[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 573-580]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    USA PATRIOT ACT 5-WEEK EXTENSION

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4659) to amend the USA PATRIOT Act to extend the sunset 
of certain provisions of such Act.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4659

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT 
                   ACT.

       Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
     Providing Appropriate Tolls Required to Intercept and 
     Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 
     107-56; 115 Stat. 295) is amended by striking ``February 3, 
     2006'' and inserting ``March 10, 2006''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4659 currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4659, to extend until March 10 
crucial

[[Page 574]]

provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire this Friday.
  On December 23 of last year, both Houses unanimously passed a short-
term extension of the PATRIOT Act to preserve critical antiterrorism 
initiatives that were set to expire at the end of last year. 
Unfortunately, we must pass another extension today because a minority 
of Members of the other body have blocked an up-or-down vote on the 
conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 which the full House passed by a 
broad bipartisan vote of 257-171 on December 14.
  The opponents in the other body have repeatedly cited their concern 
for civil liberties as a justification for their obstruction. 
Ironically, the conference report that has been blocked contains dozens 
of vital civil liberty protections, many included at their request.

                              {time}  1600

  The original PATRIOT Act contains none of these protections. As a 
result, we are once again forced to extend the current PATRIOT Act 
rather than to implement the current important civil liberties 
protections contained in the conference report that even its detractors 
acknowledge is an improvement over current law.
  When the PATRIOT Act was first passed in October of 2001, I pledged 
to rigorously examine its implementation to ensure that new law 
enforcement authorities did not violate civil liberties. Since April of 
2005 alone, the House Judiciary Committee received testimony from 35 
witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act. In addition to 
hearings, I have requested, along with Ranking Member Conyers, written 
responses from the Attorney General to detailed questions regarding use 
of the PATRIOT Act and whether any of its provisions have been used to 
violate individuals' civil liberties.
  A chronology of these legislative and oversight activities follows:

Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act From October, 2001, to November, 2005:

       1. November 9, 2005, Department of Justice classified 
     briefing for Committee on the Judiciary staff on press 
     accounts of FBI use of NSLs;
       2. October 25, 2005, Department of Justice classified 
     briefing for House & Senate Committees on the Judiciary and 
     Committees on Intelligence staff on press accounts of FBI use 
     of NSLs;
       3. October 6, 2005, Department of Justice classified 
     briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on 
     press accounts of mistakes in FBI applications to the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court under the USA PATRIOT Act;
       4. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to July 1, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       5. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to May 19, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       6. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions 
     regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       7. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       8. July 5, 2005, letter from FBI Director Meuller to Senate 
     Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding 
     use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       9. July 1, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions 
     regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       10. July 1, 2005, letter from House Committee on the 
     Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act; .
       11. June 29, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to April 5, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       12. June 10, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       13. June 8, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       14. May 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & 
     Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions of 
     the Criminal Code & the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters; & 
     Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed 
     at U.S. Facilities Abroad;
       15. May 19, 2005, letter from House Committee on the 
     Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       16. May 10, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & 
     Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material 
     Support to Terrorists & Foreign Terrorist Organizations & on 
     the DOJ Inspector General's Reports on Civil Liberty 
     Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act;
       17. May 10, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     on continued oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       18. May 5, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & 
     Homeland Security hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic 
     Communications to Protect Life and Limb;
       19. May 3, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & 
     Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, & 223 of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act & Their Effect on Law Enforcement 
     Surveillance;
       20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     & Homeland Security hearing: Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act--If It Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?;
       21. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     & Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 206 and 215 
     Improved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 
     Investigations?;
       22. April 26, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     William Moschella to Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to 
     April 4, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       23. April 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     & Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, & 
     225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, & Sections 6001 & 6002 of the 
     Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 
     improved FISA Investigations?;
       24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     & Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, & the Age of 
     Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages 
     Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer 
     Trespasser Communications; & Section 220: Nationwide Service 
     of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence);
       25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the 
     Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition;
       26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
     & Homeland Security hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the 
     USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing;
       27. April 6, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     with Attorney General Gonzales;
       28. April 5, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;
       29. March 22, 2005, Department of Justice law enforcement 
     sensitive briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and 
     staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
       30. September 22, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing: A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation & 
     Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act & the SAFE Act May 
     5, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: Aiding 
     Terrorists--a Review of the Material Support Statute;
       31. May 20, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     on FBI Oversight: Terrorism;
       32. April 14, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on Preventing & Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A 
     Review of Current Law;
       33. February 3, 2004, Department of Justice briefing for 
     House Committee on the Judiciary staff on its views of S. 
     1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 
     2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both 
     bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act;
       34. November 20, 2003, request by Chairmen Sensenbrenner & 
     Hostettler to GAO requesting a study of the implementation of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. Report 
     was released on June 6, 2005;
       35. October 29, 2003, Department of Justice classified 
     briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on 
     the use of FlSA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
       36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, & Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two 
     Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots;
       37. August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for 
     House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding 
     the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct 
     delayed searches & collect business records & the effect of 
     the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;
       38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on Law Enforcement & Terrorism;
       39. June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for 
     Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, 
     Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
       40. June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified 
     briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on 
     the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;

