 
protect civil liberties; but more importantly, it allows us to enhance 
law enforcement tools to keep pace with the terrorists.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over and the world is a more 
dangerous place. The strategy that we used to have of containment, 
react and mutually assured destruction went out the window on 9/11. 
Lord, it probably went out earlier, we just did not get it.
  We need now to be able to detect in order to prevent, and our 
intelligence community needs the capability and

[[Page 16927]]

the tools so they can detect and prevent.
  We are not going to be able to harden a subway site, a bus station, a 
train station. We can have more people, dogs, cameras, lights, we can 
do a lot of things to help, but we cannot stop it unless we have the 
tools. We do not want to use the criminal means to go after terrorists 
because you have to wait until the crime has been committed. We want to 
prevent not a crime from being committed; we want to prevent a 
terrorist attack from being committed. So give them the tools.
  The PATRIOT Act does it. We have seen it operate for 4 years. It has 
been amazing how well it has operated.
  When people talk about libraries, why in the world would we want to 
make a library a free terrorist zone? We allow our forces to go in for 
a crime in a library. Why should they not be allowed to go in for a 
terrorist issue?
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the devastation of 9/11 shook 
our collective consciousness to the core; but it should not have 
shattered the foundation that defines who we are as a people and serves 
as a beacon of individual rights and liberties throughout the world.
  Our Nation has been able to overcome the challenges of the past by 
proving to ourselves and to the world around us that our rights and our 
values are the indispensable conditions of being an American. If we 
allow the threat of fear and terror to undermine our civil liberties, 
we will have failed not only the Founding Fathers who bestowed upon us 
the philosophical foundations of this great Nation, but more 
importantly, we will have failed the future of America as the last 
great hope of mankind.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, an unforeseen consequence of these infringements on 
American citizens' civil liberties is the erosion of our standing as 
the international leader of the rights of people. With each fundamental 
mistreatment of our own citizenry, we broadcast an image around the 
world that will, in fact, come back to haunt us. We will become what we 
deplore: a hypocritical pseudo-democracy of freedoms granted from the 
government down instead of from the people up.
  Mr. Chairman, do not rewrite our precious Bill of Rights. Vote 
against this bill just as our Founding Fathers would have.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the first PATRIOT Act, and I strongly 
supported the creation of the Homeland Security Department and have 
voted for every large increase in intelligence, homeland security 
funding, and defense funding.
  But I am very troubled here. I am very troubled by the fact that we 
are eliminating the sunsets. I am very troubled by the fact that the 
administration and the leadership here are just going full steam ahead 
without listening to the very sincere problems that many of us have 
with the erosion of civil liberties. I do not think we should be trying 
to save our freedom by killing the safeguards that keep our liberties. 
These are very serious issues.
  The FBI can get a court order to demand confidential medical and 
financial records and gag their doctor or banker from telling them. 
They can even search people's homes and not tell them until weeks or 
months later. We have had many colleagues talk about the problems with 
library records and bookstore records. These are very serious civil 
liberties problems.
  And it is not on the abstract. There are people like me who support a 
strong defense. There are people like me who support strong 
intelligence and homeland security funding. But this is a balancing 
act, and my fear is that we have gone too far.
  The administration should listen to us, have a moderate bill, have 
sunsets, and then we could all vote for this bill.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as prior speakers on our side have made clear, we 
should be mending it, not ending it. That is my view under this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader and my predecessor as ranking 
member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I salute her for her extraordinary leadership on issues 
relating to the national security of our country, her excellent 
leadership as the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, and her important comments today.
  I also salute the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and commend 
him for being such a guardian of our Constitution. Mr. Chairman, we 
take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. No one 
is more committed to that oath than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers). I thank him for his tremendous leadership.
  I join them and each and every one of our colleagues in expressing 
our admiration for the people of Great Britain for their strength and 
their courage. Together our two nations will defeat terrorism, and we 
will do so by pursuing real security measures and by providing law 
enforcement the tools they need.
  Mr. Chairman, as we close debate on this important bill, I want to 
thank again the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman), and so many other colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for their thoughtful consideration of this very 
important matter. I am very impressed by the comments of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), who has contributed enormously to this 
debate.
  Our first responsibility to the American people is to provide for the 
common defense, to protect and defend the American people. In doing so, 
we must also protect and defend the Constitution, as I mentioned. We 
must pursue real security measures that prevent terrorism. We must make 
a strong commitment to homeland security. And we cannot, because of any 
negligence in terms of protecting the American people in terms of 
homeland security, take it out on their civil liberties.
  Our Founding Fathers in their great wisdom understood the balance 
between security and liberty. They lived at a time when security was 
all about homeland security. The war was fought on our shores and 
continued into the War of 1812 here. And so they knew that in order to 
have a democracy and to have freedom and to have liberty and to ensure 
it and to protect the people, they had to create that balance.
  Today we are considering the extension of certain provisions of the 
USA PATRIOT Act. I want to add my voice to those who have made it clear 
to this body that the PATRIOT Act is the law of the land. Ninety 
percent of it is in the law. About 10 percent of it, 16 provisions, are 
what we are considering today. They are the provisions that were 
considered controversial 4 years ago when the bill was passed. And 
because they were controversial, in a bipartisan way, these provisions 
were sunsetted. There was a limit to how long they would be in effect. 
I supported the bill because of these sunset provisions and because of 
the rigorous oversight that was promised.
  We have not seen that oversight. It simply has not happened in an 
effective way. And today there is an attempt on the part of the 
Republicans to eliminate the sunset of 14 of the 16 provisions and on 
the two remaining provisions to have a sunset of 10 years. That is a 
very, very long day when you are curtailing the liberties of the 
American people.
  I again listened intently to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) when he described in detail the serious constitutional issues 
concerning section 505, national security letter orders, by which 
government possesses

[[Page 16928]]

power to seize citizens' medical and other personal records without 
notice, without the ability to challenge these orders, and without 
meaningful time limitations. And for this reason, I will join the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) in opposing this legislation but 
with the hope that it will be improved in conference and then, when it 
comes back to this body, that we will be able to all support a PATRIOT 
Act extension that protects the American people, gives law enforcement 
the tools they need without seriously curtailing the privacy and civil 
liberties of the American people.
  I think it is important to note that the bill before us fails to 
ensure accountability. Again, when Congress voted for this 4 years ago, 
Members clearly understood that it would be accompanied by strong 
congressional oversight so that the implementation would not violate 
our civil liberties. In fact, the Attorney General has admitted that 
the information on its use of the PATRIOT Act has not been forthcoming 
to Congress in a timely manner. If not for the sunset provisions, there 
is no doubt that Congress would not have even received insufficient 
information we have received to date.
  Today we are deciding whether the government will be accountable to 
the people, to the Congress, and to the courts for the exercise of its 
power. It is about whether broad surveillance powers that intrude on 
Americans' privacy rights contain safeguards and actually materially 
enhance security to target terrorists and those who wish to harm the 
United States, not needlessly intrude on the constitutional rights of 
innocent and law-abiding American citizens.
  Unfortunately, Republicans refused to permit amendments that would 
have extended the sunset by 4 years and created sunsets for the 
national security letter provisions to ensure that these provisions 
would never be abused. Perhaps they thought that these amendments would 
have been too appealing to the many Members of this House on the 
Republican side who are strong supporters of privacy rights for the 
American people and they did not want these amendments to pass. For 
whatever reason, the American people are not well served by not having 
as open a debate with the opportunity for these sunset provisions to be 
considered. These amendments should have been considered as a minimum 
part of any effort to improve the PATRIOT Act and this bill.
  USA today said in an editorial: ``Congress has an opportunity to . . 
. ensure'' that these provisions ``remain temporary, the best way to 
monitor the law's use and keep law enforcement accountable.''
  We have a duty to protect the American people from terrorism but also 
to protect law-abiding citizens from unaccountable and unchallengeable 
government power over their personal lives, their personal records, and 
their thoughts. Because I believe this bill fails to meet these 
objectives, as I said, I will oppose it today with the hope that there 
will be an improved bill coming from the conference committee.
  Again, our Founding Fathers left us with the ever present challenge 
of finding the balance between security and liberty. It is the story of 
America. We must honor their legacy in however we vote today. I would 
hope that even those who support the bill do so in the hope that it 
will come back a better bill from conference. All Members should honor 
their oath of office and carry out their duty to protect and defend our 
Nation while protecting and defending our Constitution and our civil 
liberties.
  I thank all who have participated in this very important debate and 
hope that at the end of the day, and I hope it is not a day with a very 
long sunset, but at the end of the day that we can all get behind a 
PATRIOT Act extension that does respect the civil liberties of the 
American people.
  Again, I remind my colleagues, the PATRIOT Act is the law. The 
sunsetted provisions are what are being considered today. The sunsets, 
by and large, have been removed or extended to such an extent that they 
do not even matter, and we can do better. We have an obligation to do 
better for the American people.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, as we close general debate on the U.S. 
PATRIOT Act, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the author of the bill, chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  After listening to the speech of the distinguished minority leader, I 
have reached the conclusion she has not read the bill. She has not 
looked at the oversight that the Committee on the Judiciary has done 
over the last 3\1/2\ years.
  We have an oversight record of bipartisan letters sent to the Justice 
Department, Inspector General's reports, and hearings that have a stack 
of paper that is about 2 feet high. In this bill we have had 12 
hearings with 35 witnesses, people who have come from all over the 
spectrum; and 13 of the 16 sections of the PATRIOT Act that are 
sunsetted are not controversial. The three controversial sections, two 
of them are sunsetted; the third one, as a result of some of the 
testimony, has been amended, and that is the delayed notification 
warrants.
  The fact of the matter remains that no federal court has found that 
any of the 16 sunsetted sections are unconstitutional, and the 
Inspector General, who is required by the PATRIOT Act itself to report 
to the Congress twice a year, has not found any civil liberties 
violations.
  Let us stick to the facts. Let us stick to the result of the 
oversight. Let us stop the hyperbole. And let us stop the scare tactics 
that seem to surround the debate of those who are opposed to this law 
for whatever purpose.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The greatest responsibility of the intelligence community is to 
protect our country from attack. Today's debate should flow from this 
simple premise which should not be controversial, contentious, or 
partisan.
  The 9/11 attacks have led us to war, to war with an unconventional 
enemy that hides literally around the globe. The full energies of the 
intelligence community are directed to finding and monitoring that 
enemy abroad, but our most pressing and immediate concern is with those 
foreign terrorists who may be even closer to home, those within the 
borders of the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act has provided basic 
and fundamental tools to investigators to help them find foreign spies 
and terrorists who may seek to harm our Nation.
  The continued acts of alleged terrorism in London today should 
continue to highlight the urgency of these efforts and the critical 
nature of the PATRIOT Act authorities. Within days of the first London 
bombings, British authorities were able to rapidly identify the bombers 
and follow their trail to other terrorists. The PATRIOT Act would be 
essential to do the same in the United States to investigate or prevent 
an attack.

                              {time}  1445

  By now, you have all seen the chilling photograph of the very first 
group of London bombers to gather in a rail station. In the United 
States the authorities of the PATRIOT Act likely would have been used 
to obtain that photograph.
  In the London investigation, there has been extensive cooperation 
between the London Metropolitan Police and the British intelligence 
agencies. In the United States, that cooperation would not be possible 
without the PATRIOT Act.
  British investigators then obtained leads from a terrorist phone to 
tie them to the coconspirators of the first group of bombers. In the 
United States, the authorities of the PATRIOT Act likely would have 
been used to obtain those records.
  Mr. Chairman, our counterterrorism investigators in the intelligence 
community can do truly remarkable work to find terrorists and to piece 
together the puzzle of their networks, but to do that they need modern 
legal authorities to deal with modern threats.

[[Page 16929]]

  Behind all the rhetoric, the PATRIOT Act is simple, sensible, 
reasonable and necessary. I urge all Members to support the 
intelligence community in its effort to fight terrorism. Support this 
bill and keep America safe.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 
3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism and Prevention Reauthorization Act. 
I want to emphasize at the outset that I share the concern of my House 
colleagues that it is essential to protect our Nation and its citizens 
from terrorists seeking to harm our homeland and its citizens. I agree 
with my colleagues that no safe harbor should be available to 
terrorists. There should be no doubt that I wholeheartedly support 
enabling law enforcement officials with the authority to surveil and 
prosecute terrorists. But it is critical that we resist the temptation 
to develop laws that assault the constitutional protections afforded to 
Americans.
  I am alarmed about the scope of a number of provisions in the bill 
that are likely to lead to the abuse of personal freedoms enjoyed by 
Americans. Section 215, Seizure of Records, causes me great concern. 
This provision allows the FBI, based on the premise of conducting a 
terror investigation, to obtain any record, after receiving approval 
from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, Court. My 
concern is that law enforcement agencies can engage in such activity 
without meeting the standard legal threshold of ``probable cause'', 
thereby leading to potential cases of abuse.
  I am also very concerned about the ability of law enforcement 
agencies to conduct ``Roving John Doe Wiretaps''. Under this scenario, 
criminal investigators can obtain wire tap authority to employ devices 
that roam with someone who has been designated as involved in terrorist 
activity; that device can be attached to an instrument that can be 
transported through multiple jurisdictions.
  Section 213 that allows for ``Sneak and Peek'' authority related to 
searches and seizures. This is a provision that allows for run-of-the-
mill criminal investigations to be employed while conducting the war on 
terrorism. The problem with this provision is that 90 percent of the 
searches are used for drug and fraud cases and not for terrorism. I am 
concerned about the lack of oversight that could apply to these types 
of investigations.
  I recognize that some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have 
served a useful purpose and are scheduled to end. The process of 
reviewing provisions and determining whether to extend them allows the 
House to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriations of the 
provisions. Two of the provisions in this bill are now being scheduled 
to extend for 10 years as opposed to the 4 years in the expiring 
legislation. In this scenario, a flawed provision could extend 6 years 
beyond the normal time frame. Fourteen sections of H.R. 3199 bill will 
become permanent, and will have virtually no oversight.
  I continue to have great reservations about the use of National 
Security Letters, NSLs. National Security Letters are applicable within 
Section 505. The NSLs deny individuals due process by barring targets 
of investigations access to court and the right to challenge the NSLs. 
The NSLs allows institutions, i.e. banks, Internet Service Providers, 
ISPs, to divulge critical information about individuals under 
investigation. Private information about an individual can be shared 
with law enforcement, but the organization would be ``gagged'' from 
revealing its efforts. This is a terribly flawed and wrong process.
  Mr. Chairman, I content that it is essential to protect the 
constitutional rights of American citizens as we engaged in the ongoing 
war on terrorism. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Bill of 
Rights and resist the temptation to curtail those rights in our 
collective pursuits to develop legislation to counter the threats posed 
by terrorists. My review of H.R. 3199 causes my great concern that we 
are undermining the civil liberties of Americans. I stand as a patriot 
for America and our Constitution, and in opposition to H.R. 3199. I 
urge my colleagues to join my in defeating this measure. I support 
sending this over-reaching legislation back to committee, and ask the 
Judiciary Committee to come back with a better bill that does not shed 
our civil liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution. It is 
vital that we address terrorism specifically, while simultaneously 
ensuring that these statutory provisions continued to be forced to 
comply with the legal threshold of probable cause.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as we learned here on 9/11 and in London 
today and on 
7/7, we must crack down on terrorism, and we must ensure that law 
enforcement officials have the tools they need to assess, detect and 
prevent future terrorist attacks. However, I don't believe we have to 
shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to fight terrorism. 
We must be vigilant that the rights and liberties we are fighting to 
protect are not jeopardized in the name of the war against terrorism. 
Regrettably, H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act, does not provide adequate protections for the 
civil liberties of law abiding citizens and I must rise in opposition 
to the bill.
  When the House considered the original USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, I 
expressed concerns with the bill both for substantive and procedural 
reasons. And, unfortunately, I have both substantive and procedural 
concerns with this reauthorization bill, as well.
  With that said, I support a number of provisions in H.R. 3199. Law 
enforcement officials need tools to find and track domestic criminals 
and international terrorists. Federal law has not kept pace with 
emerging technological and communications systems, so I support 
judicially approved wire-taps to obtain email communications and 
internet records related to potential terrorist offenses.
  I also support provisions which authorize law enforcement officials 
to share information with foreign intelligence officials. Allow 
judicially approved wire-taps on cell phones and disposable cell 
phones, permit judicially approved seizure of voice mail and not make 
permanent the provision making it a federal crime to provide material 
support to terrorists, among other meritorious provisions.
  However, as I mentioned earlier, I also have very serious concerns 
with a number of other provisions in the bill. Many of the provisions 
in the bill that expand law enforcement authority to conduct domestic 
intelligence gathering, either do not require judicial review, or 
require that law enforcement only assert relevance to an investigation, 
rather than show probable cause that the information is relevant to a 
terrorist investigation. These expanded powers go a long way toward 
tearing down protections that were put in place in the post-Watergate 
era when we learned of presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-
gathering against individuals because of political affiliation or 
citizen activism.
  I am particularly concerned with a provision authorizing national 
security letters, NSL's, which allow law enforcement officials 
unlimited access to business and personal records without any sort of 
judicial oversight. This provision is extraordinarily broad and 
intrusive and could apply to any tangible records on any and all 
Americans whether or not they are suspected of a terrorist act. Prior 
to the Patriot Act, NSL's could be used to get records only when there 
was ``reason to believe'' someone was an agent of a foreign power. Now 
they are issued simply when an agent asserts that it could be relevant 
to an investigation. According to the Department of Justice, this new 
power has been used hundreds of times since the USA PATRIOT Act was 
signed into law in 2001. A Federal court has found this authority to be 
in violation of the 1st and 4th amendments of the Constitution, but the 
administration continues to use it, and this bill would sanction this 
extraordinary expansion of unchecked governmental authority.
  I am also concerned that the bill extends the government's so-called 
``sneak and peek'' authority which allows the government to conduct 
secret searches and seizure of property without notice, in violation of 
the 4th amendment. This authority has also been used hundreds of times 
since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, including against Brandon 
Mayfield in Portland who was suspected of being involved in the Madrid 
bombings. Mr. Mayfield was later exonerated of all charges related to 
the bombings because it was shown that the FBI based its investigation 
on incomplete and faulty information. But his life was changed forever 
as a result of the investigation and intrusive searches, and under this 
bill, it could happen to other law abiding citizens.
  I am disturbed that the bill extends many of these controversial 
provisions either permanently or up to 10 years, even though Congress 
has not been properly provided information on the sue of many 
provisions of the Act to date. Without that information, it is 
difficult to know how this new law enforcement authority is being used, 
whether it's necessary at all, or whether it needs to be modified to 
protect the civil rights and liberties of law abiding citizens. We know 
of some abuses that have occurred under the act, like the Mayfield 
case. However, the Administration has refused to provide information on 
some of the most broad and intrusive powers under the Act, and the bill 
should provide for adequate disclosure and proper oversight of these 
provisions, but it doesn't.
  Finally, I am concerned that the bill is being brought up with 
limited debate and amendments. I am particularly concerned that the 
Republican leadership refused to allow a vote on an amendment to remove 
library and bookstore records from Sec. 215 of the Act, which

[[Page 16930]]

grants law enforcement officials the authority to seize business 
records without notification. A similar amendment was approved by the 
House of Representatives earlier this summer by an overwhelming vote of 
238-187.
  I would like to be able to support this bill, and as I said earlier, 
I support a number of provisions in the bill. I also believe we could 
have reached an agreement on protections to address most of my concerns 
with the bill by providing for judicial review and shorter-sunset 
provisions. Unfortunately, the leadership chose to bring a bill to the 
floor which simply gives too much broad, intrusive and unchecked 
authority to the federal government, and does not provide for adequate 
legislative oversight of how these powers are being used, therefore, I 
cannot support the bill. I hope the Senate and conference committee 
will address these concerns.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3199, 
the reauthorization of 16 expiring sections of the PATRIOT Act, which 
weakens the safeguards currently in place to protect innocent Americans 
from sweeping searches and surveillance by the government.
  I am not opposed to the original PATRIOT Act. In fact, I supported 
the original bill passed in 2001 because it included provisions which 
were legitimately needed by law enforcement in order to better pursue 
terrorists. Commonsense improvements have been made to update our 
intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, and to reflect modern-
day realities. These will remain intact, and today's vote will not 
affect such core provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Whether or not H.R. 
3199 passes, 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act will continue to be 
enforced.
  My objection, however, is that H.R. 3199 retains numerous 
objectionable provisions of the PATRIOT Act that intrude on our privacy 
and civil liberties, have been subject to repeated abuse and misuse by 
the Justice Department, and have little to do with combating terrorism. 
This legislation does nothing to address the many unilateral civil 
rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since the 
September 11 attacks. Nor does the bill provide law enforcement with 
any additional real and meaningful tools necessary to help our Nation 
prevail in the war against terrorism.
  Since 2002, 389 communities, including Los Angeles, have passed 
resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 
million people. This outcry from America is due to the repeated and 
serious misuse of the legislation by the Justice Department. Consider 
that the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly 
search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases 
having had nothing to do with terrorism. It was used against Brandon 
Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his 
property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, and take his 
DNA, all without his knowledge. Furthermore, because of gag 
restrictions, we will never know how many times it has been used to 
obtain the reading records of average Americans from libraries and 
bookstores.
  H.R. 3199 also extends or makes permanent 16 provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act concerning the government's expanded surveillance 
authorities, which are otherwise scheduled to sunset on December 31, 
2005. It is simply irresponsible to make these provisions permanent 
when there continues to be wide spread concern that these sections of 
the PATRIOT Act can lead to violations of individual civil liberties, 
as well as tread on our country's professed support of basic civil 
rights for all individuals. Preserving a 4-year sunset for these 16 
provisions in the PATRIOT Act is one of Congress's strongest mechanisms 
for maintaining oversight and accountability over expanded government 
controls that could potentially undermine civil rights and civil 
liberties. We are talking about critical issues that will set the 
precedence for the rights of people in our country for many years to 
come.
  The Intelligence Committee tried to offer sensible amendments to the 
bill, but was denied by the Republican-controlled Rules Committee. One 
amendment would have tightened the ability of the FBI to conduct roving 
wiretaps to ensure that only terror suspects--not innocent Americans--
are wire-tapped. Another amendment would have included the sunset 
provisions originally in the PATRIOT Act to promote accountability and 
congressional oversight. A final amendment would have prohibited the 
FBI from using the broad powers to get bookstore or library documentary 
records about any patron.
  Even though some in our government may claim that civil liberties 
must be compromised in order to protect the public, we must be wary of 
what we are giving up in the name of fighting terrorism. Striking the 
right balance is a difficult, but critically important task. History 
has taught us to carefully safeguard our civil liberties--especially in 
times of fear and national outrage.
  The lessons of September 11 are that if we allow law enforcement to 
do their work free of political interference, if we give them adequate 
resources and modern technologies, we can protect our citizens without 
intruding on our liberties. We all want to fight terrorism, but we need 
to fight it the right way, consistent with the Constitution, and in a 
manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 3199 does not meet those tests and, without the critical 
safeguards of sunset provisions, does not warrant reauthorization.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
reauthorization and extension of the USA PATRIOT Act, the provisions of 
which have protected the American people and our soil from terrorism 
since their enactment 4 years ago.
  The PATRIOT Act has been instrumental to our prosecution of the war 
on terror since 
9/11, and, specifically, instrumental to the prosecution of terrorists 
who have threatened our homeland.
  Our law enforcement and intelligence communities have vigorously and 
appropriately used the PATRIOT Act to investigate, charge, and 
prosecute terrorists.
  Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, and 
northern Virginia have been disbanded. Terrorists around the world have 
been brought to justice. The notorious wall between law enforcement and 
intelligence gathering organizations has been broken down. Prosecutors 
and investigators have been given more tools to go after terrorists 
without the outdated redtape that, prior to 
9/11, always hamstrung such efforts. Loopholes have been closed, safe-
havens have been shut, and the war in being won. Meanwhile, civil 
liberties are being protected.
  Opponents of the PATRIOT Act suggest that we have an either/or choice 
when it comes to safety and civil liberties, but the PATRIOT Act--the 
ultimate legislative boogey-man for conspiracy theorists--has worked 
exactly as the American people were told it would be.
  To date, 4 years after Big Brother supposedly imposed this draconian 
usurpation of liberty on the American people, no one has suggested a 
single instance of a single person's civil liberties being violated.
  This point bears repeating: on one, not the Justice Department, not 
the ACLU, not even moveon.org has produced evidence of a single, 
verifiable PATRIOT Act civil liberties abuse.
  It just hasn't happened.
  Neither has the government's abuse of the PATRIOT Act's ``delayed 
notification search warrants,'' which since the Act's passage have 
comprised fewer than 2 of every 1,000 search warrants sought by the 
Justice Department.
  The USA PATRIOT Act, then, Mr. Speaker, has been a boon to the law 
enforcement and intelligence community, a crushing blow to our 
terrorist enemies--212 more of whom, I repeat, are now behind bars--and 
a protector of security and freedom to the American people.
  Of course, this law should be re-examined. That's why we've subjected 
it to such vigorous scrutiny: Six Inspector General reports; 12 
Committee hearings, just since this April; 41 witnesses, 15 of whom 
were called by the Democrats; 43 proposed amendments in Committee, 8 of 
which were approved.
  The American people have had ample opportunity to witness the PATRIOT 
Act in action, and in the 4 years since its passage, our Nation has 
been safer, our civil liberties more secure than ever, and our enemies 
have been hunted, caught, and prosecuted.
  We are winning the war on terror, and the PATRIOT Act is a big reason 
why.
  I urge all members to protect the American people, protect civil 
liberties, and extend the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
PATRIOT Act. As we all learned on September 11, 2001, terrorists will 
use any and all means available to them to attack the United States of 
America.
  Since its passage following the September 11 attacks, the PATRIOT Act 
has played a key role in a number of successful operations to protect 
innocent Americans from terrorists. The PATRIOT Act removed major legal 
barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national 
defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect 
the American people and our national security. Now FBI Agents, Federal 
prosecutors, and intelligence officials can protect our communities by 
``connecting the dots'' to uncover terrorist plots before they are 
completed. Simply put, the PATRIOT Act allows the United States to 
become proactive, rather than reactive.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple truth is that while key provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act are set to

