Congressional Record: December 14, 2005 (House)
Page H11515-H11544
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 595
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3199) to extend and modify authorities needed to
combat terrorism, and for other purposes. All points of order
against the conference report and against its consideration
are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 595 waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration.
I rise today in support of House Resolution 595 and the underlying
conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and King for all of their work in shepherding
H.R. 3199 initially in the committee and then on the floor and now
through the conference. This conference report demonstrates this
Congress's commitment to find common ground in order to move solid and
important legislation for the good and safety of the American people.
This conference report is the culmination of 4 years of thorough
hearings, extensive oversight, representing a collaborative effort to
strengthen and fine tune our law enforcement needs and civil security
needs as originally provided by the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act.
Like most Americans, I fully cherish and celebrate our
constitutionally protected civil liberties, while also recognizing the
need for strengthened national security with thorough and proper
oversight. And this Congress has demonstrated and will continue to
demonstrate a clear commitment to oversight in order to better achieve
the essential and proper balance between necessary protective measures
and our sacred civil liberties granted to us by the United States
Constitution.
As I mentioned, when the House first considered this legislation back
in July, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3199, like most legislation considered
before this House, is not perfect. In an ideal world, it would not be
necessary, but today's world is sadly far from ideal. Today, America
faces a grave threat from enemies who cowardly operate in the darkness
of shadows, waiting with the intent to kill innocent people in the name
of their hateful ideology. Therefore, we must never again be caught
with our guard down.
This Congress must act and must act decisively and deliberately to
provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to protect and to
save American lives, both here and abroad.
With respect to the provisions of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, this
conference report will make permanent many vital law enforcement tools
made available for use against suspected terrorists by the USA PATRIOT
Act while establishing 4-year sunsets on a few provisions such as
section 206, FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, multi-point
wire taps, section 215, FISA business record provisions and finally,
the Lone Wolf provision.
With respect to section 206, it is important to recognize that the
ability to track terrorists through the use of multi point or roving
wire taps is essential because it allows law enforcement to follow a
terrorist, rather than a telephone.
Mr. Speaker, terrorists are not reliant on two Dixie cups and a piece
of string to coordinate and plot terrorist attacks. They have access to
a universal and a vast array of communication technologies, and our
laws must take this fact into account.
Additionally, this conference report, through section 215, ensures
that law enforcement will still have the ability, under thorough and
extensive oversight, let me repeat, under thorough and extensive
oversight, to seek out information on terrorists without tipping them
off and thereby potentially compromising security and costing lives.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized to all Americans that the
USA PATRIOT Act did not establish any new law enforcement capabilities
but rather extended techniques long available for use against organized
crime or drug trafficking to be used against suspected terrorists as
well. If these are acceptable tools against some dope-pushing thug,
then they should be acceptable tools against terrorists who seek to
destroy American lives and rip apart the very fabric of this great
Nation.
Without question, this Congress must, and I trust, will continue to
remain vigilant with thorough oversight to protect our Constitution, to
protect our civil liberties and to protect our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and
the underlying conference report, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3199. While this conference report makes some improvement to the
current PATRIOT Act, it fails to address some major deficiencies, and
in many ways, it makes the current situation worse.
The original intent of the PATRIOT Act was to provide our law
enforcement officials with the necessary tools to make our country more
secure. While maintaining national security is absolutely a necessary
responsibility of Congress, it can and must be achieved without
compromising our civil liberties.
Unlike the proponents of H.R. 3199, the American people do not
believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive goals. A
delicate balance between enhancing security and protecting liberty
needs to be present. But unfortunately, this bill before us today falls
far short to achieving this appropriate balance.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2001, when the PATRIOT Act was enacted, 16
provisions were sunsetted or authorized for a certain period of time
because of their controversial nature and also due to the hurried
manner in which they were drafted; 14 of these 16 provisions are made
permanent by this conference report. And while three of the most
contentious provisions have been sunsetted for 4 years, even that is
too long.
Section 215, commonly referred to as the Library Records Provision,
grossly expands the Federal government's ability to seize records and
investigate citizens' reading habits without any notification.
[[Page H11516]]
Section 206, dubbed the Roving Wiretaps Provision, grants the
government the power to perform so-called John Doe wiretaps in which
they do not have to disclose the phones that will be tapped or even the
names of the suspected person.
Section 6001, known as the Lone Wolf Provision, broadly redefines the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's, FISA, standard for the agent
of foreign power. The new definition is so expansive that the
Government can now define any individual non-U.S. person as a terrorist
suspect, even if the individual has no clear ties to a foreign
government.
{time} 1115
Mr. Speaker, it is more than apparent that these three provisions
pose a threat to American citizens' civil liberties. And while I would
rather see these provisions removed from the legislation, I am
encouraged that a shorter sunset has been placed upon them.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, shorter sunsets do not do the trick.
Sunsets alone do not fix the severe substantive flaws of these
sections, and they do nothing to address the deficiencies of the 14
other provisions that are being made permanent by this report. Instead
of opting to apply shorter sunset dates to these misguided provisions,
Congress should be exploring appropriate ways to fix them. After all,
giving the government the power to violate civil liberties is wrong
regardless of whether we give the government that power for 1 year or 4
years or for 100 years.
Most notable of the deficient provisions, which was made permanent by
the original PATRIOT Act, is section 505, known as the National
Security Letters provision, NSLs. These NSLs are administrative
subpoenas, issued by high-ranking Department of Justice officials,
which force a person to turn over a wide range of personal records.
Essentially, NSLs allow the FBI to conduct secret, warrantless searches
of any records they deem relevant to national security.
What is most concerning about NSLs are the rate in which they are
being issued and the eventual relevancy of the retrieved records. More
than 30,000 NSLs are being issued a year, a hundred-fold increase since
the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Meanwhile, only a handful of NSL
investigations have ever gone through the judicial process. Moreover,
the FBI has surreptitiously gathered information on tens of thousands
of Americans. They are maintaining databases on these citizens. And
instead of deleting information on NSL recipients once an investigation
is completed, the FBI is abusing this power and holding onto personal
information of Americans who have never been accused of any crime.
Mr. Speaker, while this conference report does require the Department
of Justice to report the number of national security letters they
issue, it fails to address the abuse of power and the
unconstitutionality of the provision. As determined by a Federal court
judge on October 4, 2005, the NSL provision was ruled to be
unconstitutional. So instead of reevaluating this provision or at the
very least sunsetting it, the NSL provision remains permanent and
continues to infringe upon the civil liberties of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we all must be reminded that privacy is a right
guaranteed by our Constitution, not a luxury that we can simply discard
when it becomes inconvenient to the government. Shorter sunsets and
minimal regulations imposed on the Department of Justice do not cure
the serious problems with these provisions. Congress needs to go back
to the negotiating table, reevaluate these provisions, and come up with
a report that strikes the appropriate balance between advancing
security and defending our civil rights.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4506. This
legislation, introduced by the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Conyers, extends by 3 months the 16 provisions of the
PATRIOT Act set to expire at the end of this year. Extending the
PATRIOT Act in its current form for 3 months would give lawmakers the
opportunity to reevaluate these contentious provisions, fix them, and
then issue a conference report that actually protects the civil
liberties of the people of this country and not hinders them.
I would like to share a quote from an article entitled ``Going Down
in History with USA PATRIOT Act,'' which appeared in the November 27
edition of the Massachusetts Republican: ``Unless lawmakers are
prepared to revise the USA PATRIOT Act to include modest protections to
safeguard civil liberties, they will go down in history as the authors
of remarkably bad legislation.''
Mr. Speaker, when we in Congress authorize Federal agencies, it is
our responsibility to grant them with an appropriate level of power so
that abuse will not occur. It is also our responsibility to demand
accountability and conduct appropriate oversight. Sadly, under this
Republican leadership, neither responsibility has been fulfilled.
One final observation. We are all, every single Member of this House
is committed to protecting our country from terrorism. We must adjust
our laws accordingly to deal with any potential threat. But we must not
undercut or undermine the protection of our civil liberties. Mr.
Speaker, democracy requires courage, and we can protect our citizens
from terrorism and at the same time protect their civil liberties. They
are not mutually exclusive. I am not convinced that the bill as written
will enhance our national security, nor am I convinced that these
broad, sweeping powers that we are now giving to our government will
not be abused.
In our recent history, we have seen abuse of power. We have seen
civil rights leaders in this country, people who have advocated equal
treatment under the law for all of our citizens, we have seen these
people put under surveillance. They have been wiretapped. We have seen
others who have raised their voices in dissent or who have advocated
issues that are now viewed as the mainstream, we have seen that they
have been spied upon by our own government. So let us not give
government more power than is needed.
That is my fear today, that we are going too far, that we are paving
the way for abuse, and that if we enact this bill as written, a little
bit of the Liberty Tree will die.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In regard to section 215, I want to remind the gentleman that section
215, relating to investigators' access to business records, this
reauthorization requires a statement of fact 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 requires the government only to certify that the
records at issue were sought for an authorized investigation without
any factual showing.
Mr. Speaker, I could continue with that, but I now yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
I listened very, very closely to the remarks offered by my good
friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I have to say that every
Member of this House is committed to the national security of the
United States. That is our number one responsibility, our priority. But
I will go so far as to say every single Member of this House is
committed to recognizing the civil liberties of the American people.
When this issue came to the forefront just a few weeks after
September 11, 2001, the now Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and vice
chairman of the Rules Committee, our very good friend, Mr. Goss, argued
that he believed we should begin with permanence at that point, and I
argued then that I thought it important that we focus on sunsetting
provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. Why? Because we were looking at this
issue literally weeks after the worst attack on our soil.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we moved ahead, we said we should have these
sunset provisions, and we put them into place, and they were very
important and
[[Page H11517]]
helpful. One of the reasons we did it is we wanted to see what kinds of
civil liberties were being violated as we focused on our number one
priority, that being our national security. And I am very happy to
report that, as we look at what has transpired since implementation of
the USA PATRIOT Act, it is the following: we have provided every
opportunity for any American to raise concern, talk about violations of
their civil liberties by going on the Worldwide Web, filing any kind of
complaint. And there has not been one instance, not one complaint has
been leveled, against the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act as evidence
of violating civil liberties.
I consider myself a small ``l'' libertarian Republican. I want to do
everything in my power to ensure that we recognize the rights of our
individuals. But we have to remember that this measure is exactly what
Mr. McGovern said it should be. It is a delicate balancing act between
our goal of recognizing the importance of our national security and at
the same time focusing on civil liberties. That is why we see the 4-
year sunset for the so-called Lone Wolf provision, for the roving
wiretap provision, for the so-called library provision. These measures
that are in there are designed to force us to look at them again. But,
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to say that we cannot look at this again,
as one of my staff members just said to me, next week if we so choose.
Now, the United States Congress pursues oversight with great
diligence. I was shocked last night when the distinguished ranking
member of the Rules Committee said that there had been no oversight by
the Judiciary Committee of the USA PATRIOT Act. And Chairman
Sensenbrenner, who has done a phenomenal job on this, went through the
litany of oversight hearings that have gone on between first
implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and today and will continue, will
continue as we see this measure pass.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this does create that fine balancing
act that we have recognized, and we do know that at the same time
sacrifices have been made. Every single American who travels today has
made a sacrifice, because of the fact that we are in the midst of a
global war on terror, by virtue of going through the security to get on
an airplane. We have had to make sacrifices. Professor Harvey Mansfield
of Harvard wrote about the need to make those sacrifices when we are in
the midst of war. And we know that this is an ongoing global war on
terror; but we cannot, as we pursue that war, move to undermine the
great liberties and rights of the American people.
This measure strikes that balance, and I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and to support the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from
California who said there must be sacrifices and sacrifices have been
made, I would remind Members of the words of Benjamin Franklin who once
said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve
a measure of security deserve neither.
The tragedy of 9/11 led to the PATRIOT Act, and then it led to a war
against Iraq. Fear and suspicion led the U.S. to roll back our civil
liberties and attack a nation that did not attack us.
We have become a Nation of leaders, some of whom who have condoned
torture and illegal detentions. Fear and suspicion have driven us to
that. We need a different type of leadership so the American people
could have been spared the effects of 9/11. It could have been
different. But, no. We are here today trying to appeal to people to let
go of their fear and suspicion because an open, honest review of the
FBI's use of the PATRIOT Act would surely find many areas in need of
reform.
A careful balance between national security needs and protecting
American rights must be struck, but that is not what we have here.
Today we are set to pass a whole new round of democracy rollbacks.
American citizens are losing more of their free speech rights and
privacy rights. The authors of today's bill inserted a very weak and
loophole-ridden right to judicial review of government actions. The
American public is not served by such minimal accommodation.
Today, the House will ignore more than 400 local communities and
seven States that have passed resolutions asking for PATRIOT Act
reform. This legislation fails to provide reasonable sunset provisions
that guarantee future congressional review. The bill retains 4-year
sunsets for only two of the 16 PATRIOT Act provisions and only one of
two expiring provisions in the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act. All other
intrusive powers are either made permanent or remain permanent.
This bill continues to allow roving wiretaps that permit Federal
agents to tap communications of a target where neither the target nor
the phone is identified. Criminal wiretaps require one or the other,
and the 10-day after-the-fact notice requirement is no substitute for
privacy safeguards in the criminal wiretaps.
The bill continues to permit sneak-and-peak searches of a person's
home or business to remain secret indefinitely. It drops a Senate
provision supported by the Chamber of Commerce, conservatives,
libraries, civil liberties organizations that set limits on secret
court orders for library, medical, and other personal records. Instead,
the bill establishes a false right to judicial review. A recipient must
challenge before a preselected group of three court judges and go to
the expense of hiring a lawyer with a security clearance who the FISA
court agrees can appear before it.
So people have to essentially fight for their rights to be free of
the scourge of wiretaps and to be free of the scourge of having the FBI
reach into their library records, their reading records, their medical
records.
Where are we going with this country? It is not the America it used
to be. It has become something that is hard to recognize for many
Americans.
Vote against this bill.
{time} 1130
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that in the
original bill that we considered, H.R. 3199, which 43 of his colleagues
supported, there were sunset provisions not in two, but in three,
sections that were of 10 years' duration. In their motion to instruct
the conferees, the request was to abide by the Senate bill, which would
lower those to 4 years each. So that is exactly what we are bringing
back in the conference report, exactly what they asked for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying PATRIOT Act reauthorization. I would like to take a minute
to highlight two aspects of this legislation that we probably will not
hear a whole lot about today, but are very important to me.
I am pleased that the conference report includes the amendment that I
introduced and which passed the House 362-66 to increase penalties and
update outdated laws to protect our rail and mass transportation
systems. This provision, section 110 of the conference report, will
ensure that those who conspire to commit attacks against our rail
systems or fund such attacks can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law.
While no penalties can deter some of these terrorists bent on causing
death and destruction, these enhanced penalties on conspirators will
hinder the efforts of terrorists to secure and finance their networks.
The attacks on the rail systems in Madrid and in the London
Underground have demonstrated the real threat that rail and mass
transportation systems face. I would like to thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner and all the Members who supported this important
provision to add another layer of protection to America's rail systems.
Also I want to commend the conferees for including anti-meth
legislation in the conference report. Methamphetamine is a large and
growing problem in rural America. In West Virginia, meth labs have been
found in neighborhoods, endangering children and innocent members of
the community. Provisions of this bill enhance penalties for those who
run meth labs in the presence of children.
[[Page H11518]]
This bill also places restrictions on the sale of meth precursor
chemicals that are similar to those that the West Virginia legislature
passed earlier this year and other legislatures throughout the country.
Provisions in this bill require that meth precursors be sold from
behind the counter or from a locked cabinet and place better controls
on mail order and Internet sales.
Authorization in this legislation will ensure that the Meth Hot Spots
grant program will continue. This program has already provided
assistance to local law enforcement in many districts, including the
Metro Drug Task Force in my hometown of Charleston, West Virginia.
Continuing this grant program will enable Congress to continue to help
our communities fight the meth problem.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would just note the
most important thing in the PATRIOT Act is the sharing of information
between law enforcement and intelligence. I support that
reauthorization. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, a member of
the Homeland Security Committee. The Department of Justice has
stonewalled Congress on telling us how they are using these powers.
I am a member of the conference committee. Republicans met secretly
and separately away from Democrats on the conference committee. We have
failed to cure the problems in the bill, and we have missed an
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear that the primary benefit of the USA
PATRIOT Act we passed in 2001 has been the sharing of information
between criminal investigators and intelligence officials it enabled. I
support authorizing that information sharing capability in the original
PATRIOT Act, and I support its reauthorization today. But this
conference report on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act fails in
important ways.
Following the attacks of 9/11, this Congress passed the USA PATRIOT
Act to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies new powers to
fight terrorism. I voted for that law, but only after securing support
for sunset provisions that allowed this Congress to revisit these
issues under less trying circumstances.
Congress has not done its job in providing the thorough review we
need of the PATRIOT Act. Nor has the Bush administration done its job
in providing us the information we need to properly evaluate the
PATRIOT Act. I have repeatedly sought access from the Department of
Justice to the national security letters or NSLs it has issued under
section 505 of the act, and underlying materials regarding its use of
the material witness statute. I have been seeking access to these
materials for over 6 months now, with no response from DOJ. I wrote to
them again last month seeking this information, and again received no
response. This is vital information about DOJ's actual use of PATRIOT
Act powers, information which DOJ steadfastly refuses to provide. Yet
with this conference report Congress blindly reauthorizes and makes
permanent many of these same powers.
In fact, through the cracks in DOJ's veil of secrecy, we've begun to
find some information about the PATRIOT Act. We've found out from
whistleblowers that the FBI issues more than 30,000 national security
letters each year. These are tens of thousands of letters, never
reviewed by a judge, demanding information on countless people, the
vast majority of whom may be Americans innocent of any terrorist
activity. We don't know how many private lives are being swept up in
these NSLs, because DOJ won't tell us.
This bill does not correct the problems with national security
letters. It creates a new process for judicial review, but leaves that
review subject to an extremely vague standard. There are no
requirements for law enforcement to ``minimize'' its collection of
NSLs; that is, there's no requirement for DOJ to segregate the vast
amount of information collected on innocent Americans unconnected to
any terrorist activity. An audit is provided which would allow DOJ to
freely continue stockpiling information on Americans without providing
any standard.
This bill also adopts too weak a standard for law enforcement to
engage in business records searches under section 215 of the PATRIOT
Act. The Senate passed unanimously what I thought was a very reasonable
standard for law enforcement to meet in order to conduct these
searches. The Senate required that these searches actually be relevant
to an ongoing terrorism investigation and related to the activities of
an agent of a foreign power. But the conference report adopts a
presumption of relevance that would essentially tie judges' hands and
force them to grant any requested searches.