[[Page 575]]


       41. June 5, 2003, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing 
     on the U.S. Department of Justice, including its use of the 
     provisions authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act;
       42. May 20, 2003, House Subcommittee on the Constitution 
     hearing: Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth 
     Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government 
     Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks;
       43. May 13, 2003, letter from Acting Assistant Attorney 
     General, Jamie Brown to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
       44. April 1, 2003, letter from the House Committee on the 
     Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       45. October 9, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
     Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: Tools Against 
     Terror: How the Administration is Implementing New Laws in 
     the Fight to Protect our Homeland;
       46. September 20, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney 
     General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the 
     Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT 
     Act;
       47. September 10, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act in Practice: Shedding Light on 
     the FISA Process;
       48. August 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney 
     General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the 
     Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT 
     Act;
       49. July 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General 
     Daniel Bryant to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
     responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
       50. July 25, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on the Department of Justice, including its 
     implementation of the authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT 
     Act;
       51. June 13, 2002, letter from the House Committee on the 
     Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act;
       52. April 17, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Administrative 
     Oversight and the Courts hearing: ``Should the Office of 
     Homeland Security Have More Power? A Case Study in 
     Information Sharing;''
       53. December 6, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While 
     Defending Against Terrorism;
       54. December 4, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While 
     Defending Against Terrorism;
       55. November 28, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
     hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While 
     Defending Against Terrorism; and
       56. October 3, 2001, Senate Subcommittee on the 
     Constitution, Civil Rights, & Property Rights hearing: 
     Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Inspector General has issued six reports and 
found no evidence that law enforcement has abused the PATRIOT Act. 
Opponents of the PATRIOT Act have repeatedly pointed to the Brandon 
Mayfield case as an example of abuse of the act. Members of Congress 
asked the DOJ Inspector General to examine whether the PATRIOT Act was 
abused in this case. On January 6, 2006, the Inspector General 
concluded: ``We do not find any evidence that the FBI misused any of 
the provisions of the PATRIOT Act in conducting its investigation of 
Mayfield.''
  Even though no credible evidence of abuse of the PATRIOT Act has been 
received by Congress, the conference report adopted over 30 new 
additional civil liberty protections to address concerns about the 
potential for misuse. For example, the conference report contained 
several new reporting requirements that will provide additional 
information for congressional oversight of the act. These provisions 
establish specific procedures to consult legal counsel and seek 
judicial review for those wishing to challenge the national security 
letter or a section 215 order, two of the authorities most criticized 
by opponents.
  Additionally, the conference report increases accountability by 
requiring the FBI director, deputy director, or executive assistant 
director to authorize applications that request the FISA court to issue 
a section 215 order for certain records, including library records, 
medical records, educational record and tax return records. The 
conference report also requires public reporting of the aggregate use 
of section 215 orders.
  Because time does not permit me to detail all of the civil liberty 
protections contained in the conference report, the following list 
details each of those safeguards.

  Additional Civil Liberties Protections Contained in the Conference 
Report on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
                             Act of 2005''