[[Page 16931]]

expire, as we have learned twice in the past two weeks from events in 
Great Britain the terrorist threat that faces the world will not 
expire.
  Southern Nevada is visited by over 35 million people each year; many 
of these tourists are our friends from foreign countries. Unfortunately 
we have learned that mixed in with these friendly tourists are some who 
wish to inflict harm on our Nation. This sentiment is supported by the 
fact that we now know that planning meetings of the 9/11 hijackers took 
place in Las Vegas.
  While this may not be a perfect bill, I do believe that the 
legislation before us today reflects a compromise that includes the 
proper balance between security and privacy to face the challenges of 
the current world we live in as well as the necessary safeguards to 
protect our fellow citizens against an over-encroaching government.
  I understand and appreciate the privacy concerns that have been 
expressed by many and will continue to protect civil rights and insist 
that the proper and regular oversight exists when possible 
infringements on Americans' civil rights are concerned.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3199, the 
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. While 
Congress should be revising the flawed aspects of the PATRIOT Act, we 
are instead poised to make permanent the provisions that were supposed 
to sunset at the end of this year.
  My fear is that the actions of our government pursuant to the PATRIOT 
Act amount to nothing short of a taking, not a taking of property, 
rather of our rights and our liberties. For example, the House 
Judiciary Committee Democrats have uncovered the following regarding 
the Act:
  It has been used more than 150 times to secretly search an 
individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had 
nothing to do with terrorism.
  It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to 
tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his 
children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
  It has been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the 
admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim 
Scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.
  It has been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service 
Provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing 
on its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the 
abuse to the public.
  It has been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in 
Idaho for posting Internet website links to objectionable materials, 
even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's web 
site.
  These are just a few of the incidents we know of, yet they are enough 
to raise plenty of concerns in my mind. Because of gag restrictions, we 
will never know how many times it has been used to obtain reading 
records from libraries and bookstores, but we do know that libraries 
have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under 
threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 
occasions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  Rather than making the provisions in question permanent, we should be 
reviewing and amending the most intrusive of these provisions that are 
subject to the sunset clause such as:
  Sec. 215: Secret searches of personal records, including library 
records. The bill does not provide a standard of individual suspicion 
so that the court that examines these extraordinary requests can ensure 
personal privacy is respected, and also falls short by failing to 
correct the automatic, permanent secrecy order.
  Sec. 206: ``Roving'' wiretaps in national security cases without 
naming a suspect or telephone. The bill does nothing to correct this 
overbroad provision of the Patriot Act that allows the government to 
get ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps--wiretaps that fail to specify the 
target or the device. The bill also does not include any requirement 
that the government check to make sure its ``roving'' wiretaps are 
intercepting only the target's conversations.
  The Patriot Act originally had sunsets on some provisions so we could 
reexamine the extraordinary powers that were given to the executive 
branch, in a calmer atmosphere. Instead we are here today ignoring the 
more troubling provisions such as: the ``delayed notice'' of a search 
warrant, the intrusive ``national security letters'' power of the FBI, 
and the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism.
  There is no more difficult task I have as a legislator than balancing 
the nation's security with our civil liberties, but this task is not a 
zero sum game. By passing a bill that largely ignores the most serious 
abuses of the PATRIOT Act, that ignores the abuse of power by the Bush 
Administration, and which fails to give adequate resources and money to 
those on the ``front line'' in the fight against terrorism.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater responsibility of 
government than to protect its people from harm. That was the intent of 
the PATRIOT Act--legislation authored a month after the September 11th 
attacks 4 years ago. And like any bill quickly passed into law, 
particularly one this expansive, the PATRIOT Act has worked well in 
some respects, but less so in others, and in some cases, with 
unintended consequences. All that is understandable, but making the 
entire bill work well with the benefit of 4 years hindsight ought to be 
the challenge before us today.
  But this legislation is not the entire PATRIOT Act passed into law 4 
years ago--it is only 16 provisions of that law, most of which were set 
to expire or sunset. This year, we are failing to consider some of the 
most ineffective and overreaching provisions of the PATRIOT Act. We are 
making only the most modest changes to others. And, in the case of the 
so-called ``sneak and peek'' provision, we are actually making matters 
worse.
  Indeed, under this bill, judges can order searches or seizures 
without telling the targets for up to 6 months after the search. This 
bill also expands authority to access medical records and bookstore and 
library records. And even though it allows recipients of such subpoenas 
to consult an attorney, there is no requirement that law enforcement 
show that the information they are seeking is even part of a terrorism 
investigation.
  And while this provision will be revisited again in 10 years, almost 
all the others are made permanent--access to e-mail and Internet 
records, wiretap authority, the disclosure of Internet records in 
emergencies, the use of search warrants to seize voice mail. These are 
all fundamental matters of privacy--privacy we would all agree 
terrorists are not entitled to, but the average American is.
  By insisting 14 of the 16 expiring provisions in this bill be made 
permanent, we are essentially abdicating our responsibility as Members 
of Congress to make sure we strike the right balance of giving law 
enforcement the tools they need to catch terrorists while still 
upholding the basic rights to which every American is entitled.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a matter of security--of homeland 
security, national security and the security of every American's right 
to privacy. Let us honor our obligations and uphold each of those 
responsibilities.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199. 
This bill does very little other than to make permanent, onerous 
sections of an onerous law.
  Four years ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the 
USA PATRIOT Act. Substituted in the dark of night, the Administration's 
bill was inserted as the final bill and became law with very little 
Congressional deliberation or consideration. I was appalled by the 
process we used then and am only slightly more comforted now.
  We are considering making 14 of the 16 provisions in the PATRIOT Act 
permanent, and making the other 2 provisions semi-permanent. Are we 
going to yield more of our institutional power by granting the 
permanency of these provisions? We must remain vigilant against 
terrorism, but we must also remain vigilant against abuses of power 
that curtail Americans' civil liberties in a time of war.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot during the last four years that we 
will not yield to the terrorists. That we will fight tyranny with 
freedom and democracy, and the power of our ideas will prevail. I 
agree.
  Yet, today, we are considering limiting American freedoms by 
extending these sections of the PATRIOT Act permanently. As a former 
prosecutor, I understand the need for tools to prosecute those who 
would do us harm. However, the law that was passed four years ago and 
the bill we consider today go too far.
  We must provide commonsense tools to prosecutors, but we must weigh 
the important needs to safeguard liberty. We must not make these 
temporary provisions permanent while we remain at war. What will 
generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently 
lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties?
  Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our 
founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. He said ``They that can give up 
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety.''
  I will vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the PATRIOT 
and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization bill. This bill tramples on 
the Bill of Rights in the name of patriotism.

[[Page 16932]]

  To be patriotic means to be loyal and devoted to one's country. As 
Thomas Paine once said, ``It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his 
country from his government.'' We are all Patriots today in the finest 
sense of the word, but just because some of us want to ensure that 
Congress retains its legislative oversight over these draconian 
provisions, some will call us unpatriotic. To quote Thomas Jefferson, 
``Dissent is the highest form of patriotism''.
  While not one of us in the Chamber takes lightly our Oath to protect 
and defend the United States, the permanent extension of the Patriot 
Act, as the expense of our civil liberties, will not in and of itself 
make our country safer.
  I voted against the original PATRIOT Act that was hastily passed in 
October 2001. The same concerns regarding the abuse of power still 
exist. With such broad, sweeping provisions as roving wire taps and 
sneak and peek searches, Congress must retain its ability to exercise 
legislative oversight to ensure the civil liberties of the people are 
upheld. The provisions of the misnamed Patriot Act should be 
reauthorized periodically, not made permanent.
  This Administration consistently hides behind the fear of terrorism 
to achieve their legislative agenda. In this case, they are trying to 
convince the American people that giving up their civil liberties is 
necessary to combat terrorism. My constituents remain unconvinced. In 
my district, the local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa 
Cruz, and Watsonville, California have all passed resolutions 
expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty 
portions of the Patriot Act.
  Mr. Chairman, homeland security means protecting the civil rights of 
Americans.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, almost four years ago, our 
country was traumatized by the vicious attacks on September 11, 2001. 
We will never forget that day or the days immediately following the 
attacks, and once it became clear who was behind the attacks and what 
their motives were, we realized that we were facing a threat unlike any 
other. In the years since, we have seen these senseless attacks 
continue on our allies across the world. As a former state attorney 
general, I fully understand the need to balance the security of our 
nation and the liberties of our citizens. The gravity of the situation 
is not lost on me, or any of my colleagues in this chamber.
  On October 24, 2001, a justified sense of urgency resulted in an 
unjustifiably rushed vote on the PATRIOT Act. Many members had 
outstanding questions about the bill, which the Rules Committee put in 
place of another bill that had been passed by the Judiciary Committee. 
In the years since that bill passed, over 374 cities, towns, and 
counties in 43 states have passed resolutions expressing concern about 
the PATRIOT Act or an extension of it. In New Mexico alone, ten cities 
and four counties have passed resolutions. I have received over 3,000 
letters and emails from constituents on this issue, and I have met with 
hundreds of constituents in my district to discuss the PATRIOT Act in 
town hall meetings. I have found that Americans of all stripes share my 
concerns about the Act.
  The long awaited House floor debate of this bill has arrived. Many of 
my colleagues and I are eager to make some commonsense changes to this 
law, and to bring to light our concerns. Unfortunately, the bill before 
us today is just more of the same. It gives blanket reauthorization to 
the bill with only very minor improvements. All but two of the expiring 
provisions are made permanent, and 10-year sunsets are applied to 
Sections 206 and 215, the roving wiretaps provision and the ``library 
provision,'' respectively. All amendments brought to the Rules 
Committee that would have shortened the sunset period, so that Congress 
could continue to conduct important oversight and review of this 
legislation, were not allowed a vote on the floor.
  I brought two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of which were 
rejected. The first, sponsored by Representative Bernie Sanders, would 
have reined in what is probably the most notorious provision in this 
bill--Section 215. This section grants law enforcement authorities 
unprecedented powers to search, or order the search of, library and 
bookstore records without probable cause or the need for search 
warrants. Because these surveillance powers were cast so broadly and 
the law prohibits them from revealing to the subject that an 
investigation is occurring, librarians, storeowners and operators are 
left in an impossible position. Just one month ago, this House passed 
an amendment to the FY06 Science-State-Justice-Commerce bill denying 
funding for this section. Why, then, does the majority insist on giving 
this section a blanket renewal for 10 years? Librarians and library and 
bookstore patrons in my district will have a difficult time 
understanding why their concerns have not been heard by the House 
leadership. Moreover, in July 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union 
filed a case against the Department of Justice over Section 215 in a 
Federal District Court in Detroit, Michigan. Despite promises by the 
judge that she would issue a prompt ruling, the ruling is still pending 
two years later. I am very concerned that this ruling has not yet been 
issued.
  I also brought to the Rules Committee, along with Representative 
Carolyn Maloney and Representative Chris Shays, an amendment that would 
strengthen the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board created in last year's 
intelligence reform bill. Unfortunately, in its current form, the Board 
does not have the tools to adequately do its job. My amendment would 
have changed the Civil Liberties Board to be an independent agency 
within the Executive Branch, have true subpoena power, make full and 
frequent reports to Congress, have access to information through 
privacy and civil liberties officers, and have fair composition. It is 
our responsibility to ensure that the Executive Branch has checks and 
balances, and I am disappointed that this amendment was not allowed a 
vote today.
  I must also express my grave concern about a section of the bill that 
was not given a sunset, and thus has not been given the debate that I 
believe it deserves. Section 213, known as the ``sneak and peek'' 
provision, allows federal agents to search homes and businesses without 
giving notice for months. Changes to this section should have been 
included in the bill before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this bill today not because I 
oppose the PATRIOT Act in its entirety, but because I do not believe 
this bill represents the will of the people or their representatives. I 
think that if we were allowed a vote on an amendment to Section 215, 
for example, a majority of members would probably support it. And I 
think many members here would feel more comfortable attaching four-year 
sunsets to the expiring provisions than permanently reauthorizing them. 
But we will not be given that chance today.
  In their final report, the 9/11 Commissioners brilliantly stated, 
``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice,'' and that 
``if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are 
struggling to defend.'' We must continue to encourage debate on this 
law, the events leading up to its passage, and the long-term 
implications. Because the bill before us today does not reflect this 
need, I will oppose it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the USA 
PATRIOT Act. Nearly four years ago and shortly after terrorists 
maliciously killed thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001, 
Congress passed the PATRIOT Act. This act provides law enforcement 
officials the tools they need to save lives and protect this country 
from future terrorist attacks. Today, we are at a critical point as 
Congress considers extending 16 important provisions of the law.
  I have looked carefully at the law and I have heavily weighed the 
constitutional questions some have raised. In the end, I wholeheartedly 
support all 16 provisions. I believe that the tools provided under the 
law are consistent with our long cherished values and consistent with 
our rights under the Constitution.
  I especially support the provisions which take important steps to 
ensure information sharing and cooperation among government agencies. 
By providing these necessary tools, the PATRIOT Act builds a culture of 
prevention and makes certain that our government's resources are 
dedicated to defending the safety and security of the American people.
  For decades, terrorists have waged war against freedom, democracy, 
and U.S. interests. Now America is leading the global war against 
terrorism. As President Bush has said, ``Free people will set the 
course of history.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, the 
USA PATRIOT and Intelligence Reform Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 
3199.
  Mr. Chairman, after the tragic events of September 11, every American 
knows, in every nuance of the truism, that freedom is not free. I 
firmly believe that in order to have security in our homeland we must 
have a reasonable expectation of infringement of some of our civil 
liberties. The stakes are too high to maintain a pre-9/11 mentality and 
the threats of terrorism are too real. However, this bill crosses the 
reasonableness threshold by abrogating rights guaranteed under the 
Constitution without a corresponding increase in the real tools law 
enforcement needs to fight the war on terrorism.
  I believe that we should focus on securing our homeland, not by 
infringing on civil liberties as outlined in the PATRIOT Act--but, by

[[Page 16933]]

securing our rail and transit systems, by securing our ports and 
waterways systems, by securing our airspace, and by refining our 
intelligence organizations for maximum outcomes, just to name a few. 
But I digress.
  Subsequent to passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, a hastily devised bill 
brought to the floor 45 days after 9/11, I received many letters from 
my constituents who applauded my voting against its passage. While they 
were opposed to the bill, many were comforted by the fact that the 
provisions would sunset and Congress would take a closer look when 
clearer heads might prevail. As the sunset date approached for the more 
troubling PATRIOT Act provisions, I received even more letters 
concerned about the prospect of extending or making permanent the more 
intrusive aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  I also received reports from people who believed that their rights 
had been unduly violated under the PATRIOT Act. That is why I held a 
PATRIOT Act Town hall earlier this ear to further examine the extent of 
the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example reported to my office.
  Some months ago, a Maryland-based engineer of Iranian descent was at 
work when the State Police showed up at his employer's doorstep and 
started questioning him. Without explaining the reason for their 
interrogation, they asked him where he had gone to school, where he had 
lived, how many times he traveled internationally and whether he had 
ever rented a car.
  Then, they demanded that he hand over his laptop--equipment that 
belonged to his employer--and, after some haggling, they took the 
device without ever obtaining a warrant.
  Later, the engineer (whom I'll call ``Mr. L'') was told that a former 
police officer had seen a group of people who ``looked Middle Eastern'' 
driving around an airport and ``acting suspicious.''
  Fortunately, Mr. L had proof that he was nowhere near the airport 
during the time in question. He has since been cleared of any 
wrongdoing.
  Yet, Mr. L. remains convinced that his professional reputation has 
been seriously damaged, and in all likelihood, he is correct.
  Far too many Americans of ethnic descent can relate to Mr. L's story 
of being accused of wrongdoing based only upon a racial or ethnic 
``profile.'' Although our U.S. Constitution protects us against 
unreasonable searches and seizures, we know that this guarantee has not 
always been uniformly assured.
  Sadly, the governmental intrusion into Mr. L's life seems to be one 
of these cases. It was an erosion of his personal freedom clearly 
allowed under the PATRlOT Act, which as Americans the rest of us take 
lightly at our peril. Mr. L's story is not unique; the danger his 
experience illustrates is not limited to Islamic Americans; and the 
erosion of our freedom is not confined to investigations of terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, the expressed purpose of the PATRlOT Act was to assure 
that U.S. law enforcement agencies would possess the legal tools that 
they said they needed to protect us from acts of terrorism. From the 
time of its initial passage, however, there has been serious concern 
that the wider police powers granted to our law enforcement agents by 
the legislation--as well as other assertions of executive power by the 
Bush Administration--were not adequately balanced by sufficient 
constitutional safeguards.
  The purposes of this bill are the same and it suffers from the same 
infirmities as its predecessor. As the Dissenting Views to Accompany 
H.R. 1399 reports, and I paraphrase, ``there are numerous provisions in 
both the expiring and other sections of the USA Patriot Act that have 
little to do with combating terrorism, that intrude on our privacy and 
civil liberties and that have been repeatedly abused and misused by 
both the Justice Department and the Administration.''
  These include, but are not limited to, the inadequate judicial 
oversight permitted by this bill and the roving wiretaps targeting 
innocent Americans--Americans not involved in terrorism in any way. 
Further, the ``sneak and peak'' provisions authorize federal agents to 
enter our homes, search them and even seize our property, notifying us 
only after the fact.
  It should come as no surprise that since 2002, 389 communities and 
seven States representing over 62 million people have passed 
resolutions opposing parts of the USA-PATRlOT Act. It may come as a 
surprise however, that groups ranging the political spectrum from the 
ACLU to Gun Owners of America are equally opposed to many sections of 
the bill. They are concerned, like my constituents and many other 
citizens around the country, that the PATRlOT Act has been used more 
than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 
percent of those cases having nothing to do with terrorism.
  They are concerned that the PATRlOT Act has been used to coerce an 
internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity 
and websurfing of its members.
  They are concerned that it has been used on innumerable occasions to 
obtain reading records from libraries and bookstores--and that on at 
least 200 occasions has been used to solicit reader information from 
libraries.
  They are concerned that they may be next for these unreasonable 
intrusions.
  Yet we never had a discourse on these issues. Unfortunately, again 
the House process has been distorted to leave us to consider a one-
sided partisan bill. Instead of thoughtfully considering the tough 
questions like: how much governmental power is truly required to 
protect us and what constitutional freedoms are we going to leave in 
place for our children and generations yet to be born, we consider a 
partisan bill of which the Minority members inform they never received 
the facts necessary to fully evaluate.
  For this and other reasons, I decided to cosponsor the bipartisan 
bill spearheaded by Butch Otter and Bernie Sanders, the Security and 
Freedom Ensured Act of 2005, H.R. 1526, the SAFE Act.
  Among other corrections to the PATRIOT Act, this bill would require 
``specific and articulable facts'' (rather than a more generalized 
suspicion) that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power when the 
government wishes to seize records. It would require a far more 
detailed justification before ``roving wiretaps'' could be utilized and 
it would protect our library and bookstore records from unwarranted 
inspection.
  In addition, H.R. 1526 would re-define the new crime of ``domestic 
terrorism'' in far more narrow terms, making it clear that our 
traditional freedom to assemble and challenge governmental action must 
not be chilled.
  Although this bill does not resolve every concern about the USA 
PATRIOT Act, I believe it represents a better beginning for the House 
debate than the bill under consideration. Democrats and Republicans 
alike are seeking to better protect the freedom of Americans--without 
reducing our ability to protect ourselves against terrorist threats.
  Since September 11, Americans have learned to accept some additional 
intrusions into our privacy as the price that we must pay to protect 
ourselves. Yet, we must also remain vigilant.
  Mr. L.'s experience should be a lesson to us all. As we defend 
freedom against foreign terrorism and promote freedom abroad, we must 
be ever-mindful not to destroy the freedoms that make us America.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199, 
the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, because I 
swore to uphold the Constitution. The PATRIOT Act clearly violates all 
Americans' Fifth Amendment right to due process and Fourth Amendment 
guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, among others. If the 
Government takes our rights away in order to supposedly defend them, 
what are we even fighting for?
  Using the PATRIOT Act over the last four years, the Bush 
Administration has monitored meetings of citizens who dare to criticize 
their government. It has searched homes without warrants and listened 
in on phone conversations without any reasonable justification.
  If this is the price of security, now is a fair time to ask: what 
security have we gained? The terrorist who mailed anthrax to the U.S. 
Capitol and shut down a Senate office building for two weeks is still 
at large, but a University of Connecticut graduate student who studies 
anthrax in Petri dishes was charged with bioterrorism. The cargo that 
rides aboard almost every commercial flight remains unsecured, but a 
New Jersey man faces up to 20 years in prison under the PATRIOT Act for 
looking at star's with his seven year old daughter because he shone a 
laser beam on an airplane.
  I am proud to represent one of the most diverse congressional 
districts in the country. The people of the 13th District know that 
your ethnicity, religion or country of origin is not indicative of your 
commitment to community--or anything else, for that matter. That's why 
cities across the East Bay were among the first in the nation to pass 
resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act. I stand with them in support of 
those actions.
  Mr. Chairman, searching my constituents' homes and not telling them, 
collecting information about what they read, and tracking their e-mail 
and web usage is a war on liberty to create a false sense of security. 
To paraphrase one of our founding fathers, Ben Franklin, the nation 
that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this unpatriotic act.