Adoption of 4-year, rather than 7-year, sunsets on three provisions
regarding business records searches, roving wiretaps, and so-called
``lone wolf'' terrorists acting as agents of foreign powers is
positive. Frankly, I would have liked to see 4-year sunsets applied to
more provisions of the PATRIOT Act, such as the provisions regarding
NSLs. I believe these sunsets provide Congress an important opportunity
to review how the PATRIOT Act is actually being used. Given how
reluctant DOJ has been to share information with us, these sunsets
really provide the main source of leverage Congress has over the
Department of Justice to obtain information we should be provided as an
equal branch of government.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed that this legislation has removed
the provisions we passed in the House providing for additional funding
for first responders. This is vitally needed funding that local first
responders need in the event of another terrorist attack or other
disaster. This conference report drops all of these provisions passed
by the House.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting against this conference report. Instead of rushing this bill to
conclusion, we should give ourselves the time we need to get the
PATRIOT Act right. I, along with some of my colleagues, have introduced
legislation that would allow us to reauthorize the existing PATRIOT Act
authorities for another 3 months, to take the time we need to correct
the many deficiencies still remaining in this conference report. I urge
that, instead of voting for a bad bill in order to meet an arbitrary
deadline, my colleagues join me in voting for more time to turn this
into a better bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a member of the Judiciary and
Transportation Committees.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on 9/11, evil terrorists, murderers, if you
will, inspired and motivated by fanaticism and hatred attacked our
country and nearly 3,000 innocent Americans expired. It would be a
simple matter to overreact to such an attack; but our response, for the
most part, Mr. Speaker, has been thorough and deliberate.
The Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
alone conducted nine hearings, coupled with two additional hearings
before the full House Judiciary Committee. Other committees as well
conducted hearings. So this seems to me refutes the charge that this
act has been hurriedly rammed through the Congress.
I spoke earlier on this floor, Mr. Speaker, of a constituent who
urged me to lead an effort to repeal the PATRIOT Act. When I asked him
to cite examples where civil liberties had been abused, he could offer
none. Other opponents of the act have likewise been unable to document
evidence of abuses. Some have said, well, these points are irrelevant.
They are not irrelevant at all, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking to
people who oppose the act, but yet are unable to offer evidence to
support their opposition. I think it is relevant, indeed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to touch on a point that I think
many Americans have inadvertently ignored, and that is the fact that
there are in excess of 360 ports in the United States and this bill
provides basic and much-needed protection thereto. It is clear that our
ports and harbors are significant and appealing targets for terrorist
attacks. We cannot afford to leave these areas unprotected or hamstring
law enforcement efforts to provide basic security against terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be a Chicken Little and shouting that
the sky is falling, but just because we have not been attacked
subsequently since 9/11 does not indicate to me that these terrorists,
I call them murderers, they are murderers, are asleep at the switch.
They are continuing to plot, and we cannot turn a blind eye to them.
Is this act perfect? No. Not many acts that find their way through
this Congress are perfect. But it is a piece of legislation that should
be enacted, and I urge support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the President and his administration
continue its rhetoric that anyone calling for a withdrawal of troops or
questioning the intelligence that led us into the Iraq war is
unpatriotic, while,
[[Page H11519]]
on the other hand, using this war as an excuse, a PATRIOT Act was
passed that recklessly violates our civil liberties and attacks the
very freedoms our troops in Iraq are told that they are fighting to
protect.
This administration and the leadership in this very House we are
standing in has tried every trick in the book to spread the blame, pass
the buck on this misguided war. They continue to filter the debate in
our very own country and to discredit those who disagree with them.
This bill they want us to pass today would continue to limit our
constitutional freedoms in our very own country. Though they did not
seem to care one bit about the facts before 9/11, they now believe the
United States will benefit from hoarding insignificant and ill-gotten
information on innocent Americans. They believe that this makes us a
safer Nation.
If you want to talk about dishonesty, look at this administration's
policies that have led us to ignore facts in order to manipulate the
very policies that fly in the face of our own honesty, and this is an
administration that also pays for ``canned'' news overseas.
The real patriots have been those who stand up and question the
misleading intelligence and dishonest tactics that got us into this
war, those who have challenged the PATRIOT Act and its impact on the
civil rights and civil liberties of every American. Actually, it is
patriotic to question how the PATRIOT Act affects the very rights that
we live under in this country of ours.
Vote ``no'' on this PATRIOT Act.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that prior to 9/11
and before the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, we had this culture and legal
problem where law enforcement could not communicate whatsoever with
intelligence. This bill enabled us to finally, finally connect the
dots. I think this is very important for all of us to keep in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I
thank the chairman and Chairman Souder for not only bringing the
PATRIOT Act reauthorization to the floor but including these important
meth provisions in this legislation.
In rural east Tennessee, over 10 years ago meth production showed up
in a real ugly way and spread like moonshine of 50 years ago, but 100
times more lethal, through the mountains and the hills. We attacked it
with
a comprehensive State-Federal-local partnership called the Southeast
Tennessee Meth Task Force and that grew to the East Tennessee Meth Task
Force, and now it is a statewide, state-of-the-art, frankly, national
model for how to combat this problem; and we were second in the country
last year in lab seizures.
One of the innocent results here, though, of fighting meth and the
production of meth are the children that are left in these homes. My
colleague from Tennessee, a Democrat from Nashville, Jim Cooper, wrote
legislation, and I was the original Republican cosponsor, that creates
a provision funded at $20 million a year for the next 2 years to deal
with the children that come out of these meth homes.
Over 10,000 children nationally between 2000 and 2003 came out of
these meth homes and became wards of the State. In my State, 750 alone
so far are wards of the State. There was no social service network for
these children. This creates that.
So we are not just attacking the problem, but we are dealing with the
aftermath of this deadly plague on America called methamphetamine
production. It is so responsible to include it.
A second on the PATRIOT Act. In ordinary circumstances, it might not
be necessary. These are extraordinary circumstances, and it has been
necessary. The facts do not lie. If you listen to the testimony of the
attorneys general and the prosecutors and you hear the cases, you know
the PATRIOT Act has definitely kept our country safer, safer, since
September 11.
We need to reauthorize it. We need to be realistic. We cannot just
pander or engage in mythological discussions. Deal with the realities.
We have to do certain things and communicate better. The law
enforcement personnel have to have the tools and equipment to safeguard
our country from these terrorists. This is the reality that we face
today. We can change this later if we need to. Today, we need to
reauthorize it and keep the teeth in Federal law enforcement and keep
the terrorists out of our country.
{time} 1145
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report.
All of us are in agreement that the United States government must do
everything it can do to effectively fight terrorism and protect the
American people from another terrorist attack. There is no debate about
that. But some of us believe that with strong, well-trained and well-
funded law enforcement, we can in fact protect the American people
without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free
country.
In that regard, I am happy to say that there has been a very strong
coming together of Members of Congress and Americans from very
different political perspectives, people who usually agree on nothing
but who have come together to protect the Constitutional rights of the
American people as we fight terrorism.
We should be very proud that, on this issue, such diverse groups as
the ACLU, the American Conservative Union, the Gun Owners of America,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association and the
American Book Sellers Association have come together to say to
Congress, please support the Senate version. And this is a message that
I hope all Members heed.
The simple fact of the matter is that the original Senate bill is a
far better piece of legislation than what we are looking at today, and
that is the legislation that we should pass.
Mr. Speaker, day after day, we hear the Republican leadership telling
us about the virtues of small and limited government, about how we have
got to deregulate almost everything and get government out of our
lives. In that regard, are my Republican friends really comfortable
with allowing the FBI to access Americans' reading records, gun
records, medical records and financial records without judicial
approval; allowing the FBI to search someone's home without probable
cause and without telling that person about the search; allowing the
FBI to serve a librarian or a bookstore owner with a section 215 order
demanding records without having to provide facts that a person whose
records are being sought is involved in a terrorist investigation?
Please vote no on this conference report.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Education and Workforce
Committee.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act before it expires on
December 31 is literally a matter of life or death because it is
helping us to win the war on terrorism.
Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we have convicted 212
terrorists, and we have frozen $136 million in terrorist assets.
Passing the PATRIOT Act is purely a matter of common sense. Is it not
common sense that we give law enforcement the same tools to go after
terrorists as they now have to go after Mafia dons and drug dealers? Is
it not common sense that we can now share data between the intelligence
community and the law enforcement community? Is it not common sense
that we can now track deadly terrorists even though they cross
jurisdictional lines or switch cell phones?
Now, some Members of Congress want to postpone this legislation or
even filibuster it. The worst thing that these critics can say about
the PATRIOT Act is that supposedly law-abiding citizens will have their
book store and library habits monitored. That is a totally bogus
allegation. In reality, a prosecutor seeking this information must go
before a federal judge, get a
[[Page H11520]]
court order and prove that it is a matter of international terrorism.
Now, how many times has that happened since we first passed the PATRIOT
Act in 2001? Exactly zero according to the U.S. Attorney General.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the PATRIOT Act and yes on the
underlying rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, true patriots need not hide behind the flag
nor apply phony titles to cover the misguided purposes of their
legislation.
From its origin, this grossly misnamed PATRIOT Act has cloaked its
weaknesses by implying that its opponents are ``un-patriots'' as in
``unpatriotic.'' This is all part of a troubling pattern: secret
prisons, sneak and peek searches, gag orders, redefining torture to
exclude cruel and degrading punishment, extraordinary rendition,
combing through library records, and even attempting to misuse our
military to spy on religious groups.
These acts debase our American values. This bill should be rejected
because it fails to strike the proper balance between the security we
demand and the liberties that we cherish.
Yes, Vice President Cheney has suddenly emerged from his secure,
undisclosed location and taken pause from his campaign to preserve
torture in order to enthusiastically embrace today's bill. But
intrusive, invasive powers in the hands of a few with little oversight
and no accountability is a formula for wrongdoing. We should not
surrender our liberties to any Administration. Retreating to such
abusive tactics is weakness, not strength.
We should not add even more powers to an Administration that has so
often been willing to abuse its existing power, nor should we add more
authority to an Administration that has acted in authoritarian ways.
Real patriots understand that an all-powerful government can undermine
our security just as surely as a dangerous religious fanatic.
And all of this is occurring when the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the
citizens' commission that this Administration fought every step of the
way, is giving the Administration and this Republican Congress one F
after another for not protecting our families. Instead, we get this
kind of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, authoritarianism is not born full-bodied. It is
conceived in small injustices, which tolerated over time become
irreversible. Benjamin Franklin understood when he said, ``Those who
would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.''
This much is certain, each day of this Administration brings more
news of both deaths of true patriots abroad and more abuses of our
values by those who claim to be patriots at home. This is an
Administration where the ends always seem to justify the means. But
their ``ends'' too often betray our safety, and their ``means'' forsake
our values.
To those who promote this misguided act, pull down your false colors;
raise the American flag of freedom. Reject this bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I want to remind the gentleman from Texas that this latest 9/11
Commission so-called report card gave us an F for failing to reveal the
amount of intelligence spending to the terrorists. So if that is the
kind of report card he is talking about, then I am proud of that F.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule but in
opposition to the underlying bill, the so-called PATRIOT Act, the USA
PATRIOT Act.
I supported the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed and would do so
again. I support the war on radical Islam. Our country is under attack
and under grave threat. But my original support was based on the
inclusion of 4-year sunsets in those sections of the PATRIOT Act, those
sections that drastically expanded the police and investigative powers
of the Federal Government.
That is what was included in the original PATRIOT Act. Instead, the
current legislation before us makes permanent the expansion of police
powers which were meant to be only temporary until this war was over.
Of the 16 sunset provisions, sections sunsetted in the original 2001
bill, the current conference committee report establishes 4-year
sunsets on only two of those 16. The rest of the expanded police powers
are being made permanent, the most drastic permanent expansion of these
powers being section 213, the sneak and peek section; the section 205,
the secret search section; and section 214, which permanently
eliminates probable cause needed for the use of eavesdropping devices.
I would support redoing the PATRIOT Act as originally came forward.
As the war on terrorism continues, I can support these expanded powers.
However, this effort to use the war as a way to alter forever the
balance of personal liberty and legitimate restraints on government
power should be defeated. Long after the war on terrorism is won, under
permanent sneak-and-peek rules, American citizens will have their homes
and businesses searched without court order and without legal
notification for a month after that search is conducted. Long after the
threat of Islamic extremism is over, under permanent secret search
rules, Americans will have their business records, phone records,
credit records and computer files seized without a judge issuing a
warrant based on probable cause. Long after the crisis we face today,
under permanent eavesdropping rules, American citizens will have their
phone conversations monitored without a warrant.
There is no excuse in peacetime to give our police and our
investigative agencies wartime powers, and that is what we are doing
here. There have been a few improvements in the bill but not enough
improvements, as far as I am concerned, for us to support it. My
central theme has always been based on the need for periodic review by
Congress of all those dramatic expansions of police power that we are
giving our government now in order to win this war on terrorism. This
is best achieved by sunsets. We should not live in peacetime under the
extraordinary laws passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency
powers of investigation should not become the standard.
Let me just note that I think people will rue the day if we give the
Federal Government this permanent power over our lives.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the conference
report, among other things, today does not include an amendment that I
offered with Mr. Sweeney to alter the first responder funding formula
in the original PATRIOT Act. This provision would have allocated
precious Homeland Security resources on the basis of risk. Under the
original PATRIOT Act, zero percent of formula grants are distributed on
the basis of risk. Under the House proposal, at least 84 percent and up
to 100 percent of funding would be risk-based, ensuring that we spend
our resources to address the greatest threats our Nation faces. This
long overdue change has been approved by the House on three separate
occasions, including in a stand-alone bill that passed by a vote of 409
to 10 in May. While the Senate has rejected this commonsense reform,
the administration supports it, as does the 9/11 Commission. In a
recent report, the Commission gave the government an F for failing to
allocate funding where it is needed but stipulated that we can earn an
A if the House provisions in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill are
accepted. As Commission Chairman Kean stated last week, ``It is time
for senators to exercise leadership and do the right thing for our
Nation's security by passing the risk-based funding reform in the
PATRIOT Act.''
The Senate failed to exercise leadership. We have therefore missed a
golden opportunity to improve our Nation's security. We cannot back
down from this fight, and we must demand that the Senate accept our
proposal in any future Homeland Security legislation. I hope my
colleagues will join me.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the PATRIOT Act and, in
particular, title VII of that report, the
[[Page H11521]]
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. This is certainly the
biggest, and last night we passed Chairman Boehlert and Congressman
Gordon's environmental meth bill, but this is the biggest comprehensive
bill on meth that we have ever had in front of the United States
Congress, and it is important that we pass this.
I want to thank a number of people. It is impossible to thank
everybody who has been involved in this, but I would like to thank
Chairman Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee for his co-
sponsorship and his willingness to put this in a conference report. If
we did not have this in a conference report, it would not see the light
of day. We have had the pharmaceutical companies attack this bill. We
have had the Mexico and China lobbies attack this bill. We have had the
pro-drug groups attack the law enforcement provisions. It would not go
through the other body. It is not even clear we can move it to another
bill at this point. Yet, it is the only bill standing, and it is a
bipartisan effort to try to address this scourge that is crossing the
country. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner; also Majority Leader Roy
Blunt, who has been an early leader in this charge; Chairman Barton of
the Energy and Commerce Committee for his willingness to have this move
on this conference report; Chairman Hyde of the International Relations
Committee because it has International Relations jurisdiction and for
his support; Chairman Young of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee; Chairman Coble of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime;
Chairman Frank Wolf of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science,
Commerce, Justice and State, because, without all of their help, we
would not have this bill in front of us.
I would also thank the several Members who have worked so hard to
make this comprehensive anti-meth legislation happen. In particular, I
would like to thank Representatives Mark Kennedy, Darlene Hooley of
Oregon, Dave Reichert and John Peterson, because they provided much of
the content of this comprehensive bill and their consistently strong
leadership on the House floor.
I would also like to thank the four co-chairmen of the Congressional
Meth Caucus, Congressmen Larsen, Calvert, Boswell and Cannon, for their
staffs' assistance in putting this together so we could have a
bipartisan effort.
Congressman Tom Osborne has crusaded on this House floor and across
the country on behalf of anti-meth legislation, as has Congressmen
Baird, Wamp, Boozman, King, Gordon and so many others. This would not
be happening today if we did not have this bipartisan coalition, and I
hope it becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 3199,
the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005,
and in particular of title VII of that report, the Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. I believe this bipartisan
legislation is a vital first step in our renewed fight against the
scourge of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, and I hope the House
will support its passage.
I would probably take an hour if I tried to thank each of the Members
and staff who helped with this legislation, so I will have to mention
only a few. First, I'd very much like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner
of the Judiciary Committee for his cosponsorship of the Methamphetamine
Epidemic Elimination Act, H.R. 3889, one of the two bills that was
incorporated into today's legislation, and for his leadership in
ensuring that anti-meth legislation would be added to the conference
report. I would also like to thank Majority Leader Roy Blunt, Chairman
Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Hyde of the
International Relations Committee, Chairman Young of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Coble of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, and Chairman Frank Wolf of the Appropriations
Subcommittee for Science, Commerce, Justice, and State, for their
invaluable assistance and support in bringing this bill to the floor
for a vote today.
I would also like to thank several Members who worked so hard to make
comprehensive anti-meth legislation happen. In particular, I'd like to
thank Representative Mark Kennedy, Representative Darlene Hooley,
Representative Dave Reichert, and Representative John Peterson for
providing much of the content of this bill, and for their consistently
strong leadership on the House floor on meth issues. I would also like
to thank the four co-chairmen of the Congressional Meth Caucus,
Representative Rick Larsen, Representative Ken Calvert, Representative
Leonard Boswell, and Representative Chris Cannon, for their and their
staffs' assistance and support. And to every other Member who has
cosponsored either H.R. 3889, or the other major bill incorporated in
this conference report, the Combat Meth Act of 2005, H.R. 314, I
express my deep appreciation.
I don't have to tell any of you how serious a threat meth is for our
communities; pick up almost any newspaper or magazine these days and
you can read about it firsthand. As chairman of the Government Reform
Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, I have held 11 hearings on the meth epidemic since 2001, not
only in Washington, DC, but in places as diverse as rural Arkansas,
Ohio, Oregon, and Indiana, suburban Minnesota, island of Hawaii, and
urban Detroit. There are regional and local variations on the problem,
of course, but one thing remains constant everywhere: This is a drug
almost unique in its combination of cheapness, ease of manufacture, and
devastating impact on the user and his or her community.
There are three aspects of the meth epidemic that I believe need to
be emphasized as Congress prepares to enact this legislation. First,
meth presents unique challenges to Federal, State, and local law
enforcement. The small, clandestine meth labs that have spread like
wildfire across our Nation produce toxic chemical byproducts that
endanger officers' lives, tie up law enforcement resources for hours or
even days, and cost tremendous amounts of money to clean up. That,
combined with the rise in criminal behavior, child and citizen
endangerment, and other effects, have made meth the number one drug
problem for the Nation's local law enforcement agencies, according to a
study released over the summer by the National Association of Counties.