       The conference report contains the following additional 
     safeguards:
       Requires a description of a specific target in both the 
     application and the court order for ``roving wiretaps,'' and 
     specific facts in the application that show that the target's 
     actions may thwart surveillance efforts--if the target's true 
     identity is unknown.
       Requires that the FBI must notify the court within 10 days 
     after beginning surveillance of any new phone for all 
     ``roving wiretaps.'' The notice must include the total number 
     of electronic surveillances conducted under the court's 
     multipoint order.
       Includes new reporting requirements to Congress, including 
     new details about the use of ``roving'' authority.
       Requires that for delayed notice search warrants that 
     notice of the search be given within 30 days of its 
     execution, unless the facts justify a later date, eliminating 
     the open-ended period of delay permissible under current law.
       Allows for extensions of the delay period in giving notice 
     of a search, but only upon an updated showing of the need for 
     further delay. Also, it limits any extension to 90 days or 
     less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay.
       Adds new reporting requirements to Congress on the use of 
     delayed notice search warrants.
       Requires for section 215 orders, relating to investigator's 
     access to business records, a statement of facts showing 
     reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other 
     things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to 
     protect against international terrorism or espionage. This 
     provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT 
     Act, which required the government only to certify that the 
     records at issue were sought for an authorized 
     investigation--without any factual showing.
       Requires a three part test for section 215 orders that 
     ensures the records are sought for: a foreign power or an 
     agent of a foreign power; the activities of a suspected agent 
     of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized 
     investigation; or an individual in contact with, or known to, 
     a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an 
     authorized investigation. This test combined with the newly 
     required statement of facts should mitigate concerns of 
     government ``fishing expeditions,'' while maintaining the 
     flexibility for legitimate terrorism investigations.
       Explicitly guarantees the right for recipients of section 
     215 orders to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review.
       Requires high level approval by either the FBI Director, 
     Deputy Director, or Executive Assistant Director for requests 
     for certain records, including library records, medical 
     records, educational records, and tax return records.
       Limits the scope of section 215 orders to materials that 
     could be obtained via grand jury subpoena or a similar court 
     order for the production of records.
       Limits retention, and prohibits dissemination, of 
     information concerning U.S. persons.
       Requires that the DOJ Inspector General conduct two 
     separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders that 
     will examine: any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating 
     to 215 orders, including any improper or illegal use of the 
     authority; the manner in which such information is collected, 
     retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and an 
     assessment of whether the minimization procedures protect the 
     constitutional rights of United States persons.
       Requires enhanced reporting to Congress of section 215 
     orders, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library 
     records, medical records, educational records, and other 
     sensitive types of records.
       Requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section 
     215 orders.
       Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to 
     consult with legal counsel.
       Creates an explicit right to judicial review of NSL 
     requests.
       Permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside an NSL if 
     compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise 
     unlawful--this is the same standard used to modify or quash a 
     subpoena in a criminal case.
       Provides for judicial review of the nondisclosure 
     requirements.
       Adds a ``knowing and willfully'' standard that must be 
     proven before someone who discloses an NSL can be subject to 
     a 1-year misdemeanor offense.
       Requires the DOJ IG to conduct two comprehensive audits of 
     the FBI's use of NSLs.
       Requires the Attorney General and the Director of National 
     Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the 
     feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSLs to 
     ensure the protection of constitutional rights of U.S. 
     persons.
       Adds a new ``sunshine'' provision that requires annual 
     public reporting on NSLs.
       Provides for expanded congressional access to significant 
     FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence 
     Committees.
       Includes a provision requiring the FISA Court to submit its 
     rules and procedures to Congress.

[[Page 576]]

       Creates new reporting requirements for the use of emergency 
     authorities under FISA.
       Requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures 
     of communications information made under section 212 of the 
     USA PATRIOT Act.
       Requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to 
     Congress on the Department's data-mining activities.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I would remind Members, Mr. Speaker, of both 
Houses that the conference committee dissolved after the conference 
report was filed and the House acted in a bipartisan manner to approve 
it. I believe it is healthy to continue to debate the merits of the 
PATRIOT Act and to continue vigorous congressional oversight of its 
authorities. But it is also imperative that we not play political games 
with the vital tools our law enforcement and intelligence communities 
need to keep us safe from additional attacks on American soil.
  We must not rebuild the wall of separation between the FBI and CIA 
and return to the pre-9/11 mindset that made America vulnerable to a 
terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
extension of the PATRIOT Act so as to give the other body the time to 
expeditiously pass the conference report on H.R. 3199. As recent events 
have highlighted, the threat of terrorism has not receded, nor has the 
urgency of continued vigilance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this short extension today. And 
doing so will give the Members an opportunity to work together to work 
on the conference report from the last Congress to include some 
commonsense improvements to ensure that there are appropriate 
protections for our citizens' civil rights and civil liberties.
  Now, many of the provisions of the original PATRIOT Act for which 
concerns had been expressed have proven to be noncontroversial and have 
not operated to threaten civil liberties. Other provisions, however, 
have become more problematic. This extension will give us the time to 
look at things like the searches for libraries and other intrusive 
records; second, a standard for issuing national security letters which 
are essentially subpoenas without probable cause and without the normal 
checks and balances and a mechanism for making sure that personal 
information obtained under these letters is destroyed or properly 
protected.
  A review of wire taps, I think, is appropriate, the roving wiretaps 
and also review of wiretaps under the President's new NSA policy which 
many legal scholars believe are just illegal. Those are spying on 
domestic law-abiding citizens. If there is probable cause that someone 
is breaking the law, obviously a criminal warrant could be given. We 
need to look and see exactly what is being done and review the law to 
determine whether or not they are, in fact, illegal. The elimination of 
totally unnecessary provisions in the conference report involving 
habeas corpus and expanding the death penalty had nothing to do with 
the original PATRIOT Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has indicated, there are improvements in 
the PATRIOT Act that are in the conference report, but we need to make 
sure that we have a version that can pass. We can pass a PATRIOT Act. 
The Senate has passed the PATRIOT Act several times on virtually a 
unanimous vote or even unanimous consent. The House Judiciary Committee 
passed unanimously the original PATRIOT Act until a late-night switch 
to another version that no one had read. But we can pass a PATRIOT Act; 
and if we use our time effectively, we can develop an act which serves 
the needs of law enforcement without allowing the unnecessary spying on 
law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor 
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to remind my colleagues of 
two home truths that may have been forgotten in the 4 years and 4 
months since September 11, 2001.
  The first of these is that we are a Nation at war. Decades of dealing 
with terror networks like al Qaeda as a matter of law enforcement or 
criminal justice helped bring us to September 11. We passed the PATRIOT 
Act because we understood that we are at war with international 
terrorism and that wartime measures were required.
  The second home truth is that this war is being fought in a 
technological environment as different from World War II as the 
technology of World War II is different from the technology of the War 
Between the States. In a high velocity age of digital communications, 
the President and those most directly responsible for forestalling 
another attack of this sort that Osama bin Laden recently threatened 
must have the means appropriate to the life-or-death task at hand.
  If my colleagues will permit me, there has been something surreal, 
even unreal, about the recent debate on this front. We seem to have 
forgotten that the terrorists who hijacked the plane that was flown 
into the Pentagon on September 11 received more than a dozen calls from 
al Qaeda operatives in Yemen while the terrorists were living in San 
Diego, and that the NSA, fearful of being accused of domestic spying, 
did not act.
  Do we want a repeat of that? I do not think any of us do. But those 
who seem to imagine that President Bush is a greater threat to civil 
liberties than Osama bin Laden is to American lives and liberties need 
to stop politicizing this issue and work with the rest of us to strike 
a rational balance between a legitimate concern for civil liberties and 
the imperative need to equip the agencies responsible for our national 
security with the technological tools necessary to do their job in an 
environment where a few hours' delay might prove lethal.
  Let us refuse to tie our hands again as our hands were tied before 
September 11, with the gravest results. The PATRIOT Act is as necessary 
today as the reauthorization of the draft was in the dangerous months 
before Pearl Harbor. A few months before that devastating surprise 
attack, this House came within one vote of essentially dismantling the 
U.S. Army by refusing to reauthorize conscription. Wiser counsels 
prevailed.
  Let us rise to our responsibility as those who saw more clearly in 
mid-1941 rose to theirs, and let us give those charged with the weighty 
responsibility of providing for our national security in a new kind of 
war, fought with new kinds of weapons, the tools and the legal 
authority they need to do their crucial job.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking 
member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support powerful, flexible, and 
modern tools to detect the plans and intentions of terrorists who may 
be operating in our country. For that reason, I voted for the PATRIOT 
Act, even though I believed and still believe there is room for 
improvement.
  We are being asked today to extend the PATRIOT Act for 5 weeks so 
that Congress can continue to work on some of its most controversial 
provisions. I think this extension makes good sense. We must extend it, 
mend it, but not end it.
  To that end, I hope we can soon reach agreement on critical issues. 
First, we should modify the report to explicitly require that records 
sought under Section 215--commonly called the Library provision--be 
connected to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is 
the traditional FISA standard. A looser standard invites ``fishing 
expeditions.''
  Second, we should explicitly state 215 recipients have the right to 
challenge a gag order in court.
  Third, we should ensure that National Security Leaders are not used 
as back doors for getting library circulation, medical, tax and 
educational institutions records, and to modify the ``conclusive 
presumption'' language which makes it virtually impossible for NSL 
recipients to challenge ``gag'' orders in court. These and