[[Page 16934]]


  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, anyone who was serving in Congress on 
September 11, 2001, will never forget the day. We watched television in 
horror as the World Trade Center collapsed, and then were rushed out of 
the U.S. Capitol when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. President 
Bush immediately challenged us to provide U.S. citizens with 
protections against the new threat of worldwide terrorism, and within 
weeks we responded with the USA PATRIOT Act.
  As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I was proud to 
help author the antiterrorist financing provisions in the Act. My 
committee has held numerous oversight hearings on the implementation of 
the provisions since then. I can report progress. More than $147 
million in assets have been frozen and roughly $65 million seized since 
9/11. The U.S. has broken up suspected terrorist financing networks, 
including one in my home state of Ohio. Our terrorist financing tools 
were further augmented by the intelligence reform act approved in the 
wake of the 9/11 Commission report.
  As a former FBI agent, I have found other parts of the PATRIOT Act 
just as vital in the defense of our freedoms. As we have been reminded 
by the two rounds of bombings in London, the reality of terrorism 
remains very much with us. The toll that these attacks take is so 
terrible that the only acceptable approach is to prevent them in the 
first place. To that end, today we are working to make permanent 14 of 
the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
  I would note that one of the two provisions being extended for only 
ten years rather than permanently concerns the use of ``roving 
wiretaps.'' As one of the only Members of Congress who has conducted 
undercover surveillance, I can tell you now that the need for this 
authority will not go away. Tying intercept authority to an individual 
rather than a particular communication device is simply common sense in 
this era of throwaway cell phones and e-mail. Sunsetting this authority 
sends the wrong message to our law enforcement agencies: it indicates 
that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their services have 
never proven more important. They should have our full support and 
every reasonable tool we can give them to help fight the Global War on 
Terror.
  The PATRIOT Act has been a success and we are safer for it. The law 
has come under misguided criticism from some quarters, and I am 
constantly answering questions from my congressional district in 
response to myths surrounding the Act. There is absolutely no evidence 
that the PATRIOT Act has been used to violate Americans' civil 
liberties. Congress recognizes the delicate balance between deterring 
terrorists and preserving our precious freedoms. I feel confident in 
saying that terrorists make no such distinction. I support the 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and hope that we can continue to 
work on remaining issues--including making the roving wiretap provision 
permanent.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act was enacted in the wake 
of the
9/11 terrorist attacks, rushed through the House as a suspension bill 
the day after it was introduced. This process didn't permit the public, 
let alone Congress, to fully understand it.
  The original bill was rewritten in the Rules Committee instead of the 
bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee. Luckily, there were a few sunset provisions that were 
intended to help keep people honest and evaluate the impacts on the 
public.
  We have now been fighting the war on terror longer than World War II 
with no end in sight. The policy decisions we make affect the lives of 
everyday Americans. It is important to keep these policies narrowly 
focused on items that are necessary for dealing with terrorism and 
today's modern communication developments while not encroaching on 
American's fundamental rights. This version is a missed opportunity to 
narrow the provisions and time limit their applications.
  The good news is the public is becoming more aware and involved. 
Thirteen municipalities in Oregon, including Portland, have already 
passed resolutions expressing their opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
  It seems that the majority of Congress has at least some reservations 
about this bill. There were more ``no'' votes than four years ago and a 
bipartisan effort to provide more checks and balances is growing. The 
Senate version will be better, making it likely that the fiscal 
legislation will be an improvement over the existing law.
  I will continue working to give voice to the concerns and the 
experiences of Oregonians, as together we fight against terrorism and 
protect the rights of each American.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the renewal of 
the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 
and strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important tool in the war on terror. It is vital that we continue to 
provide the resources and necessary tools that allow for our law 
enforcement agents in all communities to search out terrorists wherever 
they may hide among us.
  The continued success of the war on terrorism strongly depends upon 
our law enforcement and counter-terrorism officers being able to adapt 
and improve as our ever evolving enemies present new threats. Al Qaeda 
has shown that they will use various tactics to kill innocent 
civilians, we must be able to effectively prevent each attack 
regardless of what form it is to come in. In order to do that, we must 
have numerous tools to track suspects and gather detailed information 
about possible attacks. Additionally, we must be able to effectively 
use this information to bring would-be attackers to justice before they 
have a chance to strike.
  We must also remain diligent in dismantling the terrorist financial 
network. To date, many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have 
allowed our law enforcement agencies to designate 40 terrorist 
organizations, freeze $136 million in assets around the world, and 
charge more than 100 individuals in judicial districts throughout the 
country with terrorist financing-related crimes. Taking away their 
resources is an important method of decapitating and slowing the growth 
of many of these terror networks.
  To date, the PATRIOT Act has been an extremely effective weapon in 
the war on terror. We cannot allow the terrorists to find any safe 
havens in this nation. This will continue to be a long and hard fight 
to protect and defend our homeland against this ruthless and fanatical 
enemy, but with the necessary tools to root them out wherever they may 
hide, I am certain we will continue to be victorious. I would again 
strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the USA 
PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the fight against terrorism is very serious 
business and we need to give law enforcement the tools it needs to 
prevent terrorist attacks against the American people. When the 
Congress approved the PATRIOT Act four years ago, we recognized that 
the serious nature of the threat required giving law enforcement broad 
new powers to help prevent it. But we were wise enough to also 
recognize that under our Constitution, laws and traditions, such broad 
power requires checks and balances as well as continuous congressional 
oversight to ensure that this power is not abused.
  I voted for the PATRIOT Act four years ago. I support most of the 166 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act; indeed, today's debate has nothing to do 
with the vast majority of these provisions, which are already the 
permanent law of the land. The bill before the House today concerns 
only the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act subject to sunset--the 
provisions that have the most serious potential impact on the 
fundamental liberties of innocent Americans if they are abused. These 
16 provisions involve the power of the government to enter and search 
people's homes without notice, to tap people's communications with 
roving wiretaps, and obtain people's library and health records. 
Because these provisions touch on the most basic liberties of citizens, 
we included sunsets so Congress would be required to revisit them. The 
sunsets balance the extraordinary powers given to law enforcement with 
oversight and accountability. More than that, the sunsets give Congress 
the opportunity to regularly review the PATRIOT Act and fine-tune it to 
adapt to changing circumstances.
  The bill before the House takes away the sunset provisions for 14 of 
these sensitive provisions, and sets ineffectively long ten-year 
sunsets for the other two provisions. In so doing, this bill throws 
assured oversight and accountability out the window.
  Let me say this. Many of us voted for the PATRIOT Act four years ago 
with the assurances that there would be meaningful oversight by 
Congress. For much of the past four years, the rigorous oversight we 
were promised simply didn't happen. It has only been in the last few 
months, as the sunset dates approached, that Congress has asked 
questions, and held the Administration's feet to the fire to provide 
basic information about how the PATRIOT Act is being implemented. Now 
the Majority proposes to discard the sunset provisions. The experience 
of the last four years shows that without sunsets, there is no 
oversight and no accountability.
  I had hoped that the serious shortcomings in this bill could be 
corrected on the Floor today, but the Majority has blocked a number of 
important amendments Democrats sought

[[Page 16935]]

to offer. I believe that many of these amendments would have been 
adopted had they been put to a vote. It didn't have to be this way. I 
understand that the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved 
its own version of the PATRIOT Act today that contains many of the 
improvements that the House Leadership denied us the opportunity to 
debate. I regret that the Leadership of the House has not embraced a 
similar bipartisan process.
  I will vote for the motion to recommit the bill, which would correct 
the most serious shortfalls in the legislation; in particular, the lack 
of sunsets of key provisions--sunsets that were contained in the 
original PATRIOT Act.
  I will therefore oppose passage of this legislation today in the hope 
that the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee's version will prevail 
in the Senate.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my decision to vote 
against this version of the PATRIOT Act. This has not been an easy 
decision. Some of the provisions that are being reauthorized in this 
bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be 
helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities. I support 
those provisions. Other provisions, however, fail to provide adequate 
safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are 
protected. It is very important that, in our effort to defend the 
liberties that Americans cherish, we not enact measures that erode the 
very freedoms we seek to protect. We can ensure that the government has 
the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy 
rights of Americans. Indeed, many amendments to the PATRIOT Act were 
proposed in both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee to 
address legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, many of these amendments 
were either rejected or blocked from coming up for a vote.
  In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is essential that we 
strengthen our ability to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist 
activities. Many provisions in the PATRIOT Act accomplish this 
objective in a balanced way. Other provisions, however, leave citizens 
vulnerable to unchecked, unwarranted, and potentially abusive invasions 
of privacy. I am hopeful that the Senate will address these 
shortcomings in the House bill so that, at the end of the day, we can 
enact a balanced bill that protects both our security and the rights 
and liberties we seek to secure.
  We can do better. I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--to develop a bill of which 
we can all be proud and which can be a true testament to American 
patriots and to the Constitution we all seek to uphold and defend.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3199, the USA 
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress 
undertook a review of Bush Administration proposals to strengthen our 
laws relating to counterterrorism. Congress passed the Patriot Act in 
October 2001--which I supported--recognizing that it needed to give law 
enforcement the proper tools to effectively combat new terrorist 
threats. The law took account of new changes in technology that are 
used by terrorists, such as cell phones, the Internet, and encryption 
technologies.
  The original Act gives federal officials greater authority to track, 
intercept, and share communications, both for law enforcement and 
foreign intelligence gathering purposes. It vests the Secretary of the 
Treasury with regulatory powers to combat corruption of U.S. financial 
institutions for foreign money laundering purposes. It seeks to further 
close our borders to foreign terrorists and to detain and remove those 
within our borders. It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new 
procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international 
terrorists. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act gives federal prosecutors many of 
the same tools to use against terrorists that Congress has already 
granted them to use against drug traffickers, for example.
  The original Act also creates judicial safeguards for e-mail 
monitoring and grand jury disclosures; recognizes innocent owner 
defenses to forfeiture; and entrusts enhanced anti-money laundering 
powers to those regulatory authorities whose concerns include the well 
being of our financial institutions.
  Congress did not grant all of the authority the President sought in 
the first Patriot Act, and sunsetted much of the Act's authority in 
2005. Many of the wiretapping and foreign intelligence amendments 
sunset on December 31, 2005. The sunset provisions require 
Congressional oversight because Congress must take an affirmative 
action to keep these provisions in effect. I believe that Congress 
should exercise greater oversight of the use of new authority under the 
PATRIOT Act, as I have some misgivings about the Administration's use 
of the new powers under the PATRIOT Act.
  Over the past few years I have continued to insist on greater 
oversight by Congress of the Justice Department as it executes its new 
powers. I am pleased that the Committee includes sunsets for two 
provisions: access to business and other records, and roving wiretaps. 
I support additional sunsets for other provisions in this legislation 
such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows delayed 
notification for search warrants--and I am hopeful that the House will 
ultimately adopt the additional sunsets approved by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee when this bill returns from conference committee.
  I am disappointed that the House leadership did not make in order 
amendments that would have: exempted library and bookstore records from 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) searches; reformed the 
roving wiretap authority in FISA cases to contain the same privacy 
safeguards as roving wiretaps in criminal cases; established the 
traditional FISA standards for search warrants; required individual 
suspicion for records orders; allowed citizens to challenge secrecy 
orders in records requests; and extended the sunset clauses for 
numerous other provisions of the Patriot Act.
  I voted in favor of a number of bipartisan amendments to limit the 
Justice Department's power and increase Congressional and judicial 
oversight of the executive branch, including: requiring the FBI 
Director to personally approve searches of library or bookstore 
records; additional reporting to courts by law enforcement when they 
change surveillance locations under a ``roving wiretap''; allowing 
recipients of National Security Letters to consult with an attorney and 
challenge the letters in court; and increasing reporting requirements 
and making it more difficult to obtain ``sneak and peak'' search 
warrants, which entail secret searches of homes and offices with 
delayed notice.
  We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, when the United States 
sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the 
name of security. Whether in times of war or peace, finding the proper 
balance between government power and the rights of the American people 
is a delicate and extremely important process. It is a task that 
rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the Founders 
created in our system of government. All three branches of government 
have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn 
appropriately, as we upheld our oaths to support the Constitution.
  I support H.R. 3199 but I hope as this legislation works its way 
through Congress, we will include sunsets on the provisions we are 
reauthorizing, so that Congress will continue to oversee the executive 
branch's use of these new powers.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today disappointed at 
the missed opportunity for the House to strike a reasonable balance 
within the PATRIOT Act that empowers law enforcement and protects civil 
liberties. There is more to protecting American's security than peeking 
into people's reading habits or medical records. Protecting America 
means securing our ports and borders, supporting our first responders, 
and ensuring that our transit systems, nuclear power plants and schools 
are safe from those who seek to do us harm. Frankly, Americans are 
still at risk. There are large gaps that still remain in critical areas 
that leave Americans vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. For 
example:
  Our greatest threat remains an attack by a weapon of mass 
destruction. But funding for cooperative threat reduction programs to 
secure unaccounted for nuclear material in the former Soviet Union have 
remained stagnant since 9/11, taking a backseat to other priorities 
like expanding tax cuts and privatizing Social Security.
  There are almost 2,000 fewer border inspectors and agents than were 
called for in the 2001 PATRIOT Act. The hard truth is we need more. Of 
the 2,000 border patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform 
Act, the Republican majority has funded only 500 this year. This leaves 
our borders dangerously unprotected.
  Funding for first responder programs, our front line defense against 
terrorists at home, has dropped 27 percent in the past three years, 
from a high of $3.3 billion in 2003 to $2.4 billion in 2006--funds 
which help our towns and cities hire, train and equip our police, 
firefighters and medical responders.
  While 32 million Americans use public transportation every day, we 
have spent only $250 million on transit since 9/11, compared to the 
$18.2 billion we've spent on aviation. This leaves our buses, trains, 
subways, highways and bridges dangerously vulnerable to the kind of 
attacks we saw in London.

[[Page 16936]]

  Almost four years after 9/11, only five percent of incoming cargo 
containers are inspected for hazardous materials. Ninety-five percent 
of American trade comes through our 361 seaports every year, yet there 
is no dedicated funding steam for port security. Despite the threat, 
the President requested no money for port security in FY 2006.
  Every day, Americans are asked to empty their pockets, remove their 
shoes and have their baggage inspected before boarding an airplane. 
However, most of the cargo loaded onto passenger and cargo airplanes 
still goes uninspected.
  Protecting America is not a partisan issue, it is a matter of 
priorities. This version of the PATRIOT Act may be slightly improved 
over the last one, but let's not take our eye off the ball. There is 
still much more to be done to protect America. Either we take real 
action to close our security gaps, or the terrorists will find them and 
exploit them.
  The debate today is not about the key issues that will really protect 
America. It is not even about the whole PATRIOT Act. It is about the 
reauthorization of 16 highly controversial provisions of the original 
PATRIOT Act scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
  This sunset was critical to earn support for such sweeping 
legislation, when in the shadow of the September 11th terrorist attack, 
the Administration pushed Congress to quickly pass legislation that 
would provide vast new powers to law enforcement. The sunset provisions 
would ensure Congress would be able to take a closer look how this 
authority was implemented and at its effectiveness of balancing 
security and liberty.
  I was hopeful that that an open amendment process would allow the 
House to address the many concerns of the Members of this House and the 
American public have with the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, the House 
Majority has chosen to prohibit an open debate and consideration on the 
most sensitive and controversial issues surrounding this bill. In fact, 
most of the amendments they have allowed to be considered have very 
little to do with the provisions that are up for reauthorization. This 
means some of the most controversial provisions of the bill would 
become permanent, including Section 213, the ``sneak and peek'' 
provision that allows secret searches and seizures. Only two of the 
most controversial provisions, such as Section 215, the ``library 
provision'' that allows access to library and bookstore records, credit 
card information, medical records and employment histories, would be 
allowed to be reexamined, but not for another 10 years. Amendments that 
could have strengthened the protection of privacy and civil liberties 
that could have made this a better bill were prohibited from even being 
considered or debated.
  The single most alarming part of this bill is that it would remove 
the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT Act. Oversight, review 
and debate are all the result of a healthy democracy. We should not be 
afraid to improve that the PATRIOT Act every two or four years. 
Revisiting the PATRIOT Act is a good thing. Congressional oversight 
over one of the most fundamental challenges of our time would not 
hinder our society but enhance it.
  The 9/11 Commission warned, ``the terrorists have used our open 
society against us. In wartime, government calls for greater powers, 
and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This 
struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, 
Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil 
liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly 
strive to keep it right.'' This bill does not keep it right. The 
American public deserves better, they deserve security and liberty. I 
stand with Benjamin Franklin who said, ``he who would trade liberty for 
some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.'' 
Congress' record should match its rhetoric. Protecting America from 
terrorism means inspecting cargo on passenger planes, inspecting cargo 
in our ports, securing unaccounted nuclear material in the former 
Soviet Union and providing our first responders with the resources they 
need to be our first line of defense in the war on terror. Protecting 
America is about real priorities that can and will protect the 
homeland, which unfortunately are not part of the bill before us today.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, four years ago I voted against 
the bill that became the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' more commonly called 
simply the ``PATRIOT Act.''
  I agreed that our law-enforcement agencies needed increased power and 
more tools to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still 
think today--it was imperative for Congress to proceed carefully in 
order to protect Americans' civil liberties.
  I take very seriously my duty to preserve and protect our 
Constitution. For me, this is a matter of conscience--and four years 
ago I concluded that I could not fulfill my duty and also vote for the 
legislation.
  However, I took some comfort from the fact that a number of the most 
troublesome provisions of the new law were temporary and would expire 
unless Congress acted to renew them.
  And the imminent expiration of those provisions is the reason this 
bill is before us today.
  I think the value of such ``sunset'' provisions is shown by the 
debate we are having today. It is evidence that requiring Congressional 
action to renew agencies' authorities can and does result in ongoing 
Congressional oversight and periodic reconsideration.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not fully follow the 
good example of our procedure 4 years ago. Instead, the bill would make 
permanent no fewer than 14 of the 16 provisions of the original 
``PATRIOT Act'' that were covered by the law's ``sunset'' clause--as 
well as other new authorities provided by last year's bill to reform 
the intelligence community--and under the bill the other two will not 
``sunset'' for a full 10 years.
  That is one of the main reasons I will vote against this bill. But it 
is not the only reason.
  Neither the expiring provisions nor the other sections of the 
``PATRIOT Act'' are limited to cases involving terrorism. This makes 
even more troubling their potential for abuse or misuse in ways that 
intrude on Americans' privacy and civil liberties.
  Because of that potential, over the last four years more than 300 
communities and seven States, including Colorado--governments 
representing over 62 million people--have passed resolutions opposing 
parts of the ``PATRIOT Act.''
  Much of that public concern--a concern I share--has focused on the 
possible effects on the privacy of patrons and customers from the 
application of section 215 of the ``PATRIOT Act'' to libraries and 
bookstores.
  Section 215 expanded the FBI's ability to obtain ``any tangible 
thing'' under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Previously, 
the government could obtain records only from hotels/motels, storage 
facilities and car rental companies, and only if the records pertained 
to agents of a foreign power.' Now, it can seek ``any tangible thing'' 
from anyone at all as long as the information is relevant to an 
investigation.
  Many of us think this is so broad that the government could 
investigate consumers' reading and Internet habits and private records 
(such as credit card information, medical records, and employment 
histories), without the requirement of relevance to any criminal 
activity that applies in grand jury investigations.
  I would like to think that this authority will not be abused. But we 
cannot be sure that will never occur, and I think there are reasons to 
worry.
  I understand, for example, that the American Library Association has 
confirmed that Federal agents went into a library and asked for a list 
of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden--which likely 
would include people who wanted to learn about his connection to the 
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington--and that overall, since 
those attacks libraries have received more than 200 formal and informal 
requests for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers.
  It is not clear what authority (if any) was cited by the federal 
officers for obtaining this information--and, because recipients of 
orders issued under section 215 not only have no effective way of 
challenging them but in fact are prohibited from disclosing to anyone 
but their attorneys that they received such an order, there is no way 
of knowing how often this authority has been used.
  So, I remain concerned about the possibility that the ``PATRIOT Act'' 
would be used to obtain very private information--whether library 
records, medical information, or gun purchase records--without an 
adequate showing of a connection to terrorism.
  It is true that this bill would make some worthwhile changes to 
current law, including allowing the recipient of a Section 215 order to 
challenge it before a three-judge panel of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court, FISC, in Washington, DC, and assert that the law 
was wrongly applied.
  But I think we ought to have at least had the opportunity to debate 
more substantial reform to this part of the law.
  To begin with, we should have been able to at least consider a 
limited exemption for bookstores and libraries, along the lines of the 
bipartisan amendment that the House voted to add to the Justice 
Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2006. However, the Republican 
leadership blocked that amendment from even being offered.
  Further, I think consideration should be given to changing the 
standard for issuing a section 215 order, to require some individual

[[Page 16937]]

suspicion that the records the government wants are related to a spy, 
terrorist or other foreign agent--which could include the records of 
other parties if they were clearly relevant to the activities of the 
subject under investigation. Again, no amendment along those lines was 
allowed consideration.
  It is true that the House did have the opportunity to consider a 
number of worthwhile amendments. I was glad to have the chance to vote 
for them, and am glad that so many were adopted. However, we should 
have had the chance to consider many more.
  For example, the House ought to have had the chance to at least 
debate changes such as some proposed in the Intelligence and Judiciary 
Committees. I have in mind the amendment to ``sunset'' the so-called 
``lone wolf' provision, approved by the Intelligence Committee and an 
amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee to restore a requirement 
for reporting on the disclosure of electronic communications that was 
included in the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2001 but 
later stripped by the Rules Committee without explanation.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow any of these 
amendments to even be debated on the House floor, although it did allow 
time for a new amendment--not considered in committee, as far as I can 
tell--that would, among other things, change the rules for jury trials 
in many federal criminal trials, evidently including some not related 
to terrorism.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, my reaction to the bill now before the House is 
similar to the one I had to the original ``Patriot Act'' legislation 
four years ago.
  As I did then, I strongly support combating terrorism, here at home 
as well as abroad.
  But I continue to think that it is essential that we remember and 
respect the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans as we wage 
war against those who would destroy both our Constitution and our 
country. In fact, I think that if we don't do that we will lose much of 
what we are seeking to defend.
  And, now as then, I have concluded that for the reasons I have 
mentioned this bill as it stands--especially after rejection of the 
proposal to shorten the extension of expiring provisions--does not 
strike the right balance, and should not become law in its present 
form.
  But, now as four years ago, I am hopeful that the bill will be 
further improved as the legislative process continues.
  Four years ago, that did not happen. However, I think there is good 
reason to think that this time history will not repeat itself.
  There evidently is considerable support in the other body--by 
Senators on both sides of the aisle--for provisions that would improve 
on this legislation. I hope and expect that the Senate will make such 
improvements and that in the end the result will be a measure that 
deserves the support of all Members of Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I supported the State Department 
Authorization (FY 06-07) bill as reported by the International 
Relations Committee, and supported many of the amendments offered here 
on the floor of the House. However, this bill now also includes three 
major amendments which came up on the floor of the House, which are 
misguided and which I opposed.
  The Rohrabacher amendment correctly acknowledges the importance of 
intelligence gathering, while it ignores allegations of serious abuses 
at Guantanamo Bay. These instances of abuse, combined with others have 
damaged our credibility around the world and hindered the effectiveness 
of our efforts in Iraq and the war on terror.
  As to the Ros-Lehtinen amendment on Iraq, I have never supported 
setting a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. We do 
need an effective plan in place to transfer responsibility for Iraq's 
security to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. This requires 
specific and meaningful benchmarks to gauge progress and determine when 
our troops can return home. The Ros-Lehtinen amendment, which was never 
discussed in Committee, makes no reference at all to any benchmarks and 
contains language that gives support to a vague, open-ended commitment 
to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely.
  Finally, I support U.N. reform. The Hyde legislation regarding the 
U.N. when brought up separately in the House was opposed by 195 Members 
and was the subject of serious objections from the Bush Administration. 
It was also quite clear that it could not pass the Senate, so it is 
being bootstrapped to this bill. The Hyde Amendment lacks the 
flexibility needed for the Administration to effectively seek the 
necessary reforms at the U.N. For example, if a single one of 14 
specific goals set forth in the amendment are not met by 2007, 50 
percent of our dues would be withheld. Such a rigid approach would 
weaken the Bush Administration's hand to implement the changes which 
are necessary at the U.N.
  Because the final State Department Authorization bill contains those 
three amendments, which I opposed, I am voting against final passage. I 
hope the Senate and Administration will seek the necessary improvements 
in this legislation.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my thoughts and 
concerns regarding the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199). This legislation--though controversial 
since it was originally signed into law in 2001--is an important and 
effective tool for combating and winning the war on terrorism. However, 
it is the duty of this body to err on the side of freedom and that is 
why I support commonsense legislative oversight of this law.
  Four years ago, Congress came together to provide law enforcement and 
intelligence officials with sweeping powers to increase intelligence-
gathering abilities and information sharing in the name of fighting 
terrorism. This was a wise and prudent choice. However, due to the 
legitimate concerns raised about the powers this law puts into the 
hands of government and the need to be mindful of the liberty we are 
sworn to uphold, sunset provisions were attached to the original law to 
ensure there would be a judicious review of the law and how it has been 
implemented. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: sunset provisions do not 
weaken the law, nor do they undermine its purpose or its execution.
  Last night, during the debate on the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), a Motion to Recommit was 
offered that included instructions to extend the current sunset 
provisions on the sixteen most controversial provisions from 2005 to 
2009. Two hundred and nine of my colleagues voted ``yea'' on this 
Motion to Recommit. I intended to vote ``yea,'' however, due to a 
technical malfunction, my vote was not recorded in the official 
Congressional Record. Regrettably, because the Motion to Recommit 
failed (209 to 218), the legislation contained only two limited 10-year 
sunsets. Thus, in the spirit of freedom, liberty, and limited 
government, I voted against the final passage of the House-version of 
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
  Detractors of sunset provisions state there has not been any evidence 
of widespread abuse of any of the PATRIOT Act's provisions. But, as 
leaders, we are supposed to have the gift of foresight. By making the 
law permanent at this time, we will handcuff the ability of Congress to 
carry out a constitutionally-mandated power legislative oversight. Why 
should we not review this Act in four year's time? Having an 
intelligent debate to weigh the accomplishments of the bill is a smart 
undertaking now, just as it will be in 2009.
  History tells us that in times of war or conflict, government is all 
too willing to ask its citizens to trade a bit of their liberty for the 
hope of greater security. We witnessed it during World War II with the 
immoral internment of Japanese Americans. Liberty has been trampled 
during every war we've fought. But we must ensure that it does not 
happen again through vigilant oversight of the provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. Some have characterized the PATRIOT Act as an 
irresponsible reaction. I disagree because Congress was smart and just 
to include ``sunsets'' at the time. Most of the provisions in the 
PATRIOT Act were needed and should be reauthorized. But to contend as 
some of its supporters do that it is a perfect law and should not be 
looked at critically is absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my colleagues in both 
the House and the Senate to ensure that proper legislative safeguards 
are achieved, in conference, through additional sunsets on the most 
controversial provisions. In the words of one of our Founding Fathers, 
Benjamin Franklin, ``they that can give up essential liberty to obtain 
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Mr. 
Speaker, the war on terrorism will be won. But, America must continue 
to be a shining beacon of freedom, security, and prosperity for the 
world. It is the job of this esteemed legislative body to strike the 
proper balance between liberty and safety. We ascended to our current 
world position by being a cradle of freedom--now is not the time to 
turn our backs on that fundamental principle.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, as we consider 
reauthorizing The USA PATRIOT Act today, it is important to recognize 
that the 16 expiring provisions addressed by this legislation are 
controversial with good reason. That is why Congress wisely established 
sunset timelines for these particular sections when the original 
legislation was passed amidst extraordinary circumstances in 2001; this 
is one of the main reasons that I voted for its original passage. The 
sheer fact