Second, the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict
alone; it has terrible effects on everyone around the user,
particularly children. Another survey by the National Association of
Counties found that 40 percent of child welfare agencies reported an
increase in ``out of home placements because of meth in the past
year.'' This abuse unfortunately includes physical and mental trauma,
and even sexual abuse. Sixty-nine percent of county social service
agencies have indicated that they have had to provide additional,
specialized training for their welfare system workers and have had to
develop new and special protocols for workers to address the special
needs of the children affected by methamphetamine. Community health and
human services, as well as child welfare services such as foster-care,
are being overwhelmed as a result of meth.
Finally, the meth threat is not confined to the small, local labs,
but extends well beyond our borders to the ``super labs'' controlled by
large, sophisticated Mexican drug trafficking organizations, and the
international trade in pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals
fueling those super labs. Three-quarters or more of our Nation's meth
supply is controlled by those large organizations, and over half of our
meth comes directly from Mexico.
The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act will be the first legislation
enacted by Congress that addresses all three of these critical aspects.
Previous acts of Congress have addressed meth production and precursor
chemical diversion, while others have provided assistance to State and
local agencies; for the first time, however, we are tackling domestic
and international chemical diversion, assistance to State and local
agencies, child and family welfare issues, and the criminal production
of meth.
The conference committee has filed a detailed section-by-section
analysis of the legislation, so I will only briefly mention the
highlights of this bill. Among other things, the act would:
Require all pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine
products to be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet; impose
a daily and a monthly purchase limit; require purchasers to show I.D.
and sign a logbook; and require training of all employees handling the
products;
Close a number of loopholes in existing import, export, and wholesale
regulations of meth precursor chemicals, including import and
manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion; and
regulation of the wholesale ``spot market'';
Require reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers,
and would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion
to meth production;
Toughen Federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers;
Authorize the ``Meth Hot Spots'' program, as well as increase funding
for drug courts, drug endangered children programs, and programs to
assist pregnant women addicted to meth.
[[Page H11522]]
Each of these steps is vital to our success in the fight against
meth, and I hope that the House will support them.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was a true compromise--both between the two
parties, and between this House and the other body. Of all the many
Members of Congress who worked on this legislation, no one got
everything he or she wanted. But what we did get was an excellent bill
that will re-energize our fight against methamphetamine. Every one of
us, Republican or Democrat, urban or rural, has a stake in the outcome
of that fight. We have to stop the meth epidemic from spreading, and we
need to start rolling it back. I believe that this legislation will be
an important step in that process, and I urge my colleagues to vote for
its passage.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today in opposition to the PATRIOT
Act reauthorization conference report. As a former Federal prosecutor
and New Mexico's Attorney General, I am familiar with both the needs of
law enforcement to pursue suspects and a strong supporter of law
enforcement. I am also a strong supporter of civil liberties and
believe that our Constitution must be guarded against encroachment even
in the name of security.
On October 24, 2001, a justified sense of urgency resulted in an
unjustifiably rushed vote on the PATRIOT Act.
{time} 1200
Many of us had little time to study the bill which became law. A
bipartisan bill was junked by the majority's Rules Committee in the
middle of the night. Since this legislation was enacted, over 385
cities, towns, and counties in 43 States passed resolutions concerning
the PATRIOT Act. In New Mexico alone, 10 cities and four counties have
adopted resolutions calling for reform. I have received thousands of
letters from Americans worried about excessive government power without
judicial oversight.
I had hoped during the conference committee Senate provisions
granting more congressional oversight and constitutional protections
would have been kept in this bill. The Senate version contained greater
restrictions on the government's power and required higher standards
for record demands.
However, the conference report is more of the same. It extends for 4
years two of the most controversial provisions of the bill, including
the section granting law enforcement authorities unprecedented powers
to search library and bookstore records without probable cause or the
need for search warrants.
This bill also makes permanent 14 provisions of the PATRIOT Act that
were set to expire this year. This bill has serious problems.
National security letters are out of control, with no meaningful
oversight. It has been reported that 30,000 national security letters
are issued every year. These letters allow the government to collect
almost limitless sensitive, personal information without judicial
approval. We should target this government power against terrorists,
not against innocent Americans.
I will vote against this bill today, not because I oppose the PATRIOT
Act in its entirety but because I believe that the needs of law
enforcement can be met without eroding our liberties.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, the crippling reach of methamphetamine
abuse has become the Nation's leading drug problem today, and this is
according to a survey by 500 sheriffs departments in 45 States.
It is cheap to buy. It is easy to make. It is available everywhere.
It is highly addictive. Oftentimes it is addictive after just one use.
So it is currently replacing cocaine and heroin in many parts of the
country. It leads to increased crime, child abuse, increases in the
jail population. In many parts of the country, almost 40 to 50 percent
of the jail population is due to methamphetamine abuse.
However, the main problem anymore is not the mom-and-pop meth lab out
in the countryside. It is the superlabs. Right now 60 to 85 percent of
the meth in the United States is coming from superlabs in Mexico, and
this is really hard to trace. It is hard to get at.
The one thing that is needed to make methamphetamine is
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, and this is manufactured in only six or
seven locations around the world: Czechoslovakia, Germany, China,
southeast Asia and so on. This bill would make it more difficult for
meth manufacturers to obtain the pseudoephedrine necessary for
producing the drug in these superlabs.
H.R. 3199 includes language the House passed earlier as part of the
Foreign Operations authorization bill. It identifies and publicizes the
five countries which have the highest rate of diversion of
pseudoephedrine to manufacturers of meth. We can get the invoices from
these manufacturers. The Department of State could then use its
existing authority to reduce or eliminate U.S. foreign aid to those
countries which are most contributing to the meth problem. This is one
thing that gets people's attention, when you take their foreign aid
away, because they are producing meth that is being used in these
superlabs.
It is a good bill. It gets to the source of the problem. I want to
thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and particularly Chairman Souder for their
hard work on this bill, and I urge support of the underlying
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Listeners should realize that truth is not required in debate on the
floor of the House. The chairman of the Rules Committee stood up here
and said there has not been one complaint about the use of the PATRIOT
Act, or the abuse. He should talk to Brandon Mayfield from Portland,
Oregon, who was considered to be a perpetrator of the Madrid bombing
and they used the PATRIOT Act to accumulate the nonevidence about him.
The government has subsequently apologized, and he sued the government,
but I guess that is not a complaint.
Maybe we are not hearing the complaints because librarians, bookstore
owners, and business owners can themselves be prosecuted if they tell
anybody that there was an unwarranted gathering of records about
innocent Americans from them. So, yeah, I guess there is sort of a
dearth of complaints.
Then there is the other gentleman. He said, well, we can change this
later. We heard that when we passed the first PATRIOT Act, which no
Member of the House of Representatives had read, at 10 o'clock in the
morning with one copy available on each side of the aisle. We said it
sunsets; you can change it later. Now is later. It is time to change
it. Guess what? They say well, no, we can't change it now; we might
change it later after we make it permanent now. Before it was
temporary; we are going to change it later. Now, it is permanent, maybe
we will change it later.
Come on. Let's be honest about this debate. You are jamming this
through on behalf of the White House and the Attorney General. They
want this. It is bad legislation. It threatens the civil liberties of
Americans, and I believe it will impinge on our investigation and
finding of terrorists.
These national security letters, 30,000 national security letters,
gathering huge amounts of data about the lives of innocent Americans.
In the past, that would have to be discarded. Now they say, well, we're
going to keep it; but don't worry, all the information we're going to
accumulate about people, innocent Americans, is going to go into a
databank; but it will only be available to the Federal Government,
State government, local governments, tribal governments and appropriate
private entities. I guess there is one person in America who might not
be able to tap into this databank.
This is going to create such a huge haystack of irrelevant
information about the lives of innocent Americans that the FBI, who had
one terrorist in hand, Musawi, and had an agent in Arizona pointing at
the plot, could not even see their hand in front of their face. Now we
are going to create a huge mountain of irrelevant data about innocent
people and this is somehow going to improve how they perform in finding
terrorists in America? I don't think so.
Then the most cynical thing about this bill is to take a meritorious
bill
[[Page H11523]]
that deals with methamphetamine precursors and trafficking, that passed
separately in this House of Representatives, which I supported, and
they are going to include it as part of this legislation in a cynical
ploy to somehow basically force, bully, or trick people into supporting
the underlying legislation with its unwarranted attack on the Bill of
Rights, the Constitution of America, the foundation of our government,
the gathering secretly of information about innocent Americans, and the
permanent retention of that information for no good purpose.
This is bad legislation. The time has come to change it. It should be
defeated, and we should change it now.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the
purpose of closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great city
of Worcester, Massachusetts, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R.
3199, the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, because we have not taken
meaningful steps to eliminate or correct the most egregious sections of
this act.
In particular, it is disappointing that the conference agreement does
not include a meaningful judicial review mechanism for FISA wiretaps,
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as applied against
U.S. citizens.
Given that the power that today's surveillance technology gives to
government and given the broad powers that we have given to
intelligence agencies under this act, the absence of post-execution
judicial review in today's conference report constitutes one of its
most critical shortcomings.
Madam Speaker, in order to ensure that the powers granted by the
PATRIOT Act are not susceptible to abuse, our government must always
operate with meaningful oversight, checks and balances.
After all, it is the maximum transparency and active judicial review
which is our ultimate weapon in combating both governmental abuse and
overreaching by governments to restrict the individual freedoms of our
citizens.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose the this version of
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute 20 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
and for his leadership.
Madam Speaker, I rise in total opposition to this rule and to the
reauthorization of this unpatriotic act. We should be repealing these
undemocratic provisions, not expanding 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.
Under this renewal, we will see more of the same. Private residences,
libraries, businesses, medical records, not even your DNA, are safe
from the PATRIOT Act.
I now understand why many have called this bill yet another Big
Brother attack.
Requiring an A on the 9/11 Commission recommendations instead of Ds
and Fs is how we protect the American people from terrorist attacks,
not taking away our civil liberties, which this unpatriotic bill does.
Preserving medical privacy, the right to read and congressional
oversight should not be partisan issues, Madam Speaker. Our
constituents deserve better. I hope that we all vote ``no'' on this
rule and vote ``no'' on this very unpatriotic PATRIOT Act as they call
it.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself 15 seconds and want to
remind the gentlewoman from California that under this reauthorization,
the USA PATRIOT Act, we are not utilizing powers that were not already
granted to the Federal Government in regard to crime prevention and
drug lords and organized crime. We are just applying it now to
terrorists.
Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Georgia how many more speakers he has?
Mr. GINGREY. I have no more speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.
Madam Speaker, this bill overreaches. It paves the way for abuse and
is a potential threat to innocent, law-abiding citizens. We are not a
police state, and what makes us different from so many others is our
freedom and our respect for basic civil liberties and our respect for
privacy.
I understand the urge of some to embrace this legislation; but let me
remind you that every time you chip away at our civil liberties, you
give the terrorists a victory. You take away something that is
essential to who we are as Americans.
Let us adjust and enhance our laws accordingly, to give law
enforcement officials what they need; but let us not give them more
than what they need.
This bill puts us on a dangerous path. There are over 150 provisions
in this bill that are noncontroversial, that everybody agrees on, that
will help track down terrorists and criminals; but there are a few
provisions that so cross the line that they threaten our privacy and
our civil liberties and do not make us safer.
We can defend our country; we can protect our people without trashing
the Constitution.
With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I will close this debate by again
thanking Chairmen Sensenbrenner and King for their work on this
important conference report.
This bill is a testament to our open legislative process.
Conservatives, liberals, moderates, Democrats, Republicans,
Independents, the ACLU, the Department of Justice and various other
organizations have all had the opportunity to voice their thoughts and
concerns on the underlying bill.
I believe, Madam Speaker, the final product is solid and legal, does
not violate our constitutional rights guaranteed by the fourth
amendment, and will serve as an important framework to fight terrorism,
protect civil liberties and thereby further strengthen America.
Again, I want to encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 1215
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 595, I
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3199) to extend and
modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to rule XXII, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
December 8, 2005, at page H11279.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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 the conference report
to accompany H.R. 3199 currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
[[Page H11524]]
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my staff has prepared for me an opening statement on
this bill, and I am going to put the opening statement in the Record
and not read it, because after listening to the debate on the rule that
was just concluded, the amount of misinformation and misleading
information that has been placed in the Congressional Record relating
to the USA PATRIOT Act is just absolutely astounding.
First of all, let me say that when the original PATRIOT Act was
enacted in October of 2001, there were expanded powers that were given
to law enforcement in 16 sections, and I was the person that insisted
upon a 4-year sunset being placed on each and every one of the powers
of law enforcement that were expanded. I was successful in that effort,
and we have had this sunset, during which time the Judiciary Committee
has conducted vigorous oversight.
I have heard allegations that have been made on the other side of the
aisle that there has been no oversight by the Judiciary Committee and
that we were lacking and that we were negligent in doing the oversight.
Madam Speaker, this is the written record of the oversight that has
taken place over the last 4 years. I would submit that there has been
no other provision of current law that has been subjected to as
extensive oversight as the Judiciary Committee has done on a bipartisan
basis on the USA PATRIOT Act.
How have we done this oversight? We have done this oversight through
letters to the Department of Justice, usually cosigned by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and myself. And when the Department of
Justice has been nonresponsive, we have been like the crabby professors
asking them to do it again and again until they get it right and to
disclose the information that Congress is entitled to.
The Judiciary Committee has done oversight through hearings beginning
in 2003. Those records are open to the public. The Judiciary Committee
and its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security has done
oversight through briefings. Those briefings have been open to Members
of both parties.
And when we came up to the reauthorization process, I would remind
you, Madam Speaker, and the Members of the House of Representatives,
that I strongly opposed a premature striking of the sunset or extending
the sunset in the last Congress. And I said that, when the time came to
do the reauthorization, the Judiciary Committee would deal with the
reauthorization on a section-by-section basis. We did that. I fulfilled
that promise. There were 12 hearings, and I am going to insert into the
Record the chronology of those hearings and who testified at those
hearings, many of whom were witnesses that the minority asked to have
testify and who did.
Now, what came out of this? It came out of the testimony, including
participation by minority witnesses, that 14 of the 16 sunsetted
sections were noncontroversial, and as a result, both the committee and
this House and the other body made those sections permanent because
there was no need for a sunsetted review. A few minutes ago, we heard
allegations that this was irresponsible. The record shows that this was
the responsible thing to do.
The two sections that were passed in 2001 that were not made
permanent related to section 215, the business records or so-called
library provisions, and the so-called multipoint wiretaps or roving
wiretaps in section 206. In both section 215 and in section 206, we
have put in this conference report additional restrictions that protect
civil liberties. They have been subjected to a 4-year sunset, as
requested by the Senate, rather than the 10-year sunset in the House-
passed bill. And if anybody is interested in going into detail as to
what those additional protections consist of, I will be happy to do
that at a later time.
The other provision that is sunsetted in this bill was not put in the
original USA PATRIOT Act, it was put in the intelligence bill that was
enacted about a year ago. That involved expanding law enforcement
powers in the so-called lone wolf terrorist. That is also subjected to
a 4-year sunset so we can see what happens in terms of how the Justice
Department and law enforcement deals with the issues.
Now, what did all of this oversight disclose? First of all, it
disclosed that none of the 16 provisions where law enforcement powers
were expanded has been declared unconstitutional by any Federal Court
whatsoever. There was a finding of unconstitutionality relative to the
National Security Letters provision of law. But the National Security
Letters provision of law was not passed in the PATRIOT Act. It was
passed in 1986, 15 years before September 11, in a bill that was
written by a member of the other body who has been very critical of
this conference report.
We are concerned about National Security Letters. And this conference
report, even though the National Security Letters provisions were not
contained in the PATRIOT Act, put restrictions on National Security
Letters so that there would be increased disclosure and a potential
judicial review process.
Now, we have heard an awful lot about delayed notification warrants,
and we heard more complaints about them from people who are criticizing
this conference report. I want to make it perfectly clear that all the
PATRIOT Act did was to give law enforcement the authority to use a
delayed notification warrant for terrorist purposes that law
enforcement had had for drug trafficking and organized crime and
racketeering. And in the case of the last two matters, the organized
crime and racketeering and drug trafficking, the United States Supreme
Court has upheld delayed notification warrants as constitutional and
not in violation of the fourth amendment.
This conference report provides additional civil liberties protection
in the area of the business records section, in the area of the delayed
notification warrants section, in the area of the roving wiretap
section, and in the area of National Security Letters. If it is voted
down, all of these protections for civil liberties will go down with
this conference report, and we will be back to the existing PATRIOT Act
under the proposal that has been advocated by my distinguished ranking
member from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and members on the other side of the
Capitol building.
The PATRIOT Act has been a vital tool in the interception and
prevention of terrorist activities, and if it is allowed to expire, the
first consequence will be that the wall that prevented the CIA and the
FBI from exchanging intelligence information prior to 9/11 will go back
up. And if there is one thing the 9/11 Commission said repeatedly, it
is that the stovepiping of intelligence information between various
agencies of the Federal Government prevented our government from being
able to try to connect the dots to see what the terrorists were doing
before 3,000 people were killed on September 11, 2001.
The consequence of letting the PATRIOT Act expire will be a boon to
terrorists because they will be able to exploit all of the
vulnerabilities in our legal system that allowed them to pull 9/11 off.
And as a result, I do not think that that is the responsible thing to
do.
The Congress, and this House in particular, have three choices: One
is to let the act expire, and back goes the wall, and we cannot use
delayed notification warrants to figure out what the terrorists are
doing, but we can for drug pushers and Mafia dons. We cannot try to get
business records of terrorists doing business, whether it is at
libraries or elsewhere. And those warrants, by the way, have to be
issued by the courts, so there is judicial review before they are
issued.
The second thing is to extend the existing law, whether it is for 3
months, as Mr. Conyers has proposed, or for a longer period of time,
which means that all of the civil liberties protections that I have
just described will not be in the law, and they will all be lost. And I
think that would be a shame.
Or we can pass the conference report. That is what we should do.
Now, since the beginning of this country's history, we have given law
enforcement and prosecutors a lot of discretion. And anybody who has a
lot of discretion, whether it is the Attorney General of the United
States or the cop on the beat, has the potential of abusing the
discretion. There has not
[[Page H11525]]
been an abuse of discretion in the PATRIOT Act. The Inspector General's
reports to Congress on abuses of the PATRIOT Act that are required by
the original law have said that there are none.
Yes, there is the potential for abuse, and that is what oversight and
the civil liberties protections that are contained in the original law
and improved in this conference report is all about.
The PATRIOT Act keeps us safer. It does not make us perfectly safe;
it keeps us safer. The record here shows that civil liberties have not
been trampled upon. The responsible alternative for the Congress to do
is to pass this conference report. We should do so promptly.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report
accompanying H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005.''
In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, congressional and
independent investigations showed that terrorists exploited historic
divisions between the law enforcement and intelligence communities that
prevented authorities from ``connecting the dots'' in time to avert the
attacks. To address this vulnerability, broad bipartisan majorities in
both Houses passed the PATRIOT Act to enhance investigatory tools
necessary to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Since its enactment,
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence authorities have utilized these
tools to gain critical knowledge of the intentions of foreign-based
terrorists while preempting terrorist threats on our own soil. The
PATRIOT Act has made America safer, but the threat has not receded.