[[Page 577]]

other critical changes to NSLs are included H.R. 4570--a bill that I, 
my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Conyers and 
other congressional leaders introduced in December.
  As part of the negotiations, Congress must also insist that the 
President provide the facts on his NSA terrorist surveillance program. 
His refusal to brief the 36 Members of the intelligence committees, 
even though hundreds of people in the executive branch have been 
briefed, violates the requirements of the National Security Act of 
1947.
  The President also needs to explain why current law, the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not provide an adequate framework 
for his program. Some claim that FISA cannot handle modern 
communications. But the fact is that the administration requested, and 
Congress passed as part of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, numerous changes to 
FISA to deal with phones, e-mail and the Internet. For example, 
Congress lowered the legal standards for FISA pen registers and trap-
and-trace devices to make it easier to track the calls of terrorists 
who may be in the U.S. We also expanded these pen traps to cover e-mail 
and the Internet, and we granted roving John Doe wiretap authority to 
deal with the issue of unidentified terrorists switching phones.
  Moreover, in the 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, we extended the 
FISA emergency provision to 72 hours, so that surveillance is not 
delayed by the paperwork involved in getting a warrant. All of these 
authorities were powers that the President asked for and supported.
  Mr. Speaker, FISA is modern, flexible, and effective. Since 1979, 
19,000 warrants have been approved. Those who prepare the warrants tell 
me the process is efficient. If the President believes otherwise, he 
must come to Congress and explain why.
  Mr. Speaker, the message conferees, and I am one, must send is that 
the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. 
Let me repeat: the American people want to do whatever is necessary to 
defend America. But we also want our President to follow the law.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any of 
us in the backdrop of 9/11 have changed our attitude about the 
consistency and the value and the importance and the crucialness of 
fighting the war on terror. With not enough time to pursue that debate, 
let me simply say that this extension is crucial for a reasonable 
response to the needs of the American people to have their liberty 
protected. And I read very quickly a statement from ``On Liberty,'' 
written in 1859: ``Protection therefore against the tyranny of the 
magistrate is not enough. There needs protection against also the 
tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.''
  This is an important extension, and I wish it were longer because it 
is crucial that we investigate beyond the infringement on library 
records, beyond the infringement in terms of wiretapping, is the 
President's NSA terrorist surveillance program and the lack of use of 
FISA.