[[Page 16938]]

that Congress included a sunset provision in the bill shows that 
Members did have concerns with the bill, and recognized its troublesome 
aspects, even as they acted on the need for swift passage in the 
immediate wake of September 11th. While I believe it is critical that 
we update our law enforcement tools to respond to the deadly and 
unconventional threats we face from global terrorist organizations, it 
is vital that we do not at the same time endanger the basic civil 
liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. I will vote against this 
legislation because I believe it fails to strike the critical balance 
between civil liberties and national security.
  Reestablishing sunsets for all 16 controversial provisions, thereby 
recognizing the crucial role that Congress needs to continue to play in 
providing ongoing oversight in this most sensitive of legislative areas 
impacting our basic civil freedoms, would greatly improve this bill, 
but the rule does not allow us to vote on this. The rule also does not 
allow an amendment which would have defended important civil liberties, 
including the right to freedom of speech, by excluding booksellers and 
libraries from the scope of Section 215 FISA search orders. Before the 
PATRIOT Act, these requests at least had to be directed at ``agents of 
a foreign power.'' Now they can be used against American citizens, even 
if they are not suspected of doing anything wrong, as long as there is 
a showing of ``relevance'' to a terror investigation. I strongly oppose 
such a provision which would allow government officials to collect 
personal data on ordinary Americans, including medical and library 
records, without any evidence linking them to terrorism or other 
crimes.
  I also remain very concerned with Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act and 
the fact that it is not subject to a sunset. This permanent section of 
the law allows the delay of notification in executing warrants. I have 
serious misgivings about this provision, as it could indefinitely delay 
notice of a search or seizure. This notice provides a crucial check on 
the government's power by requiring authorities to operate in the open 
and by allowing the subjects of such searches to protect their Fourth 
Amendment rights. I also have concerns about the use of National 
Security Letters under Section 505 of the Act, which require no 
judicial review, and the use of roving ``John Doe'' wiretaps, which 
deserve increased oversight, such as requiring the FBI to identify with 
particularity the person targeted. Further, I am baffled that the 
majority voted twice to prevent the consideration of amendments which 
would have kept dangerous firearms out of the hands of terrorists. 
These amendments, which would have criminalized the selling of firearms 
to anyone on an FBI terrorist watchlist and prevented terrorists from 
obtaining .50-caliber sniper rifles, would have gone a long way towards 
achieving the goal of securing our nation against the threat of 
terrorism.
  I believe that successfully addressing our national security needs 
while protecting our basic freedoms and civil liberties requires 
continual Congressional oversight, and I will continue to work to 
assert the role of this body in carrying out this grave responsibility. 
I will also continue to fight for increased funding for state and local 
law enforcement, as well as for increased security measures to protect 
our nation's public transportation and critical infrastructure systems. 
I would like to have an opportunity to vote for a reauthorization of 
the USA PATRIOT Act that more perfectly strikes a balance between civil 
liberties and national security, and am hopeful that the Senate will 
address the aforementioned issues of concern. It is my understanding 
that the corresponding bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
today would incorporate greater checks on several of these 
controversial powers, and I remain open to reevaluating my vote should 
a bill incorporating such modifications come before the House of 
Representatives in the near future. The bill in front of us today, 
however, does not adequately reform parts of this law which I believe 
violate important civil liberties. Likewise, it fails to provide for 
continued congressional oversight of many questionable provisions. I 
cannot vote for this measure, as it fails to adequately safeguard our 
country's fundamental freedoms.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. We must provide law 
enforcement all the tools they need to keep us safe in today's changing 
world, but we need a bill that strikes a more appropriate balance 
between civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism.
  Since the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11, I 
have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the 
details of this controversial legislation. At a town hall meeting I 
hosted, the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island and a representative of the 
state's American Civil Liberties Union passionately argued their cases. 
Some agreed with the U.S. Attorney that only the USA PATRIOT Act can 
prevent us from another attack. However, most of that crowd, as well as 
most Rhode Islanders, worry that we have already ceded too much ground 
on our precious civil liberties. In my state, six cities and towns have 
passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, and my 
constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom.
  Keeping America safe is not a partisan issue, but unfortunately, 
several provisions of this bill are. We could have reached a bipartisan 
solution to extend the provisions that are effective, such as 
permitting searches to the Internet and e-mail, and modify the 
provisions that need changes, such as the searching of library records 
and ``sneak and peek'' searches, to which Congress has already voiced 
strong and clear opposition. Instead, we forgo Congressional oversight 
and take away future opportunities for review.
  I am most troubled that the Rules Committee has not permitted a 
single amendment to determine if 15 controversial provisions should 
expire. Sunsets require Congress to review the Act, extend what is 
working, and change what is not. Sunsets would make the bill better, 
and ensure regular oversight, but the rule does not permit us to vote 
on this important modification. Simply adding sunsets could have made 
the H.R. 3199 more palatable, and I am confident it could have had 
strong bipartisan support. However, the Republicans have again chosen 
division over unity.
  I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology 
and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring our law 
enforcement has the tools they need to keep our nation safe. However, 
providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and 
freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given 
up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to make many changes in 
H.R. 3199 to fight terrorism and protect our freedoms. I am encouraged 
that the Senate is taking a more bipartisan approach to renewal of the 
USA PATRIOT Act, and I look forward to a conference agreement that we 
can all support to protect our liberties and our country.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3199--
the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  Mr. Chariman, we could be voting today on a bill that would receive 
almost unanimous support in this House. We could be voting on a bill 
that represents our best attempt at achieving the delicate balance 
between protecting our Nation from the threat of terrorism and 
preserving our treasured liberties. The reason I know that we could do 
it is that every Member of this House cares about protecting our 
constituents from terrorists and every Member of this House believes 
that in the United States of America, there are certain liberties and 
freedoms that must be preserved.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today fails to achieve this 
balance. Despite the fact that we may adopt several amendments that 
will institute some minimal safeguards, H.R. 3199 still fails to 
protect our treasured liberties.
  I voted against the PATRIOT Act the first time it was before the 
House, because I believed that certain provisions in the bill simply 
went too far and undermined our American values of freedom and justice. 
Many of the provisions that had me worried are up for reauthorization 
today. The final bill we will vote on today will contain most of them 
in the same exact form as four years ago, and that is unfortunate.
  This is not to say that I oppose the entire PATRIOT Act. In fact, 
most of the PATRIOT Act is important and noncontroversial. We all want 
our law enforcement officers to have the tools they need to protect us.
  However, I believe that when Congress greatly expands the 
government's powers, as it did in many of the provisions before the 
House, we also have an obligation to build in safeguards to protect the 
average American citizen. I do not believe this bill meets our 
obligation to the American people, and I cannot support it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3199.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the PATRIOT Act four 
years ago and I remain opposed to it. While I support a number of the 
tools the PATRIOT Act grants to law enforcement in the fight to combat 
terrorism, it went too far in eroding important civil liberties, 
limiting the right to due process, and unnecessarily targeting 
immigrants.
  The PATRIOT Act reauthorization process gives Congress a crucial 
opportunity and responsibility to reevaluate some of the decisions that 
were made in the emotional and fear-filled weeks following the 9/11 
terrorist attacks and improve national security without

[[Page 16939]]

jeopardizing personal liberty. The only reason we are having this 
debate over controversial provisions within the PATRIOT Act is because 
Congress agreed to set sunsets on these provisions four years ago. 
Minimally, the sunsets on the original 16 expiring provisions should be 
retained so that Congress can reconsider these new federal powers in 
the future if they prove too expansive.
  H.R. 3199 fails to restore proper checks and balances and leaves 
everyday American citizens vulnerable to unnecessary and unreasonable 
government intrusion. Overbroad and overzealous investigations cloaked 
in secrecy have already had a chilling effect on Americans in their 
practice of freedom of speech, religion, and associations. The PATRIOT 
Act places these freedoms in jeopardy.
  Although proponents of the bill have argued that there are no known 
abuses of the new law enforcement powers granted by the PATRIOT Act, 
because of the way the law is written, Congress has no way to know 
whether or not abuses have occurred. We do know that hundreds of 
immigrants and citizens have been detained or spied on for no reason 
other than their religion or nationality. Also, more than 200 libraries 
have been asked to turn over their records to law enforcement 
officials, and the sneak and peak search provision has been used at 
least 248 times to search homes and offices without notifying the 
occupants.
  The USA PATRIOT Act threatens the rights of all Americans. A CBS News 
poll found that 52 percent of Americans were either `very concerned' or 
`somewhat concerned' about losing civil liberties as a result of the 
PATRIOT Act. According to a CNN/Gallup poll, 64 percent believe the 
government should take steps to protect additional acts of terrorism 
but not if those steps would violate our civil liberties.
  I join the majority of Americans who want to protect our nation's 
security while preserving Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties. 
Sweeping and unnecessary federal surveillance and unchecked law 
enforcement powers undermine the rights that are the cornerstone of our 
democracy.
  The Constitution that I carry is not a Republican document, it is not 
a Democratic document, it is an American document that we want to 
preserve. The PATRIOT Act is an affront to our civil rights and civil 
liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting 
for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization 
Act, with the expectation that this bill's flaws will be fixed in 
conference negotiations with the Senate.
  I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act because it provides for the 
continuation of much-needed, modernized criminal and intelligence 
investigating tools that bolster the ability of federal authorities to 
combat the threat of terrorism. However, I believe that these powers 
should be properly tailored to ensure that the legislation meets its 
intended purpose and does not allow for unnecessarily broad searches 
and surveillance of innocent Americans.
  The bill we are considering today takes many good steps towards 
reauthorizing the tools necessary to combat terrorism. However, I 
believe that this bill can be improved by tightening the ability to 
conduct roving wiretaps and inserting provisions to re-evaluate 
measures to assure accountability and effective congressional 
oversight. Despite my concerns with H.R. 3199, I am going to vote for 
this bill based on the expectation that this bill's shortcomings will 
be significantly improved during negotiations with the Senate.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, the United States Congress passed the USA PATRIOT 
Act with broad bipartisan support to better equip law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies in their struggle to combat terrorism. As the 
shock of those horrible events subsided, many from both political 
parties began to question some of the more invasive aspects of the 
Patriot Act, including a number of provisions that allow Federal 
investigators to enter homes, tap phone lines, and search library 
records without a warrant.
  Since then, the Patriot Act has become a much-debated issue, 
symbolizing a Federal Government abusing its power and violating civil 
liberties for some, and a necessary bulwark against the barbarity of 
terrorists for others. And yet, all agree that the United States faces 
a daunting challenge in combating terrorism, both abroad and at home, 
through continuing efforts to safeguard borders, protect airports, and 
monitor centers of trade and commerce. In order to overcome these 
challenges, we must remain vigilant in our fight against terror and 
continue to strengthen our resolve even in the face of depraved and 
desperate acts such as the bombings that terrorized London this past 
week and a few short weeks ago.
  The events in London provide a somber and revealing backdrop for the 
current debate regarding the renewal of a number of provisions 
contained in the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of my colleagues have voiced 
well-reasoned and thoughtful objections to the current bill, the USA 
Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 
3199, which would make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the USA 
PATRIOT Act. I share the concerns of my colleagues who fear that the 
proposed legislation will endanger the civil liberties of U.S. citizens 
and create the potential for abuse of Federal powers. Additionally, I 
am disturbed by the administration's lack of cooperation in providing 
detailed information regarding the effectiveness of the increased 
enforcement power contained in the Patriot Act. The members of the 9/11 
Commission specifically directed the Bush administration to explain how 
the expanded powers of the Patriot Act ``materially'' enhance U.S. 
security. They also directed the administration to make certain that 
proper supervision was in place to monitor these enhanced powers. The 
administration has ignored these recommendations and showed a repeated 
willingness to place the acquisition of increased power above the 
common interest of individual citizens.
  But as we deliberate over this bill, it is important to consider the 
ongoing fight against terrorism, so violently displayed in the 
terrorist bombings in London this past week. These attacks are a 
reminder that we remain susceptible to terrorism and must protect 
ourselves from continuing threats. While I have deep concerns regarding 
the effect of certain provisions of the Patriot Act on the civil rights 
of Americans, I strongly believe that we must not end this legislation 
but amend it. ``Mend, don't end'' should have been the guiding theme in 
redrafting and analyzing the Patriot Act.
  We cannot let our partisan differences obscure our common fight 
against terrorism. We cannot let our very real concerns about the 
violation of civil liberties overwhelm our oath to protect the citizens 
of the United States from further terrorist activity. While I would 
have preferred a ``mend don't end'' strategy to reshaping the Patriot 
Act, the leadership chose a different tactic and brought the bill to 
the floor with the most disconcerting provisions included. In light of 
recent events, and our continued war on terrorism, I chose to stand on 
the side of law enforcement and the intelligence community and protect 
our country by voting for the Patriot Act reauthorization.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly believe that the United 
States needs to be vigilant in protecting our nation and combating 
terror; however, we must be careful that we do not unnecessarily 
sacrifice our civil liberties in pursuit of our enemies.
  While many of the provisions were needed, both then and now, when 
Congress passed the original PATRIOT Act in October 2001, we rightfully 
placed sunset clauses on certain provisions that infringed on our civil 
liberties and granted extraordinary powers to federal authorities. 
These sunset clauses were incorporated in order to provide us with the 
opportunity to reexamine and reevaluate whether the need for such 
invasive powers continues to outweigh their sometimes overly intrusive 
nature.
  Rather than providing Congress with the opportunity to evaluate the 
effectiveness of a measure and correct any abuses, the PATRIOT Act 
Reauthorization would renew two of the original sunset provisions for a 
period of ten years and make the rest of the temporary provisions 
permanent. This would effectively remove all Congressional oversight 
over the PATRIOT Act. As a result, Americans would forever forfeit some 
of their most cherished privacy rights and precious civil liberties.
  One of these provisions gives federal investigators authority to 
examine and access individual records at libraries and bookstores. 
Under this measure, federal authorities do not have to demonstrate 
probable cause of criminal activity or of an individual's connection to 
a foreign power. In addition, libraries and bookstores are prohibited 
from informing patrons that the government is monitoring their reading 
transactions. While there is broad bipartisan opposition to this 
provision, the Republican leadership, in a gross abuse of the 
democratic process, failed to allow even a vote on an amendment that 
would repeal this egregious provision.
  Measures like this are not going to help us prevail in the war 
against terrorism. Instead, we should be providing our law enforcement 
agencies with sufficient risk-based funding, so that they can be 
adequately equipped to protect our homeland. Yet, the Bush 
administration continues to cut funding for state and local law 
enforcement, the men and women in our communities who serve on the 
front lines of domestic security.
  I too am committed to keeping our nation safe while we are fighting 
the war on terror.

[[Page 16940]]

But at the same time, it is just as imperative that we protect our 
constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. A free society is what makes 
our nation great, and now, more than ever, it is crucial that we 
protect our civil liberties with unshakable resolve.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3199, the 
``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.''
  While I strongly agree that we must take every step possible to keep 
our nation secure, we should not be trampling on the rights of innocent 
Americans. When the original PATRIOT Act was passed in the weeks 
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, sixteen 
provisions were scheduled to sunset this year because a matter of this 
importance deserves to be carefully reviewed by Congress.
  The bill before us today would make permanent fourteen of those 
sixteen provisions thereby relinquishing this body of its oversight 
responsibilities. This is unacceptable. I have serious concerns about 
how this Administration has applied and may apply in the future the 
provisions included in this bill. Our constituents should be able to 
trust that we will actively work to protect their civil liberties by 
fighting against any abuses of those rights.
  I am disappointed that the Rules Committee denied two amendments that 
I offered, including one that would give the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act, the teeth to do its job, and one that would 
make permanent the temporary relief given to non-citizens, who were 
lawfully present or a beneficiary of the September 11th Victims 
Compensation Fund, in the original PATRIOT Act. I believe that these 
very worthy amendments at least deserved an open debate on the House 
floor.
  Moreover, an amendment offered by Representatives Sanders (I-VT), 
which already has passed this body, was denied by the Rules Committee. 
His amendment, which I strongly support, would prohibit the FBI from 
using a USA Patriot Act Section 215 order to access library circulation 
records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer 
lists, and it would help to restore the privacy that library patrons 
had before the passage of the USA Patriot Act four years ago. Law 
enforcement should spend its time going after the terrorists, not 
spending its time reviewing the records of innocent people who are 
visiting their local libraries.
  The terrorists who are in a battle against us resent the very rights 
and openness of society that I believe are what make this country 
great. We must remain vigilant in defense of the ideals and principles 
upon which this nation was founded, and the American people must be 
able to trust their government not to abuse their basic rights.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence printed in 
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in part A of House Report 109-178. That 
amendment shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3199

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
     Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO USA PATRIOT ACT.

       A reference in this Act to the USA PATRIOT ACT shall be 
     deemed a reference to the Uniting and Strengthening America 
     by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
     Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.

     SEC. 3. USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is 
     repealed.
       (b) Sections 206 and 215 Sunset.--Effective December 31, 
     2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is 
     amended so that sections 501, 502, and 105(c)(2) read as they 
     read on October 25, 2001.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL 
                   TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.

       Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3742) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (b); and
       (2) striking ``(a)'' and all that follows through 
     ``Section'' and inserting ``Section''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION RELATING TO SECTION 2332B 
                   AND THE MATERIAL SUPPORT SECTIONS OF TITLE 18, 
                   UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3762) 
     is amended by striking subsection (g).

     SEC. 6. SHARING OF ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION 
                   INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 203(B) OF THE USA 
                   PATRIOT ACT.

       Section 2517(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Within a reasonable 
     time after a disclosure of the contents of a communication 
     under this subsection, an attorney for the Government shall 
     file, under seal, a notice with a judge whose order 
     authorized or approved the interception of that 
     communication, stating the fact that such contents were 
     disclosed and the departments, agencies, or entities to which 
     the disclosure was made.''.

     SEC. 7. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES 
                   PERSONS UNDER SECTION 207 OF THE USA PATRIOT 
                   ACT.

       (a) Electronic Surveillance.--Section 105(e) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``, as defined in 
     section 101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United 
     States person''; and
       (2) in subsection (2)(B), by striking ``as defined in 
     section 101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United 
     States person''.
       (b) Physical Search.--Section 304(d) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1824(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``as defined in 
     section 101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United 
     States person''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``as defined in section 
     101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United States 
     person''.
       (c) Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 402(e) 
     of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1842(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e) An'' and inserting ``(e)(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), an''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In the case of an application under subsection (c) 
     where the applicant has certified that the information likely 
     to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not 
     concerning a United States person, an order, or an extension 
     of an order, under this section may be for a period not to 
     exceed one year.''.

     SEC. 8. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS UNDER SECTION 215 
                   OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

       (a) Establishment of Relevance Standard.--Subsection (b)(2) 
     of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended by striking ``to obtain'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``and that the information 
     likely to be obtained from the tangible things is reasonably 
     expected to be (A) foreign intelligence information not 
     concerning a United States person, or (B) relevant to an 
     ongoing investigation to protect against international 
     terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.''.
       (b) Clarification of Judicial Discretion.--Subsection 
     (c)(1) of such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, 
     if the judge finds that the application meets the 
     requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the judge shall 
     enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, 
     approving the release of records.''.
       (c) Authority to Disclose to Attorney.--Subsection (d) of 
     such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) No person shall disclose to any person (other than 
     a qualified person) that the United States has sought or 
     obtained tangible things under this section.
       ``(2) An order under this section shall notify the person 
     to whom the order is directed of the nondisclosure 
     requirement under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any person to whom an order is directed under this 
     section who discloses that the United States has sought to 
     obtain tangible things under this section to a qualified 
     person with respect to the order shall inform such qualified 
     person of the nondisclosure requirement under paragraph (1) 
     and that such qualified person is also subject to such 
     nondisclosure requirement.
       ``(4) A qualified person shall be subject to any 
     nondisclosure requirement applicable to a person to whom an 
     order is directed under this section in the same manner as 
     such person.
       ``(5) In this subsection, the term `qualified person' 
     means--
       ``(A) any person necessary to produce the tangible things 
     pursuant to an order under this section; or
       ``(B) an attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to an 
     order under this section.''.
       (d) Judicial Review.--
       (1) Petition review panel.--Section 103 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page 16941]]

       ``(e)(1) Three judges designated under subsection (a) who 
     reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia, or if all 
     of such judges are unavailable, other judges of the court 
     established under subsection (a) as may be designated by the 
     Presiding Judge of such court (who is designated by the Chief 
     Justice of the United States from among the judges of the 
     court), shall comprise a petition review panel which shall 
     have jurisdiction to review petitions filed pursuant to 
     section 501(f)(1).
       ``(2) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005, the court established under 
     subsection (a) shall develop and issue procedures for the 
     review of petitions filed pursuant to section 501(f)(1) by 
     the panel established under paragraph (1). Such procedures 
     shall provide that review of a petition shall be conducted ex 
     parte and in camera and shall also provide for the 
     designation of an Acting Presiding Judge.''.
       (2) Proceedings.--Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) A person receiving an order to produce any 
     tangible thing under this section may challenge the legality 
     of that order by filing a petition in the panel established 
     by section 103(e)(1). The Presiding Judge shall conduct an 
     initial review of the petition. If the Presiding Judge 
     determines that the petition is frivolous, the Presiding 
     Judge shall immediately deny the petition and promptly 
     provide a written statement of the reasons for the 
     determination for the record. If the Presiding Judge 
     determines that the petition is not frivolous, the Presiding 
     Judge shall immediately assign the petition to one of the 
     judges serving on such panel. The assigned judge shall 
     promptly consider the petition in accordance with procedures 
     developed and issued pursuant to section 103(e)(2). The judge 
     considering the petition may modify or set aside the order 
     only if the judge finds that the order does not meet the 
     requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the 
     judge does not modify or set aside the order, the judge shall 
     immediately affirm the order and order the recipient to 
     comply therewith. A petition for review of a decision to 
     affirm, modify, or set aside an order by the United States or 
     any person receiving such order shall be to the court of 
     review established under section 103(b), which shall have 
     jurisdiction to consider such petitions. The court of review 
     shall immediately provide for the record a written statement 
     of the reasons for its decision and, on petition of the 
     United States or any person receiving such order for writ of 
     certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the 
     Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such 
     decision.
       ``(2) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be 
     concluded as expeditiously as possible. The judge considering 
     a petition filed under this subsection shall provide for the 
     record a written statement of the reasons for the decision. 
     The record of proceedings, including petitions filed, orders 
     granted, and statements of reasons for decision, shall be 
     maintained under security measures established by the Chief 
     Justice of the United States in consultation with the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(3) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed 
     under seal, and the court, upon the government's request, 
     shall review any government submission, which may include 
     classified information, as well as the government's 
     application and related materials, ex parte and in camera.''.

