Combating Terrorism Financing Act of 2005

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.

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.

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

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;

(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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguish chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

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.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the acting majority leader, the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan talked about the conclusive presumption provisions on national security letters that are contained in the conference report as well as the requirements that have been changed relative to section 215, which is the business records or library provisions.

I would just point out that both the NSL provision and the section 215 provision in this respect were the language in the Senate bill that passed unanimously. And everybody here has been saying that the Senate bill is great and the conference report is not. But if the Senate bill was great, now they are attacking two provisions in the Senate bill. They cannot have it both ways. What we did in the conference report is responsible.

With respect to section 215, I wish that the Library Association had read it, because it requires the statement of facts in an application to the court that issues the 215 order to show reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to an authorized investigation. The Senate's language. Then it creates a presumption in favor of records that pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, activities of a suspected foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation, or an individual in contact with or known to a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation.

Now, all of these people are presumably bad folks that want to commit a terrorist attack, and I do not think we should make the libraries or any other place off limits to an investigation to try to see who is trying to blow innocent people up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who is the author of the methamphetamine section of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has said that he wants us to recede to the Senate, and that means that the Senate bill goes to the President as passed by that body. That means that there will be no provisions relative to control of methamphetamine. There will be no provisions relating to airline security or port security or mass transit security. The Inspector General's audits that are contained in the conference report will not go to the President, and the minimization procedures to get rid of extraneous material that might come into the presence of the government will also not be in the bill that goes to the President.

Listening to the litany that has come from the gentleman from Michigan and folks on the other side of the aisle, you would think that Halloween is tomorrow, because there is an attempt to scare the American public. The PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with the detention of immigrants, indefinite intentions, invasion of habeas corpus, writs of assistance and warrantless wiretaps. The Brandon Mayfield case which has been cited by others on the other side of the aisle was relating not to the PATRIOT Act but a mistake in fingerprint identification.

If we accept their argument, we ought to abolish the FBI fingerprint lab. That is irresponsible, as are most of their arguments. Vote down the motion to recommit. Keep the good parts in the bill. Pass a good bill, and let's make the American people safer.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, is it permissible to include instructions in the motion to recommit to conference?

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing this legislation, H.R. 3199, for several reasons. First, we never have been given the facts necessary to fully evaluate the operation of the underlying bill, the USA PATRIOT Act. Second, there are numerous provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the PATRIOT Act that have little to do with combating terrorism, intrude on our privacy and civil liberties, and have been subject to repeated abuse and misuse by the Justice Department. Third, the legislation does nothing to address the many unilateral civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since the September 11 attacks. Finally, the bill does not provide law enforcement with any additional real and meaningful tools necessary to help our Nation prevail in the war against terrorism. Since 2002, 389 communities and 7 States have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 million people. Additionally, numerous groups ranging the political spectrum have come forward to oppose certain sections of the PATRIOT Act and to demand that Congress conduct more oversight on its use, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--NAACP, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous groups concerned about immigrants' rights.

I sit as ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists.

Among these troubling provisions are those that:

Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention ``irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In order to grant someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation. When relief from deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.

Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within 7 days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove otherwise.

Make material support for groups that have not been officially designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions on material support should be limited to those organizations that have officially been designated terrorist organizations.

Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely on speech protected by the first amendment. The laws punish those who ``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech that incites violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States'' efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their beliefs or associations.

In addition, the current administration has taken some deeply troubling steps since September 11. Along with supporting the USA PATRIOT Act, it has initiated new policies and practices that negate fundamental due process protections and jeopardize basic civil liberties for noncitizens in the United States. These constitutionally dubious initiatives undermine our historical commitment to the fair treatment of every individual before the law and do not enhance our security. Issued without congressional consultation or approval,

these new measures include regulations that increase secrecy, limit accountability, and erode important due process principles that set our Nation apart from other countries.

I cosponsored the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, CLRA, reintroduced from the 108th Congress by Representatives Howard Berman and William Delahunt, that seeks to roll back some of these egregious post-9/11 policies and to strike an appropriate balance between security needs and liberty interests. The CLRA would secure due process protections and civil liberties for noncitizens in the U.S., enhance the effectiveness of our Nation's enforcement activities, restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and democracy around the world.

