National Security Letter Judicial and Congressional Oversight Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4659 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4659, to extend until March 10 crucial provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire this Friday.

On December 23 of last year, both Houses unanimously passed a short- term extension of the PATRIOT Act to preserve critical antiterrorism initiatives that were set to expire at the end of last year. Unfortunately, we must

pass another extension today because a minority of Members of the other body have blocked an up-or-down vote on the conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 which the full House passed by a broad bipartisan vote of 257-171 on December 14.

The opponents in the other body have repeatedly cited their concern for civil liberties as a justification for their obstruction. Ironically, the conference report that has been blocked contains dozens of vital civil liberty protections, many included at their request.

The original PATRIOT Act contains none of these protections. As a result, we are once again forced to extend the current PATRIOT Act rather than to implement the current important civil liberties protections contained in the conference report that even its detractors acknowledge is an improvement over current law.

When the PATRIOT Act was first passed in October of 2001, I pledged to rigorously examine its implementation to ensure that new law enforcement authorities did not violate civil liberties. Since April of 2005 alone, the House Judiciary Committee received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act. In addition to hearings, I have requested, along with Ranking Member Conyers, written responses from the Attorney General to detailed questions regarding use of the PATRIOT Act and whether any of its provisions have been used to violate individuals' civil liberties.

A chronology of these legislative and oversight activities follows:

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

1. November 9, 2005, Department of Justice classified

briefing for Committee on the Judiciary staff on press

accounts of FBI use of NSLs;

2. October 25, 2005, Department of Justice classified

briefing for House & Senate Committees on the Judiciary and

Committees on Intelligence staff on press accounts of FBI use

of NSLs;

3. October 6, 2005, Department of Justice classified

briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on

press accounts of mistakes in FBI applications to the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court under the USA PATRIOT Act;

4. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary

responding to July 1, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA

PATRIOT Act;

5. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary

responding to May 19, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA

PATRIOT Act;

6. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions

regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;

7. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary

regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;

8. July 5, 2005, letter from FBI Director Meuller to Senate

Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding

use of the USA PATRIOT Act;

9. July 1, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions

regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;

10. July 1, 2005, letter from House Committee on the

Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA

PATRIOT Act; .

11. June 29, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

responding to April 5, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA

PATRIOT Act;

12. June 10, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing

on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;

13. June 8, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing

on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act;

14. May 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &

Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions of

the Criminal Code & the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT

Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters; &

Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed

at U.S. Facilities Abroad;

15. May 19, 2005, letter from House Committee on the

Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA

PATRIOT Act;

16. May 10, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &

Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material

Support to Terrorists & Foreign Terrorist Organizations & on

the DOJ Inspector General's Reports on Civil Liberty

Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act;

17. May 10, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing

on continued oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;

18. May 5, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &

Homeland Security hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT

Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic

Communications to Protect Life and Limb;

19. May 3, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, &

Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, & 223 of

the USA PATRIOT Act & Their Effect on Law Enforcement

Surveillance;

20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

& Homeland Security hearing: Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT

Act--If It Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?;

21. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

& Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 206 and 215

Improved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Investigations?;

22. April 26, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General

William Moschella to Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to

April 4, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act;

23. April 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

& Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, &

225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, & Sections 6001 & 6002 of the

Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,

improved FISA Investigations?;

24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

& Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, & the Age of

Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages

Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer

Trespasser Communications; & Section 220: Nationwide Service

of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence);

25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,

Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the

Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition;

26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

& Homeland Security hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the

USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing;

27. April 6, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing

with Attorney General Gonzales;

28. April 5, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

hearing on Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act;

29. March 22, 2005, Department of Justice law enforcement

sensitive briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and

staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;

30. September 22, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

hearing: A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation &

Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act & the SAFE Act May

5, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: Aiding

Terrorists--a Review of the Material Support Statute;

31. May 20, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing

on FBI Oversight: Terrorism;

32. April 14, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

hearing on Preventing & Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A

Review of Current Law;

33. February 3, 2004, Department of Justice briefing for

House Committee on the Judiciary staff on its views of S.