     SEC. 9. REPORT ON EMERGENCY DISCLOSURES UNDER SECTION 212 OF 
                   THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

       Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Report.--On an annual basis, the Attorney General 
     shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House 
     and the Senate a report containing--
       ``(1) the number of accounts from which the Department of 
     Justice has received voluntary disclosures under subsection 
     (b)(8); and
       ``(2) a summary of the basis for disclosure in those 
     instances where--
       ``(A) voluntary disclosure under subsection (b)(8) was made 
     to the Department of Justice; and
       ``(B) the investigation pertaining to those disclosures was 
     closed without the filing of criminal charges.''.

     SEC. 10. SPECIFICITY AND NOTIFICATION FOR ROVING SURVEILLANCE 
                   AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 206 OF THE USA PATRIOT 
                   ACT.

       (a) Inclusion of Specific Facts in Application.--Section 
     105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``where 
     the Court finds'' and inserting ``where the Court finds, 
     based upon specific facts provided in the application,''.
       (b) Notification of Surveillance of New Facility or 
     Place.--Section 105(c)(2) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) that, in the case of electronic surveillance directed 
     at a facility or place that is not known at the time the 
     order is issued, the applicant shall notify a judge having 
     jurisdiction under section 103 within a reasonable period of 
     time, as determined by the court, after electronic 
     surveillance begins to be directed at a new facility or 
     place, and such notice shall contain a statement of the facts 
     and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the 
     belief that the facility or place at which the electronic 
     surveillance is or was directed is being used, or is about to 
     be used, by the target of electronic surveillance.''.

     SEC. 11. PROHIBITION ON PLANNING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON MASS 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 1993(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the of paragraph (7);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) surveils, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, or 
     otherwise collects information with the intent to plan or 
     assist in planning any of the acts described in the 
     paragraphs (1) through (7); or''.

     SEC. 12. ENHANCED REVIEW OF DETENTIONS.

       Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
       (2) inserting after ``Department of Justice'' the 
     following: ``, and (B) review detentions of persons under 
     section 3144 of title 18, United States Code, including their 
     length, conditions of access to counsel, frequency of access 
     to counsel, offense at issue, and frequency of appearance 
     before a grand jury''.

     SEC. 13. FORFEITURE.

       Section 981(a)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``trafficking in nuclear, chemical, 
     biological, or radiological weapons technology or material, 
     or'' after ``involves''.

     SEC. 14. ADDING OFFENSES TO THE DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME 
                   OF TERRORISM.

       Section 2332b)(g)(5)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, 2339D (relating to military-type 
     training from a foreign terrorist organization)'' before ``, 
     or 2340A'' ; and
       (2) by inserting ``832 (relating to nuclear and weapons of 
     mass destruction threats),'' after ``831 (relating to nuclear 
     materials),''.

     SEC. 15. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2516(1) OF TITLE 18, UNITED 
                   STATES CODE.

       (a) Paragraph (c) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(c) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``section 37 (relating to violence at 
     international airports), section 175b (relating to biological 
     agents or toxins)'' after ``the following sections of this 
     title:'';
       (2) by inserting ``section 832 (relating to nuclear and 
     weapons of mass destruction threats), section 842 (relating 
     to explosive materials), section 930 (relating to possession 
     of weapons in Federal facilities),'' after ``section 751 
     (relating to escape),'';
       (3) by inserting ``section 1114 (relating to officers and 
     employees of the United States), section 1116 (relating to 
     protection of foreign officials), sections 1361-1363 
     (relating to damage to government buildings and 
     communications), section 1366 (relating to destruction of an 
     energy facility), '' after ``section 1014 (relating to loans 
     and credit applications generally; renewals and 
     discounts),'';
       (4) by inserting ``section 1993 (relating to terrorist 
     attacks against mass transportation), sections 2155 and 2156 
     (relating to national-defense utilities), sections 2280 and 
     2281 (relating to violence against maritime navigation),'' 
     after ``section 1344 (relating to bank fraud),''; and
       (5) by inserting ``section 2340A (relating to torture),'' 
     after ``section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain 
     motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts),''.
       (b) Paragraph (p) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(p) is amended 
     by inserting ``, section 1028A (relating to aggravated 
     identity theft)'' after ``other documents''.
       (c) Paragraph (q) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(q) of title 
     18 United States Code is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``2339'' after ``2232h''; and
       (2) by inserting ``2339D'' after ``2339C''.

     SEC. 16. DEFINITION OF PERIOD OF REASONABLE DELAY UNDER 
                   SECTION 213 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

       Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``of its'' and inserting ``, which shall 
     not be more than 180 days, after its''; and
       (2) by inserting ``for additional periods of not more than 
     90 days each'' after ``may be extended''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is in order except those printed in part B of the report. 
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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

[[Page 16942]]

subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-178.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 109-178.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of section 8 add the following new subsection:
       (e) FBI Director Required to Apply for Order of Production 
     of Records From Library or Bookstore.--Section 501(a) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Director'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to paragraph (3), the Director''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) In the case of an application for an order requiring 
     the production of tangible things described in paragraph (1) 
     from a library or bookstore, the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation shall not delegate the authority to 
     make such application to a designee.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with my colleague the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), a Democrat.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply states that the Director of the 
FBI must personally approve any library or bookstore request for 
records by the FBI under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This amendment 
provides a higher standard for the use of section 215 by the FBI.
  At a minimum, what it will prevent I think is some kind of fishing 
expedition that might be undertaken by an overzealous agent or official 
at the Bureau. Having the Director of the FBI sign off on the request, 
it also sends a signal to the library and bookstore owners that a 
request for information from the FBI is well thought out and comes from 
the highest level.
  This amendment compliments other amendments I have offered in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, two of which were accepted by the chairman 
and the committee. Those were: With regard to section 215, we clarified 
that if there is an inquiry, you not only as a respondent have access 
to an attorney to respond to the inquiry, but also to challenge it. The 
other had to do with another section in committee. We will stick with 
this one.
  With these two amendments on 215 combined, I think we have provided 
strong protections for the contested section of the PATRIOT Act. There 
has been a lot of attention, as has been noted here, across the country 
at this provision, which has been termed the library provision. It 
obviously has a lot more to do than with libraries. Libraries are not 
even mentioned in it. But we see the need to make protections to be 
sure that no overzealous agent at the FBI or anybody goes and searches 
somebody's library records or bookstore purchases. So that is what this 
amendment is prepared to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I 
do not believe it is a good enough cure to make this sick legislation 
well.
  I believe that most of what America needs to know about the PATRIOT 
Act is reflected in its deceptive title. Its authors deliberately 
designed a name to question the patriotism of anyone who questions 
them. Are you for patriotism, or are you against patriotism? Are you 
with America, or are you against America?
  The American patriots who declared our independence in 1776 were true 
patriots who risked their lives in order to secure our liberties.
  True patriots defend liberty.
  Real patriots do not surrender our freedom, unless there is 
absolutely no other way to protect our lives.
  Patriots demand accountability, restraint, and judicial review of 
encroachments on the freedoms that make our country unique.
  While some portions of this proposed renewal of the PATRIOT Act 
strike the right balance, other provisions simply strike out. We must 
balance the demands of keeping our Nation secure with the freedoms that 
we cherish. We must not sacrifice our democracy in a misguided attempt 
to save it.
  Wrapping this collection of misguided policies under the rubric ``the 
PATRIOT Act'' is a true mark of how really weak the underlying 
arguments are for this measure.
  Surely we can secure our families' safety without becoming more like 
a police state, which would deny the freedoms that define us as 
Americans.
  The dangerous road to government oppression begins one step at a 
time. It does not all happen at once. This bill, I believe, is a step 
in the wrong direction, a step in the direction of suppressing our 
freedoms. I believe that it is very important that we patriotically 
preserve our liberties and freedoms as Americans by rejecting the 
measure in its current form.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, although not in opposition, I ask unanimous 
consent to control the balance of the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Flake-Schiff amendment, which would make an important 
change to section 215 if it is ever used in the library or bookstore 
context. This amendment is substantially similar to one I offered in 
the Committee on the Judiciary with the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters), but one I agreed to withdraw in order to work with the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) in a bipartisan fashion on a 
proposal for consideration on the House floor.
  I am sure that every Member of Congress has heard from their 
constituents regarding this very provision of the PATRIOT Act. Even if 
possibly based on misplaced fears, some of the public are now 
apprehensive about going to their local library or bookstore.
  Our amendment would not prevent law enforcement from investigating 
alleged terrorist activity wherever it may occur. It creates no safe 
haven for terrorists. Instead, our amendment would aim to restore some 
measure of public confidence that this provision will not be abused.
  The Flake-Schiff amendment says that vis-a-vis the records that pose 
the greatest concern for all of our constituents, library records or 
bookstore records, the existing authority which allows lower level FBI 
agents to seek those records should be significantly amended.
  If our amendment is adopted, only the FBI Director himself or herself 
can approve such an order for an investigation to protect against 
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
  As of the latest public disclosure, the Justice Department has 
reported that section 215 has never been used in a library. The fact, 
however, that this provision may never have been used in a library to 
date does not alter the fact that it affects the behavior of all of our 
constituents who are concerned that their records may one day be the 
subject of a search.
  Given the sensitivity of this section, I believe it is worthwhile and 
necessary

[[Page 16943]]

to make changes to existing law and that this added protection is 
warranted.
  During the Committee on the Judiciary markup last week, I offered an 
additional amendment to section 215 that would have lifted the 
prohibition on disclosure when a United States citizen was impacted and 
when the investigation had concluded if there was no good cause to 
continue to prohibit the disclosure. Unfortunately, this amendment was 
rejected on party lines.
  The Flake-Schiff amendment will still make another important and 
needed change. I believe it makes very good sense for the FBI Director 
and the Director alone to make the decision, and not to delegate it 
away. The bipartisan PATRIOT Act proposal in the Senate makes a similar 
change, restricting this authority to the FBI Director or Deputy 
Director. I think our amendment provides an even stronger safeguard and 
strikes a balance that will restore a measure of public confidence in 
this area.
  Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to discuss the 
Sanders amendment and other efforts to make important changes to 
section 215. While I am appreciative that the Committee on Rules made 
the Flake-Schiff amendment in order, I am disappointed that the Sanders 
amendment was not also made in order. I believe that this House and the 
American people are better served if all proposals are duly and fairly 
considered on the House floor.
  As you know, last month the House decisively adopted the Sanders 
amendment during consideration of the Science, State, Justice and 
Commerce appropriations bill. I supported that amendment, which 
prohibited the use of funds for a section 215 search of a library 
record patron list, book sale record or book customer list.
  The Sanders amendment, however, did not amend the underlying PATRIOT 
law, which I believe we must do as a first step. We must permanently 
limit the statutory authorization to use section 215 in libraries and 
bookstores. The Sanders amendment also made no changes to the ability 
to search library computer and Internet records.
  I expect and encourage the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to 
bring his amendment before the House floor each year to further limit 
the use of section 215 with respect to specific lists and records in 
libraries and bookstores. But, for now, since the amendment only 
applies for 1 year and only applies to specific items in the library, I 
think it is important and necessary for the House to pass this broader 
and permanent change to the PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their tireless advocacy 
of the liberties of the American people, and I rise in strong support 
of the bipartisan Flake-Schiff amendment.
  President Harry Truman, I am told, had a plaque on his desk that 
simply read ``The buck stops here.'' It seems to me that the Flake-
Schiff amendment is all about saying that when it comes to that sacred 
relationship that the American people feel between their local library 
and their local bookstore, that the FBI Director himself or herself 
must be directly involved if that relationship is to be intruded upon 
in the name of an investigation into the war on terror.
  The Flake-Schiff amendment requires the Director of the FBI to 
personally approve any library or bookstore request for records under 
section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Currently the law permits a designee of 
the Director whose rank cannot be lower than an Assistant Special Agent 
in Charge to approve section 215 orders, and that will change.
  Also under this amendment, the Director of the FBI cannot delegate 
the duty to personally approve a section 215 request for library and 
bookstore records. This amendment, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) said earlier, will prevent section 215 from being abused or used 
in a fishing expedition intruding upon the privacy of ordinary 
Americans in the name of the war on terror.
  Again I quote President Harry Truman's famous plaque or missive, 
``The buck stops here.'' The Flake-Schiff amendment is simply about 
saying if the war on terror demands it, when it comes to intruding upon 
that sacred relationship between the American people and a bookstore or 
a library, we have to have those who are of the highest accountability 
in our political system to answer to that.
  I strongly support the Flake-Schiff amendment and the commonsense 
underpinning that brings it to the floor today, and urge its passage.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly vote 
for this amendment, but I fear that it does not fully solve the problem 
that has been identified by many. Before the PATRIOT Act, the 
government could obtain only limited records from hotels, storage 
facilities and car rental companies, and only if those documents 
pertained to an agent of a foreign power.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, the government can seek any records from anyone as long as it is 
relevant to an investigation. The FISA court does not really have any 
discretion to deny these requests and, once they are granted, they are 
subject to a gag order.
  Now, the Justice Department has told us that they have never once 
used section 215 relative to libraries, and I have no reason to 
disbelieve them; but the American Library Association reports that they 
have received 200 formal or informal requests for materials, presumably 
under some other section of the law, perhaps grand jury subpoenas, I do 
not know.
  The fact is that Americans are aware of this issue, and I believe 
this is having a chilling effect on first amendment rights in terms of 
reading and speaking.
  I believe it is important that government have the opportunity to 
obtain records when it is necessary to fight terrorism. I do believe, 
however, that the relevance standard is too low.
  I also believe that when the House that previously approved a carve-
out for identifiable information from libraries it spoke about the 
chilling impact. I believe we have a better way to get these records 
and also to untrouble readers.
  So while I will support the amendment, it falls short of what is 
necessary.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), another member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the 
Flake-Schiff amendment.
  This is another effort in our continuation to support section 215 in 
all of its aspects, with the protections that I think are reasonable 
that allow us to take into consideration some of the concerns that 
people have expressed, even though there have been no examples, I 
repeat, no examples of abuses under this act.
  The Justice Department has told us they have not used this section in 
the area of libraries. Therefore, I hope they would not object to the 
gentleman's amendment, because this is going to be used very, very 
seldom, based on past history. Yet, it is relevant, and we already 
discussed the ways in which it may be relevant to terrorism cases.
  So I would hope that we would have strong support for this amendment, 
recognizing that this, along with the other changes that we have added 
to section 215, will allow us to have this still be utilized and 
utilized in a way that is not undone, as I thought the amendment that 
we had on the floor just a few weeks ago would have done so.
  This is a commonsense amendment. I hope we will get unanimous support 
for it.

[[Page 16944]]


  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment on two 
grounds.
  First, I think it moves us in the right direction. I have said 
several times on this floor today about the PATRIOT Act that we should 
mend it, not end it. This does tighten section 215, which has probably 
been, more than any other section in the PATRIOT Act, the subject of 
intense worry for outside groups and especially those who use 
libraries.
  But, second, I support it because of the process involved. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff) have worked on a bipartisan basis to craft something they 
could both support and to persuade the leadership of the Committee on 
the Judiciary and the Committee on Rules to embrace it. This is what we 
should see more of, and I wish we were seeing more of it in connection 
with this bill.
  Finally, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) does make 
important points. There is an even better way to amend section 215, and 
that way has just been embraced unanimously, obviously on a bipartisan 
basis, by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and that is to connect 
section 215 orders to specific facts which show the target is connected 
to an agent of a foreign power. That would be best; and, hopefully, we 
will get there before this bill becomes law.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a good 
one because it centralizes responsibility in the hands of the Director 
of the FBI in signing off on 215 applications for bookstore and library 
records.
  But in the context of the overall debate, what I think is missing 
from this debate is not whether there is a potential for abuse by the 
Justice Department, but whether there is an actual record of abuse. And 
there has been no record of abuse by the Justice Department with 
bookstores and libraries. They have publicly responded repeatedly that 
they have not used the 215 order to look at the records of people 
checking out books or buying books at either bookstores or libraries.
  Now, what this bill does is it makes an improvement to the law where 
there is a specific method of contesting a 215 order by the recipient. 
But to say that all of these records should be exempt from law 
enforcement scrutiny is to turn our bookstores and libraries into a 
sanctuary. We cannot allow that to happen.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of problems with 
section 215. This amendment does not take care of many of them; but by 
requiring the FBI Director to personally approve the warrant, that will 
significantly reduce the chance that there will be abuses.
  So far as the ability to contest these, it is very unlikely that 
someone receiving one of these warrants will go through the cost of 
actually contesting it for someone else's rights. There are no 
attorneys' fees allowed in these proceedings, and it is just more 
likely that they will just give up somebody's information.
  This requirement will reduce the chances that there will be abuses; 
and although it does not solve all the problems, it will reduce the 
abuses, and, therefore, I will be voting for it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I just wanted to 
say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) brought up the point 
that the buck stops here, and that is what we are really trying to do 
with the FBI Director, to ensure that that person is in charge and 
there is less likely to be a fishing expedition by a lower-ranking 
official. When you combine that with what we already have in law, which 
is a requirement that the FBI Director report to Congress every 6 
months about the use of this statute, you really have a strong 
provision and strong protections.
  Think of it: you have the FBI Director himself, or herself, saying, I 
want to use this authority for this specific purpose, and then having 
to report that every 6 months to Congress. I think we really have 
curtailed the possibility for abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to return the courtesy extended by 
my friend, and I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) to be subsequently yielded as he chooses.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has an additional 3 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa), another member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff).
  I have the distinction of being one of the few members on the 
Committee on the Judiciary who is not an attorney, and I got a little 
applause on that, I think. But I came to Congress from the business of 
automobile security. The one thing I know about what we are dealing 
with in terrorism is that if you leave an open window on an automobile, 
no amount of security will protect you. If you leave the automobile or 
your home unlocked, no security system will protect you.
  There is absolutely no doubt that we must protect America. To do so, 
we have to be able to go anywhere and never take anything completely 
off the table.
  I believe that this amendment allows us to guarantee that there are 
no safe havens for terrorists while, at the same time, we will protect 
the privacy and the fair expectation that there will not be 
unreasonable rifling through the records at libraries or, for that 
matter, I hope, anywhere else under this act.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just conclude by thanking the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for 
running a fair and thorough process.
  Much has been said about these things being rushed through. I can 
tell my colleagues that over the past 12 months or so, we have had 12 
hearings on this subject, 35 witnesses. We have gone through this very 
thoroughly. On each of these sections that we are dealing with, we 
heard excellent testimony from the administration, from other 
witnesses, from experts in the field; and that is why these amendments 
have been crafted. We have sought to protect the civil liberties of 
Americans every bit as much as we can here, while offering effective 
tools for the war on terrorism, giving the administration the tools 
that they need to fight this war.
  I am persuaded that we have done well with this section, with section 
215, that we have put the protections that we need in place; and I 
would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the simple point that 
the amendment that was offered that was not made in order by myself, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) would not have allowed, under any 
circumstances, a safe haven anywhere for terrorists. It was a different 
approach. The standards were higher. I think that is an important point 
to make as a matter of record.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to conclude by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his work on this issue.

