[Pages H581-H593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the Senate bill (S. 2271) to clarify that individuals who receive FISA
orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who
receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name
of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic
communication service providers unless they provide specific services,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 2271

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

As used in this Act, the term ``applicable Act'' means the
Act entitled ``An Act to extend and modify authorities needed
to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.'' (109th
Congress, 2d Session).

SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS.

Subsection (f) of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861), as amended by the
applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(f)(1) In this subsection--
``(A) the term `production order' means an order to produce
any tangible thing under this section; and
``(B) the term `nondisclosure order' means an order imposed
under subsection (d).
``(2)(A)(i) A person receiving a production order may
challenge the legality of that order by filing a petition
with the pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not less than
1 year after the date of the issuance of the production
order, the recipient of a production order may challenge the
nondisclosure order imposed in connection with such
production order by filing a petition to modify or set aside
such nondisclosure order, consistent with the requirements of
subparagraph (C), with the pool established by section
103(e)(1).
``(ii) The presiding judge shall immediately assign a
petition under clause (i) to 1 of the judges serving in the
pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not later than 72
hours after the assignment of such petition, the assigned
judge shall conduct an initial review of the petition. If the
assigned judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the
assigned judge shall immediately deny the petition and affirm
the production order or nondisclosure order. If the assigned
judge determines the petition is not frivolous, the assigned
judge shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with
the procedures established under section 103(e)(2).
``(iii) The assigned judge shall promptly provide a written
statement for the record of the reasons for any determination
under this subsection. Upon the request of the Government,
any order setting aside a nondisclosure order shall be stayed
pending review pursuant to paragraph (3).
``(B) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside
a production order may grant such petition only if the judge
finds that such order does not meet the requirements of this
section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not
modify or set aside the production order, the judge shall
immediately affirm such order, and order the recipient to
comply therewith.
``(C)(i) A judge considering a petition to modify or set
aside a nondisclosure order may grant such petition only if
the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that
disclosure may endanger the national security of the United
States, interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or
counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic
relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any
person.
``(ii) If, upon filing of such a petition, the Attorney
General, Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney
General, or the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation certifies that disclosure may endanger the
national security of the United States or interfere with
diplomatic relations, such certification shall be treated as
conclusive, unless the judge finds that the certification was
made in bad faith.
``(iii) If the judge denies a petition to modify or set
aside a nondisclosure order, the recipient of such order
shall be precluded for a period of 1 year from filing another
such petition with respect to such nondisclosure order.
``(D) Any production or nondisclosure order not explicitly
modified or set aside consistent with this subsection shall
remain in full effect.
``(3) A petition for review of a decision under paragraph
(2) to affirm, modify, or set aside an order by the
Government or any person receiving such order shall be made
to the court of review established under section 103(b),
which shall have jurisdiction to consider such petitions. The
court of review shall provide for the record a written
statement of the reasons for its decision and, on petition by
the Government or any person receiving such order for writ of
certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have
jurisdiction to review such decision.
``(4) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be
concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of
proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and
statements of reasons for decision, shall be

[[Page H582]]

maintained under security measures established by the Chief
Justice of the United States, in consultation with the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
``(5) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed
under seal. In any proceedings under this subsection, the
court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte
and in camera any Government submission, or portions thereof,
which may include classified information.''.

SEC. 4. DISCLOSURES.

(a) FISA.--Subparagraph (C) of section 501(d)(2) of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1861(d)(2)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended to
read as follows:
``(C) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person
making or intending to make a disclosure under subparagraph
(A) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall identify to the Director or
such designee the person to whom such disclosure will be made
or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the request.''.
(b) Title 18.--Paragraph (4) of section 2709(c) of title
18, United States Code, as amended by the applicable Act, is
amended to read as follows:
``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person
making or intending to make a disclosure under this section
shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to
whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure
was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this
section shall require a person to inform the Director or such
designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure
was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal
assistance with respect to the request under subsection
(a).''.
(c) Fair Credit Reporting Act.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 626(d) of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)), as amended by
the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person
making or intending to make a disclosure under this section
shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to
whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure
was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this
section shall require a person to inform the Director or such
designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure
was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal
assistance with respect to the request for the identity of
financial institutions or a consumer report respecting any
consumer under this section.''.
(2) Other agencies.--Paragraph (4) of section 627(c) of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681v(c)), as amended by
the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(4) At the request of the authorized government agency,
any person making or intending to make a disclosure under
this section shall identify to the requesting official of the
authorized government agency the person to whom such
disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was made
prior to the request, except that nothing in this section
shall require a person to inform the requesting official of
the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was made or
will be made to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with
respect to the request for information under subsection
(a).''.
(d) Right to Financial Privacy Act.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1114(a)(3) of
the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)), as
amended by the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(D) At the request of the authorized Government authority
or the Secret Service, any person making or intending to make
a disclosure under this section shall identify to the
requesting official of the authorized Government authority or
the Secret Service the person to whom such disclosure will be
made or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the
request, except that nothing in this section shall require a
person to inform the requesting official of the authorized
Government authority or the Secret Service of the identity of
an attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to
obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the
request for financial records under this subsection.''.
(2) Federal bureau of investigation.--Clause (iv) of
section 1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act
(12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(D)), as amended by the applicable Act,
is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person
making or intending to make a disclosure under this section
shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to
whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure
was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this
section shall require a person to inform the Director or such
designee of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure
was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal
assistance with respect to the request for financial records
under subparagraph (A).''.
(e) National Security Act of 1947.--Paragraph (4) of
section 802(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 436(b)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended
to read as follows:
``(4) At the request of the authorized investigative
agency, any person making or intending to make a disclosure
under this section shall identify to the requesting official
of the authorized investigative agency the person to whom
such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was
made prior to the request, except that nothing in this
section shall require a person to inform the requesting
official of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure
was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal
assistance with respect to the request under subsection
(a).''.