Without congressional passage of this conference report, key provisions
of the PATRIOT Act will no longer be available to our law enforcement
on January 1, 2006--two weeks away.
It is crucial to note at the outset that H.R. 3199, which passed the
House by a vote of 257-171, and the amendment to this legislation
unanimously approved by the other body, underscore bipartisan and
bicameral support for core provisions of the PATRIOT Act. There was
broad agreement to make fourteen of the sixteen expiring provisions
permanent, and the conference report does so. After exhaustive and
comprehensive negotiations in which all conferees were provided an
opportunity to extensively participate, the conference report sunsets
these two provisions in four years.
The conference report also contains vital provisions to reduce
America's vulnerability to terrorist attack. The PATRIOT Act breached
the ``wall of separation'' between law enforcement and the intelligence
community; the conference report we consider today ensures that it will
not be rebuilt.
The PATRIOT Act strengthened the penalties for attacks against mass
transportation systems and our Nation's airports; the conference report
enhances these penalties to reflect the urgent threat that the London
and Madrid attacks have underlined. The PATRIOT Act helped reduce
terrorist funding sources, requiring terrorists to establish and rely
upon criminal schemes to finance their murderous ambitions; the
conference report adapts to this threat by enhancing penalties against
narco-terrorism and other terrorist criminal enterprises.
The conference report also addresses the clear danger to America's
communities posed by methamphetamine. It restricts Internet and mobile
vendor sales of the precursors necessary to produce methamphetamine,
enhances criminal penalties for its sale and manufacture, targets large
meth kingpins, and enhances tools necessary to stop meth trafficking
across the southwest border. Passing these anti-methamphetamine
provisions is vital, and I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Souder, for his leadership on this issue.
Now let me talk about the process that has led to this point. When
the House Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the PATRIOT Act in
October of 2001, I pledged to rigorously examine its implementation to
ensure that new law enforcement authorities did not transgress civil
liberties. H.R. 3199, which passed the House by a wide margin on July
21, 2005, reflected bipartisan congressional consideration consisting
of legislative and oversight hearings, Inspector General reports,
briefings, and Committee correspondence.
This extensive record, a chronology of which I ask unanimous consent
to submit for the record, has demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act is an
effective tool against terrorists and other criminals. Of no less
importance, the record shows that there is absolutely no evidence that
the Act has been used to violate civil liberties. However, to curtail
the potential of government overreach, the conference report contains
important amendments and revisions. Specifically, the conference report
contains additional judicial and congressional oversight of the use of
multipoint wiretapping authority contained in section 206 of the
PATRIOT Act.
The conference report also clarifies and refines the use of delayed
notice search warrants in section 213 of the legislation. It ensures
that information likely to be obtained through section 215 of the
PATRIOT Act are subject to a judicial review process that authorizes
the judge to set aside or affirm a 215 order that has been challenged.
The conference report establishes additional requirements on the
utilization of National Security Letters, including congressional
disclosure of the frequency of their use, and enhances congressional
oversight of electronic and other types of surveillance. Many of these
changes were requested by minority conferees, and the absence of any of
their signatures on this vital conference report is disappointing.
I also regret to note that in many ways, the bipartisanship that
characterized passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001 has yielded to the
desire of some to engage in political hyperbole and partisan
brinksmanship. Some have attempted to create the impression that the
PATRIOT Act poses a greater threat to the American people than that
presented by terrorism. These claims are not only false, the record
clearly demonstrates that they are groundless and irresponsible.
Madam Speaker, the security of the American people is a fundamental
responsibility of Congress and an obligation that each of us swears an
obligation to uphold. I urge my House colleagues to support passage of
this critical antiterrorism initiative and encourage the other body to
send the conference report to the President for his signature before
vital antiterrorism provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act expire at
year's end.
I wish to recognize the important contributions of the following
staff who spent much of the last several months working on this
historic legislation. From the House Committee on the Judiciary: Philip
Kiko; Sean McLaughlin; Beth Sokul; Mindy Barry; Mike Volkov; and Robert
Tracci. From the Senate Judiciary Committee: Mike O'Neill, Brett
Tolman; Nick Rossi, Joe Matal, and Cindy Hayden. From the House
Intelligence Committee, Chris Donessa--from the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Brandon Milhorn. From the Department of Justice, William
Moschella, Elisabeth Cook, Jim Baker, Matthew Berry, and David Blake.
Madam Speaker, I provide for the Record the following document, which
is a detailed listing of oversight hearings held on the USA PATRIOT
Act:
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;
[[Page H11526]]
(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 14, 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 FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
(36) September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, & Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two
Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots;
(37) August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for
House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding
the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct
delayed searches & collect business records & the effect of
the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;
(38) July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on Law Enforcement & Terrorism;
(39) June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security,
Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
(40) June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified
briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on
the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
(41) June 5, 2003, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing
on the U.S. Department of Justice, including its use of the
provisions authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act;
(42) May 20, 2003, House Subcommittee on the Constitution
hearing: Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth
Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government
Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks;
(43) May 13, 2003, letter from Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Jamie Brown to the House Committee on the Judiciary
responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;
(44) April 1, 2003, letter from the House Committee on the
Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA
PATRIOT Act;
(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.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, if only what my good friend, the
chairman, said was accurate, we would not be here to ask that this
measure be turned down and that we pass a 3-month extension, as I have
proposed and is in legislative form, so that the PATRIOT Act and
intelligence reform would not be stymied.
It is like coming to a meeting and we have forgotten all the things
that most of the Members on my side of the aisle on the Judiciary
Committee agreed with is wrong with the PATRIOT Act, but that we have
ignored the fact that many other organizations are not for the PATRIOT
Act.
Now, what safeguards are being preserved is very interesting for me
because the opponents of the PATRIOT Act, including seven States that
have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act and a number
of communities that have done so, represent over 62 million Americans.
{time} 1230
Additionally, numerous groups ranging across all parts of the
political spectrum have come forward to oppose sections of the PATRIOT
Act and demand that the Congress conduct more oversight, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Library
Association, the Center For Constitutional Rights, the Center For
Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun
Owners of America, the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Criminal Defense
Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous other groups
concerned about immigrants' rights.
And what about the more than six death penalty additions that have
been
[[Page H11527]]
put into this build with very, very few hearings. Is that something
that somebody can hold forward as protecting the rights and improving
the PATRIOT Act? I do not think so.
And even worse has been the abuse of unilateral powers by the
administration where since September 11 our government has detained and
abused physically thousands of immigrants without time limits for
unknown and unspecified reasons and targeted tens of thousands of Arab
Americans for intensive interrogations. All this serves to accomplish,
of course, is to alienate many of those Muslim and Arab Americans that
would be working with us.
So, Madam Speaker, there are two pictures of what happened in the
Committee on the Judiciary. One is that the bill was made clearly
worse, and we have some 92 pages of dissent about the bill itself, and
much of it is still of course valid in terms of the conference report
that we are examining today.
I urge Members, we have been tricked once, the first time when the
bill was substituted, and now we are about to be fooled again if
Members do not read our dissents and the reservations that we have
about the PATRIOT Act. It can be made better, and we would propose that
that is exactly what happen today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguish chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
conference report. Today, our country is at war. We are at war against
a global enemy, the global enemy of terrorism. Beginning long before
the 9/11 attacks, our citizens have faced potential threats to our
safety and security at home within the United States for the first time
since Pearl Harbor. We are reminded on a daily basis around the world
that those threats are real, serious, and continuing.
As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I want to take this
opportunity to remind my colleagues that the central purpose of this
bill is to provide enhanced intelligence authorities to combat spies
and terrorists within the United States. We have many national
intelligence capabilities, but the authorities that are enhanced by the
PATRIOT Act are among the most crucial because they protect the
American people from terrorist threats here at home. They are a crucial
part of our efforts to build a strong domestic national security
capability within the FBI. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for
his leadership in this conference and on this important legislation.
The conference report under consideration today will make 14 of 16
provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent while also including sensible
clarifications and improvements in many areas where there should be
broad, bipartisan agreement.
By the Justice Department's count, the bill adds 30 new safeguards to
protect privacy and civil liberties. These include a clearer standard
for obtaining certain business records, clarification that that
authority may be subject to judicial review, and much more specific
standards with respect to the use of national security letters and
roving wire taps.
In addition, the Congress will continue its close and continued
oversight with the Intelligence Committee paying particular attention
to the specific manner in which these authorities are used.
Madam Speaker, this bill needs to be approved. I encourage my
colleagues to support this conference report and work to keep America
safe.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a subcommittee ranking member.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in a serious war with
terrorism. Unfortunately, we are going after the wrong targets. We are
not protecting ourselves, but we are endangering our liberties.
We are not doing anything or anything adequate about collecting the
loose nuclear materials all over the former Soviet Union before they
are smuggled to al Qaeda to make atomic bombs to attack us with. That
costs money.
We are searching 2 percent of the 6 million shipping containers that
come into our country's ports every year, any one of which may contain
a weapon of mass destruction; but to search them would cost money.
We are not doing much about what the 9/11 Commission said was one of
the most important things we should do, providing for
intercommunicability between the first responders so police can talk to
the fire and military. We are not doing that.
What are we doing? We are violating the civil liberties of our people
and making them think that we are protecting ourselves.
Madam Speaker, this country has a great heritage of liberty. It also
has an unfortunate history of violating that liberty whenever we get
into a war, from the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 to the Espionage
Act of 1971, the Palmer Raids of 1919, the Japanese American Internment
Act of World War II, the FBI's egregious COINTELPRO program against
opponents of the Vietnam War. And now in this war, this administration
has resorted to torture, to indefinite detention without trial, to
evasions of the great writ of habeas corpus, to going back in some
respects to before Magna Carta.
What does this bill do? This bill continues in that tradition. It
does some okay things. It continues breaking down the so-called wall
between intelligence and police work. That makes sense. But it also
invades our liberties in ways that are very unnecessary. Let me focus
on two of them.
Section 215, the so-called libraries provision, allows the government
to get orders from a FISA court to search any records of any business
of a library regarding a third party who never knows about the search.
It does not require a showing of a particularized suspicion of the
target as the fourth amendment would seem to require. It simply says
that the government has to come up with a statement of fact showing
there are reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are
relevant to an authorized investigation. Well, that is hardly
restrictive at all. Relevant, almost anything can be relevant.
Moreover, it says that the government's statements that the
information sought is necessary to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities are presumptively
relevant if the person they pertain to may be an individual in contact
with a subject or agent of a foreign power. Presumptively relevant,
that means they do not have to prove it. They do not have to show
probable cause. This destroys the fourth amendment requirement for
search and seizures.
Then you have the gag order. They cannot tell anybody about it. The
Internet service provider or the library that is giving up all the
information about what you read or who you talk to cannot tell you. You
cannot move in court to quash it.
Section 505, national security letters which have been held
unconstitutional by two courts so far do not even require a FISA court.
It is an administrative proceeding. It is not even a proceeding; the
FBI simply says they want it, and they can get it. This is like the
writ of assistance the British granted in 1761 which this is very
similar to. That started the American Revolution. But after the FBI
gets the information, you can protest the gag order. You can say I want
to be able to tell somebody about it, but you can only say that if you
can show that revealing that information is not harmful to the national
security or diplomatic relations, but the government's statement that
it is conclusive, so the court is a cipher. The court cannot make any
judgments. There is no evidence. The government's statement is
conclusive.
This does not protect liberty; this destroys liberty. We ought to
have real protections for our liberty. We ought to have put some
procedural safeguards on these powers such as our entire tradition
demands. To pass this bill with no sunset of section 505, with no
procedural safeguards on these very intrusive provisions is to
disregard our entire history of ordered liberty. I very much urge
defeat of this bill so we can do it properly after further
consideration.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H11528]]
Madam Speaker, the issue of national security letters was not in the
PATRIOT Act that was enacted in 2001. They were enacted in 1986 in a
bill that was written over in the other body.
This conference report puts procedural safeguards into national
security letters even though they are not a part of the PATRIOT Act
that was passed in 2001. It makes changes to all NSL provisions, not
just electronic communications as the Senate wanted. It permits
disclosure of NSLs to legal counsel and those necessary to comply with
the letter. That is not in the law now.
It creates explicit access to judicial review of the government's
request for records. It permits the reviewing court to modify or set
aside the NSL if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive or
otherwise unlawful, the same standard for quashing a subpoena.
It permits judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement. It
creates a 5-year felony criminal penalty for unauthorized disclosures
of NSLs with intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial
proceeding, just like the obstruction of justice statute. The 1-year
misdemeanor for disclosure without intent to obstruct, that is not in
the conference reports. That is out.
It requires the DOJ Inspector General to conduct two audits of the
FBI's use of national security letters. One audit covers 2003 and 2004,
the other 2005 and 2006. It requires the Attorney General and the
director of national intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the
feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSL to ensure the
protection of constitutional rights of United States persons, and it
requires an annual public reporting on national security letters,
including the aggregate number of requests made by the Justice
Department for information concerning different U.S. persons.
Now, national security letters are not subject to the sunset. They
are in the earlier law. If the argument that has been advanced by the
gentleman from New York succeeds, all of the protections I have just
described go down the drain with the rest of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
May I bring to the attention of the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee that section 505 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the use of
national security letters, so to say they are not in the bill would not
be accurate.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference
report.
The PATRIOT Act provided new authorities, but it also modified long-
standing laws. One such change was the lowering of the standard for
issuing government requests for financial, telecommunications credit,
and other business records.
{time} 1245
These requests commonly referred to as National Security Letters or
NSLs are issued directly by the government agencies in national
security investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the
PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies had to show there was
some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT
Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an
investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all
time high in the number of NSLs issued.
A recent Washington Post article alleged that over 30,000 National
Security Letters have been issued by the FBI to businesses and private
institutions across the Nation. Even more disturbing, the article
alleged that records collected pursuant to NSLs are retained for an
indefinite period of time, even when they are not of interest to
investigators, and shared with other Federal agencies and the private
sector.
As a citizen, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. As a Member
of Congress, I am disappointed that we have missed a critical
opportunity to get the NSL standard right. We have also missed the
opportunity to ensure that NSL recipients have an opportunity to seek
meaningful judicial review of the nondisclosure or gag requirements
that accompany NSLs and further tailor the statutory framework to
ensure that privacy and civil liberties are better protected.
I will vote against the conference report. I think the precious
balance of civil liberties and security are damaged here.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of this conference
report. And as a conferee, I want to specially thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner for his leadership in negotiating the final details of
this very important legislation.
Our Nation continues to be threatened by radical terrorists, and it
is critical that we take every step possible to prevent future attacks.
Over the past 4 years, the PATRIOT Act has proven to be an effective
tool in helping to accomplish this goal. But significant threats
continue to exist, endangering the lives of U.S. citizens. With this in
mind, it is imperative that detecting and disrupting terrorist activity
before it occurs remain a top priority.
It is also critical, however, that we maintain our commitment to
protecting American civil liberties. When the House first considered
the original PATRIOT Act, I was one of several on the Judiciary
Committee who sought to include sunset provisions that would require
Congress to reauthorize the legislation after conducting vigorous
oversight.
Well, the House Judiciary Committee has extensively reviewed the
PATRIOT Act and its implementation. And over a 4-month period, it
received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT
Act. Furthermore, the committee conducted a nearly 12-hour markup of
this legislation, including consideration of 43 amendments.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, we have held
PATRIOT Act oversight hearings in my subcommittee, and we remain
committed to monitoring the implementation of this legislation through
aggressive oversight. I am pleased that another 4-year sunset of the
more controversial provisions and several additional safeguards to
further protect civil liberties were included in the conference report,
and I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for that.
The sunset provisions proved to be successful the first time around,
and their renewal, coupled with new protections, helped strengthen our
defenses against terrorism while demonstrating a strong commitment to
civil liberties.
The goal of our enemies is to destroy America and its allies. We must
remain steadfast in our resolve to eradicate the plague of terrorism.
This act does that.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for all
of his good work and for yielding me the time now.
I rise in opposition to the PATRIOT Act conference report. These
provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms and civil
liberties of all Americans. Now, some will say we need these provisions
to track down terrorists and build cases against them. But what is
often 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 that that the PATRIOT Act must be seen as something that
affects all of us. Searching business records can sweep up people, most
of whom are innocent. 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
against terrorists, not law-abiding citizens. But they should try to
tell that to Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon.
Mr. Mayfield, an attorney, was detained by investigators last year as
a material witness under authority granted through the PATRIOT Act.
They alleged that his fingerprints were found on a bag linked to the
terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain. More so-called evidence was
collected when his residence was searched without his knowledge under
Section 213. However, the investigators were wrong. The FBI has issued
an apology for his wrongful detention. But this is small conciliation
for a lawyer and Muslim American
[[Page H11529]]
whose reputation was tarnished by the investigation.
Of course, some mistakes will occur. But this bill strikes the wrong
balance and makes those errors more likely. It also allows the fact,
the very fact of such a search to remain undisclosed to the subject
indefinitely.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed conference report and
protect the liberties and freedoms of our citizens that are central to
what it means to be an American.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Once again, there has been erroneous information presented to the
House. The conference report on the delayed notification search warrant
limits initial delayed notification to only 30 days unless the facts
justify a later date. It permits extensions of up to 90 days unless the
facts justify a later date and only upon the showing of need. And it
has new reporting requirements on the use of delayed notification
warrants.
Now, the original PATRIOT Act did not have these time limits. The
delayed notification was determined it could be for a long period of
time by a magistrate judge, a judicial officer, not by law enforcement,
but by a judicial officer in determining when the notification would
take place.
What I just described in the conference report is new language. It is
limitations on how long a magistrate judge, a judicial officer, can
delay notification of the warrants. You vote against this bill and you
kill this bill, those limitations go down with the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I was absent from
this chamber for 16 years after serving for 10. The compelling reason
for me to return was the events of 9/11. And one of the things that I
thought I would never see in the House of Representatives is an Alice
in Wonderland type atmosphere where just because you say something, you
think it is true.
The fact of the matter is, many of the complaints registered by my
friends on the other side of the aisle are taken care of in this
conference report. If you vote down the conference report, those
sections that are not subject to sunset will continue on without any of
the changes that the chairman has articulated. So the very arguments
they are making against what they do not like about the law now should
compel them to vote for this conference report because we make changes.
Madam Speaker, it is the primary responsibility of government to
protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act tears down that
wall, that artificial wall that existed between the intelligence
community and the criminal justice enterprises. And what we did was we
said it made no sense, it made us more vulnerable to attack.
Some have said, look, these changes in the PATRIOT Act change what
was current law. That is true because there was a need to do so. And
some have argued all we need to do is to follow what has been the law
in the past. The distinction that must be drawn is that, in the war on
terrorism, it is not good enough to collect the evidence after a
terrorist attack to try and bring people to justice. The imperative is
to stop the terrorist attacks from occurring in the first place. That
is why we have the differences in this law.