[[Page 16945]]

  The fact that the library provision has not been used as of the last 
public disclosure does not affect the fact that many Americans are 
concerned about their expectation of privacy when they go to the 
library, when they check out books on family matters, on health 
matters, on other matters. They do not want to fear that the government 
may be scrutinizing what they are reading. And because this has an 
impact on the behavior of Americans, on the freedom to use libraries, 
it is an important issue, merely that fear.
  This amendment, I think, takes a small, but important, step to 
provide at least the confidence to the people of this country that no 
less than the Director of the FBI himself or herself can authorize the 
use of this provision for library and bookseller records. I think it is 
an important step forward. I hope we make further progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 109-178.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Issa

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Issa:
        Page 10, line 23, strike ``within a reasonable period of 
     time, as determined by the court,'' and insert ``at the 
     earliest reasonable time as determined by the court, but in 
     no case later than 15 days,''.
       Page 11, line 6, after ``surveillance'' insert the 
     following: ``and shall specify the total number of electronic 
     surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the 
     authority of the order''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the threat we face as Americans today is all too real. 
The recent bombings in London could have happened on American soil, and 
it is only through the vigilance of our many law enforcement entities 
that we can combat this occurrence.
  The PATRIOT Act, as it was originally adopted, contains many needed 
tools to fight those who would harm us here in America. One of those 
tools was the expansion of roving wiretap authority. This vital tool 
allowed us to reach out and touch those who had discovered that using a 
new cell phone every day would have gotten around existing wiretap 
laws. It did not take the terrorists long to realize that, and it would 
not take them long if that ceased to exist for them to begin using that 
technique prior to the PATRIOT Act.
  We made America safer when we expanded these surveillance 
authorities, because now law enforcement can continue to monitor a 
terrorist's activity without undue interruption. But this new authority 
must be balanced with our fundamental civil liberties.
  It is not that law enforcement has ever misused the roving wiretap 
provision. I repeat: law enforcement has not been, through our 
oversight, seen to have abused the roving wiretap provision. However, 
this is such a serious, serious potential that we must take all 
measures necessary to ensure that it will not be in the future.
  For that reason, I seek to amend H.R. 3199 to add a level of judicial 
oversight not in the current bill. The current bill gives the issuing 
court blanket discretion on when law enforcement must report back on a 
roving wiretap. My amendment requires law enforcement to report back to 
the court within 15 days of using the roving aspect of the warrant. My 
amendment also requires law enforcement to report on the total number 
of electronic surveillances that have been conducted.
  These are simple steps that will help guard against possible abuses 
in the future, while doing nothing to hamper the value of the roving 
wiretap.
  Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly appreciate the opportunity to offer this 
amendment; but I also want to comment that we have, as a committee, 
worked like never before on a bipartisan basis to dramatically improve 
a law when it came to civil liberties that already had good teeth when 
it came to the security of our people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this involves a roving wiretap, and I think you have to 
put these in perspective. You can get one of these roving wiretaps 
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without any probable 
cause that a crime has been committed. You are just getting foreign 
intelligence. It does not have to be a crime. It does not have to be 
terrorism. It could be negotiations on a trade deal, anything that will 
help foreign intelligence, you can get one of these roving wiretaps. So 
you are starting off without probable cause of a crime.
  And also, you can start off without it being the primary purpose of 
the wiretap, which suggests if it is not the primary purpose, what is 
the primary purpose? So there is a lot of flexibility and potential for 
abuse in these things.
  There are also some gaps. You can get one of these roving wiretaps 
against a person, or in some cases, if you know which phone people are 
using, you can get a John Doe warrant. And there are actually gaps in 
it where you are not sure which phone, you are not sure which person, 
you kind of get authority to just kind of wiretap in the area. And so 
this kind of reporting I think is extremely important.
  We have, for example, asked several people, if you get a roving 
wiretap and foreign intelligence was not the primary purpose, what was 
the primary purpose? We have had high officials suggest, well, running 
a criminal investigation would be the primary purpose, which means you 
are running a criminal investigation without probable cause of a crime 
being committed. And you get these roving wiretaps. You put a roving 
wiretap.
  I have had amendments that have been defeated in committee which 
would require what is called ascertainment. When you put the bug there 
you have got to ascertain that the target is actually there doing the 
talking, not somebody else using the same phone. Those amendments have 
been defeated.
  And so we need some oversight. And these reports will go a long way 
in making sure that you are not abusing, you are not listening in on 
the wrong people, you are not putting these bugs where they do not need 
to be. You started off with no probable cause. You are not abusing the 
roving aspect, putting wiretaps everywhere where they do not need to 
be. I think this kind of review can go a long way in reducing the 
potential of abuse, using the FISA wiretaps for criminal investigations 
without probable cause, listening in to the wrong people and a lot of 
other problems that can occur with the roving wiretaps.
  And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). Although it 
does not solve all of the problems, it solves a lot of them and I thank 
the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I yield 2 
minutes to

[[Page 16946]]

the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the 
entire Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment. And let me say 
first that the amendment that was made by the PATRIOT Act to allow a 
Federal judge, and only a Federal judge, to authorize a roving wiretap 
simply brought the law up to where the technology has gone because 
before the PATRIOT Act was passed you could not get an effective 
wiretap order on a cell phone. So the terrorists and the drug smugglers 
and the racketeers simply conducted their business on cell phones 
because you could not determine whether or not the cell phone was 
actually being used within the district in which the Federal court that 
issued the roving wiretap order sat.
  So by passing the PATRIOT Act we were able to get the Justice 
Department the authority to ask a Federal judge to give a wiretap order 
against the cell phone or any communications device that might be used 
by the target. And that gets around the disposable cell phone issue.
  The Issa amendment merely states that the judge has to be notified at 
the earliest reasonable time, but no later than 15 days after a roving 
wiretap order directs surveillance at a location not known at the time 
when the wiretap order was issued. And this increases judicial 
supervision and accountability and protects the civil liberties of the 
American people.
  Now, earlier today both the minority leader and her deputy, the 
minority whip, were talking about the fact that there has been no 
oversight done by the Judiciary Committee over the PATRIOT Act. That, 
frankly, insults what both Democrats and Republicans have done on 
oversight of the PATRIOT Act on a bipartisan basis. Right here is the 
result of the oversight that the Judiciary Committee has done in the 
last 3\1/2\ years on this law. This is a stack of paper that is almost 
2 feet high. I doubt that any other committee of Congress has done as 
much oversight on a single law as my committee has done on the PATRIOT 
Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, just to acknowledge that as the chairman has indicated, 
some of these roving wiretaps do put us into the 21st century with the 
use of cell phones and disposable cell phones. So the roving wiretap is 
necessary. But it needs oversight. And I think this amendment will go a 
long way to making sure that that process is not abused.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell).
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for this 
amendment. This section of the PATRIOT Act authorizes expansive 
authority for John Doe roving wiretaps, taps of phones and computers 
when neither the location nor the identity of the target are known.
  The Issa amendment further improves the amendment that I offered 
during the Intelligence Committee markup of the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization bill. My amendment, I am pleased to say, was 
unanimously accepted by the entire committee and is included in the 
base bill before the House today.
  The Issa amendment appropriately defines the term ``reasonable period 
for filing return'' as not more than 15 days. It assures the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court, we often call it the FISA court, will 
receive information related to John Doe roving wiretaps in a timely 
manner by removing any ambiguity associated with the term 
``reasonable.'' It makes it clear to every FBI agent, DOJ lawyer and 
judge from the start, this is a 15-day limit on providing the court 
with information related to John Doe roving wiretaps. This is a good 
fix to a good provision that further strengthens the amendment to the 
PATRIOT Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the gentleman 
from California for offering it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment 
although it does not make some of the changes recommended by Mr. Scott 
in committee about ascertainment and minimization that we believe are 
important. It would allow for the requirement of oversight, which I 
think is important. The chairman has said many times that hearings have 
been held. They were, but they were basically held since April. We do 
have a tendency to postpone our work until it must be done.
  One of the things that I hope we will take a look at that has not 
been discussed is section 209 relative to obtaining electronic 
information with a subpoena. That is a routine matter that caused no 
concern because it stored electronic data and that is not new law.
  The reason why we need to look at it before 10 years from now is that 
as technology changes and all telephone communication becomes Voice 
Over Internet Protocol, theoretically every phone call would be subject 
to seizure by subpoena, which is not something I think any of us would 
agree we intend to do. That should be a wiretap standard and it may 
drift down to a subpoena standard. That is why we need oversight, not 
because there is a bad guy out there necessarily, but because the 
technology is going to change and change swiftly and potentially very 
much alter what we think we are doing here today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). And I also want to 
address the issue of oversight. And let me be very clear. The chairman 
has been most aggressive when it comes to oversight, and I want to 
publicly commend him, not just in terms of the PATRIOT Act, but many 
other issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  However, this is not about this particular chairman. It is about the 
responsibility of future members of the Judiciary Committee to exercise 
that responsibility. And I have a concern about oversight because, let 
us be honest, it is not easy dealing with the executive branch. We have 
all had that experience. We reach conclusions, but we really do not 
know.
  I can remember when the chairman himself discussed issuing a subpoena 
to bring the former Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, before the 
committee to provide us information on the so-called heavy guidelines. 
That is what was necessary.
  Just recently, I read where the vice chair of the Government Reform 
Committee, looking into the expenditures of monies involving the 
development for the Fund of Iraq, expressed frustration with the lack 
of cooperation coming from the Pentagon.
  I have served on an invitation basis under Chairman Dan Burton 
investigating the misconduct of the FBI in the Boston office, and 
again, it required the threat of a contempt petition to gain 
information from the Department of Justice. If we need to go that far 
then to exercise our oversight constitutional responsibility, it is not 
an easy job to do. So that is why all of the discussions today about 
oversight are framed in that context.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that her concerns on 
electronic data and the fact that in an era of VOIP that we do have to 
look at that. I serve with the gentlewoman in California on many of the 
caucuses that deal with that. I look forward to both in Judiciary and, 
quite candidly, in other committees of jurisdiction here in the 
Congress to continue to work on properly identifying and modernizing 
how that is going to be interpreted. I think it is beyond the scope of

[[Page 16947]]

the PATRIOT Act today, but it certainly is not beyond the Congress to 
have to bring things up to snuff, and I look forward to working with 
the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will just close quickly in thanking the chairman, the ranking 
member, the staffs for the hard work that led to the underlying bill, 
but also to this particular amendment. This was done on a bipartisan 
basis. There was give and take.
  Over on the Senate side there is a companion that is somewhat similar 
that has, I believe, a 7-day timeline, and undoubtedly we will work 
together in conference to reconcile those two. But the good work done 
on a bipartisan basis in the House has led to what I believe is the 
right compromise, although I certainly will work with the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa) will be postponed.

                              {time}  1530

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). It is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-178.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC.__. ATTACKS AGAINST RAILROAD CARRIERS AND MASS 
                   TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking sections 1992 through 1993 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 1992. Terrorist attacks and other violence against 
       railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems 
       on land, on water, or through the air

       ``(a) General Prohibitions.--Whoever, in a circumstance 
     described in subsection (c), knowingly--
       ``(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables railroad 
     on-track equipment or a mass transportation vehicle;
       ``(2) with intent to endanger the safety of any person, or 
     with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, and 
     without the authorization of the railroad carrier or mass 
     transportation provider--
       ``(A) places any biological agent or toxin, destructive 
     substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near railroad 
     on-track equipment or a mass transportation vehicle; or
       ``(B) releases a hazardous material or a biological agent 
     or toxin on or near any property described in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of paragraph (3);
       ``(3) sets fire to, undermines, makes unworkable, unusable, 
     or hazardous to work on or use, or places any biological 
     agent or toxin, destructive substance, or destructive device 
     in, upon, or near any--
       ``(A) tunnel, bridge, viaduct, trestle, track, 
     electromagnetic guideway, signal, station, depot, warehouse, 
     terminal, or any other way, structure, property, or 
     appurtenance used in the operation of, or in support of the 
     operation of, a railroad carrier, without the authorization 
     of the railroad carrier, and with intent to, or knowing or 
     having reason to know such activity would likely, derail, 
     disable, or wreck railroad on-track equipment;
       ``(B) garage, terminal, structure, track, electromagnetic 
     guideway, supply, or facility used in the operation of, or in 
     support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle, 
     without the authorization of the mass transportation 
     provider, and with intent to, or knowing or having reason to 
     know such activity would likely, derail, disable, or wreck a 
     mass transportation vehicle used, operated, or employed by a 
     mass transportation provider; or
       ``(4) removes an appurtenance from, damages, or otherwise 
     impairs the operation of a railroad signal system or mass 
     transportation signal or dispatching system, including a 
     train control system, centralized dispatching system, or 
     highway-railroad grade crossing warning signal, without 
     authorization from the railroad carrier or mass 
     transportation provider;
       ``(5) with intent to endanger the safety of any person, or 
     with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, 
     interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, 
     driver, captain, locomotive engineer, railroad conductor, or 
     other person while the person is employed in dispatching, 
     operating, or maintaining railroad on-track equipment or a 
     mass transportation vehicle;
       ``(6) commits an act, including the use of a dangerous 
     weapon, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily 
     injury to any person who is on property described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3), except that this 
     subparagraph shall not apply to rail police officers acting 
     in the course of their law enforcement duties under section 
     28101 of title 49, United States Code;
       ``(7) conveys false information, knowing the information to 
     be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt that was 
     made, is being made, or is to be made, to engage in a 
     violation of this subsection; or
       ``(8) attempts, threatens, or conspires to engage in any 
     violation of any of paragraphs (1) through (7);
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
     20 years, or both.
       ``(b) Aggravated Offense.--Whoever commits an offense under 
     subsection (a) of this section in a circumstance in which--
       ``(1) the railroad on-track equipment or mass 
     transportation vehicle was carrying a passenger or employee 
     at the time of the offense;
       ``(2) the railroad on-track equipment or mass 
     transportation vehicle was carrying high-level radioactive 
     waste or spent nuclear fuel at the time of the offense;
       ``(3) the railroad on-track equipment or mass 
     transportation vehicle was carrying a hazardous material at 
     the time of the offense that--
       ``(A) was required to be placarded under subpart F of part 
     172 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       ``(B) is identified as class number 3, 4, 5, 6.1, or 8 and 
     packing group I or packing group II, or class number 1, 2, or 
     7 under the hazardous materials table of section 172.101 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; or
       ``(4) the offense results in the death of any person;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of 
     years or life, or both. In the case of a violation described 
     in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the term of imprisonment 
     shall be not less than 30 years; and, in the case of a 
     violation described in paragraph (4) of this subsection, the 
     offender shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for 
     life and be subject to the death penalty.
       ``(c) Circumstances Required for Offense.--A circumstance 
     referred to in subsection (a) is any of the following:
       ``(1) Any of the conduct required for the offense is, or, 
     in the case of an attempt, threat, or conspiracy to engage in 
     conduct, the conduct required for the completed offense would 
     be, engaged in, on, against, or affecting a mass 
     transportation provider or railroad carrier engaged in or 
     affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(2) Any person travels or communicates across a State 
     line in order to commit the offense, or transports materials 
     across a State line in aid of the commission of the offense.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `biological agent' has the meaning given to 
     that term in section 178(1);
       ``(2) the term `dangerous weapon' means a weapon, device, 
     instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, 
     that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or 
     serious bodily injury, including a pocket knife with a blade 
     of more than 2\1/2\ inches in length and a box cutter;
       ``(3) the term `destructive device' has the meaning given 
     to that term in section 921(a)(4);
       ``(4) the term `destructive substance' means an explosive 
     substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other 
     chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or material, or 
     matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or 
     explosive nature, except that the term `radioactive device' 
     does not include any radioactive device or material used 
     solely for medical, industrial, research, or other peaceful 
     purposes;
       ``(5) the term `hazardous material' has the meaning given 
     to that term in chapter 51 of title 49;
       ``(6) the term `high-level radioactive waste' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 2(12) of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(12));
       ``(7) the term `mass transportation' has the meaning given 
     to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, except that 
     the term includes school bus, charter, and sightseeing 
     transportation;
       ``(8) the term `on-track equipment' means a carriage or 
     other contrivance that runs on rails or electromagnetic 
     guideways;
       ``(9) the term `railroad on-track equipment' means a train, 
     locomotive, tender, motor unit, freight or passenger car, or 
     other on-track equipment used, operated, or employed by a 
     railroad carrier;

[[Page 16948]]

       ``(10) the term `railroad' has the meaning given to that 
     term in chapter 201 of title 49;
       ``(11) the term `railroad carrier' has the meaning given to 
     that term in chapter 201 of title 49;
       ``(12) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning 
     given to that term in section 1365;
       ``(13) the term `spent nuclear fuel' has the meaning given 
     to that term in section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
     of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(23));
       ``(14) the term `State' has the meaning given to that term 
     in section 2266;
       ``(15) the term `toxin' has the meaning given to that term 
     in section 178(2); and
       ``(16) the term `vehicle' means any carriage or other 
     contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
     transportation on land, on water, or through the air.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 97 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``RAILROADS'' in the chapter heading and 
     inserting ``RAILROAD CARRIERS AND MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 
     ON LAND, ON WATER, OR THROUGH THE AIR'';
       (B) by striking the items relating to sections 1992 and 
     1993; and
       (C) by inserting after the item relating to section 1991 
     the following:

``1992. Terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers 
              and against mass transportation systems on land, on 
              water, or through the air.''.

       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to chapter 97 and inserting the following:

``97. Railroad carriers and mass transportation systems on land, on 
    water, or through the air...................................1991''.

       (3) Title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i), by striking ``1992 
     (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist 
     attacks and other acts of violence against mass 
     transportation systems),'' and inserting ``1992 (relating to 
     terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad 
     carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on 
     water, or through the air),'';
       (B) in section 2339A, by striking ``1993,''; and
       (C) in section 2516(1)(c) by striking ``1992 (relating to 
     wrecking trains),'' and inserting ``1992 (relating to 
     terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad 
     carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on 
     water, or through the air),''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans travel to work, school and other 
activities aboard trains, buses, planes, and other forms of mass 
transportation. Our railways are also a primary method of shipping raw 
materials and manufactured goods across the country.
  The openness of our rail and mass transportation network makes it a 
target for terrorists who would attack our Nation. The network is also 
a target for people to make empty threats or disable on-track 
materials. These actions put rail employees and passengers at risk. 
Threats and sabotage against railways also harm interstate commerce by 
causing delays on important transportation corridors.
  Richard Reid, now known as the Shoe Bomber, actually had a charge 
against him dismissed because current law does not explicitly define an 
airplane as a vehicle for the purpose of prosecuting. This amendment 
would change that and bring updated and uniform protections to all 
forms of railroad carriers and mass transportation providers.
  My amendment establishes penalties of up to 20 years for a person who 
knowingly wrecks, derails, or sets fire to a rail or mass 
transportation vehicle or knowingly disables on-track equipment or 
signals. The same penalty applies for conspiracy or threats against a 
rail or mass transportation system.
  The penalty is increased with life imprisonment with death-penalty 
eligibility if an attack results in the death of a person.
  My amendment allows the courts to consider an attack against a train 
carrying hazardous materials as an aggravated circumstance. The 
amendment includes a 30-year minimum sentence for an attack on a train 
carrying high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel.
  I first offered this amendment last October in the wake of the 
terrorist attack against the rail system in Madrid. The House passed 
this amendment on the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act, but it was 
removed in conference with the Senate. The tragic attacks on London on 
July 7 and another attack there earlier today have demonstrated again 
the dangers facing rail and transit systems in the U.S. and throughout 
the world.
  We must not wait for another attack here at home to modernize our 
criminal penalties for attacks and sabotage against our transportation 
system.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the 
gentlewoman's amendment and believe that it is an important 
consolidation in the criminal law relative to attacks against mass 
transportation systems.
  First, we should not have different crimes and different penalties 
depending upon which type of mass transportation system is attacked. We 
should have uniform penalties and uniform definitions of criminal 
activity so someone who attacks a railroad will get the same penalty as 
someone would in a similar attack against a subway system or a bus or 
an airplane.
  Secondly, I think we have to broaden the definition of what is 
``attacked'' to make sure that attacks against support systems for mass 
transportation systems are treated the same way as an attack against 
the transportation system itself. We should not have a lesser penalty 
if you put a bomb in the station than if you blow up a train while it 
is crossing a bridge over a big gorge.
  And I also think we ought to ensure that terrorists who attack these 
systems are punished with appropriate severity. The gentlewoman's 
amendment does all of these things, and I would urge its support and 
unanimous adoption by the House.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as it has been indicated, this amendment involves a lot 
of new definitions. It would be helpful if we had considered this in 
committee where we could have gotten the definitions straight.
  This is a complex rewrite of two different sections, 18 U.S.C. 1992 
and 1993, which involve wrecking trains and attacks on mass 
transportation systems.
  First, it involves mandatory minimums, and we know from our committee 
deliberations that the Judicial Conference writes us a letter every 
time we consider a new mandatory minimum to remind us that mandatory 
minimums violate common sense. If it is a commonsense sentence, it 
should be applied. If it is not a commonsense sentence, it has to be 
applied anyway.
  In addition to that, there are problems with the death penalties in 
the bill. It would allow death penalties for conspiracy. That offers up 
constitutional questions. It also would create new death penalties even 
in States that do not include a death penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to deal with attacks on mass transit, 
it would be helpful if we would put the money into port security and 
rail security and bus security and fund those resources. That would go 
a long way in making us more secure. Having four amendments like this 
when we have insufficient time to deliberate is not substantially as 
helpful as the money would have been in making us more secure.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to respond to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I 
appreciate his comments.
  The mandatory minimums in this amendment do not apply to threats or 
conspiracies. A person found guilty of a threat or conspiracy could 
face a sentence up to 20 years. A 30-year mandatory sentence is 
required for someone

[[Page 16949]]

who attacks a train carrying nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste. Quite frankly, I think that is extremely appropriate and severe, 
and what we are trying to do here is create these statutes as a 
deterrent.
  Certainly I agree we need to put money into port security around the 
Nation, and we are doing that; but we need to go at this problem of 
terrorism with a full frontal attack.
  I would like to say when we considered this, this amendment has been 
around for about a year. We considered it last year and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) asked that we consider it in the PATRIOT Act 
and that is what we are dealing with today. So I think it is 
appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding me time.
  Could I ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), is this not kind of unusual? There 
have been no hearings and we are combining the death penalty by putting 
together two substantial terrorist crimes, section 1992 and 1993.
  Well, maybe I should ask the author of the bill, if he is on the 
floor, why this has not had committee consideration.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say that it would have 
been extremely helpful if we could have considered that. We could have 
got the definition straight, and we could have considered it in a more 
deliberative process rather than trying to deal with it here on the 
floor where we have some constitutional questions such as the death 
penalty for conspiracy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Right. Is the author of the amendment here?
  I was wondering if this was sent over to the chairman of the 
committee at some earlier point in time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. This is the identical amendment that was considered 
last year in October, and it was also passed in the House Intelligence 
Reauthorization Act that we passed. So this amendment has been 
considered several times in this House.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I am sorry I was not on the 
committee the day they had the hearing, but normally death penalty 
matters are not brought to the floor this way. Normally I thought it 
was the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice in the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the House that would be considering this 
matter.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 
has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 
the right to close.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say in closing this has been considered in the 
past. It has passed. It passed on a voice vote last October. I think in 
view of what is happening to the mass transit systems around the world, 
we have heard a lot of hue and cry about helping to protect our mass 
transit systems in this country. And I think by making standard 
criminal penalties, we are going a step in the right direction to use 
these penalties as a deterrence to terrorism on our mass transit and 
rail systems. I urge passage of the amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I say 
that we need money for port security and rail security funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that 
we have spent since 9/11 only a couple hundred million dollars in 
homeland security to secure our rail systems. That is the real problem 
here. We spent nearly $25 billion on air security and a couple of 
hundred million on rail.
  I would also not that although I do not oppose the death penalty, I 
doubt very much the death penalty is going to deter the suicide 
bombers. I think we need to look at not deterrents but at actually 
preventing the terrorists from harming Americans by protecting the 
systems and putting our money where our mouth is and in securing these 
rail systems which we have failed to do.
  As my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary knows, I also serve 
on the Committee on Homeland Security. We are well aware of how 
deficient our efforts have been in this regard. That is the crux of 
this problem, not threatening suicide bombers with the death penalty.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 109-178.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.

       Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting at the end of the table of sections the 
     following new item:

``3511. Judicial review of requests for information.''

     ; and
       (2) by inserting after section 3510 the following:

     ``Sec. 3511. Judicial review of requests for information

       ``(a) The recipient of a request for records, a report, or 
     other information under section 2709(b) of this title, 
     section 625(a) or (b) or 626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act, section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy 
     Act, or section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 
     may, in the United States district court for the district in 
     which that person or entity does business or resides, 
     petition for an order modifying or setting aside the request. 
     The court may modify or set aside the request if compliance 
     would be unreasonable or oppressive.
       ``(b) The recipient of a request for records, a report, or 
     other information under section 2709(b) of this title, 
     section 625(a) or (b) or 626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act, section 1114(a)(5)A) of the Right to Financial Privacy 
     Act, or section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, 
     may petition any court described in subsection (a) for an 
     order modifying or setting aside a nondisclosure requirement 
     imposed in connection with such a request.
       ``(1) If the petition is filed within one year of the 
     request for records, a report, or other information under 
     section 2709(b) of this title, section 625(a) or (b) or 
     626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 
     1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or 
     section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, the 
     court may modify or set aside such a nondisclosure 
     requirement if it finds that there is no reason to believe 
     that disclosure may endanger the national security of the 
     United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, 
     or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with 
     diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety 
     of any person. The certification made at the time of the 
     request that disclosure may endanger of the national security 
     of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations 
     shall be treated as conclusive unless the court finds that 
     the certification was made in bad faith.
       ``(2) If the petition is filed one year or more after the 
     request for records, a report, or other information under 
     section 2709(b) of this title, section 625(a) or (b) or 
     626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 1114 
     (a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or section 
     802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, the issuing 
     officer, within ninety days of the filing of the petition, 
     shall either terminate the nondisclosure requirement or re-
     certify that disclosure may result

[[Page 16950]]

     a danger to the national security of the United States, 
     interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or 
     counterintelligence investigation, interference with 
     diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical 
     safety of any person. In the event or re-certification, the 
     court may modify or set aside such a nondisclosure 
     requirement if it finds that there is no reason to believe 
     that disclosure may endanger the national security of the 
     United States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, 
     or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with 
     diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety 
     of any person. The re-certification that disclosure may 
     endanger of the national security of the United States or 
     interfere with diplomatic relations shall be treated as 
     conclusive unless the court finds that the re-certification 
     was made in bad faith. If the court denies a petition for an 
     order modifying or setting aside a nondisclosure requirement 
     under this paragraph, the recipient shall be precluded for a 
     period of one year from filing another petition to modify or 
     set aside such nondisclosure requirement.
       ``(c) In the case of a failure to comply with a request for 
     records, a report, or other information made to any person or 
     entity under section 2709(b) of this title, section 625(a) or 
     (b) or 626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 
     1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or 
     section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, the 
     Attorney General may invoke the aid of any court of the 
     United States within the jurisdiction in which the 
     investigation is carried on or the person or entity resides, 
     carries on business, or may be found, to compel compliance 
     with the request. The court may issue an order requiring the 
     person or entity to comply with the request. Any failure to 
     obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as 
     contempt thereof. Any process under this section may be 
     served in any judicial district in which the person or entity 
     may be found.
       ``(d) In all proceedings under this section, subject to any 
     right to an open hearing in a contempt proceeding, the court 
     must close any hearing to the extent necessary to prevent an 
     unauthorized disclosure of a request for records, a report, 
     or other information made to any person or entity under 
     section 2709(b) of this title, section 625(a) or (b) or 
     626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 
     1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or 
     section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947. 
     Petitions, filings, records, orders, and subpoenas must also 
     be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to 
     prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a request for records, 
     a report, or other information made to any person or entity 
     under section 2709(b) of this title, section 625(a) or (b) or 
     626(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 
     1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act, or 
     section 802(a) of the National Security Act of 1947.
       ``(e) In all proceedings under this section, the court 
     shall, upon the Federal Government's request, review the 
     submission of the Government, which may include classified 
     information, ex parte and in camera.''.