1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of

2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both

bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act;

34. November 20, 2003, request by Chairmen Sensenbrenner &

Hostettler to GAO requesting a study of the implementation of

the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. Report

was released on June 6, 2005;

35. October 29, 2003, Department of Justice classified

briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on

the use of FlSA under the USA PATRIOT Act;

36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,

Technology, & Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two

Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots;

37. August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for

House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding

the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct

delayed searches & collect business records & the effect of

the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;

38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

hearing on Law Enforcement & Terrorism;

39. June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for

Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security,

Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary

responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act;

40. June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified

briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on

the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;

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.

The Inspector General has issued six reports and found no evidence that law enforcement has abused the PATRIOT Act. Opponents of the PATRIOT Act have repeatedly pointed to the Brandon Mayfield case as an example of abuse of the act. Members of Congress asked the DOJ Inspector General to examine whether the PATRIOT Act was abused in this case. On January 6, 2006, the Inspector General concluded: ``We do not find any evidence that the FBI misused any of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act in conducting its investigation of Mayfield.''

Even though no credible evidence of abuse of the PATRIOT Act has been received by Congress, the conference report adopted over 30 new additional civil liberty protections to address concerns about the potential for misuse. For example, the conference report contained several new reporting requirements that will provide additional information for congressional oversight of the act. These provisions establish specific procedures to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review for those wishing to challenge the national security letter or a section 215 order, two of the authorities most criticized by opponents.

Additionally, the conference report increases accountability by requiring the FBI director, deputy director, or executive assistant director to authorize applications that request the FISA court to issue a section 215 order for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational record and tax return records. The conference report also requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders.

Because time does not permit me to detail all of the civil liberty protections contained in the conference report, the following list details each of those safeguards.

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

Act of 2005''

The conference report contains the following additional

safeguards:

Requires a description of a specific target in both the

application and the court order for ``roving wiretaps,'' and

specific facts in the application that show that the target's

actions may thwart surveillance efforts--if the target's true

identity is unknown.

Requires that the FBI must notify the court within 10 days

after beginning surveillance of any new phone for all

``roving wiretaps.'' The notice must include the total number

of electronic surveillances conducted under the court's

multipoint order.

Includes new reporting requirements to Congress, including

new details about the use of ``roving'' authority.

Requires that for delayed notice search warrants that

notice of the search be given within 30 days of its

execution, unless the facts justify a later date, eliminating

the open-ended period of delay permissible under current law.

Allows for extensions of the delay period in giving notice

of a search, but only upon an updated showing of the need for

further delay. Also, it limits any extension to 90 days or

less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay.

Adds new reporting requirements to Congress on the use of

delayed notice search warrants.

Requires for section 215 orders, relating to investigator's

access to business records, a statement of facts showing

reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other

things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to

protect against international terrorism or espionage. This

provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT

Act, which required the government only to certify that the

records at issue were sought for an authorized

investigation--without any factual showing.

Requires a three part test for section 215 orders that

ensures the records are sought for: a foreign power or an

agent of a foreign power; the activities of a suspected agent

of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized

investigation; or an individual in contact with, or known to,

a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an

authorized investigation. This test combined with the newly

required statement of facts should mitigate concerns of

government ``fishing expeditions,'' while maintaining the

flexibility for legitimate terrorism investigations.

Explicitly guarantees the right for recipients of section

215 orders to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review.

Requires high level approval by either the FBI Director,

Deputy Director, or Executive Assistant Director for requests

for certain records, including library records, medical

records, educational records, and tax return records.

Limits the scope of section 215 orders to materials that

could be obtained via grand jury subpoena or a similar court

order for the production of records.

Limits retention, and prohibits dissemination, of

information concerning U.S. persons.

Requires that the DOJ Inspector General conduct two

separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders that

will examine: any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating

to 215 orders, including any improper or illegal use of the

authority; the manner in which such information is collected,

retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and an

assessment of whether the minimization procedures protect the

constitutional rights of United States persons.

Requires enhanced reporting to Congress of section 215

orders, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library

records, medical records, educational records, and other

sensitive types of records.

Requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section

215 orders.

Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to

consult with legal counsel.