                              {time}  1615

  FISA is an effective tool, and as I heard the President use the term, 
to be hit again, obviously striking at the fear and the hearts of 
Americans. None of us want to be hit again, but we do want to protect 
our civil liberties. This extension will allow that very effective 
debate, and we will get the right way to fix the PATRIOT Act and 
protect America.
  One of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, made the following 
statement regarding the importance of civil liberties:

       Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of 
     a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the 
     nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in 
     proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation.

  I have in my hand a copy of chapter 1 of John Stuart Mill's On 
Liberty, written in 1859. Selections of this chapter are quite fitting 
for today's proceeding:

       Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the 
     magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against 
     the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against 
     the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil 
     penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on 
     those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, 
     if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not 
     in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to 
     fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a 
     limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion 
     with individual independence; and to find that limit, and 
     maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a 
     good condition of human affairs, as protection against 
     political despotism. (emphasis added).

  We passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 6 weeks after the terrorist attacks 
of September 11. While the actual bill passed by wide margins in both 
Chambers of Congress, I made the record clearly reflect my strong 
reservations about provisions that pose serious threats to fundamental 
freedoms and civil liberties.
  In my capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I joined 
a caucus of members in submitting letters to the administration and to 
the Department of Justice requesting documentation and statements that 
speak to the protection of individual rights in light of the 
potentially dangerous provisions contained within the bill.
  Congress included in the bill a ``sunset clause'' that provides an 
expiration date for over a dozen provisions on December 31, 2005 unless 
we act to renew them. This fact was the impetus behind several hearings 
held by the committee in the first session of the 109th Congress. One 
of the most talked about issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act is the 
President's authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance 
searches--in essence, execute an order that allows the National 
Security Agency, NSA, to monitor, without a warrant, the international, 
and sometimes domestic, telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds 
and possibly even thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the 
United States.
  I do not oppose the monitoring of telephone calls and e-mail messages 
when it is necessary for national security reasons. I oppose engaging 
in such monitoring without a warrant as the law specifies. We have a 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was established for the 
sole purpose of issuing such warrants when they are justified. That 
court should have been allowed to decide whether the telephone calls 
and e-mail messages of American citizens and legal residents is 
justified by security needs. Doing this kind of surveillance without a 
warrant is illegal.
  The day after this monitoring became public, President Bush admitted 
that he had authorized it but argued that he had the authority to do 
so. According to the President, his order was ``fully consistent with 
my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.'' But his 
constitutional duty is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed'', article II, section 3; the law here clearly establishes 
well-defined procedures for eavesdropping on U.S. persons, and the fact 
is, President Bush ordered that those procedures not be followed. 
Further, from a statutory argument point of view, it is not credible 
that the 2001 authorization to use force provides authority for the 
President to ignore the requirements of FISA. It is very doubtful that 
the courts would sustain the President on this basis. From a 
constitutional standpoint, the President can try to make a case, 
although it is weak, that he does have constitutional authority to 
conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens in the U.S.. for 
national security purposes. Because the Supreme Court has never said he 
does not have this power, some regard it as an open question. However, 
passage of FISA seriously undermines this argument.
  In closing let me note that this 6-week extension is not enough time 
to resolve the important issues that surround the PATRIOT Act. Further 
I am very disappointed, but not surprised that the Republicans have not 
been willing to come to the table to meet with us in an effort to come 
to some middle ground.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, none of us here deny that some of the 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act are very useful in fighting the war on 
terrorism. No one wants the PATRIOT Act to be eliminated, but the 
PATRIOT Act should be amended to safeguard civil liberties.
  Section 215 should be amended to provide meaningful protection from 
abuse by an overzealous government seeking sensitive and personal 
documentation. We should replace the mere showing of relevance standard 
with a

[[Page 578]]