Yes, there is a different standard. The standard is to allow us to
stop the terrorist attacks in the first instance. We have, as a result
of oversight, and I have attended every single hearing in the
subcommittee and full committee, done unbelievable oversight, reviewing
every bit of evidence that has been out there. There has not been one
single example of abuse proven, not one. The IG report could not find
it. We could not find it. I have been to every single hearing that we
have had, been with every witness. They could not prove a one. But
because we are concerned about the possibility of abuse, we have put at
least 30 additional limitations into this conference report. And so
really the question is, do you believe in the essential foundation of
the PATRIOT Act which makes changes, recognizing that we are trying to
stop terrorist attacks before they occur, rather than doing the regular
criminal justice activity of collecting evidence after the fact. I am
not willing to place my children and grandchildren in jeopardy by
defeating this conference report.
Introductory Comments
It is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety
of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act is a critical element in a strategy to
provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to conduct
antiterrorism investigations. This task is made all the more difficult
in that unlike the traditional criminal case, our success will be
measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack.
The 9/11 Commission report observed that ``The choice between
security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to
endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at
home.'' 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 a cataclysmic event. 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.
At the same time, it is the solemn responsibility of committees with
oversight responsibilitites to be ever diligent to assure that
government does not overstep the proper limits of its authority in
implementing the PATRIOT Act.
In this regard, in our oversight of the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary
Committee conducted 13 hearings and there was no finding of abuse. This
was evidenced by the fact that opponents of the act resorted to attacks
on the circumstances at Guantanamo, and the Creppy memo--issues related
to the wider war on terrorism but unrelated to the PATRIOT Act itself.
Comments on Provisions Further Strengthening the PATRIOT Act
The conference report contains a number of provisions which maintain
the integrity of those key provisions necessary to combat terrorism,
while at the same time strengthening the protection of civil liberties:
Section 102 (sunset provisions)
As the author of the 10-year sunset provisions in the House bill
relating to section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, access to
business records the final language in the conference report responds
to the critics of the legislation. The conference report contains the
Senate language of 4-year sunsets of these same provisions and extends
the sunset language to the ``lone wolf' provisions of the bill as well.
Section 106 (215 business records)
The conference report language relating to business record access
includes additional protections not contained in current law.
The conference report explicitly provides for judicial review of any
section 215 order.
If the documents sought pertain to sensitive categories of records--
such as library, bookstore, tax returns, firearms sales, educational
and medical records--the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or the official
in charge of intelligence must personally sign off on the application
before it can be submitted to the court.
The conference report requires that the application to the FISA court
must include ``a clear statement of the facts'' that demonstrate
reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are relevant
to the investigation.
The conference report requires the use of so-called minimization
procedures to regulate the retention and dissemination of information
concerning United States persons and the protection of privileged
documents.
The conference report makes it explicit that a recipient of an order
has the right to disclose receipt to an attorney or other parties
necessary to comply with the order.
Section 108 (206 roving wiretaps)
Section 108 of the conference report imposes several additional
safeguards on the use of roving surveillance:
The conference report requires that the order describe the specific
target in detail when authorizing a roving wiretap for a target whose
identity is not known.
The conference report specifies that the FISA court must find that
the possibility of the target thwarting surveillance is based on
specific facts in the application.
The conference report requires investigators to inform the court when
``roving'' surveillance is used to target a new facility--such as when
a terrorist or spy changes to a different cell phone.
Section 114 (sec. 213 delayed notice search warrants)
As the former chief law enforcement officer of my State of
California, I want to first of all emphasize that delayed notice search
warrants are not an invention of the PATRIOT Act. The delayed notice
search warrant has been available to California law enforcement for
years.
[[Page H11530]]
The conference report adds new safeguards relating to the use of
delayed notice search warrants.
The conference report places a limit of 30 days on an initial request
or on a later date certain if the facts justify such a delay.
Extensions of up to 90 days are possible unless the facts of a
particular case justify a longer period.
Sections 115-119 (national security letters)
The language in the conference report provides for explicit judicial
review of an NSL.
The conference report provides that a recipient of an NSL may
challenge any non-disclosure requirement in court.
The report clarifies that a recipient may disclose receipt of an NSL
to an attorney or other necessary party.
Conclusion
There is a total absence of any evidence of abuse of the PATRlOT Act.
Furthermore, the conference report adds further protections against any
potential abuse of the law. The conference report represents a careful
balance between our responsibility to protect Americans from terrorist
violence, and our responsibility to avoid any potential violations of
their civil liberties.
The enactment of this legislation is critical to this endeavor. There
are those who will attempt to come here for the sole purpose of
murdering innocent Americans. It is our responsibility to keep this
from happening. We must provide law enforcement with the necessary
tools to carry out this task.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Let me remind my friend who returned from his California duties to
the Congress, did you hear the Brandon Mayfield case just recited by
the gentleman from New Jersey? That was an abuse that we heard in the
committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Michigan for the time.
Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT
Act. First, I do not believe many of the so-called law enforcement
tools will make us any safer.
I am probably one of a few Members of Congress who has been spied on
by his own government. During the civil rights movement, an agency in
the Mississippi State Government called the State Sovereignty
Commission kept files on me and countless other people working for
change.
I might add that none of us did anything illegal other than just
convene and talk about how we would change our State.
From this experience, I have known that, when government has the
authority to spy on its own people, it is almost always and will misuse
that power.
Nothing good will come from many of the tools in the PATRIOT Act, and
I fear that it will lead to more misuse of power.
It is too broad an authorization to continue to give the government
these powers, such as to search the library records or to place roving
wiretaps without a warrant that at least should say what phone is being
tapped.
I am also opposed to the conference report because it fails to
include the provision in the House bill that would allocate more
Homeland Security funds based on risk.
The 9/11 Commission explicitly recommended that Homeland Security
funds be allocated based on risk. The
9/11 Commission members recently said that if the House funding
measures were passed, Congress would have received an A grade instead
of an F on fulfilling its recommendation.
We must focus our scarce Homeland Security resources on areas that
are most at risk of terrorist attack. We cannot yield to politics. We
must fulfill the Commission's recommendation by passing the House
proposal. Without that measure in this PATRIOT Act reauthorization, I
cannot support it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the acting
majority leader, the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for
the incredible hard work he has done to bring this bill to the floor,
both to help create this legislation 4 years ago, to review it time
after time after time for the last 4 years and to extend it into the
future with the safeguards that have been discussed here on the floor
today.
In terms of the review process, I think the Attorney General today in
some information he put out suggested that there were at least 23
separate hearings last year of oversight, this is last year alone, of
oversight on this act; witness after witness after witness called to
testify about what was happening with the act. This oversight work that
the chairman has been largely responsible for has made a difference in
the way the law was implemented, has made a difference in the way we
offer it to be extended today and has made a difference, frankly, in
the safety and security of America.
{time} 1300
There is nothing in this law, nothing in the law the last 4 years,
nothing in the law as we look to the future that was not available to
law enforcement for organized crime. What crime could be more organized
than terrorism?
No one has come up with a single instance where someone's rights were
impacted by the PATRIOT Act, because of the PATRIOT Act. There is no
evidence that there are problems, and we all could easily be aware of a
number of instances, where there is no concern about the fact that the
PATRIOT Act made a difference in the safety and security of America.
Another thing that the chairman worked hard to put in this act is
some legislation that I originally introduced that deals with the
problem of methamphetamine, and methamphetamine does become a security
issue. It particularly becomes a bigger issue as our borders become
more secure. People turn to this drug as the drug for funding of
illicit activities, as the drug of choice when imported drugs are not
available. That is an important addition to the bill today.
But the PATRIOT Act with two provisions that need to be reviewed in 4
years, the PATRIOT Act with a Judiciary Committee and an oversight
responsibility that will continue to be, as it has been, extensive in
ensuring that the executive branch does what the PATRIOT Act intends it
to do with the maximum protection for individual freedom and the
maximum protection for the security of our Nation.
We don't want to face 9/11 again, and we certainly don't want to face
a 9/11 that could have been prevented. If the law enforcement
techniques and tools that are available for organized crime continue to
be available for terrorism, this allows that to happen.
I come to praise the chairman and his committee and to seek a ``yes''
vote on this bill today.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), distinguished member of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act provided tools
essential to identifying and tracking terrorists that were not
available before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the time it passed,
just 7 weeks after 9/11, there were concerns that some of the
authorities were too broad and susceptible to abuse. The sensible
proposal emerged to sunset 16 of the most controversial provisions.
Sunsets matter. They forced the Justice Department and the American
public to evaluate the appropriateness of, and need for, the PATRIOT
Act. Without sunsets, Congress probably would not have undertaken the
same review of key provisions this year and considered significant
changes to the law.
For those reasons I offered an amendment to extend the PATRIOT Act
sunset during the Intelligence Committee markup of H.R. 3199. I am
pleased this conference report includes 4-year sunsets on the most
controversial provisions: 215 orders, 206 roving wiretaps, and the Lone
Wolf provision.
But additional steps, however, must be taken to ensure the right
balance is struck between security and constitutionality. Congress must
engage in vigilant oversight of the PATRIOT Act, national security
letters, and other authorities granted to law enforcement and
intelligence agencies. I am committed to doing my part as a member of
the House Select Intelligence Committee to ensure proper oversight
occurs.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
[[Page H11531]]
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I want to commend him for a great process here. Often we do not have
a deliberative process when we pass major pieces of legislation. That
is not the case here. We had 12 hearings over a year on these
provisions, and I want to point out what the chairman has already said,
that we are not just dealing with those sections that are sunsetted but
we are dealing with those that are not as well. We had some substantive
reforms to the NSL process.
After the passage of the first PATRIOT Act, I and others formed the
PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus because we felt we needed additional
protections. That process yielded about a half dozen amendments which
we offered during the House version of the bill, and each of those
amendments was accepted and remains part of the legislation. One
amendment that we dealt with during consideration of the House bill
clarified that a recipient of an NSL, or national security letter, may
discuss the NSL with his or her attorney and may disclose that request
to an individual whose help is necessary for compliance with the NSL.
That is an important safeguard.
And for those who say there is a gag rule that prohibits people from
even mentioning the NSL, that is no longer true. If an NSL is
challenged, it requires a recertification by either the FBI Director or
another official confirmed by the Senate. This reform increases
accountability in using NSLs, and it clarifies that judicial review
exists and challenges to both the NSL and the prohibition on disclosure
are now allowed. It also, as the chairman mentioned, establishes
additional reporting requirements to the House and Senate Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees on the frequency and use of NSLs. These are
commonsense reforms and clarifications.
In addition to these safeguards on NSL authorities, the
reauthorization also will add significant safeguards in a number of
other areas, as the chairman mentioned. There are now strict time
limits for those who are put on delayed notification as well as new
reporting requirements to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Madam Speaker, these are reforms that are important, and I am happy
to support it, and I hope that we will codify these in the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I want to quote from a letter that was sent to Chairman Sensenbrenner
from the American Library Association, its president, indeed, Michael
Gorman, and a copy to myself.
It says: ``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing on behalf of the American
Library Association to express our opposition to the conference report.
We are deeply disappointed that the conferees did not take this
opportunity to heed the concerns of library users across this country
and to restore protections for records of library use that were
stripped away by the PATRIOT Act'' itself.
It ``does not seriously address any of the library community's
concerns with section 215. It does not require a factual connection
between the records sought and a terrorist or terrorist organization.
``The report also leaves in place the USA PATRIOT Act standards for
national security letters'' and would ``allow the FBI to continue its
unfettered reach into the personal electronic records of the public,
including records of their use of the Internet through computers in
libraries. Worse, it adds a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the
order and for a knowing violation of the gag order. And while adding an
ability to challenge the secrecy of a national security letter on the
one hand, it takes it away with the other by requiring the court to
accept, as conclusive, the government's assertion of harm to national
security . . . ''
Madam Speaker, this is the clearest description from the president of
the American Library Association, supported by thousands of
professional librarians from one end of the country to the other.
Please, let us not buy into the fact that this is a new and improved
version of the PATRIOT Act. With the death penalties arbitrarily added,
it is a definite reversal, a downward, backward movement in which the
PATRIOT Act becomes meaner and less democratic and is far more
dangerous for people who get caught up in these things who are innocent
Americans. Please join us in sending this bill back to committee and
supporting my measure that would allow for a 3-month period of time for
us to improve the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan talked about the
conclusive presumption provisions on national security letters that are
contained in the conference report as well as the requirements that
have been changed relative to section 215, which is the business
records or library provisions.
I would just point out that both the NSL provision and the section
215 provision in this respect were the language in the Senate bill that
passed unanimously. And everybody here has been saying that the Senate
bill is great and the conference report is not. But if the Senate bill
was great, now they are attacking two provisions in the Senate bill.
They cannot have it both ways. What we did in the conference report is
responsible.
With respect to section 215, I wish that the Library Association had
read it, because it requires the statement of facts in an application
to the court that issues the 215 order to show reasonable grounds to
believe that the records are relevant to an authorized investigation.
The Senate's language. Then it creates a presumption in favor of
records that pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,
activities of a suspected 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.
Now, all of these people are presumably bad folks that want to commit
a terrorist attack, and I do not think we should make the libraries or
any other place off limits to an investigation to try to see who is
trying to blow innocent people up.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder), who is the author of the methamphetamine section of this bill.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his cosponsorship
and his leadership in making sure that this meth bill can pass this
bill in the form of passing a conference report, which is the only real
way to get this done. I also want to say briefly that I support section
215, which amends the Import and Export Act to make sure that we can
have better prosecution methods.
Eighteen of the 40 major organizations that are involved in terrorism
also deal in narcotics. The Methamphetamine Act is the single, first
comprehensive anti-meth bill that we have ever introduced in Congress,
let alone passed in Congress. It is a sweeping anti-meth bill. It will
require all pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products to be stored behind
the counter or in a locked cabinet; impose a daily and monthly purchase
limit; require purchasers to show ID and sign a logbook; and require
training of all employees handling the product.
It closes a number of loopholes in existing import, export, and
wholesale regulations of meth precursor chemicals, including import and
manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion; and
regulation of the wholesale ``spot market.'' It requires reporting of
major meth precursor exporters and importers. It would hold them
accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production.
It toughens Federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers.
It authorizes the Meth Hot Spots program as well as increases funding
for drug courts, drug endangered children programs, and programs to
assist pregnant women addicted to meth. In addition, it has EPA
environmental regulations.
I want to thank Democrats and Republicans for all their bipartisan
effort. This is something we did in a bipartisan way. This is our best
chance to really get ahead of this epidemic that swept from Asia to
Hawaii to California, the Northwest to the Plains, to the Great Lake
States, is headed into the East and is into North Carolina, South
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York and headed to the Atlantic Ocean.
This is our attempt, a massive
[[Page H11532]]
coordinated multicommittee that took many chairmen to do this, Senators
Talent and Feinstein of the Senate to do this. I thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner, I thank the leadership, because this is a big day for
those of us who have been fighting the anti-meth cause.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.
I want to give Chairman Sensenbrenner the benefit of the presumption
of a doubt about this section 215 business. What happens in the report
is it makes it easier to get library and other records under section
215 by creating a presumption that records of anyone to come into
contact with a suspected terrorist even accidentally, innocently, is
relevant to an investigation.
{time} 1315
Madam Speaker, what he has done is he has moved a part of section 215
to another part of the bill, and that is why it does not operate that
way.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), a ranking subcommittee member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to make two points: One, the bad
parts about section 215 and section 505 are not that, under certain
circumstances, the FBI or other investigative agencies can get
information from libraries. No one is proposing, as Mr. Sensenbrenner
said, to say that libraries are totally sacrosanct.
The bad part is that the FBI can get all this private personal
information without any proper or adequate judicial review and then can
tell them, shut up, do not tell the victim about it, and that gag order
also operates without any real judicial review. That is the real issue.
Secondly, the gentleman from Wisconsin is attempting to do something,
I think, improper, and that is, he tells us you cannot change the
PATRIOT Act. There are good things in this bill, things we need, which
is true, but you have got to take it or leave it, because your 3-month
extension I will not allow to go through. We will blackmail this House.
If you do not pass the bill as is today, if it expires, there will be
blood on your hands, because he and his side of the aisle will not
allow a 3-month extension. Well, if there is fault, if there is real
danger by not extending the PATRIOT Act, it is on that side of the
aisle by refusing a 3-month extension so that we can get it right.
This country should not be subjected to that kind of blackmail. The
Senate has real questions. Many liberals, many conservatives, have real
questions about this bill. It should be worked out, and if it takes an
additional 3 months, let it be. But we, this House, should not be told,
take it or leave it, because if you do not take it the way it is, we
will not permit a 3-month extension; there will be dangers to the
Republic. Without a 3-month extension, there will be blood on your
hands.
That is not the way to legislate. That is not proper procedure. That
is not respectful of the Constitution. It is not respectful of the
people of this country. It is not respectful of the Members of this
House.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
conference report which would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act by making
permanent the expansions of Federal police powers that were temporarily
put into the original bill and sunsetted in that bill.
I am unmoved by the argument that we can have faith that, in the
future, that there will be proper oversight because there has been
proper oversight so far in determining whether or not the new police
powers that were put in the original PATRIOT Act were abused. Long
after Mr. Sensenbrenner and myself and others are gone from here, these
powers will remain, and Congress may not have that proper oversight.
Let me note that the people in the pro-life movement should take note
of what is happening here because the expanded police powers of the
Federal Government will be used against them. Our second amendment
friends already understand that. Proposition 187, the anti-illegal
immigration group in California, the FBI went after them in the last
administration.
When you expand the police powers of the Federal Government, no
matter how much oversight we might have today and say that power is not
being abused, we have opened the door to abuse. That is not what our
Founding Fathers had in mind. Our Founding Fathers said, only
temporarily increase those powers in an emergency. Otherwise, deny
those powers to the Federal Government.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to our
leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
thank you, Mr. Conyers, our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee,
for being such an outstanding leader in protecting our civil liberties
and also the national security of our country. I also extend that to
the Democrats on the committee.
First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today, Madam
Speaker. We are not voting for the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act
in general. More than 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act is permanent law
and includes many noncontroversial provisions that give law enforcement
the tools they need. What is before us on the floor today is the
extension of certain provisions which are controversial and have the
potential for abuse.
Madam Speaker, all of us support providing law enforcement officers
with the tools they need to combat terrorism. In doing so, we must also
preserve the balance between security and civil liberties and to
recognize that not all of the tools law enforcement officers want are
tools that they legitimately need.
I cannot support the PATRIOT Act extension conference report because
it does not secure the right balance between security and liberty. Our
Founding Fathers knew well the importance of the balance between
security and liberty. They led a revolution to secure liberty against
an arbitrary power. They knew that you cannot have security without
liberty and liberty without security in a democracy.
As we consider this conference report, I ask every Member of
Congress, indeed, every American, do you know if a National Security
Letter has been issued about you, a letter to your phone company, your
Internet provider, your bank, for wholesale collection of records that
may include your personal information? This letter does not even have
to specify that the specific records sought are connected to terrorism,
and the recipients, you do not know if such a letter has been issued.