Creates an explicit right to judicial review of NSL

requests.

Permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside an NSL if

compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise

unlawful--this is the same standard used to modify or quash a

subpoena in a criminal case.

Provides for judicial review of the nondisclosure

requirements.

Adds a ``knowing and willfully'' standard that must be

proven before someone who discloses an NSL can be subject to

a 1-year misdemeanor offense.

Requires the DOJ IG to conduct two comprehensive audits of

the FBI's use of NSLs.

Requires the Attorney General and the Director of National

Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the

feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSLs to

ensure the protection of constitutional rights of U.S.

persons.

Adds a new ``sunshine'' provision that requires annual

public reporting on NSLs.

Provides for expanded congressional access to significant

FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence

Committees.

Includes a provision requiring the FISA Court to submit its

rules and procedures to Congress.

Creates new reporting requirements for the use of emergency

authorities under FISA.

Requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures

of communications information made under section 212 of the

USA PATRIOT Act.

Requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to

Congress on the Department's data-mining activities.

I would remind Members, Mr. Speaker, of both Houses that the conference committee dissolved after the conference report was filed and the House acted in a bipartisan manner to approve it. I believe it is healthy to continue to debate the merits of the PATRIOT Act and to continue vigorous congressional oversight of its authorities. But it is also imperative that we not play political games with the vital tools our law enforcement and intelligence communities need to keep us safe from additional attacks on American soil.

We must not rebuild the wall of separation between the FBI and CIA and return to the pre-9/11 mindset that made

America vulnerable to a terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extension of the PATRIOT Act so as to give the other body the time to expeditiously pass the conference report on H.R. 3199. As recent events have highlighted, the threat of terrorism has not receded, nor has the urgency of continued vigilance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the two speakers who proposed this brief 5-week extension of the PATRIOT Act are symptomatic of the problems that the opponents of the PATRIOT Act have attempted to tar it with. They are wrong.

First, no Federal court has declared unconstitutional as violative of civil rights any of the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act that the sunsets were applied to, none whatsoever.

As I stated in my opening remarks, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice is required by the PATRIOT Act to report on civil rights violations to the two Judiciary Committees twice per year. We have received six of those reports on time, and the number of civil rights violations that have been found by the DOJ Inspector General have been zero.

Furthermore, there is a provision in the PATRIOT Act that anybody whose civil rights have been violated can obtain a statutory judgment of $10,000 in addition to any proven monetary damages against the Justice Department if they are successful in a lawsuit. The Justice Department has not paid out one dime in either monetary or statutory damages under this law.

The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with NSA wiretaps, and anybody who has been familiar with the operation of the PATRIOT Act knows very, very clearly that it does not have anything to do with NSA wiretaps, and I really wish that the opponents would read the law and stick to the proven testimony of the operation of this act. To say that the Judiciary Committee has not conducted oversight is living in a dream world, and it does not comport with the facts.

Mr. Conyers and I have sent joint oversight letters to the Justice Department and published the nonclassified results of those oversight letters on the committee's website. Last year we had 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act and the 16 provisions that expire. And guess what? There was no criticism about 14 of the 16 provisions, which the conference report makes permanent. And to say that the 16 provisions that were passed in the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001 were so egregious that sunsets had to be applied really does not talk about what happened then. Every expansion of law enforcement authority contained in the 2001 bill contained a sunset, and we did the oversight, and we found that in 14 of the 16 provisions there was not a problem. And even the witnesses the Democrats brought before the Judiciary Committee said that there was no problem in 14 of the 16 provisions. In the two provisions where there is a sunset in the conference report, there have not been any civil rights violations proven. I have just said that, but one would think that the people's rights were being trampled on. No courts found that, the DOJ Inspector General has not found that, and I really wish that people who do not like the PATRIOT Act would stick to the facts.

Now I would like to talk a little bit about what good the PATRIOT Act has done, and I am going to give credit to Deroy Murdock, who is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. It says: ``Let the Numbers do the Talking.''