While every step must be taken to protect the American public from further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections that make American democracy so unique.

My ``safe havens'' amendment that relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981 and would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach judgments to collect compensory damages for which a terrorist organization has been adjudged liable, fortunately, was included in the text of the conference report as section 127:

It is the sense of Congress that under section 981 of title

18, United States Code, victims of terrorists attacks should

have access to the assets forfeited.

This language seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgment for damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 981(G). Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual, entity, or organization that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States.

The legislation, H.R. 3199, as drafted, fails to deal with the current limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several examples of how the current administration has sought to bar victims from satisfying judgments obtained against the government of Iran, for example.

In the Sobero case, a U.S. national was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, an AI-Qaeda affiliate, leaving his children fatherless. The administration responded to this incident by sending 1,000 Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, and the eldest child of the victim was invited to the State of the Union Address. Abu Sayyaf's funds have been seized and are held by the U.S. Treasury at this time. The family of the victim should have access to those funds, at the very least, at the President's discretion.

Similarly, the administration barred the Iran hostages that were held from 1979 to 1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist state exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a Federal district court held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering.

Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan government, the administration lifted sanctions against Libya without requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American service men and women and their families were left without recourse to obtain justice. The La Belle victims received no compensation for their suffering.

In addition, a group of American prisoners who were tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf war were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government. Although the 17 veterans won their case in the District Court of the District of Columbia, the administration argued that the Iraqi assets should remain frozen in a U.S. bank account to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Claiming that the judgment should be overturned, the administration deems that rebuilding Iraq is more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter pilots who, during their 12-year imprisonment, suffered beatings, bums, and threats of dismemberment.

Finally, the World Trade Center victims were barred from obtaining judgment against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 2001 attacks. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were unavailable for judicial attachment.

While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider the following:

It's been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism.

It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.

It's been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.

Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing on its system, and then to gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.

It's been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting internet website links to objectionable materials, even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's website.

Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of power by the administration. Since September 11, our government has detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate Muslim and Arab-Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our own county--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism conviction.

Nor is it helpful when our government condones the torture of prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of mosques and religious sites without any indication of criminal activity, and detains scores of individuals as material witnesses because it does not have evidence to indict them. This makes our citizens less safe not more safe, and undermines our role as a beacon of democracy and freedom.

Right now, H.R. 3199 is the most appropriate and timely vehicle in which to address this issue and allow U.S. victims of terrorism to obtain justice from terrorist-supporting or terrorist-housing nations. Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues work to negotiate real fixes to the sunsetted provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the PATRIOT Act and, in particular, title VII of that report, the

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his cosponsorship and his leadership in making sure that this meth bill can pass this bill in the form of passing a conference report, which is the only real way to get this done. I also want to say briefly that I support section 215, which amends the Import and Export Act to make sure that we can have better prosecution methods.

Eighteen of the 40 major organizations that are involved in terrorism also deal in narcotics. The Methamphetamine Act is the single, first comprehensive anti-meth bill that we have ever introduced in Congress, let alone passed in Congress. It is a sweeping anti-meth bill. It will require all pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products to be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet; impose a daily and monthly purchase limit; require purchasers to show ID and sign a logbook; and require training of all employees handling the product.

It closes a number of loopholes in existing import, export, and wholesale regulations of meth precursor chemicals, including import and manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion; and regulation of the wholesale ``spot market.'' It requires reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers. It would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production. It toughens Federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers. It authorizes the Meth Hot Spots program as well as increases funding for drug courts, drug endangered children programs, and programs to assist pregnant women addicted to meth. In addition, it has EPA environmental regulations.

I want to thank Democrats and Republicans for all their bipartisan effort. This is something we did in a bipartisan way. This is our best chance to really get ahead of this epidemic that swept from Asia to Hawaii to California, the Northwest to the Plains, to the Great Lake States, is headed into the East and is into North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York and headed to the Atlantic Ocean. This is our attempt, a massive

coordinated multicommittee that took many chairmen to do this, Senators Talent and Feinstein of the Senate to do this. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, I thank the leadership, because this is a big day for those of us who have been fighting the anti-meth cause.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a subcommittee ranking member.