You cannot know. You will never know.
This is the same for every American, and any information, including
your most sensitive personal data, along with that of thousands of
American citizens gathered by these National Security Letter requests,
will be held in perpetuity by law enforcement.
The recipients, the bank, the phone company, the Internet provider,
are not allowed to tell anyone they have received this letter about
you. These are searches without any warrant and without any judicial
supervision.
Just think of it: You do not know, the recipient of the letter who is
in possession of your information cannot tell you. You do not know, so
you cannot challenge it, and the letter can be sent without
demonstrating any relationship between the specific records sought and
a connection to terrorism. This is a massive invasion of the privacy of
the American people.
This is not just some idle threat. The Washington Post reported last
month that the FBI hands out more than 30,000 National Security Letters
per year, a reported hundredfold increase over historic norms.
How did this happen? When originally enacted, the PATRIOT Act was
intended to be accompanied by Congressional oversight so that the
implementation did not violate our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the
Bush administration and the Republican Congress have been delinquent in
the oversight of the PATRIOT Act. As we have seen with this massive and
unprecedented scope of National Security Letters, the implications of
the Republican failure of oversight are glaring and have a direct
impact on every American. It is long past time for Congress to have
real oversight.
[[Page H11533]]
This conference has missed an opportunity to address the revelation
of the widespread use of National Security Letters. We must have
standards that clarify that there must be a connection to terrorism or
to a suspected spy.
Section 505 that covers the National Security Letters must now
include a sunset. That is why I strongly support the request of Mr.
Conyers for a 3-month extension so that conferees can reconvene, adopt
the Senate bill, fix the National Security Letters and get it right.
Our democracy requires no less.
Another part of this legislation that requires the government to show
some connection between the records sought is under the library
provision and an individual suspected of being a terrorist or spy. Such
a standard is needed to assure that fishing expeditions do not take
place. Yet this standard is missing from the Republican conference
report.
The list of failures goes on. That is why I think it is important
that we support the motion to recommit to adopt the Senate bill. If not
that, then to follow Mr. Conyers' lead and take 3 months to do this
right. Nothing less is at stake than the privacy, the civil liberties,
really the essence of our democracy.
We must always remember as we protect and defend the American people,
we must honor the oath of office we take here when we are sworn in to
protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties that it
contains. We have an obligation to do that for the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I thank Leader Pelosi for her very succinct and moving
comments.
At the close of this debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the
conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its
entirety. Not that the Senate bill is perfect, but it does a far better
job at protecting civil liberties than the conference report by
requiring that the documents and things collected through section 215
have some connection to a suspected terrorist and providing meaningful
judicial review of uses of that authority.
What is wrong with that? The conference report makes sensitive and
personal records even easier to get by making every innocent connection
with a suspected terrorist presumptively relevant to a terrorist
investigation.
Now, the Senate bill also lacks a number of controversial and wholly
unrelated provisions tacked on to the end of this bill. It does not
have a lot of Christmas tree in it. Some 143 of the 216 pages of this
bill have absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
The chairman repeatedly admonished committee Democrats that we were
not permitted to consider matters falling outside of the 16 expiring
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but on the floor and in conference, this
bill became a Christmas tree for random drug laws, Presidential
succession amendments and Federal employee benefit changes.
Some have argued that we must pass this bill now because it is the
end of the session and it is so urgent. The House Republican leadership
waited 3 months to appoint conferees. Where was the urgency then?
The PATRIOT Act does not need to expire if this bill fails in the
House or the Senate, which it should. My bill, H.R. 4506, extends the
PATRIOT Act for 3 months so that conferees may go back and make a truly
bipartisan and bicameral bill.
Sunsets were a small step in the right direction but do not address
the underlying problems. They are not a solution for bad law. We should
instead be fixing the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Sunsets will be of
no relief to those who will have their constitutional rights violated
in the next 4 years and should prevent no one from voting against this
bill and in favor of the motion.
This measure before us, this conference report, is neither bipartisan
nor bicameral. In fact, not a single Democrat in the House or in the
other body would sign it. No one on this side has signed the conference
report. It is the conservative House bill with window dressing.
We should not let in the government sneak-and-peek provision for at
least 30 days. The Senate bill and Federal courts allow a 7-day delay
unless good cause is shown. And listen to these non-PATRIOT add-ons; it
is a virtual Christmas tree: It alters the Presidential line of
succession, criminalizes peaceful protest behavior, changes employment
qualifications and benefits for Federal employees and expands the death
penalty for non-terror related offenses.
The Senate sticks to the real issues, so join me in a motion to
recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the
Senate bill in its entirety.
{time} 1330
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has said that he wants us
to recede to the Senate, and that means that the Senate bill goes to
the President as passed by that body. That means that there will be no
provisions relative to control of methamphetamine. There will be no
provisions relating to airline security or port security or mass
transit security. The Inspector General's audits that are contained in
the conference report will not go to the President, and the
minimization procedures to get rid of extraneous material that might
come into the presence of the government will also not be in the bill
that goes to the President.
Listening to the litany that has come from the gentleman from
Michigan and folks on the other side of the aisle, you would think that
Halloween is tomorrow, because there is an attempt to scare the
American public. The PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with the detention
of immigrants, indefinite intentions, invasion of habeas corpus, writs
of assistance and warrantless wiretaps. The Brandon Mayfield case which
has been cited by others on the other side of the aisle was relating
not to the PATRIOT Act but a mistake in fingerprint identification.
If we accept their argument, we ought to abolish the FBI fingerprint
lab. That is irresponsible, as are most of their arguments. Vote down
the motion to recommit. Keep the good parts in the bill. Pass a good
bill, and let's make the American people safer.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the PATRIOT
Act Conference Report.
Due to concerns about civil liberties infringement, I voted against
the original PATRIOT Act in 2001 and the House PATRIOT Act
Reauthorization Bill earlier this summer.
The democratic fabric of this country was founded on checks and
balances but the PATRIOT Act contains neither. In 1775, one of our
Nation's true patriots, Benjamin Franklin, said ``They that can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety.''
This legislation tramples on the essential liberties that our
Founding Fathers wanted to ensure. They understood that lowering our
civil liberties standards would not ensure safety; but it would
undermine the relationship of this proud democracy with its citizens.
I believe that the Founders of this country would be rolling in their
graves to hear the claims this Administration and Republican Leadership
make in the name of safety from terrorists.
Do you really feel safer knowing that the government is allowed to
investigate personal records without you knowing? Do you feel safer
knowing that the government can issue blank wire tap orders without
identifying the line, place or person it wishes to investigate? Do you
really feel safer knowing that if you or your neighbor were accused
that documents used against you would not be subject to judicial
review? Do you really feel safer that your library records can be
considered intelligence in an investigative report?
I can not with a clean conscience support this bill which gives
government unnecessary access to the lives of innocent Americans and
tramples on their civil rights.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this piece of legislation that
flies in the face of our forefathers.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
address the many troubling issues associated with the reauthorization
of the Patriot Act. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this Congress
was faced with the difficult task of revamping our intelligence system.
However, the PATRIOT Act is flawed with over-reaching provisions that
lack the safeguards to prevent abuse.
Americans deserve a bill that successfully prevents attacks against
our country, while
[[Page H11534]]
protecting our Constitutional rights. We must address the authority
this bill gives, and how it may negatively impact Americans.
Most of the provisions within the PATRIOT Act are positive measures
that successfully protect American citizens. However, we cannot ignore
the provisions that create serious privacy and civil liberty abuses.
These include:
Permitting large-scale investigation of Americans for ``intelligence
purposes.''
Having minimal judicial supervision on wiretaps.
Allowing the indefinite detention of non-deportable aliens, even if
they are not terrorist suspects.
The power to conduct secret searches without having to notify the
target of the search.
And the ability to designate domestic groups as terrorist
organizations.
America was built on the notion of strong protection for our privacy
and civil liberties. Now is the time to protect our citizens from
terrorism while putting forth meaningful reforms.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
conference report on the USA PATRIOT reauthorization Act.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee since its creation
almost 3 years ago, I understand the importance of providing our
Nation's counter-terror and law enforcement officers with the
capabilities to act aggressively to detect and deter terrorist attacks.
As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, I remain concerned
about government encroachments into the private lives of innocent
Americans, which can undermine the principles of liberty, freedom of
association and protection from unjust searches and seizures that have
been embedded in our Constitution and culture.
Clearly, the interests of security and privacy must be balanced.
Unfortunately, this conference report does not strike the appropriate
balance, and I cannot support it.
The conference report fails to include essential privacy protections
that had been included in the Senate version of this legislation.
Specifically, the Senate-passed bill contained key safeguards not
included in the conference report regarding the PATRIOT Act's use of
so-called ``National Security Letters'' and ``business and library
records''.
Madam Speaker, as you know, National Security Letters are, in effect,
a form of secret administrative subpoena. They are issued by Federal
authorities, most often the FBI, without any court supervision, and
recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been
served. These letters represent a counter-terror tool that must be
carefully and judiciously used, provided their secretive nature outside
the traditional judicial process. Unlike the Senate-passed bill,
however, the conference report does not provide meaningful judicial
review of a National Security Letter's gag order. The conference report
requires a court to accept as conclusive the government's assertion
that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the
government is acting in bad faith. Despite strong opposition to this
provision, House Republicans refused to strip it out of the conference
report. House Republicans also refused, as an alternative, to impose a
sunset on National Security Letter authorities. Such a sunset provision
would have ensured closer oversight of, and public accountability for,
the use of National Security Letters.
The conference report eliminated key protections in the Senate-passed
bill regarding the ``business and library records'' provisions. Under
the conference report, the government can compel the production of
business and library records merely upon the showing that the records
are ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation. By contrast, the Senate-
passed bill required the government to show that the records have some
connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This is a commonsense
protection that would not restrict government capabilities, but would
prevent government overreaching and fishing expeditions.
The House-Senate conference committee had an opportunity to adjust
the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions to protect the rights and
liberties of all Americans more effectively. Regrettably, this
opportunity was lost and the conference report we are considering today
does not contain key privacy protections that had been included in the
Senate-passed bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report and
support the Democratic substitute offered by Ranking Member Conyers,
which strikes the proper balance between security and privacy.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, there is no question that Congress must
give law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent terrorist attacks
against the American people. When the Congress approved the PATRIOT Act
4 years ago, we recognized that the serious nature of the threat
required giving law enforcement broad new powers to help prevent it.
There is also no question that the House and Senate should not allow
the PATRIOT Act to expire on December 31. Indeed, nearly all of the 166
provisions of the PATRIOT Act are already the permanent law of the
land.
Four years ago, the Bush administration and the Leadership of the
House rushed the original PATRIOT Act through the House without full
debate or the chance to make improvements to the bill. There is no need
to rush an imperfect bill through the House today simply to accommodate
a 6-week holiday recess.
While the conference report makes a number of improvements to the
measure the House approved last summer, further improvement is needed.
In particular, I am disappointed that the bill before us does not
include language to change how first-responder grants are allocated. We
need to make the formula risk-based. Just last week, the bipartisan
members of the former 9/11 Commission awarded Congress and the Bush
administration a grade of F for our failure to distribute homeland
security funds on the basis of risk. The 9/11 Commission made this
recommendation 17 months ago. How can we continue to justify a first
responder grant formula that awards Wyoming $37.94 per capita while
Michigan--a key border State--receives just $7.87 per capita? If we're
not going to fix this problem now, then when will we make this change?
In a number of other areas, the Senate-passed version of the bill
included key safeguards that were removed from the conference report.
In particular, the Senate bill contained important protections relating
to the business and library records provisions of the Act that have
been so controversial with our constituents. The Senate-passed bill
required the government to show that the records sought by the
government have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The
standard contained in the conference report is much weaker. It would
allow the government to compel the production of business or library
records merely by showing that the records are ``relevant'' to a
terrorism investigation.
In addition, unlike the Senate-passed bill, the conference report
fails to protect the records of innocent Americans collected by means
of National Security Letters. The FBI now issues more than 30,000
national security letters a year to obtain consumer records from
communications companies, financial institutions, and other companies.
These National Security Letters are issued without the approval of a
judge and permanently bar recipients from telling anyone besides their
lawyer that they have been served. Unlike the Senate-passed bill, the
conference report does not provide for meaningful judicial review of
the National Security Letter nondisclosure requirement. Under the bill
before the House, the records collected under National Security Letters
can be kept forever and even used for data-mining. We need better
privacy safeguards in this area.
I will vote against passage of this legislation today because I am
convinced that we can write a better bill that safeguards both our
vital security interests and basic American liberties. To that end, I
have cosponsored legislation that calls for a three-month extension of
the current PATRIOT Act to give Congress additional time to perfect
this legislation. We should take the time we need to do the job right.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3199,
the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act conference
report. I would be violating my Oath to uphold the Constitution if I
voted to unravel the very freedoms for which we're supposedly fighting.
The PATRIOT Act criminalizes speech, protest and assembly while it
removes the right to due process and a search warrant. For example, the
formerly bedrock principle that government cannot spy on you unless it
provides strong evidence of wrongdoing to a judge no longer exists in
America. As a ``compromise'' in this bill, Americans can now talk to a
lawyer when the FBI sends them a National Security Letter. These
letters demand their medical, business or Internet records, and it is
nearly impossible to get the request blocked.
Madam Speaker, there is no room for compromise in the Bill of Rights.
If the FBI wants to know what Web sites I visit, they should justify it
to a judge beforehand just like anyone else. With 30,000 of these
National Security Letters going out every year, up from 300 before the
PATRIOT Act was enacted, this is much more than just an academic
argument.
While no amount of success in the war on terror could justify the
PATRIOT Act, it is especially tragic that we have little to show for 5
years of police-state tactics. The American people might be surprised
to know that the median sentence for people convicted in terrorist
investigations over the last 5 years was just 11 months. Most were
convicted on technicalities having nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
In other words, the war on terrorism is just an irrelevant excuse for
the expanded power of government to find out what books you buy, send
undercover agents to your community group meetings, or search your home
without a warrant.
[[Page H11535]]
The PATRIOT Act is a war on liberty to create a false sense of
security. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this underhanded
ploy.
Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3899, the
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, and as a committed member of the
Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I rise in
support of its passage, as Title VII in H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.
I would like to thank Congressman Mark Souder, the chief sponsor of
H.R. 3889, for his leadership in addressing our methamphetamine
epidemic. Last year, Congressman Souder visited my district in order to
fully understand first-hand the unique challenges we in Hawaii face, to
hear of our efforts to keep drugs out of our homes and communities, and
to see our successes in our fight against the scourge of crystal
methamphetamine, ice. And he just returned to address the 2nd Annual
National Methamphetamine Legislative and Policy Conference of the
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, Congressman Souder has not
just talked, but acted.
We in Hawaii share many of the same concerns as others in our Nation
in regard to the need to support drug control, education, prevention,
and treatment efforts. However, our geographic isolation, not only from
the contiguous United States but also from our neighbor islands to the
island of Oahu, must be taken into account as we work to end the
scourge of crystal methamphetamine.
General drug abuse, of course, has plagued many of our communities
for decades. To target what is needed to prevent this abuse now and in
the future, we must first understand what causes it and then focus our
efforts on overcoming those causes. And uniquely, it is up to our
Federal Government to take the lead on the issue as it is the only
entity with the resources and ability to coordinate the indispensable
multi-pronged approach to stamping out drug abuse.
Title VII of H.R. 3199 is essential in our efforts to address
methamphetamine trafficking, both in the United States and abroad. It
would classify pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, the
major methamphetamine precursor chemicals, as ``Scheduled Listed
Chemicals.'' It would repeal the federal ``blister pack exemption''
that currently allows unlimited sales of pseudoephedrine pills. The
bill would also require information sharing from importers on the
``chain of custody'' from foreign manufacturer to U.S. shores of
methamphetamine precursor chemicals. Title VII would also strengthen
Federal penalties against traffickers and smugglers.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle on initiatives to provide the federal resources and
support we need in our fight against methamphetamine.
Mahalo, thank you, for this opportunity to express support for Title
VII of H.R. 3199.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, with the PATRIOT Act set to expire at
the end of the year, Congress has once again missed an opportunity to
narrow and tighten the legislation.I opposed the original PATRIOT Act,
as it was rushed into law in the wake of 9/11, and I strongly oppose
the current conference report. The conference report tries to appease
both sides of the debate by extending sunsets on the two most
controversial provisions, library records and ``roving'' wiretaps,
while making 14 of the existing 16 provisions permanent thus limiting
Congress' ability to exercise checks and balances. This is a step
backwards.
But for the existing sunset provisions, we would not have been
exercising our oversight function for this sensitive area.
It puts the administration on too long of a leash and does not force
Congress to review and modify the act as needed. We can keep America
safe without compromising our civil liberties.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, this vote on the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization is tough; it is far from being the best bill it could
be. But I will vote for it and want to explain why.
Imagine a world in which terrorists make deals and connect with
recruits on-line, in cabs, hotel lobbies or cafes all over the world.
Communication is highly compartmentalized so few, if any, know what the
big plans are. Sometimes, physical runners deliver messages to evade
listening devices.
Such a world is not the stuff of Hollywood movies. It is our 21st
century world.
The horrific events of September 11, and the more recent bombings in
Bali, Britain, Jordan, Madrid, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey remind
us that the terrorists are prepared to strike anywhere, at any time--
and with maximum destructive force.
With this as a backdrop, it has been and remains my view that the
PATRIOT Act tools are needed: to track communications by email and
internet, including the use of internet sites in libraries; and to
prevent and disrupt plots against us.
Such powerful tools must be narrowly tailored to ensure that they do
not violate the rights of innocent Americans. In reauthorizing the
PATRIOT Act, Congress had an opportunity to refine the law, but this
conference report reflects only modest improvements.
Many of us in both bodies worked hard to make this conference report
better. In the end, we asked for three things of critical importance.
First, four-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions--
Section 215 orders; Section 206 roving wiretaps, and the Lone Wolf
provision. This request was accepted.
Second, dropping the 1-year criminal penalty on divulging that a
National Security Letter has been received, even in a case where there
is no intent to obstruct justice. This request was also accepted.
Third, modifying the ``conclusive'' presumption that disclosure of an
NSL would harm national security. The legislation properly establishes
that recipients of NSLs have the ability to consult an attorney and
challenge an NSL in a Federal court. But the ``conclusive'' presumption
language makes it virtually impossible to challenge the ``gag'' order
on recipients of NSLs. This is an important flaw in the bill and,
sadly, our requested change was not accepted.
To remedy this, several of us will introduce legislation to replace
the ``conclusive'' presumption language with a ``rebuttable''
presumption, and to incorporate critical checks and balances on the
``front end'' of the NSL process. Such changes will help ensure NSLs
cannot be used as a ``back door'' for getting library circulation,
medical, tax, educational or other sensitive records, and will help
protect against other abuses. This legislation will also ensure
Congress is finally provided with meaningful, detailed reports on NSLs,
which are critical to effective oversight.