First, the total number of individuals who Islamic fanatics murdered on September 11, 2001: 2,977 people whose civil rights were snuffed out because they were murdered;

The cash sum that PATRIOT Act section 371 let Customs agents seize when terror-tied New Jersey imam Alaa al-Sadawi tried to smuggle funds into Egypt in his father's airline luggage: $659,000;

Pounds of heroin the three al Qaeda- and Taliban-linked San Diego weapons dealers offered undercover FBI agents as partial payment for four Stinger anti-aircraft missiles until PATRIOT Act sections 218 and 504 helped authorities unravel their conspiracy: 1,320 pounds of heroin;

Total terror-related defendants captured with the help of PATRIOT Act provisions: 401;

Total terror-related defendants who have pled guilty or who have been convicted with the aid of PATRIOT Act provisions: 212;

Total feet the Brooklyn Bridge would have plunged into the New York City's East River had the PATRIOT Act not helped authorities stop Iyman Faris's

plan to sever the span's cables with acetylene torches: 119. That is New York City.

According to Federal prosecutor Ken Wainstein's January 3 comments after meeting with President Bush, the number of U.S. attorneys who use ``the PATRIOT Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts'': 93, out of 93 U.S. attorneys;

As U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf notes, total years of prison time earned under the PATRIOT Act by Osama bin Laden's self-proclaimed spiritual adviser, Mohammed al-Moayad, for trying to funnel $20 million to al Qaeda and Hamas: 75;

Number of scholars, former Cabinet members, and other prominent Americans, including Democratic ex-CIA Directors James Woolsey and James Schlesinger, who joined in signing a January 25 open letter advocating the PATRIOT Act's reauthorization: 68;

Years that David Wayne Hull, former Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, will spend behind bars after PATRIOT Act section 201 helped convict him for plotting to blow up abortion clinics with hand grenades: 12;

Number of Northern Virginia Islamofascists jailed after the PATRIOT Act's information-sharing provisions let spies and cops jointly determine that they had trained in Afghan and Pakistani terror camps between 1999 and 2001: Eight;

Total al Qaeda associates in Lackawanna, New York who were jailed for 7 to 10 years after the PATRIOT Act finally let cops and intelligence officers sit in the same room to discuss each other's investigations: Six;

According to the Associated Press, the number of tickets for American Airlines Flight 77 that Pentagon-bound 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi purchased online, using William Patterson University's library computers, that might have been detected had PATRIOT Act section 215 been in place: Two;

The number of the Portland Seven extremists who escaped the PATRIOT Act by being killed by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003: One.

The number of individuals whom Muslim terrorists have killed on American soil since the adoption of the PATRIOT Act: zero.

Mr. Speaker, this law is working. This law has not violated anybody's civil liberty rights. It has not been held unconstitutional by any Federal court in the country. All of the arguments against the PATRIOT Act are a red herring. It has kept us safer. We ought to continue it. We ought to vote for this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to the lack of opportunity that a five-week sunset will provide but to the underlying legislation that it extends, the USA PATRIOT Act passed during the 107th Congress, Public Law 107-56. Similarly, I felt that the prior- enacted five-week extension, Public Law 109-160, that expires this Friday, February 3, 2006, was inadequate. For the sake of the American people and pursuant to the words of the President of the United States just last night in his State of the Union Address, I hope that the draconian provisions that were contained in the House-passed measure have been removed or drastically improved. Alas, even the process of negotiating the betterment of this very important legislation was kept a secret until brought to the Floor.

I voted in favor of a motion to recommit this Conference Report with instructions, which would have replaced the text of the conference report with the text of the original bill passed by the Senate. The original Senate bill included many more civil liberties protections than does this conference report. That Senate measure would have included a process of judicial review for recipients of a National Security Letter as well as a standard requiring the Government to show a connection to a suspected terrorist or organization when requesting business or library records. The sunsets to the Conference Report that we consider today still require the Government to demonstrate ``relevance'' in an investigation.

The underlying conference report seeks to make 14 of 16 controversial PATRIOT Act provisions permanent. In making these provisions permanent, Congress will relinquish its responsibility to review their use, granting more permanent power to the executive branch. Congressional oversight has been maintained only through the two provisions scheduled to sunset in 4 years, as well as through the inclusion of a ``lone wolf'' provision, also scheduled to sunset in 4 years. Congress has a responsibility to check the power of the executive branch, not cede that authority, potentially threatening the civil liberties of our citizens. The underlying conference report unfortunately still fails to safeguard individual privacy rights, and allows the Government, with little burden of proof, to scrutinize nearly every aspect of a person's life.