     SEC. __. CONFIDENTIALITY OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.

       (a) Section 2709(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read:
       ``(c) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure.--
       ``(1) If the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than 
     Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special 
     Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the 
     Director, certifies that otherwise there may result a danger 
     to the national security of the United States, interference 
     with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence 
     investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or 
     danger to the life or physical safety of any person, no wire 
     or electronic communications service provider, or officer, 
     employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person 
     (other than those to whom such disclosure is necessary in 
     order to comply with the request or an attorney to obtain 
     legal advice with respect to the request) that the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to 
     information or records under this section.
       ``(2) The request shall notify the person or entity to whom 
     the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any recipient disclosing to those persons necessary 
     to comply with the request or to an attorney to obtain legal 
     advice with respect to the request shall inform such person 
     of any applicable nondisclosure requirement. Any person who 
     receives a disclosure under this subsection shall be subject 
     to the same prohibitions on disclosure under paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) Section 625(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1681u(d)) is amended to read:
       ``(d) Confidentiality.--
       ``(1) If the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than 
     Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special 
     Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the 
     Director, certifies that otherwise there may result a danger 
     to the national security of the United States, interference 
     with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence 
     investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or 
     danger to the life or physical safety of any person, no 
     consumer reporting agency or officer, employee, or agent of a 
     consumer reporting agency shall disclose to any person (other 
     than those to whom such disclosure is necessary in order to 
     comply with the request or an attorney to obtain legal advice 
     with respect to the request) that the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation has sought or obtained the identity of 
     financial institutions or a consumer report respecting any 
     consumer under subsection (a), (b), or (c), and no consumer 
     reporting agency or officer, employee, or agent of a consumer 
     reporting agency shall include in any consumer report any 
     information that would indicate that the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation has sought or obtained such information on a 
     consumer report.
       ``(2) The request shall notify the person or entity to whom 
     the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any recipient disclosing to those persons necessary 
     to comply with the request or to an attorney to obtain legal 
     advice with respect to the request shall inform such persons 
     of any applicable nondisclosure requirement. Any person who 
     receives a disclosure under this subsection shall be subject 
     to the same prohibitions on disclosure under paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (c) Section 626(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1681v(c)) is amended to read:
       ``(c) Confidentiality.--
       ``(1) If the head of a government agency authorized to 
     conduct investigations or, or intelligence or 
     counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, 
     international terrorism, or his designee, certifies that 
     otherwise there may result a danger to the national security 
     of the United States, interference with a criminal, 
     counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, 
     interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life 
     or physical safety of any person, no consumer reporting 
     agency or officer, employee, or agent of such consumer 
     reporting agency, shall disclose to any person (other than 
     those to whom such disclosure is necessary in order to comply 
     with the request or an attorney to obtain legal advice with 
     respect to the request), or specify in any consumer report, 
     that a government agency has sought or obtained access to 
     information under subsection (a).
       ``(2) The request shall notify the person or entity to whom 
     the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any recipient disclosing to those persons necessary 
     to comply with the request or to any attorney to obtain legal 
     advice with respect to the request shall inform such persons 
     of any applicable nondisclosure requirement. Any person who 
     receives a disclosure under this subsection shall be subject 
     to the same prohibitions on disclosure under paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (d) Section 1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial Privacy 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(D)) is amended to read:
       ``(D) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--
       ``(i) If the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than 
     Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special 
     Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the 
     Director, certifies that otherwise there may result a danger 
     to the national security of the United States, interference 
     with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence 
     investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or 
     danger to the life or physical safety of any person, no 
     financial institution, or officer, employee, or agent of such 
     institution, shall disclose to any person (other than those 
     to whom such disclosure is necessary in order to comply with 
     the request or an attorney to obtain legal advice with 
     respect to the request) that the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation has sought or obtained access to a customer's 
     or entity's financial records under paragraph (5).
       ``(ii) The request shall notify the person or entity to 
     whom the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(iii) Any recipient disclosing to those persons necessary 
     to comply with the request or to an attorney to obtain legal 
     advice with respect to the request shall inform such persons 
     of any applicable nondisclosure requirement. Any person who 
     receives a disclosure under this subsection shall be subject 
     to the same prohibitions on disclosure under paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (e) Section 802(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 436(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure.--
       ``(1) If an authorized investigative agency described in 
     subsection (a) certifies that otherwise there may result a 
     danger to the national security of the United States, 
     interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or 
     counterintelligence investigation, interference with 
     diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical 
     safety of any person, no governmental or private entity, or 
     officer, employee, or agent of such entity, may disclose to 
     any person (other than those to whom such disclosure is 
     necessary in order to comply with the request or an attorney 
     to

[[Page 16951]]

     obtain legal advice with respect to the request) that such 
     entity has received or satisfied a request made by an 
     authorized investigative agency under this section.
       ``(2) The request shall notify the person or entity to whom 
     the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Any recipient disclosing to those persons necessary 
     to comply with the request or to an attorney to obtain legal 
     advice with respect to the request shall inform such persons 
     of any applicable nondisclosure requirement. Any person who 
     receives a disclosure under this subsection shall be subject 
     to the same prohibitions on disclosure under paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. __. VIOLATIONS OF NONDISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY LETTERS.

       Section 1510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Whoever knowingly violates section 2709(c)(1) of this 
     title, sections 625(d) or 626(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d) or 1681v(c)), section 1114(a)(3) or 
     1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 
     U.S.C. 3414(a)(3) or 3414(a)(5)(D)), or section 802(b) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)) shall be 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, and if the violation 
     is committed with the intent to obstruct an investigation or 
     judicial proceeding, shall be imprisoned for not more than 
     five years.''.

     SEC. __. REPORTS.

       Any report made to a committee of Congress regarding 
     national security letters under section 2709(c)(1) of title 
     18, United States Code, sections 625(d) or 626(c) of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d) or 1681v(c)), 
     section 1114(a)(3) or 1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial 
     Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3) or 3414(a)(5)(D)), or 
     section 802(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 436(b)) shall also be made to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my good friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I want to assure my 
colleagues that this amendment has nothing to do with exporting freedom 
to Cuba. We have teamed up on a few of those items. We are also teaming 
up with other Members of the PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus, the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), on 
this amendment.
  The Flake-Delahunt-Otter-Nadler amendment provides critical reforms 
to national security letters. We have heard a lot about this today.
  First, this amendment specifies that the recipient of a national 
security letter may consult with an attorney and may also challenge 
national security letters in court. A judge may throw out the national 
security letter by request of the government ``if compliance would be 
unreasonable or oppressive to the recipient of the national security 
letter.''
  The amendment also allows the recipient to challenge the 
nondisclosure requirement in the national security letter request. A 
judge could modify or remove the nondisclosure requirement of the 
national security letter ``if it finds that there is no reason to 
believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the 
United States, interfere with criminal counterterrorism or 
counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, 
or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.''
  Another important reform to this amendment is that it modifies the 
nondisclosure requirements so that recipients may tell individuals whom 
they work with about the national security letter request in order to 
comply with the national security request.
  The amendment also contains penalties for individuals who violate the 
nondisclosure requirements of a national security letter and requires 
that reports on national security letters by Federal agencies to 
Congress must also be sent to the House and Senate Committees on the 
Judiciary so we can exercise proper oversight.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank again the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and his staff in helping to write and to 
work with me on this amendment. It is important to strengthening the 
rights of average American citizens who receive these national security 
letters, and I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  One of the things that the bill did in section 215 was to provide a 
procedure for challenging a section 215 order. What this does is it 
codifies procedures for challenging the receipt of national security 
letters, and I think that this is a step in the right direction.
  Let me say that a national security letter is never issued to the 
target of an investigation. A place where it would be issued would be 
to get records that are in the custody of someone who may have 
information relative to the target of the investigation. For example, 
it appears that one of the people who was involved in the London 
bombing 2 weeks ago studied at the University of North Carolina. To get 
the records of this person's attendance at the University of North 
Carolina would be a subject of a national security letter. Now, I do 
not know whether one has been issued or one has not been, but that is 
an example of the type of information that the NSLs are used for.
  This is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I support it.
  Mr. FLAKE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, though I am in support of the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without objection, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I applaud the cosponsors of this particular amendment 
because it is a significant amendment.
  As it was indicated, under the PATRIOT Act the FBI can merely assert 
at this point in time that records are relevant to an intelligence 
investigation. That can be just simply about foreign policy objectives. 
In addition, it added a permanent nondisclosure requirement which, if 
violated, imposed severe sanctions on the recipient of the so-called 
national security letter.
  This was truly a profound expansion of government power where the 
subject of the order need not be suspected of any involvement in 
terrorism whatsoever, where there was no judicial review, where there 
was no statutory right to challenge, and where the order gags the 
recipient from telling anyone about it. A Federal District Court in New 
York has already ruled that the national security letters for 
communication records, as amended by the PATRIOT Act, are 
unconstitutional because they are coercive and violate the fourth 
amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and the first 
amendment as a result of the gag order.
  This amendment, I would submit, attempts to salvage the use of 
national security letters in intelligence investigations so as to 
comply with constitutional standards. It gives the recipient of a 
national security letter his day in court. He can consult a lawyer. A 
judge can reject or modify the FBI demand upon a finding that 
compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The recipient can also 
seek to modify or set aside the gag order if the court makes certain 
findings that it was unnecessary. The amendment goes further to modify 
the nondisclosure requirement so that the recipients can

[[Page 16952]]

tell other people with whom they work about the demand so that they can 
comply with the order.
  As I suggested, the current law is of dubious constitutionality, and 
I would suggest this amendment would permit appropriate use of so-
called national security letters that would not only pass 
constitutional muster but would be sound policy. It also, I believe, 
strikes a more reasonable balance between privacy and freedom on the 
one hand and national security on the other with only a negligible 
burden imposed on the government, and so I urge passage.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, section 505 is one of the most, perhaps the most 
egregious provision of the PATRIOT Act, and it provides essentially, as 
was said before, that any Director of an FBI field office can issue a 
national security letter directing the production of financial, 
telephone, Internet and other records, period, without a court order, 
without any judicial approval, and there is no provision for going to 
courts to oppose that. The person whose privacy it is sought to invade 
never knows about it because it is directed to a third party; namely, 
the Internet service provider, the telephone company, or whoever. 
Furthermore, they are prevented by the gag order provision of section 
505 from ever telling the person whose privacy is affected or anyone 
else about this.
  The Federal Court in New York has ruled it unconstitutional for two 
reasons. One, you cannot issue this kind of what amounts to an 
intrusive search warrant without any judicial approval or provision for 
getting judicial approval. That is a violation of the fourth amendment. 
And, two, the gag order, the nondisclosure provision, was ruled as a 
prior restraint on speech, the first amendment.
  This amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor, is an attempt to 
solve these problems. It goes a considerable distance towards solving 
these problems. I do not think it solves all the problems. It does not 
make section 505 acceptable or even, in my opinion, constitutional, but 
it goes a good distance towards doing that.
  It solves the first problem by saying that you can get a national 
security letter without going to court, but the recipient can go to 
court to quash it. That is a minimum standard that ought to be adhered 
to. This amendment does that, and I am very pleased it does that. It 
allows the recipient of a national security letter to ask that the gag 
order be set aside, and it sets limits on the gag order and says it has 
to be renewed after a certain time period and you have to apply to a 
court to extend it.
  It fails, in my opinion, in that second provision to reach 
constitutional status by saying that the showing the government has to 
make to get an extension of the gag order, the affidavit by the 
government officer asking for the extension, shall be treated as 
conclusive unless the court finds that certification was made in bad 
faith. So that is not really up to the judgment of the judge, and I do 
not think that would satisfy the court on the first amendment. But it 
goes a long way, as I said, toward making this less egregious a 
violation of civil liberties and towards making it more constitutional. 
I do not think it goes far enough but it is a step forward.
  It also does not deal with the fact that section 505 should be 
sunsetted. Because section 505, like some of the other sections we have 
talked about, is a great expansion of surveillance and police powers, 
and it may be a necessary one, although I do not agree with that, but 
even if it is necessary we should be nervous about the expansion of 
surveillance and police powers and we should revisit that and force 
Congress to revisit it through using a sunset every so often.
  So this amendment goes a considerable distance in the right 
direction. It does not go far enough, in my opinion, to solve the 
problems with section 505, but it does go several steps in the right 
direction, and I commend the sponsor for introducing it, the main 
sponsor for drafting it, and I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, national security letters are sort of a strange beast. 
It is kind of difficult to figure out what they are. They are sort of 
like administrative subpoenas, but they are not actually administrative 
subpoenas. They are limited in their scope. NSLs do not allow the FBI 
to read the contents of communications but rather the records of 
communication. That may seem like a legal nicety, but it is a major 
difference. The Supreme Court has recognized those kinds of 
differences.
  Nonetheless, the recipients of these, while the Justice Department 
has told us that they allow them to talk to their lawyers, if you look 
at the statute as it exists now there seems to be a question about 
that. This amendments makes its explicit. Also, currently under the 
law, there is no enforcement mechanism when they do issue a national 
security letter. This amendment allows such an enforcement mechanism by 
going to a court.
  So in a very real sense this amendment both protects those who would 
receive one of these letters, and if they object to it they can go to 
an attorney, they can fight it, and it also gives the government a 
means of attempting to try and secure compliance with it. So in both 
instances, I think what we have done is give a little more regularity 
to it. We have given it a little terra firma here, and for that reason 
I support it and would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member 
on the committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, the floor manager who is, I think, supporting the amendment, but 
he gives some very compelling arguments against the amendment.
  Let me pick up from there. The major problem is that under this 
amendment the FBI can still compel personal records of anyone if they 
are relevant to an investigation, even if the person whose records they 
seek is not suspected of criminal or terrorist activities.
  Is that correct? May I ask the author of this bill whether or not 
that is true? Is it not true that the FBI can still compel personal 
records even if a person is not suspected of any criminal or terrorist 
activities?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, what the PATRIOT Act did was to move or to 
change the standard to relevance. There has to be a finding of 
relevance. If it is relevant to an investigation, then it is in my view 
proper they should be able to compel records.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what is new then? We 
have got the law now, we have the amendment here.
  Well, let me ask you this. Is the national security letter still 
unconstitutional under the court ruling?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
there is a disagreement on what the court was actually ruling on, 
whether they were ruling on the access to counsel or, my understanding 
of it, whether or not the request itself was unconstitutional. If that 
is the case, let the legal process take its course.
  But I think what we need to do here is make sure that the agencies 
have the tools they need, offering the protections we are offering 
here.
  Mr. CONYERS. So we do not know what the court was doing. It is not

[[Page 16953]]

clear, depending on what someone's interpretation is.
  Well, let me ask you this. The amendment allows the recipient to 
challenge the letter in court, but it can be quashed only if compliance 
would be unreasonable or oppressive to the recipient?

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, we 
are offering in this amendment additional protections. We are ensuring 
that those who receive these letters, and we have in other amendments 
as well, have access to counsel, not only to respond to the inquiry, 
but also to challenge in court.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. I think underlying the gentleman from Michigan's 
question, is this not about the difference between the FBI and law 
enforcement using a national security letter to ask a bank to give it 
the financial records of all of its customers versus asking the bank to 
give it the financial records of the specific individuals it suspects 
might be involved or that it is interested in? I think that is at the 
heart of the question of the standard. That is why relevance to a 
terrorist investigation is not an adequate standard. You want the focus 
on something specific, rather than all of the bank's records of 
everybody who uses that bank. You want the people who might have had 
contact with the terrorist or suspected terrorist.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, part of what we have done in this amendment 
is offer individuals the opportunity to challenge the scope of the 
request. So whether or not it applies to them or additional people is 
challengeable through this amendment. That is part of what we are doing 
here.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
that requires the bank, not the customers who had nothing to do with 
anything, to make the challenge.
  Mr. FLAKE. The bank can make the challenge itself. The bank can 
challenge the scope. They are the recipient of the national security 
letter.
  Mr. BERMAN. The bank is, not the customers of the bank.
  Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Arizona if 
he feels that this cures the problem, or does he have some of the 
reluctance that the gentleman from New York, a co-author of the 
amendment, has about it not going far enough.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman from New York. I tend not to be as concerned as he is at this 
point. I share many of his concerns about the overall PATRIOT Act, and 
we have worked to put many of the amendments in place to put ourselves 
at rest. I thank him for his involvement. We have had great involvement 
from both sides of the aisle here.
  These amendments that I am offering today, virtually all of them, are 
offered with Democrat support and cosponsorship. My name is not even at 
the top of some of them. We have had good cooperation. I feel good 
about this amendment, about the protection we have offered here, and 
also to ensure that in cases where it is needed, we offer additional 
tools for compliance with these requests as well. I am pleased with the 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
and we do not have any more time over here, that is why we are using 
this process. But does the gentleman know there are new criminal 
penalties in this part of 505 now added as a result of this amendment?
  Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his information.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to say in 
closing, this has been a collaborative process. I appreciate those who 
have worked with us, and again my appreciation goes to the chairman of 
the committee for having such a thorough process and allowing us to 
have amendments. As I mentioned, we had a markup that lasted over 12 
hours. Many of these amendments were discussed at length, as were other 
amendments. I appreciate that and urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 109-178.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 17. DEFENSE AGAINST GAG ORDERS.

       A person who has received a non-disclosure order in 
     connection with records provided under the provisions of law 
     amended by sections 215 and 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act may 
     not be penalized for a disclosure if the disclosing person is 
     mentally incompetent or under undue stress, or for a 
     disclosure made because of a threat of bodily harm or a 
     threat to discharge the disclosing person from employment. In 
     order to avoid the penalty, the disclosing person must notify 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation immediately of the 
     existence of the circumstance constituting the exemption.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have this amendment that I place before this body. It 
is an amendment that talks about gag orders. It talks about a provision 
of law both in sections 215 and 550 that does not allow one who is the 
target of an investigation or one who has assisted the FBI in gaining 
records, access to records, to talk about the investigation, to let 
people know they have been contacted, or that they in some way have 
been involved in assisting the authorities in seeking information.
  This amendment of mine is a very, very simple amendment that talks 
about what happens to someone who is under a gag order who may, through 
no fault of their own, place themselves in danger of being harmed or 
being killed because someone finds out that they have been involved, 
they are involved in the investigation in some way, and they are 
threatened by the person who discovers that they have been involved in 
the investigation; or what happens to someone who is employed at a 
particular business where they give the FBI access to information. The 
employer wants to know did they give out information, they cannot tell 
them, they get fired from their job.
  So I have raised the question about this gag order of what happens 
when someone is placed in a position through no fault of their own that 
they have to give up information. And someone may argue that in one 
section of the law, 215, they have the right to get a lawyer and this 
could be included in the information that they share with the lawyer 
that would attempt to get them out from under the gag order. But we 
know that there is nothing in 215 or 550 specifically that would 
protect this person under the gag order.

[[Page 16954]]

  Mr. Chairman, what I am attempting to do, and in the scheme of things 
perhaps it is not that important because we have a PATRIOT Act, PATRIOT 
Act II, that will basically extend two sections of the PATRIOT Act for 
10 years, sections 206 and 215, access to businesses and other records 
and roving wiretaps; and we have these 14 other sections of the PATRIOT 
Act that are made permanent.
  I suppose my colleagues and the people of America should be worried 
about all of this, all of what is being done in this PATRIOT Act in the 
name of fighting terrorism. People should be wondering whether or not 
they are being asked to give up their civil liberties, if they are 
being led by the people that they elect to protect them to undermine 
their own civil liberties.
  This is not simply about the gag order under 215 or 550. This is 
about gagging Americans, period. This is about saying shut up, do not 
tell me what the Constitution guarantees you, we do not want to hear 
that. We want you to understand that there are enough people in power 
who believe that in order to exercise the power as they see it, they 
have a right to undermine the Constitution of the United States of 
America. Not only do they believe it, but they are selling it to you 
based on fear and intimidation.
  So my amendment in the scheme of things is not that important to try 
and protect a person or some persons. My amendment really is about 
giving me a platform to talk about how America and American citizens 
are being gagged, how we are being told that no matter that folks have 
really fought for this Constitution, no matter that we really had some 
true times when we have had to stand up for the Constitution, and even 
go to war to protect the Constitution. We are now being led to believe 
that anything that is done, and that is what this PATRIOT Act is all 
about, it goes beyond what anybody should have to expect in order to 
fight terrorism.
  This PATRIOT Act is not in the best interest of Americans. There are 
those on the other side of the aisle who have gotten up today and said 
I talked to a constituent who complained about the PATRIOT Act and I 
said to that constituent how have you been harmed, and the constituent 
could not explain it.
  It is not about whether or not I feel my rights have been denied or 
not. It is about whether or not the children of this Nation, the 
children of the future, it is about whether all Americans are being 
denied their civil liberties because they have been led into the 
support of a PATRIOT Act that really just flies in the face of the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  And so when I talk about the gag orders and I reference them in order 
to frame an amendment or to have this platform to talk about this 
PATRIOT Act, it is really about whether or not I am talking about all 
Americans being gagged in a very, very clever and sophisticated way.
  There are those who will not oppose this PATRIOT Act because they do 
not want to be considered unpatriotic. I stand here in the Congress of 
the United States questioning the wisdom of my colleagues on the 
PATRIOT Act, and I dare anyone to say I am unpatriotic because I do it. 
I do it because I am patriotic, and I live in an America that has 
taught me that there is a Constitution that demands we as American 
citizens question our government, that we do not allow our government 
to do anything that they want to do.
  I have been elected by the people, and I could be a part of this 
charade of the government doing whatever we want to do in the name of 
so-called terrorism, but I do not see myself as an elected official nor 
do I see myself simply as a citizen that believes that the government 
is right in everything that it does.
  Because I do not believe that, I dare to question those on the other 
side of the aisle and those on this side of the aisle. I dare those who 
would wish to stand up and challenge me and charge me with not being 
patriotic because I do so to get up here and debate me now on 
patriotism.
  And I will tell Members what patriotism is all about. Patriotism is 
about a Constitution and a democracy that says America is different 
from everybody else and that we have come through a time and a history 
that has taught us that if you are to have a democracy, you must have 
certain guarantees, and those guarantees are embodied in the 
Constitution that guarantees us freedom of speech, freedom of movement, 
freedom of religion, and freedom of privacy. Those are the things that 
we should hold dear and we should fight to protect and we should hold 
onto with everything that we have, with every ounce of energy that we 
have.
  Nobody, no elected official, no so-called leader is so smart they 
should tell the American people do not worry about it, give up your 
rights and give up your freedom, I know better than you. I hope that 
somewhere in America, in some fourth and fifth grade out there, there 
are teachers who are watching the debate on the PATRIOT Act. I hope 
that these are the teachers who are teaching the Constitution of the 
United States and the history of this Constitution, about how it 
evolved and how it developed; and I hope they will teach them about the 
amendments to the Constitution that strengthen it to make sure that we 
embody in this Constitution all that may not have been thought about in 
the original framing of it by way of amendment.
  I hope that the teachers are able to say watch the debate on the 
floor of the Congress of the United States so that you can understand 
that there are some intrusions that are taking place today with the 
PATRIOT Act that fly in the face of the Constitution.