three-part test that was the basis of the Senate compromise. Recipients 
of section 215 orders and of section 505 national security letters must 
be allowed a meaningful court challenge to the gag order, and the 
national security letter authority should sunset in order to guarantee 
Congressional oversight.
  We also must be mindful, while debating this, of the President's 
claim of extraordinary power to wiretap Americans in conversation he 
says with people who are terrorists abroad. We do not know that is the 
only wiretapping that is going on. It may be thousands, may be hundreds 
of thousands of Americans are being wiretapped. We do not know. This is 
all secret. It only got out because it leaked.
  The President claims the power to do this against the apparently 
plain language of the law. Many of us think it is illegal. Many people 
think this is illegal the President claims inherent power or that we 
authorized this when we authorized the use of force in Afghanistan. 
Well, maybe, but we ought to be holding hearings. It is an abdication 
of responsibility for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees of this 
House not to be holding hearings on this.
  Why should the hearings only occur in the Senate? Is this House not 
an equal branch of the government? So I urge this bill. This extension 
ought to pass so that we can work out the problem of modification of 
the PATRIOT Act, and we ought not to abdicate our responsibility. I 
urge the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings so that 
we can examine these issues.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation, because it should become crystal clear that the 
administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and 
outright deny the civil liberties of American citizens in defiance of 
our Constitution. This administration is illegally wiretapping American 
citizens, illegally collecting information on peace groups and 
illegally using signing statements to ignore the torture ban recently 
enacted by the Congress. The administration is violating the laws 
Congress has passed, and they are violating the U.S. Constitution.
  I will not vote to give this administration any police powers until I 
am assured that their attack on our democracy is reined in. This 
Congress is walking away from the checks and balances of our democracy.
  I do not believe that this Congress was zealous in oversight 
investigation prior to 2001. I am not a partisan. I have joined my 
colleagues in an oversight role prior to 2001. However, since that time 
we have ignored our constitutional duty, and 200 years of American 
democracy has suffered. The complacency of Congress is clearly viewed 
by the administration as a license to ignore the laws it disagrees with 
and demand Congress pass extended police powers.
  I reject this complacency in defense of the United States 
Constitution. I will not vote to give a single new police power to this 
administration. The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate 
any American for any reason, without the checks and balances of a 
judicial system. History tells us that unchecked police powers with 
little or no oversight will be abused, and citizens will be harmed.
  The administration's record in this area is concrete proof that 
history repeats itself. I am for a strong police function that protects 
citizens of this great Nation, not a police function which nullifies 
our constitutional rights.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in a difficult week, well, weeks, following 
September 11th, Congress passed the U.S. PATRIOT Act in an effort to 
comfort and protect a shocked and grieving Nation. Yet even in the face 
of all that, Congress found 16 of the PATRIOT Act's provisions to be so 
egregious and far-reaching that they were not made permanent, and were 
slated to expire within 4 years.
  Yet somehow, here we are, in the midst of having learned that our 
President has authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, 
still debating if it is a good idea to further compromise our privacy, 
and make permanent some of the PATRIOT Act's worse provisions, such as 
roving wiretaps and expanded access to personal information like 
medical, library, financial records.
  Threats to our civil liberties and freedoms are mounting, an open-
ended war, a President copping a ``I can because I say I can'' 
attitude, and a dangerous view of what executive powers are bestowed on 
our President in the U.S. Constitution. We cannot continue on this 
slippery slope.
  As the elected leaders this country, we must vote to protect 
Americans from dangerous infringements of civil rights and liberties. 
That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose extending the PATRIOT 
Act today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would hope that we would give this brief extension to the PATRIOT 
Act and that we would use this time effectively to review the NSA 
wiretaps and also to use this time effectively to develop a bill that 
can pass both Chambers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the two speakers who proposed this brief 5-week 
extension of the PATRIOT Act are symptomatic of the problems that the 
opponents of the PATRIOT Act have attempted to tar it with. They are 
wrong.
  First, no Federal court has declared unconstitutional as violative of 
civil rights any of the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act that the 
sunsets were applied to, none whatsoever.
  As I stated in my opening remarks, the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice is required by the PATRIOT Act to report on civil 
rights violations to the two Judiciary Committees twice per year. We 
have received six of those reports on time, and the number of civil 
rights violations that have been found by the DOJ Inspector General 
have been zero.
  Furthermore, there is a provision in the PATRIOT Act that anybody 
whose civil rights have been violated can obtain a statutory judgment 
of $10,000 in addition to any proven monetary damages against the 
Justice Department if they are successful in a lawsuit. The Justice 
Department has not paid out one dime in either monetary or statutory 
damages under this law.
  The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with NSA wiretaps, and anybody who 
has been familiar with the operation of the PATRIOT Act knows very, 
very clearly that it does not have anything to do with NSA wiretaps, 
and I really wish that the opponents would read the law and stick to 
the proven testimony of the operation of this act. To say that the 
Judiciary Committee has not conducted oversight is living in a dream 
world, and it does not comport with the facts.
  Mr. Conyers and I have sent joint oversight letters to the Justice 
Department and published the nonclassified results of those oversight 
letters on the committee's website. Last year we had 12 hearings on the 
PATRIOT Act and the 16 provisions that expire. And guess what? There 
was no criticism about 14 of the 16 provisions, which the conference 
report makes permanent. And to say that the 16 provisions that were 
passed in the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001 were so egregious that 
sunsets had to be applied really does not talk about what happened 
then. Every expansion of law enforcement authority contained in the 
2001 bill contained a sunset, and we did the oversight, and we found 
that in 14 of the 16 provisions there was not a problem. And even the 
witnesses the Democrats brought before the Judiciary Committee said 
that there was no problem in 14 of the 16 provisions. In the two 
provisions where there is a sunset in the conference report, there have 
not been any civil rights violations proven. I have just said that, but 
one would think that the people's rights were being trampled on. No 
courts found that, the DOJ Inspector General has not found that, and I