The President stated in his ``State of the Union'' address last night that ``Our country must . . . remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home.'' However, in doing so, we cannot allow terrorism to erode our national security or our civil liberties.

I would like to address the following words stated by the President, again in his address:

. . . based on authority given to me by the Constitution

and by statute--I have authorized a terrorist surveillance

program to aggressively pursue the international

communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and

affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used

the same constitutional authority. I have--and Federal courts

have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members

of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist

surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It

remains essential to the security of America.

I authored a letter to the President that is currently being circulated and has already been signed by 50 of my colleagues that categorically negates these assertions based on well-settled caselaw, Federal statutes that remain in the books, and the words of the U.S. Constitution.

At no point during the floor debate of the Authorization to Use Military Force, AUMF, Resolution was there any discussion that the authorization to use military force would extend to the use of warrantless searches and vest the President with the broad authority to intercept telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant. To the contrary, it was stated during the debate that the authorization ``provides no new or additional grants of power to the President.'' (see Congressional Record dated Sept. 14, 2001, page H5677)

It is our duty to uphold the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, preserve the system of checks and balances between branches of our Government, and to protect the rights of the American people to the greatest extent possible. We must remain committed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks and to exercise our legislative responsibility to support any lawful means of preventing any future terrorist activity. However, it is our duty to clarify the mischaracterization of our actions. Congress simply did not intend for the AUMF to be used as justification for programs such as the one currently in use by the NSA.

I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing the underlying conference report for H.R. 3199.

Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists. (Carlina Tapia Ruano, Statement for Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act before the House Committee on the Judiciary, June 10, 2005.)

Among these troubling provisions are those that:

Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In order to grant

someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service Provider to divulge information about email activity and Web surfing on its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the sunset proposed in the bill before us is insufficient to allow adequate consideration by the House; therefore, I oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this short extension today. And doing so will give the Members an opportunity to work together to work on the conference report from the last Congress to include some commonsense improvements to ensure that there are appropriate protections for our citizens' civil rights and civil liberties.

Now, many of the provisions of the original PATRIOT Act for which concerns had been expressed have proven to be noncontroversial and have not operated to threaten civil liberties. Other provisions, however, have become more problematic. This extension will give us the time to look at things like the searches for libraries and other intrusive records; second, a standard for issuing national security letters which are essentially subpoenas without probable cause and without the normal checks and balances and a mechanism for making sure that personal information obtained under these letters is destroyed or properly protected.

A review of wire taps, I think, is appropriate, the roving wiretaps and also review of wiretaps under the President's new NSA policy which many legal scholars believe are just illegal. Those are spying on domestic law-abiding citizens. If there is probable cause that someone is breaking the law, obviously a criminal warrant could be given. We need to look and see exactly what is being done and review the law to determine whether or not they are, in fact, illegal. The elimination of totally unnecessary provisions in the conference report involving habeas corpus and expanding the death penalty had nothing to do with the original PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has indicated, there are improvements in the PATRIOT Act that are in the conference report, but we need to make sure that we have a version that can pass. We can pass a PATRIOT Act. The Senate has passed the PATRIOT Act several times on virtually a unanimous vote or even unanimous consent. The House Judiciary Committee passed unanimously the original PATRIOT Act until a late-night switch to another version that no one had read. But we can pass a PATRIOT Act; and if we use our time effectively, we can develop an act which serves the needs of law enforcement without allowing the unnecessary spying on law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

I would hope that we would give this brief extension to the PATRIOT Act and that we would use this time effectively to review the NSA wiretaps and also to use this time effectively to develop a bill that can pass both Chambers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support powerful, flexible, and modern tools to detect the plans and intentions of terrorists who may be operating in our country. For that reason, I voted for the PATRIOT Act, even though I believed and still believe there is room for improvement.