Another flaw in the report is Section 215, commonly called the
Library provision, which allows the government to gather a wide range
of business materials, including library, medical and tax records. This
section is tightened by requiring that the records must be ``relevant''
to a terrorism investigation. But the conference report should have
explicitly required that the records be connected to a foreign power,
or an agent of a foreign power--the traditional FISA standard.
My refusal to sign the conference report was to protest the way the
Conference was managed. Instead of taking a few additional days to
craft a strong bipartisan report that strikes the best balance, the
majority rushed to file this flawed report. That is why I have co-
sponsored HR 4506, to provide a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act to
give the conferees additional time to bring to the floor a more
carefully tailored bill with strong bipartisan support. But the
majority insists we proceed today.
My view of the PATRIOT Act is we need to mend it, not end it. Today
we are mending it. Hopefully, soon, we will mend it further.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
conference report on the PATRIOT Act. Simply stated, Mr. Speaker,
passing this conference report today will institutionalize an
abridgment of the Bill of Rights.
Like all of my colleagues, I support common sense measures that will
help our law enforcement and intelligence organizations protect the
American people. For example, I support the provisions of the PATRIOT
Act that permit surveillance or physical searches in foreign
intelligence investigations where the ``significant'' purpose of the
action is to collect intelligence. I also favor the provisions that
allow the sharing of foreign intelligence information with federal law
enforcement agencies, or with intelligence, protective, immigration, or
military personnel for their official use. These are useful and
necessary provisions that have clearly benefited our intelligence and
law enforcement counterterrorism efforts without endangering the civil
liberties of Americans. However, the conference report before us today
contains too many provisions and excludes too many others, making it
impossible for me to support it in its current form.
When this bill was on the House floor in July, I expressed grave
concern about several provisions, including Section 213, which allows
the so called ``sneak and peek'' searches in anyone's home, as well as
Section 215, which allows investigators broad access to any record
without probable cause of a crime. This bill has not improved with age.
If passed, this bill would, among other things:
Allow the ``sneak and peak'' searches to go on with no meaningful
judicial review for at least 4 more years.
Allow the government to spy on your library book checkout habits and
possibly your conversations with your attorney for at least 4 more
years.
Allow secret eavesdropping and secret search orders that do not name
a target or a location for at least 4 more years.
This bill effectively guts the Fourth Amendment. Let me repeat that.
This bill guts the Fourth Amendment.
[[Page H11536]]
How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the Department of
Justice can send agents into one's home without notice, either before
or after the fact? True, this new version of the Act provides for a 90-
day maximum for notification of a subject that her or his dwelling or
business has been searched, but it is weak protection that in effect
allows the fact of a search to be concealed from the subject
indefinitely.
How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the government can
demand access to privileged information, potentially including
conversations between a citizen and his or her lawyer?
How can any American feel ``secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches'' if the government is
allowed to eavesdrop on a telephone conversation or secretly search a
home or business and, in effect, fill in the names and locations on the
search order later?
The search powers that would be reauthorized for federal law
enforcement are too sweeping and will receive too little oversight if
this bill passes in its current form, and that is unacceptable, Mr.
Speaker.
Finally, this bill is significant for what it does not do: it fails
to restructure the homeland security grant formula to a risk-based
model.
There is simply no excuse for a State like New Jersey to get a
smaller percentage of homeland security grants than States that clearly
are not at the same level of risk of being attacked. Homeland Security
grant money should be distributed based on risk, not on politics. The
House strongly supported changing the distribution formula so that
States, like New Jersey, that face greater risk of terrorist attacks or
other catastrophic events would get a greater share of the grant money,
a viewed shared by Secretary Chertoff. Further, the members of the 9/11
Commission recently reiterated their support for a change in the
formula and said, ``it should be obvious that our defenses should be
strongest were the enemy intends to strike--and where we are most
vulnerable.''
Failing to distribute these vital homeland security grants according
to risk is like sending hurricane preparedness funds to North Dakota.
They may be well-received, but sending them to a low-risk area comes at
a price to parts of the country that need it more.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly warned of
the threat to transportation and economic infrastructure targets in New
Jersey, and we know from published press reports that Al Qaeda
operatives have conducted surveillance activities against economic and
other targets in New Jersey. Under this bill, New Jersey will not
receive the Federal support it needs to harden these targets or full
range of tools that our police and other first responders would require
to respond should another 9/11-style attack occur. The conferees had a
chance to correct this glaring weakness but they failed to do so, and
if for no other reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this
conference report.
As President Woodrow Wilson said almost 100 years ago, ``liberty has
never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the
subjects of it. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.
The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power,
not the increase of it.'' Today, we have made the mistake of ignoring
history and increased the government's power at the expense of our
citizen's liberty. This is a grave error, and it is why I will vote
against reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I support this PATRIOT Act
conference report, and appreciate the time and effort Chairman
Sensenbrenner has put into bringing it to the floor.
We know Americans will continue to be a terrorist target as long as
we stand for freedom and democracy. That lesson was learned on
September 11, 2001.
We must do everything legally possible to protect Americans from
attack. This conference report helps law enforcement officials prevent,
investigate, and prosecute acts of terror.
The original PATRIOT Act was a long overdue measure that enhanced our
ability to gather crucial intelligence information on the global
terrorist network. It passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate and 357-
66 in the House.
But certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this
year. This conference report renews many of those provisions and
improves on the original legislation.
It makes permanent the ability of law enforcement officials and
intelligence officials to communicate about on-going investigations. It
also makes permanent provisions that allow the government to do its job
by obtaining warrants and gathering information during terrorism
investigations.
America is a safer country today than before September 11, 2001,
because of the PATRIOT Act.
Over 200 people in the United States have been charged with crimes
tied to international terrorist investigations and have been convicted
or have pled guilty because of the PATRIOT Act.
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the
powers they need to protect all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
Also, I am placing in the Record an op-ed that appeared in the
Washington Times on December 13, titled ``Preserving the PATRIOT Act.''
Preserving the Patriot Act
(By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.)
The proverbial rubber is about to meet the road. This week,
the U.S. Congress will determine if the U.S.A. Patriot Act--
the most important domestic security legislation since
September 11, 2001--will be re-enacted in slightly weakened
form or allowed to lapse in a number of its key provisions.
Since the consequences of the latter would be manifestly
detrimental to the War for the Free World, legislators
opposed to the Act have offered to extend it for a short
period--a gambit they hope will allow them to dumb it down
still further. But make no mistake: Additional delay and more
negotiations will not improve either the bill or the national
security. To the contrary, they likely would jeopardize both.
That would be particularly true if the Patriot Act's most
vociferous critics on the Left and their less numerous (and
most unlikely) bedfellows on the Right get their way. They
tend to characterize the Act as an assault on the basic
freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights and have sought far-
reaching changes in the tools it provides law enforcement to
detect and prevent terrorist plots inside the United States.
In reality, the Patriot Act is an eminently sensible
overhaul of the government's antiquated counterterror
arsenal, an overhaul that reflects the realization we cannot
hope to fight a 21st-century war using 20th-century legal
instruments.
Consider two elements critics have most insistently
demanded be repealed: (1) the socalled ``library records''
provision (Section 215) and (2) the authorization of what
have been derided as ``sneak-and-peek'' search warrants (Sec.
213).
The dust-up over government access to library information
is truly a manufactured controversy. For one thing, libraries
are not mentioned anywhere in the pertinent Patriot Act
provision. Moreover, law enforcement has been authorized for
decades in ordinary criminal cases to subpoena library
records (along with any other business records). This has not
had any noticeable effect on Americans' reading habits.
The Patriot Act only made business records (including those
of libraries) available on roughly the same terms in national
security cases as they have long been in criminal cases.
The reason should be obvious: It makes no sense to enshrine
libraries as safe havens for terrorist planning.
In fact, as we now know, many of the September 11 hijackers
used American and European libraries to prepare the run-up to
the attacks. Relevant literature, including bomb manuals and
jihadist materials, have been staples of terrorism
prosecutions for more than a decade. Privacy extremists of
organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
nevertheless have reacted to the Patriot Act's much-needed
business records law as if the Gestapo had seized office in
the United States.
Similarly, the PATRIOT Act did not--as its critics would
have us believe--create new and unsavory ``sneak-and-peek''
warrants. It does, however, allow agents to search premises
but delay notification of the search to subjects of a
terrorism investigation.
The PATRIOT Act's notification provision is no different in
principle from the legal notice previously required to
persons intercepted in a court-ordered wiretap. In such
situations, notification of the target has routinely been
delayed for weeks or months after the eavesdropping ends.
Doing so can be absolutely critical to the arrest and
prosecution of suspected perpetrators: Delayed notification
allows the government to complete its investigation without
giving the subjects a heads-up that would certainly cause
them to flee or destroy evidence.
The PATRIOT Act, in the so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' arena,
established consistent standards federal courts must follow
in determining whether to permit delayed notification.
Previously, a hodgepodge of different rules were applied in
various jurisdictions. This is precisely the sort of fairness
and equal protection Congress should provide--yet, it has
been criticized sharply for doing so in the PATRIOT Act.
On both the business records and delayed notification
sections of the PATRIOT Act (among others), the stance of the
American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded critics seems
to have an ulterior motive. They not only oppose such
legislation in the PATRIOT Act. They appear intent on
reopening settled case law on use of these authorities on
crimes unrelated to terror.
Congress should not encourage, let alone facilitate, such
efforts by holding open the PATRIOT Act for further revision
and adulteration. The original PATRIOT Act as a
[[Page H11537]]
whole infringed only modestly on our civil liberties and did
not meaningfully intrude on the privacy rights of law-abiding
Americans. We need to keep in mind, moreover, that if its
precautions fail to prevent some future terrorist attack, we
are likely to see impassioned demands for greater security
measures at the expense of our freedoms. Since few, if any of
us relish that prospect, we need to ensure the PATRIOT Act
retains its core provisions and authorities--and remains an
effective tool for securing the home front in the War for the
Free World.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference
report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention
Reauthorization Act of 2005.
Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to protect the civil
liberties of innocent Americans. Clearly, preventing another terrorist
attack should be our highest priority. However, it should not be done
at the expense of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and
that is what I fear we are doing today.
Like the version of this legislation I voted against in July, this
conference report would make permanent 14 of 16 provisions included in
the original PATRIOT Act passed in 2001. I continue to have serious
concerns about how this administration and future administrations could
apply the provisions included in this bill. I simply do not believe
that this body should relinquish its oversight duties. Many of these
provisions should still have sunset clauses, and Congress should not be
abrogating its responsibilities to review how these laws are being
implemented.
By agreeing to this conference report today, the House will
effectively give up its oversight over sneak-and-peek searches, secret
search orders, and surveillance authority provided by this bill given
how little oversight we have had on these issues. Our constituents
expect more from us. Why are oversight and an independent review so
opposed?
While I applaud the efforts of the conferees to reduce the extension
of two key provisions relating to roving wiretaps, which allows taps on
multiple phones and computers of a suspect, and business and library
records from 10 years to 4 years, this legislation is woefully
inadequate. My constituents are concerned that the government is
watching them just because they are visiting their local library or
bookstore. Under the PATRIOT Act, these records could be obtained with
insufficient oversight by the courts or any independent review. Law
enforcement should spend its time going after the terrorists, not using
valuable resources reviewing the library records of innocent people.
Unless we have an independent review, I know that I will not be
satisfied that our rights are being protected.
To make matters even worse, there are entirely new provisions in the
conference report to expand the Secret Service's ability to restrict
free speech by creating ``exclusion zones.'' These provisions were
included in neither the House nor the Senate version of this bill. I
would think that this expansion of the Secret Service's authority at
the very least deserves serious consideration by this body, and should
not be slipped in at the last minute without any hearings or markups.
My constituents have legitimate concerns about the lack of
independent, judicial oversight over the provisions included in the
PATRIOT Act. We all want terrorists to be apprehended before they
commit horrific acts of violence against innocent people. All we are
asking is that we prevent unnecessary civil rights violations by
ensuring that the administration is not abusing its powers. But this
new provision is just the most glaring example of the lack of diligence
that this Congress appears to have on protecting our rights.
I am incredibly disappointed that throughout the entire debate on
this legislation, the leadership of this House has refused even to
discuss the topic of civil liberties, the very issue that makes this
legislation so divisive. When the House debated this bill in July, the
Rules Committee denied a bipartisan effort to debate an amendment
offered by Representatives Christopher Shays, Tom Udall and myself that
would have made the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, created by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, more robust. This
board would have been in line with what the 9/11 Commission envisioned
when they issued their report. Today, 3 days before the 1 year
anniversary of the signing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board has yet to hold
its first meeting and the 9/11 Commission has given Congress and the
President a D for our work implementing this board. It appears to me
that Congress and the President refuses to even have a discussion about
our civil liberties and are opposed to implementing commonsense
protections. This bill is just another example of that.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, 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 noncitizens who are
not terrorists.
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 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 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.
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 noncitizens 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,
[[Page H11538]]
these new measures include regulations that increase secrecy, limit
accountability, and erode important due process principles that set our
Nation apart from other countries.
I cosponsored the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, CLRA, reintroduced
from the 108th Congress by Representatives Howard Berman and William
Delahunt, 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 noncitizens 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 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, fortunately,
was included in the text of the conference report as section 127:
It is the sense of Congress that under section 981 of title
18, United States Code, victims of terrorists attacks should
have access to the assets forfeited.
This language 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
AI-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 to 1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000,
the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist state exception
to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a Federal district court
held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that
the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a
terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the
Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which
required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that
incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for
their suffering.
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
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 service men 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 their 12-year imprisonment, suffered beatings, bums,
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 Notre Dame University.
Its 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.
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.
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
website.
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.
Nor is it helpful when our government condones the torture of
prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of mosques and
religious sites 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.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues
work to negotiate real fixes to the sunsetted provisions.
Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the conference
report, H.R. 3199, to renew the PATRIOT Act. I want to thank and
compliment all the conferees and the administration for bringing this
about.
By renewing this measure, we are continuing to provide our law
enforcement agencies and the administration with many of the critical
tools needed to combat global terrorism and protect America. Provisions
of the PATRIOT Act have already been instrumental in warding off
further terrorist attacks since 9/11, and they are responsible for
helping to keep us safe here at home.
In addition, the bill includes an added provision, which I authored,
offering a new tool to attack the growing phenomenon of narco-
terrorism, with the proceeds of illicit drug funding and financing
feeding the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, FTOs, and supporting acts
of terrorism. Passage of the PATRIOT Act conference report will enhance
Federal criminal law to effectively address the current reality,
according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, of illicit drugs
being linked to nearly half of the designated FTOs around the globe
today.
In this measure, my provision makes narco-terrorism, which involves
both the illicit drug trade and support for terrorism, a Federal crime,
and provides tough penalties that match the nature of such deadly and
dual criminal activity.
Our hardworking Drug Enforcement Administration will no longer be
challenged to
[[Page H11539]]
produce evidence of a nexus of these illicit drugs to the United
States, if there is proof that the illicit drugs support FTOs or acts
of terrorism.
In Afghanistan, most of the heroin from illicit drug production goes
to Europe, rather than here, and much of the profit then finances and
supports anticoalition terrorists and attacks on our forces there. My
provision will give us the tools to attack that drug-related support
for terrorism and further protect America, our troops, and coalition
forces on the ground in places like Afghanistan.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the
PATRIOT Act conference report.
Ms. HART. Madam Speaker, I rise in Support of H.R. 3199, the PATRIOT
Act reauthorization conference report.
This is a balanced reauthorization--protecting civil liberties and
extending the necessary provisions to help us fight the war on terror
here at home.
I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for including a number of
provisions from H.R. 3007 Combating Terrorism Financing Act.
Funding is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations--if we are to
prevent future attacks and continue to dismantle terrorist
organizations we must deny them funding.
Terrorist analysts often note that it is fairly inexpensive to carry
out a single act of terror--for example, it is estimated that the
attack on the World Trade Center cost only $500,000.
Terrorist organizations need money not just to carry out such
attacks; they also need funding to continue their operations such as
recruiting and training new members and support their current members.
One of the most important lessons we have learned is exactly how
terrorists and other criminal organizations transmit money through
unregulated financial markets.
Like the patchwork of terrorist organizations and cells, terrorism
funding does not come from a single source. Terrorist networks are
funded through state sponsorship, charities and businesses fronting as
legitimate institutions, and exploitation of markets and financial
networks.
The tough terrorism financing language in the conference report will
increase penalties for terrorism financing.
In addition, the bill will add new predicate money laundering
offenses to allow law enforcement to investigate and dismantle
terrorist financing organizations.
Finally, the original PATRIOT Act added a new forfeiture provision
for individuals planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against
the United States.
The language in the conference report adds a parallel provision for
individuals planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against a
foreign state or international organizations acting within the
jurisdiction of the United States.
The language in the conference report builds on our current laws, to
address some of the shortfalls that we have learned about since
September 11.
Terrorists work to find the holes in our laws and we must make sure
that we continue to be diligent to update them so that we can cut off
terrorist funds and stop future attacks against us and our allies in
the war on terror.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act has been an important law
enforcement tool in the years following the dastardly terrorist attacks
on our country, and taken as a whole, the bill has enhanced our
national security. The United States and our allies are fighting a war
like no other. It is an unconventional war that must be met with
unconventional tools used by law enforcement professionals to protect
the American people from those who would do us harm.
The PATRIOT Act provides federal officers greater powers to trace and
intercept terrorists' communications for law enforcement and foreign
intelligence purposes. It reinforces federal anti-money laundering laws
and regulations in an effort to deny terrorists the resources necessary
for future attacks. It tightens laws pertaining to seaport security.
And, it creates several new federal crimes, such as laws outlawing
terrorists' attacks on mass transit and increases penalties for many
other violations of the law.
As is true of any law that empowers the government to collect
security-related information domestically, evaluating the PATRIOT Act
requires us to weigh a wide range of competing interests, like the
ability of our government to detect and thwart terrorist attacks and
the constitutional rights of the American people. Of course, proper
oversight of the PATRIOT Act by Congress is essential to guaranteeing
our constitutional rights are not trampled.
Important for Missouri, the PATRIOT Act Conference Report also
includes bipartisan language that helps fight the scourge of
methamphetamine abuse in America. This drug epidemic has been
especially hard on rural areas. The bill bans over-the-counter sales of
cold medicines that contain ingredients commonly used to make
methamphetamine, allowing the sale only from locked cabinets or behind
the counter. It limits the monthly amount any individual could
purchase, requires individuals to present photo identification in order
to purchase such medicines, and requires stores to keep personal
information about these customers for at least 2 years after the
purchase of these medicines. The bill also allows judges to impose
strict sentences for those who possess pseudoephedrine with the intent
to distribute it for methamphetamine creation.
I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, from keeping our children
safe to winning the war on terrorism, we face many challenges, but few
are like meth, which threatens lives, safety and health, at great cost
to all of us.