                              {time}  1615

  I want you to be aware of it because when you leave this class, when 
you grow up to be whatever it is you are going to be, I expect that no 
matter where you are, whether you are in the United States, abroad, no 
matter where you are, you know how to stand up and fight for the 
Constitution of the United States that guarantees certain rights and 
privacies that are now being intruded upon with this kind of act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think every Member of this Congress, liberal or 
conservative, Republican or Democrat, takes seriously the oath that we 
took at the beginning of this Congress to preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic.
  The amendment that the gentlewoman from California has introduced is 
going to make it very difficult to conduct any type of criminal or 
terrorist investigation using a national security letter because it 
basically eviscerates the nondisclosure rules that national security 
letters and literally all other tools in criminal investigations have 
attached to them.
  I think the last thing in the world the American public wants to see 
is if somebody gets a national security letter or a grand jury subpoena 
or testifies before the grand jury, something in the newspaper that 
says that John Doe is being investigated. And if John Doe is really 
involved in criminal or terrorist activities, that is going to be a 
tip-off that the feds are on the heels of John and maybe he ought to 
flee the country or do other things to eliminate the evidence that 
would be used to convict that person of the crime that he has either 
committed or a crime that he is in a conspiracy with others to commit.
  Let me say that by their very nature national security letters 
involve our national security, and the national security letters are 
usually not issued against the targets of investigations but to get 
records that would establish evidence that could be used against the 
target of the investigation. And if that evidence that was being 
collected ended up being disclosed and became a matter of discourse in 
the public press, I do not know how law enforcement would be able to 
complete its investigation to go after those that are suspected of 
criminal or terrorist activities.
  But let me say there is another aspect to the gentlewoman's amendment

[[Page 16955]]

that I think is really bad policy and can really hurt somebody who is 
innocent. Because of the nature and threat of terrorism, when there is 
a tip that is sent to law enforcement, law enforcement is obligated to 
investigate it. Now, that tip might be false. That tip might be a 
malicious tip by a personal enemy against the person who had 
information given to law enforcement. But, nonetheless, law enforcement 
has got to proceed. And if they do their investigation and issue 
national security letters and find out that the person that the tip was 
lodged against is up to absolutely no criminal or terrorist activity, 
if that person's name gets in the newspaper, their reputation is 
destroyed even though they are innocent. So I think that the amendment 
of the gentlewoman from California is one that will end up leaking 
information about an investigation of someone who may be guilty but 
also leaking information about an incomplete investigation of someone 
where the evidence would exonerate them before that exoneration has 
been established. And that is why, either way we see it, the 
gentlewoman's amendment is bad news and should be rejected.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waters' 
Amendment and in strong opposition to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2005.
  ``National security letters'' subpoena personal records including 
telephone, internet, financial and consumer documents, but almost all 
records are included in this category.
  The Waters' Amendment protects the rights of those individuals who 
are mentally incompetent, under undue stress, at risk for bodily harm 
or losing their employment from being forced to disclose information.
  It is an honest attempt to reinstate some balance to protect those 
who are among the most vulnerable under this legislation.
  But the underlying bill, Mr. Chairman, like the original PATRIOT Act, 
continues to trample on civil liberties. But this bill goes further. It 
makes fourteen of the most egregious components of the PATRIOT Act 
permanent. This is outrageous.
  This bill damages fundamental freedoms:
  by invading medical privacy
  by allowing the FBI to search in any location showing minimal 
justification
  by allowing for sneak and peak, national security letters, and roving 
``John Doe'' wire tap provisions
  by forcing libraries to police their patrons (an act that this body 
just voted to overturn I might add)
  and by stripping Congress of the right to review and amend these 
provisions.
  These all are examples that blatantly undermine our constitution and 
do nothing to make us safer.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us understand the need to balance civil 
liberties with national security. And we can do this without 
sacrificing one for the other.
  Mr. Chairman, simply said, this bill is absolutely overreaching. The 
Waters amendment protects the rights of those who are the overlooked 
victims of national security letters--upholding the constitution is 
patriotic, even in times of national security crises.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this amendment.
  First, we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the Flake/
Delahunt/Otter/Nadler amendment--protections for recipients of a 
National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena used in 
terrorism investigations or in covert Intelligence activities. They are 
a necessary and critical tool in our fight against terrorism.
  Current laws prohibit the recipient of a National Security Letter 
from disclosing the fact that they received it. This amendment creates 
a safe haven for individuals who tell others that they received a 
National Security Letter, by prohibiting them from being punished for 
violating the order not to tell.
  Non-disclosure orders prevent others being investigated for 
involvement in terrorist activities from being alerted to that 
investigation. If a person knows he is being investigated, he may 
destroy evidence, tell others with whom he is working about the 
investigation, and flee the country.
  While I understand the motive behind not punishing mentally 
incompetent individuals or those under duress, the law already allows 
for that through the use of an affirmative defense.
  Any amendment that makes it easier to tip off terrorists to the fact 
that they are being investigated is irresponsible and should not be 
supported. The Waters amendment should be opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report No. 109-178.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Delahunt

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 9. DEFINITION FOR FORFEITURE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 
                   806 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

       Section 981(a)(1)(G) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 2331'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``2332b(g)(5)(B)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment. My cosponsors are the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  But, again, let me begin by saying this is not about Cuba. So let us 
make that very clear. This is about domestic terrorism and the 
definition of domestic terrorism. And while it does not create a new 
crime under the PATRIOT Act, the definition triggers an array of 
expanded governmental authorities, including enhanced civil asset 
seizure powers. It is so broadly defined that it could include acts of 
civil disobedience because they may involve acts that endanger human 
life, one of the elements that goes into the definition of domestic 
terrorism.
  For example, they could implicate anti-abortion protesters who 
illegally block access to federal clinics, which could be interpreted 
by a liberal activist Attorney General as endangering the lives of 
those seeking abortions, or environmental protesters who trespass on 
private land and climb trees to prevent logging, which could be 
interpreted by a conservative activist Attorney General as endangering 
their own lives or the lives of the loggers. Since such actions are 
usually undertaken to influence government policy, another of the 
elements that go into the definition of domestic terrorism, such 
activities could be treated in such a way as to have severe unintended 
consequences, particularly with regard to the government seizure of 
property and/or assets.
  For example, any property used to facilitate the acts, such as a 
church basement, or property affording a source of influence over the 
group, like a bank account of a major donor to a direct action anti-
abortion group, could be seized without any criminal conviction and 
without a prior hearing notice under section 806, which is implicated 
into the PATRIOT Act.
  This amendment curbs those unintended consequences and possibilities 
and appropriately limits the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism 
to those that constitute a Federal, substantive crime of terrorism, 
instead of any Federal or State crime. It also limits the definition to 
actions that are actually intended to influence government policy on a 
civilian population by coercion or intimidation, instead of the current 
standard that the actions ``appear to be intended'' to have that 
effect.
  I would conclude by reminding my colleagues on the Committee on the 
Judiciary that this amendment is drawn from the version of the PATRIOT 
Act that was unanimously approved by the Committee on the Judiciary in 
October of 2001, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim

[[Page 16956]]

the time in opposition, even though I am not in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a good amendment and ought to be 
supported. It makes important changes to the reference in the 
forfeiture statute to the definition of international terrorism from 
the definition of domestic terrorism.
  There are various definitions of terrorism under Federal law. In 
title XVIII there has been a confusion over a new definition created in 
the USA PATRIOT Act for domestic terrorism. That provision is supposed 
to be used for administrative procedures such as nationwide searches, 
but another part of the PATRIOT Act, section 806, uses the reference 
for asset forfeiture, which is more of a penalty. This has raised 
concerns about those who exercise their first amendment rights. As a 
result, groups from both sides of the political spectrum have wanted to 
change the definition of domestic terrorism.
  The amendment fixes the problem by changing the reference in section 
806, asset forfeiture, to the definition of a Federal crime of 
terrorism under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) instead, which lists specific 
crimes that constitute terrorism. Thus the more general definition may 
still be used for administrative purposes and the more narrow 
definition for penalties and criminal prosecutions.
  I believe that this is a good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me just briefly thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
working on this amendment. In the committee, with regard to other bills 
that we have considered, one having to do with providing a death 
penalty for terrorist criminals, this issue came up as well. ``Domestic 
terrorism,'' is that too broad a term and how should it be applied? If 
one causes injury to a Federal building by mistake, are they then 
subject to these fines? And nobody really believes that the death 
penalty would be imposed in that case; however, the threat of something 
like that is out there, acts as a form of intimidation to people from 
engaging in lawful protest. So the overly broad definition does come up 
as a problem sometimes, and in this case it comes up as a problem when 
it has to do with seizure of assets.
  So I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. I am 
glad to join him and I am glad the chairman has articulated so well the 
need for this amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the chairman for his support, and I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona in helping draft this particular amendment, and I particularly 
appreciate the example that he enumerated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 109-178.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 17. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO DELAY NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3103a(b)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, except if the 
     adverse results consists only of unduly delaying a trial'' 
     after ``2705''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 3103a of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Reports.--On an annual basis, the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts shall report to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate the number of search warrants granted during 
     the reporting period, and the number of delayed notices 
     authorized during that period, indicating the adverse result 
     that occasioned that delay.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today with the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Otter), my fellow co-chairman of the PATRIOT Act Reform 
Caucus.
  This amendment addresses two important issues regarding delayed 
notification of the so-called sneak-and-peek searches. The amendment 
removes the clause that allows judges, when deciding whether initially 
to grant a sneak-and-peek search, to allow it for the reason that it 
would unduly delay a trial to notify the target of the search. This 
amendment strikes ``unduly delaying a trial'' because we believe it is 
too low a standard to allow for a delayed notification search under the 
adverse impact clause of section 2705 of title XVIII.

                              {time}  1630

  This amendment also requires on an annual basis that the 
Administrative Office of the Courts must report to the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees on the number of search warrants granted and the 
number of delayed notices authorized. The AOC would also be required to 
indicate the cause of delay in each instance. This important 
information will help improve Congress' oversight role on delayed 
notification for so-called sneak-and-peak searches in the future by 
providing Members with this information on an annual basis.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) and his staff for once again working to address the 
concerns we had on delayed notification. I urge my colleagues to accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I do not 
think that there should be a delayed notification warrant excuse for 
unduly delaying a trial, but we have heard an awful lot about delayed 
notification warrants here. Let me again repeat the fact that delayed 
notification warrants were not created by the PATRIOT Act when it was 
passed 3\1/2\ years ago. It was existing law for drug-trafficking and 
racketeering investigations, and the PATRIOT Act only expanded it to 
include terrorism investigations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to give Members today a very vivid 
pictorial example on how these warrants work. Using a delayed 
notification search warrant, the DEA and other Federal agents entered a 
home along the border between Washington State and Canada on July 2, 
2005, because there was information that the first-ever tunnel under 
the border between Canada and the United States has being used for drug 
trafficking.
  What did they find? They found a very sophisticated tunnel, and took 
a picture of it. There were various camera devices and listening 
devices that the agents put into this tunnel, and they ended up finding 
that the tunnel had been used to transport 93 pounds of marijuana from 
Canada into the United States.

[[Page 16957]]

  This is a picture of the U.S. entrance to the tunnel on our side of 
the border, very close to Canada. It probably is best described as the 
U.S. exit. But on the Canadian side of the border the entrance to the 
tunnel was in a building. So the contraband was stored in this 
building, was put into the tunnel, taken underneath the border and 
exited in the United States.
  Now, the tunnel that I showed in the first picture was big enough to 
smuggle terrorists across the border, should it be used for that 
purpose. All this ended up being exposed as a result of a delayed 
notification warrant. The amendment is a good one; so are delayed 
notification warrants.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first of all continue to remind my colleagues 
and remind America that juxtaposed along this debate today is an 
existing Bill of Rights that is embedded in our Constitution. It 
obviously says there is the right to a trial by jury, the right to due 
process, the right to association, the right to freedom of speech. So 
as we have been debating through the day, I appreciate the tone of my 
colleagues, because on both sides of the aisle we have raised concerns 
about overreach and over-breadth when it comes to denying or 
eliminating the rights and freedoms of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that we would have had the 
opportunity to debate an amendment on section 213 that would have 
sunsetted it; not eliminated it, but sunsetted it.
  I heard in earlier debates that none of these provisions have been 
found unconstitutional by Federal courts. Let me remind the chairman 
that this legislation is barely, barely, 3 years old. In fact, I would 
argue that it is not sufficient time to know the extensiveness of the 
over-breadth on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) for at least working to 
find some limitations on a section that allows the FBI to execute a 
search and seizure warrant, again in violation of one of our prime 
tenets of the Constitution, the fourth amendment, without notifying the 
owner for 6 months, if providing advance notice would interfere with 
the investigation. How broad can that be, to suggest if it is not where 
it would intrude on the investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, as a local sitting judge, I spent many a night, 11, 12 
o'clock at night, hearing from undercover police officers who were in 
fact searching for a search warrant, one to be signed by this judge. I 
listened to probable cause statements, PC statements. I would argue 
vigorously that none of that took an excessive amount of time. The 
probing that was allowed at that time, I believe, was a good firewall 
to protect the rights, the innocent rights, of Americans.
  Last night we saw on the news media a recounting of a tragic incident 
that occurred with out-of-control bounty hunters, many times used by 
local law enforcement. This is not exactly the same issue; but upon 
going into a home or insisting that someone was someone who was not 
someone, a woman who was innocent was dragged down to the courthouse or 
to jail. Unfortunately, she called the police when the bounty hunter 
came and the police insisted she was the right person. She was not. 
That is just an example of what happens with overreach.
  So this particular amendment that requires reporting on an annual 
basis of the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Committees on 
the Judiciary in the House and Senate gives us a limited way for 
oversight, the number of search warrants during the reporting period 
and the number of delayed notices authorized in the period, indicating 
the adverse result that occasioned that delay, a mere bringing to the 
attention of those of us who have the responsibilities of oversight as 
to what is happening out there.
  The difficulty with this amendment, however, is it leaves us with no 
action, because section 213 does not have a sunset provision. Because 
it continues to exist, we then have no way to respond as to whether or 
not there is overreach.
  I emphasize to my colleagues, again, that we are all in the business 
of fighting terror. In the backdrop of the incidents in London 2 weeks 
ago and today, we recognize we are united around that issue. But I have 
never talked to any American who concedes they cannot balance their 
civil liberties and freedom with the idea of fighting in a war on 
terror.
  I would hope simply that we would have the opportunity to debate this 
further and recognize that this body has gone on record, particularly 
by its work in CJS funding, where we offered not to fund section 213. I 
hope my colleagues will support this amendment, but recognize the 
dilemma we are in.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, in my rush to get over here, I had not 
realized that the chairman had already accepted this amendment, and I 
thank the chairman for that. But there are a couple of thoughts that I 
would like to add to the discussion that have already been provided.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), who is cochair of the PATRIOT Act Caucus with myself. I know 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the chairman worked very 
hard in committee to make sure that they came out with a product that 
would at least not be as bad as it was when we first passed it in 2001. 
I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and also the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate 
the opportunity to discuss this issue today as we engage in one of the 
most important debates that we will have during the 109th Congress--
that is, how to ensure that neither our national security nor the 
individual liberties guaranteed by our Constitution are sacrificed to 
the threat of terrorism.
  The amendment we are offering today narrows the scope of so-called 
``sneak-and-peek'' delayed notification search warrants and reins in 
the far-reaching power that we hastily gave the federal government in 
the frightening and chaotic days following the 9/11 attacks. We have 
often heard that ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used before the 
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I recognize that the courts have 
upheld their use in limited and extraordinary circumstances.
  However, it deeply disturbs me that in codifying this practice we did 
not employ the notification procedure upheld by most courts before the 
PATRIOT Act or practice due caution in an effort to protect our Fourth 
Amendment rights. Instead, we took this already questionable practice 
and made it the standard rather than the exception.
  Our amendment today is an important step toward reinstituting those 
precious checks and balances that make this a valuable tool for 
protecting security instead of a threat to the liberties that are given 
by our Creator, recognized by the Framers and embodied in our 
Constitution.
  One of my basic concerns with the way that sneak-and-peek was crafted 
under the PATRIOT Act is the extraordinarily broad list of situations 
in which the power can be used. Section 213 of this Act lists 
circumstances, including threat to life and destruction of evidence, in 
which notification of the execution of a search warrant may be delayed. 
I understand that these are extreme situations which may call for 
extraordinary tools. However, the last provision of this list is so 
vague, so broad, and so all-encompassing that it essentially expands 
the use of this tool to any investigation in which it would be easier 
for law enforcement to deny suspects the Constitutional right of 
notification.
  Our amendment today takes one of the first steps toward rectifying 
this serious flaw in the original PATRIOT Act language by eliminating 
part of this ``catch-all'' provision. In addition, it includes 
reporting language so that we in Congress know when delayed 
notification is requested and in what circumstances it is used. Armed 
with this knowledge, we will be better able to conduct proper oversight 
to ensure that this tool is used to protect personal freedoms while it 
advances the cause of preventing and prosecuting terrorism.

[[Page 16958]]

  In the Fourth Amendment, the Framers endorsed the principle that it 
is the government's role to protect our right to individual privacy, 
not to encroach upon it. This idea of individual rights--that each 
person is created uniquely and with certain inalienable rights that 
government cannot take away--is the most basic expression of who we are 
as a nation and a people.
  That is why it is so vital that this amendment becomes law. While I 
confess that I would have liked to see stronger language protecting our 
Fourth Amendment rights included as part of this bill, I am pleased 
that with this amendment we have the opportunity to reinstate some of 
the constitutional safeguards that were compromised during passage of 
the PATRIOT Act.
  Such a move would strengthen rather than weaken our ability to fight 
against those who wish to destroy the essence of what it means to be an 
American.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this amendment. I am pleased with the 
efforts that are under way here on the floor to help try to deal with 
the shape of the PATRIOT Act. This is a critical discussion.
  We have been fighting the war on terror longer than we fought World 
War II, and it appears to be that this is going to be in the American 
landscape for as far into the future as we can see.
  This amendment helps get a handle on the sneak-and-peak provisions. 
Section 213, which authorizes the sneak- and-peak investigation, is not 
restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses. It may be used in 
connection with any Federal crime, including misdemeanors. The PATRIOT 
Act did not establish oversight standards for these investigations.
  The public has a right to know how these activities are being 
undertaken. We saw one of these searches in Oregon go sideways and 
devastate the life of a local attorney. Brandon Mayfield was jailed for 
2 weeks as his name was leaked to the media, falsely linking him to the 
Madrid bombing. Now this man is suing the FBI; but he will never, never 
be able to clear his name.
  I appreciate what my friends, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), have attempted to do here, 
narrowing the application and providing more information to Congress. 
This is critical. I would hope we would be able to push the limits a 
little further. I am very apprehensive about this, but we are involved 
with a process that is very important for Congress.
  As I mentioned, this is what we see for as long as the eye can view. 
In 2001, just days after 9/11, we rushed through a bill that simply 
cast aside the important by-products that were developed by the 
Committee on the Judiciary on a bipartisan basis. I am hopeful that 
this is going to give us a chance to work together to deal with the 
important security provisions.
  Nobody wants America at risk; but it is important that we narrow 
provisions, wherever possible, that we have appropriate sunset 
provisions and that we are monitoring carefully. It is critical both 
for the civil liberties of Americans and for developing the right tools 
to fight terrorism.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and thank him for his constant moral 
compass on civil liberties and civil rights for the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that this is another one 
of the famous half-loaf amendments that we are being peppered with this 
afternoon.
  The amendment leaves ``interferes with an investigation'' open, but 
it does take away ``when it would delay a trial.'' We get half a loaf 
here again, so I cannot oppose the amendment, because it did make some 
improvement. After all, what is progress, even if it may be slow?
  But at the same time, this may be a nonterrorist provision within the 
PATRIOT Act, because we already have a provision for secret searches 
for terrorists. So letting this section expire altogether would not 
interfere with secret searches for terrorists at all.
  What we found out in our examination, the staff examination, is that 
90 percent of the uses of the sneak-and-peak authority have been for 
nonterrorism cases. It seems to me that this amendment goes along in 
that same direction.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 
a former attorney general of the great State of Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of the Flake-Otter sneak-and-peek amendment to drop 
this provision. Keeping America safe is not a partisan issue; but, 
unfortunately, several provisions of H.R. 3199 are.
  Now, we could have had a bipartisan solution that extends the 
provisions that are effective and modifies those that need changes. 
This amendment addresses one of those changes by preventing the use of 
sneak-and-peek searches when the sole purpose of the delayed 
notification is to postpone a trial. The current provision is too 
broad, and this amendment would limit these searches to terrorism 
cases.
  Now, I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new 
technology and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring that 
our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our Nation safe. 
However, providing these tools need not come at the expense of the 
liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have 
already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to make many changes to 
H.R. 3199 to fight terrorism and to protect our freedoms. I urge the 
Senate to take a more bipartisan approach to the renewal of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, and I hope that they are more open to sunsets which 
require Congress to review the act, extend what is working, and change 
what is not. Sunsets would make the bill better, but the rule does not 
permit us to vote on this important modification.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this responsible 
amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time to 
conclude briefly, simply to say that the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
mentioned that the amendment represents half a loaf, and I will freely 
concede that it does. Rarely do you get an amendment to a bill that 
represents the full loaf.
  But I should point out that in committee we considered another half-
a-loaf amendment, if you will, to section 213; and that amendment by 
myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) clarified or, not 
clarified, but actually put in some false stops with regard to delayed 
notification searches where you have to appear before a judge after 80 
days to justify delayed notifications. After 90-day increments beyond 
that time, you have to appear again and justify that search as well. 
That is the other half a loaf.
  We have also had many other amendments in committee, and here on the 
floor, that could be considered half a loaf. With that, I think we got 
a pretty good product in the end, and that is what we are seeking to 
have here.
  I would urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 16959]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
109-178 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order: amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona; amendment No. 3 
offered by Mr. Issa of California; amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. 
Capito of West Virginia; amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Flake of 
Arizona; amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts; 
amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 402, 
noes 26, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               AYES--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--26

     Bachus
     Biggert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cole (OK)
     Davis (KY)
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Myrick
     Oxley
     Price (GA)
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walsh

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (SC)
     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Miller (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the vote). 
Members are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1711

  Mr. BUYER, Mrs. BONO, Messrs. HOEKSTRA, ROGERS of Michigan, LEWIS of 
California, COLE, CALVERT, WALSH, SESSIONS, Mrs. MYRICK, Messrs. PRICE 
of Georgia, BACHUS, OXLEY and THOMAS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 403, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Issa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406, 
noes 21, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 404]

                               AYES--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert

[[Page 16960]]


     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--21

     Bachus
     Biggert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Cole (OK)
     Davis (KY)
     DeLay
     Everett
     Hefley
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Linder
     Oxley
     Rogers (MI)
     Shuster
     Souder
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Ros-Lehtinen


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the vote). 
Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362, 
noes 66, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 405]

                               AYES--362

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton

[[Page 16961]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--66

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (SC)
     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Saxton


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1729

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 394, 
noes 32, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 406]

                               AYES--394

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--32

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Bonner
     Bono
     Cantor
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Everett
     Franks (AZ)
     Hall
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     LaHood
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     McKinney
     Oxley
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (SC)
     Cox
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Johnson (CT)
     Mica
     Taylor (NC)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1736

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Delahunt

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 7, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen

[[Page 16962]]


     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--7

     Bono
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Rogers (MI)
     Saxton

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boehner
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cox
     Gohmert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1743

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407, 
noes 21, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 408]

                               AYES--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup

[[Page 16963]]


     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--21

     Barton (TX)
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Cantor
     Cole (OK)
     Davis (KY)
     Hayworth
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Knollenberg
     Linder
     Oxley
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Souder
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (SC)
     Cox
     Gohmert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the vote). 
Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1750

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3199) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat 
terrorism, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________