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Let me remind my friend who returned from his California duties to the Congress, did you hear the Brandon Mayfield case just recited by the gentleman from New Jersey? That was an abuse that we heard in the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to quote from a letter that was sent to Chairman Sensenbrenner from the American Library Association, its president, indeed, Michael Gorman, and a copy to myself.

It says: ``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing on behalf of the American Library Association to express our opposition to the conference report. We are deeply disappointed that the conferees did not take this opportunity to heed the concerns of library users across this country and to restore protections for records of library use that were stripped away by the PATRIOT Act'' itself.

It ``does not seriously address any of the library community's concerns with section 215. It does not require a factual connection between the records sought and a terrorist or terrorist organization.

``The report also leaves in place the USA PATRIOT Act standards for national security letters'' and would ``allow the FBI to continue its unfettered reach into the personal electronic records of the public, including records of their use of the Internet through computers in libraries. Worse, it adds a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the order and for a knowing violation of the gag order. And while adding an ability to challenge the secrecy of a national security letter on the one hand, it takes it away with the other by requiring the court to accept, as conclusive, the government's assertion of harm to national security . . . ''

Madam Speaker, this is the clearest description from the president of the American Library Association, supported by thousands of professional librarians from one end of the country to the other.

Please, let us not buy into the fact that this is a new and improved version of the PATRIOT Act. With the death penalties arbitrarily added, it is a definite reversal, a downward, backward movement in which the PATRIOT Act becomes meaner and less democratic and is far more dangerous for people who get caught up in these things who are innocent Americans. Please join us in sending this bill back to committee and supporting my measure that would allow for a 3-month period of time for us to improve the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.

I want to give Chairman Sensenbrenner the benefit of the presumption of a doubt about this section 215 business. What happens in the report is it makes it easier to get library and other records under section 215 by creating a presumption that records of anyone to come into contact with a suspected terrorist even accidentally, innocently, is relevant to an investigation.

Madam Speaker, what he has done is he has moved a part of section 215 to another part of the bill, and that is why it does not operate that way.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a ranking subcommittee member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank Leader Pelosi for her very succinct and moving comments.

At the close of this debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety. Not that the Senate bill is perfect, but it does a far better job at protecting civil liberties than the conference report by requiring that the documents and things collected through section 215 have some connection to a suspected terrorist and providing meaningful judicial review of uses of that authority.

What is wrong with that? The conference report makes sensitive and personal records even easier to get by making every innocent connection with a suspected terrorist presumptively relevant to a terrorist investigation.

Now, the Senate bill also lacks a number of controversial and wholly unrelated provisions tacked on to the end of this bill. It does not have a lot of Christmas tree in it. Some 143 of the 216 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.

The chairman repeatedly admonished committee Democrats that we were not permitted to consider matters falling outside of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but on the floor and in conference, this bill became a Christmas tree for random drug laws, Presidential succession amendments and Federal employee benefit changes.

Some have argued that we must pass this bill now because it is the end of the session and it is so urgent. The House Republican leadership waited 3 months to appoint conferees. Where was the urgency then?

The PATRIOT Act does not need to expire if this bill fails in the House or the Senate, which it should. My bill, H.R. 4506, extends the PATRIOT Act for 3 months so that conferees may go back and make a truly bipartisan and bicameral bill.

Sunsets were a small step in the right direction but do not address the underlying problems. They are not a solution for bad law. We should instead be fixing the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Sunsets will be of no relief to those who will have their constitutional rights violated in the next 4 years and should prevent no one from voting against this bill and in favor of the motion.

This measure before us, this conference report, is neither bipartisan nor bicameral. In fact, not a single Democrat in the House or in the other body would sign it. No one on this side has signed the conference report. It is the conservative House bill with window dressing.

We should not let in the government sneak-and-peek provision for at least 30 days. The Senate bill and Federal courts allow a 7-day delay unless good cause is shown. And listen to these non-PATRIOT add-ons; it is a virtual Christmas tree: It alters the Presidential line of succession, criminalizes peaceful protest behavior, changes employment qualifications and benefits for Federal employees and expands the death penalty for non-terror related offenses.

The Senate sticks to the real issues, so join me in a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, in its present form.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia how many more speakers he has?

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.