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