[[Page 579]]

really wish that people who do not like the PATRIOT Act would stick to 
the facts.
  Now I would like to talk a little bit about what good the PATRIOT Act 
has done, and I am going to give credit to Deroy Murdock, who is a New 
York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior 
fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, 
Virginia. It says: ``Let the Numbers do the Talking.''
  First, the total number of individuals who Islamic fanatics murdered 
on September 11, 2001: 2,977 people whose civil rights were snuffed out 
because they were murdered;
  The cash sum that PATRIOT Act section 371 let Customs agents seize 
when terror-tied New Jersey imam Alaa al-Sadawi tried to smuggle funds 
into Egypt in his father's airline luggage: $659,000;
  Pounds of heroin the three al Qaeda- and Taliban-linked San Diego 
weapons dealers offered undercover FBI agents as partial payment for 
four Stinger anti-aircraft missiles until PATRIOT Act sections 218 and 
504 helped authorities unravel their conspiracy: 1,320 pounds of 
heroin;
  Total terror-related defendants captured with the help of PATRIOT Act 
provisions: 401;
  Total terror-related defendants who have pled guilty or who have been 
convicted with the aid of PATRIOT Act provisions: 212;
  Total feet the Brooklyn Bridge would have plunged into the New York 
City's East River had the PATRIOT Act not helped authorities stop Iyman 
Faris's plan to sever the span's cables with acetylene torches: 119. 
That is New York City.
  According to Federal prosecutor Ken Wainstein's January 3 comments 
after meeting with President Bush, the number of U.S. attorneys who use 
``the PATRIOT Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts'': 93, 
out of 93 U.S. attorneys;
  As U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf notes, total years of prison time 
earned under the PATRIOT Act by Osama bin Laden's self-proclaimed 
spiritual adviser, Mohammed al-Moayad, for trying to funnel $20 million 
to al Qaeda and Hamas: 75;
  Number of scholars, former Cabinet members, and other prominent 
Americans, including Democratic ex-CIA Directors James Woolsey and 
James Schlesinger, who joined in signing a January 25 open letter 
advocating the PATRIOT Act's reauthorization: 68;
  Years that David Wayne Hull, former Imperial Wizard of the White 
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, will spend behind bars after PATRIOT Act 
section 201 helped convict him for plotting to blow up abortion clinics 
with hand grenades: 12;
  Number of Northern Virginia Islamofascists jailed after the PATRIOT 
Act's information-sharing provisions let spies and cops jointly 
determine that they had trained in Afghan and Pakistani terror camps 
between 1999 and 2001: Eight;
  Total al Qaeda associates in Lackawanna, New York who were jailed for 
7 to 10 years after the PATRIOT Act finally let cops and intelligence 
officers sit in the same room to discuss each other's investigations: 
Six;
  According to the Associated Press, the number of tickets for American 
Airlines Flight 77 that Pentagon-bound 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar 
and Nawaf al-Hazmi purchased online, using William Patterson 
University's library computers, that might have been detected had 
PATRIOT Act section 215 been in place: Two;
  The number of the Portland Seven extremists who escaped the PATRIOT 
Act by being killed by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003: One.

                              {time}  1630

  The number of individuals whom Muslim terrorists have killed on 
American soil since the adoption of the PATRIOT Act: zero.
  Mr. Speaker, this law is working. This law has not violated anybody's 
civil liberty rights. It has not been held unconstitutional by any 
Federal court in the country. All of the arguments against the PATRIOT 
Act are a red herring. It has kept us safer. We ought to continue it. 
We ought to vote for this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to the extension of 
this unpatriotic act.
  The NSA's warrantless domestic spying scandal has shown how this 
President has a tendency to overstep the rule of law.
  Expanding the administration's powers, in light of these recent 
developments, may even be unnecessary.
  That said, we should be repealing these undemocratic provisions, not 
continuing to expand government's reach into the private lives of the 
American people.
  Since 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to 
secretly search private homes, and nearly 90 percent of those cases had 
nothing to do with terrorism.
  Americans have rejected provisions in this legislation like sneak-
and-peek searches, national security letters, and roving John Doe 
wiretaps.
  And Americans have rejected unwarranted searches of private 
residences, libraries, businesses, and medical records.
  I don't know how much clearer we need to be.
  All the administration's word games and sugar-coating will do nothing 
to change the fact that we can protect our nation and protect civil 
liberties at the same time.
  The PATRIOT Act fails to do so.
  Vote ``no'' on this extension, and keep our civil liberties and our 
civil rights off the chopping board.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to the lack of 
opportunity that a five-week sunset will provide but to the underlying 
legislation that it extends, the USA PATRIOT Act passed during the 
107th Congress, Public Law 107-56. Similarly, I felt that the prior-
enacted five-week extension, Public Law 109-160, that expires this 
Friday, February 3, 2006, was inadequate. For the sake of the American 
people and pursuant to the words of the President of the United States 
just last night in his State of the Union Address, I hope that the 
draconian provisions that were contained in the House-passed measure 
have been removed or drastically improved. Alas, even the process of 
negotiating the betterment of this very important legislation was kept 
a secret until brought to the Floor.
  I voted in favor of a motion to recommit this Conference Report with 
instructions, which would have replaced the text of the conference 
report with the text of the original bill passed by the Senate. The 
original Senate bill included many more civil liberties protections 
than does this conference report. That Senate measure would have 
included a process of judicial review for recipients of a National 
Security Letter as well as a standard requiring the Government to show 
a connection to a suspected terrorist or organization when requesting 
business or library records. The sunsets to the Conference Report that 
we consider today still require the Government to demonstrate 
``relevance'' in an investigation.
  The underlying conference report seeks to make 14 of 16 controversial 
PATRIOT Act provisions permanent. In making these provisions permanent, 
Congress will relinquish its responsibility to review their use, 
granting more permanent power to the executive branch. Congressional 
oversight has been maintained only through the two provisions scheduled 
to sunset in 4 years, as well as through the inclusion of a ``lone 
wolf'' provision, also scheduled to sunset in 4 years. Congress has a 
responsibility to check the power of the executive branch, not cede 
that authority, potentially threatening the civil liberties of our 
citizens. The underlying conference report unfortunately still fails to 
safeguard individual privacy rights, and allows the Government, with 
little burden of proof, to scrutinize nearly every aspect of a person's 
life.
  The President stated in his ``State of the Union'' address last night 
that ``Our country must . . . remain on the offensive against terrorism 
here at home.'' However, in doing so, we cannot allow terrorism to 
erode our national security or our civil liberties.
  I would like to address the following words stated by the President, 
again in his address:

       . . . based on authority given to me by the Constitution 
     and by statute--I have authorized a terrorist surveillance 
     program to aggressively pursue the international 
     communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and 
     affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used 
     the same constitutional authority. I have--and Federal courts 
     have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members 
     of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist 
     surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It 
     remains essential to the security of America.

  I authored a letter to the President that is currently being 
circulated and has already been signed by 50 of my colleagues that 
categorically negates these assertions based on

[[Page 580]]

well-settled caselaw, Federal statutes that remain in the books, and 
the words of the U.S. Constitution.
  At no point during the floor debate of the Authorization to Use 
Military Force, AUMF, Resolution was there any discussion that the 
authorization to use military force would extend to the use of 
warrantless searches and vest the President with the broad authority to 
intercept telephone calls and other electronic communications of 
American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant. 
To the contrary, it was stated during the debate that the authorization 
``provides no new or additional grants of power to the President.'' 
(see Congressional Record dated Sept. 14, 2001, page H5677)
  It is our duty to uphold the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, 
preserve the system of checks and balances between branches of our 
Government, and to protect the rights of the American people to the 
greatest extent possible. We must remain committed to protect the 
United States from terrorist attacks and to exercise our legislative 
responsibility to support any lawful means of preventing any future 
terrorist activity. However, it is our duty to clarify the 
mischaracterization of our actions. Congress simply did not intend for 
the AUMF to be used as justification for programs such as the one 
currently in use by the NSA.
  I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many 
victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing the underlying 
conference report for H.R. 3199.
  Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related 
provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and 
deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and 
constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite 
detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists. 
(Carlina Tapia Ruano, Statement for Oversight Hearing on the 
Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act before the House Committee on 
the Judiciary, June 10, 2005.)
  Among these troubling provisions are those that:
  Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens 
based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention 
irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In 
order to grant someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge 
must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone 
who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from 
deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued 
detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.
  Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been 
arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within seven 
days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on 
terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a 
terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration 
violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove 
otherwise.
  Make material support for groups that have not been officially 
designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under 
this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable 
organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be 
presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions 
on material support should be limited to those organizations that have 
officially been designated terrorist organizations.
  Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely 
on speech protected by the First Amendment. The laws punish those who 
``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist 
activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech 
that incites violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of 
inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States' 
efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is 
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a 
chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
  Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic 
groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs 
to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere 
payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and 
overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should 
punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their 
beliefs or associations.
  While every step must be taken to protect the American public from 
further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the 
Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections 
that make American democracy so unique.
  While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is 
heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been 
repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider 
the following:
  Its been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's 
home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do 
with terrorism.
  It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to 
tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his 
children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
  Its been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the 
admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim 
Scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.
  Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service 
Provider to divulge information about email activity and Web surfing on 
its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the 
abuse to the public.
  Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its 
been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but 
we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of 
Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader 
information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.
  Its been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in 
Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable materials, 
even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's Web 
site.
  Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of 
power by the Administration. Since September 11, our Government has 
detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants 
without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted 
tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and 
immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate 
Muslim and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our 
own county--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized 
racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism 
conviction.
  Mr. Speaker, the sunset proposed in the bill before us is 
insufficient to allow adequate consideration by the House; therefore, I 
oppose it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4659.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________