We are being asked today to extend the PATRIOT Act for 5 weeks so that Congress can continue to work on some of its most controversial provisions. I think this extension makes good sense. We must extend it, mend it, but not end it.

To that end, I hope we can soon reach agreement on critical issues. First, we should modify the report to explicitly require that records sought under Section 215--commonly called the Library provision--be connected to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is the traditional FISA standard. A looser standard invites ``fishing expeditions.''

Second, we should explicitly state 215 recipients have the right to challenge a gag order in court.

Third, we should ensure that National Security Leaders are not used as back doors for getting library circulation, medical, tax and educational institutions records, and to modify the ``conclusive presumption'' language which makes it virtually impossible for NSL recipients to challenge ``gag'' orders in court. These and other critical changes to NSLs are included H.R. 4570--a bill that I, my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Conyers and other congressional leaders introduced in December.

As part of the negotiations, Congress must also insist that the President provide the facts on his NSA terrorist surveillance program. His refusal to brief the 36 Members of the intelligence committees, even though hundreds of people in the executive branch have been briefed, violates the requirements of the National Security Act of 1947.

The President also needs to explain why current law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not provide an adequate framework for his program. Some claim that FISA cannot handle modern communications. But the fact is that the administration requested, and Congress passed as part of the PATRIOT Act of 2001, numerous changes to FISA to deal with phones, e-mail and the Internet. For example, Congress lowered the legal standards for FISA pen registers and trap- and-trace devices to make it easier to track the calls of terrorists who may be in the U.S. We also expanded these pen traps to cover e-mail and the Internet,

and we granted roving John Doe wiretap authority to deal with the issue of unidentified terrorists switching phones.

Moreover, in the 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act, we extended the FISA emergency provision to 72 hours, so that surveillance is not delayed by the paperwork involved in getting a warrant. All of these authorities were powers that the President asked for and supported.

Mr. Speaker, FISA is modern, flexible, and effective. Since 1979, 19,000 warrants have been approved. Those who prepare the warrants tell me the process is efficient. If the President believes otherwise, he must come to Congress and explain why.

Mr. Speaker, the message conferees, and I am one, must send is that the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. Let me repeat: the American people want to do whatever is necessary to defend America. But we also want our President to follow the law.

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to remind my colleagues of two home truths that may have been forgotten in the 4 years and 4 months since September 11, 2001.

The first of these is that we are a Nation at war. Decades of dealing with terror networks like al Qaeda as a matter of law enforcement or criminal justice helped bring us to September 11. We passed the PATRIOT Act because we understood that we are at war with international terrorism and that wartime measures were required.

The second home truth is that this war is being fought in a technological environment as different from World War II as the technology of World War II is different from the technology of the War Between the States. In a high velocity age of digital communications, the President and those most directly responsible for forestalling another attack of this sort that Osama bin Laden recently threatened must have the means appropriate to the life-or-death task at hand.

If my colleagues will permit me, there has been something surreal, even unreal, about the recent debate on this front. We seem to have forgotten that the terrorists who hijacked the plane that was flown into the Pentagon on September 11 received more than a dozen calls from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen while the terrorists were living in San Diego, and that the NSA, fearful of being accused of domestic spying, did not act.

Do we want a repeat of that? I do not think any of us do. But those who seem to imagine that President Bush is a greater threat to civil liberties than Osama bin Laden is to American lives and liberties need to stop politicizing this issue and work with the rest of us to strike a rational balance between a legitimate concern for civil liberties and the imperative need to equip the agencies responsible for our national security with the technological tools necessary to do their job in an environment where a few hours' delay might prove lethal.

Let us refuse to tie our hands again as our hands were tied before September 11, with the gravest results. The PATRIOT Act is as necessary today as the reauthorization of the draft was in the dangerous months before Pearl Harbor. A few months before that devastating surprise attack, this House came within one vote of essentially dismantling the U.S. Army by refusing to reauthorize conscription. Wiser counsels prevailed.

Let us rise to our responsibility as those who saw more clearly in mid-1941 rose to theirs, and let us give those charged with the weighty responsibility of providing for our national security in a new kind of war, fought with new kinds of weapons, the tools and the legal authority they need to do their crucial job.