I am pleased that this conference report contains many significant
provisions that I have authored, including 4 enhanced criminal
penalties originally introduced in the Kennedy-Hooley SLAM Act.
It also contains a drug certification provision of mine that will
stop the flood of meth from international superlabs.
We must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they are not
welcome in our communities.
Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation deserves the support of
both bodies because it is a comprehensive response to the
methamphetamine problem in America.
It will send a strong signal that Congress is serious about fighting
the scourge of meth.
While the criminal penalties in this bill would be more effective if
they were as tough as what were originally introduced, Chairmen
Sensenbrenner and Souder showed tremendous leadership in moving this
bill to the Floor, and I urge the swift passage of this important
legislation.
Most importantly, our actions today will send a signal to the law
enforcement officers who wake up every morning to protect our families
that we stand with them in the fight against drugs and will work to
give them every tool they need to be successful.
Additionally, this conference report reauthorizes the USA PATRIOT
Act, which fulfills the high responsibility of protecting our citizens
while ensuring their fundamental privacy rights are not abused.
For many years, law enforcement officers lacked the same tools for
tracking down suspected terrorists as they had for drug dealers,
mobsters and other criminals.
Extending the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to
expire on December 31 will allow law enforcement officers to monitor
suspected terrorists' communications and share critical intelligence
information.
These are vital tools for law enforcement that we need to help keep
America safe, tools that carry with them strict safeguards to prevent
the abuse of our civil liberties.
These safeguards will ensure that the PATRIOT Act is used only for
its intended purposes, catching terrorists before they can do us harm,
and not to curtail the strong tradition of personal privacy that
Americans have long enjoyed.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in both bodies to support
this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, which contains important
provisions in this Nation's fight against meth.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to explain my decision to vote
against the Conference Report on the PATRIOT Act. Some of the
provisions that are being authorized 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.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is essential that we
stregthen 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. Many of these concerns were addressed in the Senate bill
[[Page H11540]]
that passed by bipartisan, unanimous support. unfortunately, the
Conference abandoned many of the safeguards in the final Conference
agreement.
The Conference Report falls short in a number of areas. Let me focus
on 2 of these issues--the inadequate checks on the National Security
Letters and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court orders.
The ``National Security Letters'' provision: (1.) This authorization
has no sunset; (2.) It provides no judicial review of a National
Security Letter gag order. This is a departure from current law which
allows the recipient of such a Letter to challenge it in court. The
conference agreement requires the court to accept the government's
assertion as ``conclusive''. (3.) Moreover, the conference report
allows the government to maintain information gathered from the
National Security Letters to be kept forever in government databases.
``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act'' (FISA) Court Orders for
Tangible Things (section 215): (1) Unlike the Senate bill, the
Conference Report allows the government to obtain personal information
on a mere showing of ``relevance'', thereby striking the safeguard
contained in the Senate passed bill that required a 3-part test. This
allows the government to obtain this information without demonstrating
that the information that they are seeking has some connection to a
terrorist or a spy. (2) The conference report does not permit the
recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent
gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the First
Amendment of the Constitution. (3) Finally, the conference report
allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial
challenge to a section 215 order. The court must review any government
submission in secret, whether or not it contains classified material.
It is important that any policy that is advanced to enhance our
nation's security always maintains appropriate ``sunshine'' and checks
and balances on those law enforcement and intelligence agencies that
are empowered to promote national security. History reminds us that
these law enforcement tools can be overzealously used and may also be
directed at innocent parties. The conference report on the PATRIOT Act
that is before us today fails to strike the proper balance. The Senate
version included many of the necessary safeguards. Unfortunately, many
of those provisions were abandoned by the Conference Committee. As a
result I voted in favor of Mr. Conyers' Motion to Recommit the
Conference Report to the Conference Committee so that the conferees
could return to the consideration of the Senate passed bill.
Unfortunately, this motion was defeated. Therefore, I must vote against
the passage of the Conference Report that is before us today.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
conference report to H.R. 3199. We should go back into conference and
work on a bipartisan, balanced conference report.
Instead of rushing to finalize a partisan conference report that
dismisses concerns for Americans' civil liberties, we should pass a 3
month extension and try to find a bipartisan balance.
Unfortunately, the House leadership is unwilling to strike that
balance and have put forth for consideration a conference report that
no Democratic conferee signed. This is unconscionable.
Madam Speaker, many objectionable provisions remain in this
conference report, but two issues in particular were ignored by the
majority. First, the conference report fails to provide a standard to
challenge national security letters. We recently learned that over
30,000 national security letters are issued every year to businesses of
all types without court approval.
Yet, this conference report provides little to no mechanism to allow
for a citizen to challenge these letters in court, and sets no deadline
for destroying the private information that has been collected. Shame
on us for not allowing a citizen to redress his grievances, and, shame
on us for not ensuring that private information is destroyed once it is
collected.
Second, this conference report fails to address the very real issue
that has been of great concern to many Americans: Section 215 secret
court orders for library, medical, and other personal records. It
leaves the standard for obtaining ``any tangible thing'' at simply a
``relevance'' standard to an investigation, basically allowing the
government to conduct a fishing expedition if it deems appropriate.
As I, along with several of my colleagues, said in a letter to
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Specter, there is nothing in this
standard to stop the FBI from asking a library to turn over its
circulation list of everyone who had checked out a book on Islam since
the September 11th attacks. Shame on us for allowing this to remain in
the final conference report.
Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of talk 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 with that sentiment.
Yet, today, we are considering limiting freedoms by allowing
provisions such as the Section 215 secret court orders and national
security letters that I mentioned earlier. As a former prosecutor, I
understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm.
I also know that those same tools can be used to curtail freedoms of
innocent Americans.
We must provide common sense tools to prosecutors, but we must
protect the liberty of all Americans. As I asked in June of this year,
and as I ask again now, ``What will generations to come think when they
have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil
liberties?''
Madam Speaker, whenever we discuss the PATRIOT Act, 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 conference report and urge my colleagues to
do the same. We should go back to conference and craft a conference
report that protects all of our civil liberties.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
While I do not advocate permitting many of these important terrorism-
fighting tools to expire at the end of the year, the American people
would be better served by a bill that strikes a more reasonable balance
between protecting civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism. I
am disappointed that the conference report does not closely mirror the
bipartisan compromise that unanimously passed the Senate. I urge my
colleagues to reject this conference report and take a bipartisan
approach to protecting Americans' lives and liberties.
Since the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after 9/11, I have met
with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the details of
this controversial legislation. Last year, I hosted a town hall meeting
to hear what my constituents thought about the USA PATRIOT Act. While
some agreed that the act was necessary to prevent another terrorist
attack, most of the crowd, as well as most Rhode Islanders, believed we
have already ceded too much ground with respect to our civil liberties.
In my State, seven 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.
Last week, the 9/11 Commission released a report card on the
implementation of the group's recommendations. For ``balance between
security and civil liberties,'' the government received a ``B,'' which
is a high grade considering they were given more ``Fs'' than ``As.''
However, the report card cautioned that ``robust and continuing
oversight, both within the Executive and by the Congress, will be
essential.'' We should strive to move closer to A than F, but this
conference report does not accomplish that goal. By making 14 of the 16
expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, I worry that
Congress will be less likely to engage in vigorous oversight to protect
the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.
The Senate proved that it is possible to protect both lives and
liberties. Their legislation made permanent the less controversial
portions of the act, but implemented commonsense changes to add a layer
of protection for liberties while keeping America safe. Unfortunately,
most of these improvements were not incorporated into the conference
report. For instance, the Senate version required the government to
show that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before
investigators could obtain medical, library or business records. The
bill before us permits the government to go on fishing expeditions to
look for information without probable cause. In addition, the Senate
required new, strong protections for ``sneak and peak'' searches and
roving wiretaps. These improvements are also absent, from the
conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
motion to recommit, which asks conferees to adopt the bipartisan Senate
language.
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 am disappointed that conferees have decided to once again place
partisanship over sound policy. Working together, we make America
stronger, but Congress has again divided the American people. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3199 and instead working to
reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act in a way that protects both our
liberties and our country.
[[Page H11541]]
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the vote
today on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005'' due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present and
voting, I would have voted ``no'' on this bill as I have steadfastly
opposed similar versions of the PATRIOT Act when they have come up in
the past.
Make no mistake, like all Americans I believe we should give law
enforcement the tools it needs to investigate and fight terrorism.
However, we can do this without sacrificing our American values. One of
our most precious values is the right to be free from unwarranted
government intrusion.
I voted against the original PATRIOT Act when it passed Congress in
2001 because it went too far in creating the potential for government
abuses and violations of civil liberties. The bill today makes
permanent almost all of the provisions enacted in 2001. While some have
been altered to make them slightly less egregious, not enough has
changed to allow me to lend my support to this reauthorization.
For example, section 109 of H.R. 3199 makes some changes to section
215 of the original PATRIOT Act, which expanded what the government
could seize under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, of
1978 to ``any tangible things.'' These include library, medical, tax,
and gun records. The bill today maintains the weak threshold adopted in
the original PATRIOT Act by again failing to require the materials
requested be tied or connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist
organization. The broad standard in current law makes it dangerously
easy for the records of innocent Americans to be viewed by government.
Additionally, recipients of requests for information under section 215
are prevented from telling virtually anyone about the request and they
cannot challenge this ``gag order'' in court.
While this bill at least includes a 4-year sunset for section 215,
there is no sunset for section 505, which expanded the power of
government to obtain information via national security letters, NSLs.
NSLs allow the government, with no prior court approval, access to
financial records, credit reports, telephone records, and information
from internet service providers. As with section 215, this bill fails
to require the materials requested be tied or connected to a specific
terrorist or terrorist organization. Tragically, this weak standard is
made permanent. There is no sunset. Also, as is true under section 215,
there is a ``gag order'' under section 505. While H.R. 3199 adds a new
ability to challenge this ``gag order,'' it is a sham. Violating this
gag order even carries criminal penalties.
The bill also fails to adequately reform section 213 of the original
PATRIOT Act, which expanded ``sneak and peek'' warrant authority. This
allows the government to search American homes or businesses with
delayed, not prior, notice. While the bill today does change the delay
in notice allowed from a ``reasonable time'' to no more than 30 days,
the bill allows for unlimited extensions. Limitations on instances in
which delayed notice searches are allowed to remain broad. To protect
our rights and privacy, the ability for the government to get into our
personal lives and records without prior notice needs to be more
narrowly crafted.
These are just some examples of the problems with H.R. 3199. I am
confident that if we work together, we can develop laws which would
allow us to combat terrorism without making it too easy for government
to intrude into the private lives of Americans.
Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I support our action today to reauthorize
the USA PATRIOT Act.
Within weeks after the horrendous terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress
responded with the PATRIOT Act, providing our law enforcement and
intelligence communities with much-needed tools to track down
terrorists, sever their communications and funding networks, and
prevent future attacks on our citizens.
As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I was proud to
help write the antiterrorist financing provisions of this act. Millions
of dollars in terrorist assets have been frozen or seized since 9/11.
We have broken up suspected terrorist financing networks, including one
in my home State of Ohio. The terrorist financing tools included in the
act were further supplemented by the intelligence reform legislation
approved in the wake of the 9/11 Commission's report.
As a former special agent of the FBI, I know that other sections of
the PATRIOT Act have proven just as vital in assisting law enforcement
combat the new threat of international terrorism. I am pleased that
this reauthorization makes permanent all but a few of the act's
expiring provisions, but regret that the 4-year sunset for the
remaining authorities was made a part of this final product. Including
any sunset sends the wrong signal to our law enforcement agencies,
indicating that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their
services have helped prevent further terrorist attacks. They should
have our full support and every reasonable tool we can give them to
help fight the global war on terror.
One of the provisions still subject to a sunset deals with the use of
roving wiretaps. As one of the few Members of Congress who has
conducted undercover surveillance, I can tell you now that the need for
roving wiretap authority will not expire in 7 years. Tying intercept
authority to an individual suspect rather than a particular
communication device is simply common sense in this era of throwaway
cell phones and e-mail.
Further, there is absolutely no evidence that wiretap authority or
any other USA PATRIOT Act provision has been used to violate the civil
liberties of Americans. Congress recognizes the delicate balance
between deterring terrorist activities and preserving the freedoms we
hold so dear. I know beyond a doubt that terrorists make no such
distinction.
The PATRIOT Act has been a success, and we as a nation are safer for
it. Its provisions are helping to put the FBI and CIA on a more equal
footing with terrorists, who use every available technology to plot
with impunity. The act refines our surveillance laws for the high-
technology era--something that has been long overdue.
I support the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, and hope that
Congress will work toward making the roving wiretap and other temporary
provisions permanent.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
Through the PATRIOT Act Congress has attempted the essential task of
modernizing law enforcement tools to effectively combat the 21st
century terrorist, who can now use cell phones, the internet, and e-
mails to plan and coordinate attacks in the United States. As
originally enacted in October 2001, many PATRIOT Act provisions are set
to expire at the end of this month if Congress takes no action.
The conference report before us extends and improves many provisions
of the PATRIOT Act. It is a substantial improvement to the bill that
was passed by the House in July 2005. I do have significant concerns
and misgivings about the administration's use of the new powers of the
PATRIOT Act, and I am pleased that this legislation addresses many of
these concerns. This legislation: includes three sunset provisions for
PATRIOT Act authorities; requires greater oversight by Congress and the
judiciary of the Justice Department; and gives new rights to subjects
of a government investigation. Given the complexity and importance of
this measure, let me review these provisions in some detail.
The 4-year sunsets adopted by the conference report apply to business
records, roving wiretaps, and ``lone-wolf' terrorist suspects who
operate alone rather than as an agent of a foreign power. Congress must
revisit these provisions in 4 years, which will expire unless approved
again. The conference report adopts the Senate position of 4-year
sunsets, and rejected the House position of 10-year sunsets.
Under the business records provision, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act,
the bill provides that the government may seek a court order for ``any
tangible item'' if law enforcement officials assert that the records
are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a
terrorism investigation. The application to the FISA court, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act court, must provide a ``statement of
facts'' proving that the information sought is ``relevant'' to the
investigation. This bill provides greater protection than current law,
which simply requires the government to certify the records were sought
for an authorized investigation without any factual showing.
The conference report also explicitly provides--unlike current law--
that anyone who receives a request for records under this provision may
consult with an attorney in order to challenge the request in court.
The bill requires new high-level approval by one of the top three FBI
officials for certain records, including library records, medical
records, educational records, and tax return records. The bill has
several new requirements for the Justice Department, including: issuing
``minimization procedures'' which limits the retention of, and
prohibits dissemination of, information concerning U.S. persons;
conducting two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders,
which will examine any improper or illegal use of this authority, and
the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed,
and disseminated by the FBI; and requiring the public reporting of the
aggregate use of section 215 orders, and a breakdown of its use to
Congress--comparisons of library, medical, educational records, for
example.
The roving wiretaps provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act,
provides that the FISA court may issue ``roving'' wiretaps to conduct
surveillance on a foreign power or their agent when the target of
surveillance has taken steps to thwart the investigation by changing
accommodations, cell phones, internet accounts, or other forms of
communications. Court orders would apply to a person or persons, not a
particular device or location, so
[[Page H11542]]
that the government does not have to return to court each time that a
target changes a communications device or moves to another location.
The bill requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in
detail the specific target in cases in which the target's identity is
unknown, higher burden than current law, and requires more detailed and
timely reporting by the FBI to the courts and Congress on the use of
this authority.
The conference report also makes substantial improvements to the
national security letter, NSL, process, which existed before Congress
enacted the PATRIOT Act in 2001. NSLs allow the FBI to request customer
records from communications companies and financial institutions
related to an investigation. The bill explicitly provides a new right
to NSL recipients to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter
in court. The court is also given a new explicit right to review NSL
requests. The bill provides that courts may block an NSL if it is
``unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful'' (same standard as
used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case). Recipients are
also given a new right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in
court. Congress also requires the Justice Department to report to
Congress on the number of NSLs sent to U.S. persons or entities, and
requires the department's inspector general to conduct an audit of the
effectiveness of NSLs. The bill also provides that the Justice
Department submit to Congress the annual aggregate number of requests
made concerning different U.S. persons in an unclassified format.
Finally, the conference reports places some new restrictions on
delayed notice search warrants, commonly called ``sneak and peek'',
under section 213 of the PATRIOT Act. This type of search warrant,
which existed before the PATRIOT Act was adopted, requires that a
Federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe that:
(1) A crime has been or is about to be committed; (2) evidence of those
crimes will be found at the location to be searched; and (3) immediate
notice would cause harm under certain specified criteria. The
conference report restricts the government's authority to delay notice
to 30 days, and allows for an extension only if approved by a court.
The bill also requires new reporting to Congress on the use of this
provision.
Madam Speaker, 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 uphold our oaths to support the
Constitution. This legislation attempts to strike a balance as we seek
to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while protecting
Americans' constitutional civil liberties. I will continue to work in
Congress to exercise our critical oversight responsibilities to protect
our civil liberties.
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
Last week, Republican House and Senate negotiators reached an
agreement to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. As part of the deal agreed to
by House and Senate Republican conferees, Federal law enforcement
authorities will retain the right to: Investigate American citizens
without judicial oversight, a power that is invoked more than 30,000
times each year; search individuals' private property without notifying
them; access citizens' library records, medical records, school
records, and financial records virtually unchecked by the judiciary.
The House-Senate conference committee had an opportunity to revise
the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions to protect the rights and
liberties of all Americans more effectively. Regrettably, the
opportunity was lost when Democratic conferees were excluded from key
negotiations. The resulting conference report falls short of what the
American people have every reason to expect Congress to achieve in
defending their rights while advancing their security.
The conference report drops key protections in the Senate-passed bill
regarding ``national security letters.'' National security letters,
NSLs, are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. They
are issued by Federal authorities--most often FBI agents--without any
court supervision, and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone
that they have been served. The conference report also fails to protect
the records of innocent Americans collected by means of these NSLs.
Under the conference report, such records may be kept forever in
government databases, shared with the intelligence community, and used
for data-mining.
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 conference report that allows the troubling
aspects of the PATRIOT Act to continue, we pursue a false sense of
national security at the expense of our civil liberties. I opposed the
PATRIOT Act when it first came to us in 2001 and I vote against it
today.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers of Michigan moves to recommit the conference
report on the bill H.R. 3199 to the committee of conference
with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
recede from disagreement with the Senate amendment.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, is it
permissible to include instructions in the motion to recommit to
conference?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it is proper.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adopting the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202,
noes 224, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 626]
AYES--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
[[Page H11543]]
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, M.
Hyde
McDermott
Payne
Poe
Ros-Lehtinen
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1356
Messrs. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, DeLAY, ROHRABACHER, McHENRY, Ms.
HART and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SALAZAR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251,
nays 174, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 627]
YEAS--251
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--174
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, M.
Hyde
McDermott
Ortiz
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
[[Page H11544]]
{time} 1407
Mr. ISRAEL and Mr. BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. BOYD changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 627. I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