SEC. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR LIBRARY PATRONS.

Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
the applicable Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Libraries.--A library (as that term is defined in
section 213(1) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9122(1)), the services of which include access to the
Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or other
similar forms of communication in print or digitally by
patrons for their use, review, examination, or circulation,
is not a wire or electronic communication service provider
for purposes of this section, unless the library is providing
the services defined in section 2510(15) (`electronic
communication service') of this title.''.
This Act shall become effective immediately upon enactment.

{time} 1445

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

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2271 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act
Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. On December 14 of last
year, the House passed the conference report on H.R. 3199, the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, by a strong
bipartisan vote of 251-174. Last Thursday, the other body followed the
bipartisan lead of this House and approved the conference report by an
overwhelming vote of 89-10.
When the House Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the PATRIOT
Act a month after the 9/11 attacks, I pledged to vigorously examine its
implementation to ensure that enhanced law enforcement authority is
required to reduce America's vulnerability that terrorism did not erode
our constitutional or civil liberties.
As the historical record makes amply clear, it was the House, led by
former majority leader Dick Armey and me, that forcefully insisted that
much of the PATRIOT Act's expansion of law enforcement authority sunset
without affirmative congressional reauthorization.
These sunsets helped complement aggressive Congressional oversight of
the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. The conference report now passed
by both houses represents the product of comprehensive bipartisan
consideration consisting of legislative and oversight hearings,
briefings, and inspector general reports and committee correspondence.
This extensive record, a chronology of which I will submit for the
Record, has demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective
tool against terrorists and other criminals.
At the same time, intense congressional and public scrutiny has not
produced a single substantiated claim that the PATRIOT Act has been
misused to violate American civil liberties. However, the conference
report contained over 30 important civil liberties amendments and
revisions revised to further mitigate the potential for misuse of the
PATRIOT Act.
This bill includes three additional clarifications of the conference
report to address concerns raised by some Members of the other body.
First, current law does not expressly provide a recipient of a
section 215 order or a national security letter the

[[Page H583]]

right to challenge it. The conference report clearly delineated
judicial review for such challenges, including the ability of NSL
recipients to challenge an accompanying nondisclosure order. S. 2271
would extend the section 215 recipients similar access to judicial
review, to challenge and attach the nondisclosure order.
Second, because of national security concerns, the conference report
contained language that would allow the government to ask a recipient
of one of these national security orders to identify the persons to
whom disclosure will be or was made. The Director of National
Intelligence expressed concern that without this safeguard, a recipient
could disclose the government's investigative efforts to a person with
ties to hostile foreign governments or entities.
The conference report permitted the government to determine whether a
request is warranted, and if the defendant has made such a request to
determine whether the disclosure affected an ongoing investigation. An
exception was included for information that might interfere with
attorney-client relations, specifically barring the disclosure of the
identity of an attorney to whom a recipient planned to disclose. This
bill extends the exception to prevent the government from requesting
the name of counsels with whom the recipient had already consulted.
Finally, S. 2271 clarifies current law that a library may only be
subject to an NSL request if it falls under 18 U.S.C. 2516(15), which
defines an electronic communications service provider as any service
which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or
electronic communication. This change addresses the potential for
misuse alleged by critics of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 5 years, the PATRIOT Act has been the
focus of virtually unprecedented congressional and public scrutiny.
Opponents of this legislation have relied upon exaggeration and
hyperbole to distort a demonstrated record of accomplishment and
success.
The Justice Department and other agencies have properly used the
PATRIOT Act to detect, disrupt and dismantle sales in New York,
Virginia and Oregon before they struck. The PATRIOT Act helped tear
down the pre-9/11 wall that prevented law enforcement intelligence
agencies from sharing critical information necessary to avert terrorist
attacks on American soil.
It has become a critical tool of America's law enforcement arsenal
and a vital deterrent against terrorist subversion. It upheld our
constitutional values, and none of the provisions authorized by the
conference report have been held unconstitutional.
Simply stated, the PATRIOT Act has made America safer while
safeguarding our civil liberties. The conference report contained
provisions to address claims that the PATRIOT Act might be misused to
violate civil liberties, and Senate 2271 contains additional provisions
to further allay these concerns. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill and look forward to the eminent enactment of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 into law.
The following material is a chronology of the oversight of the
PATRIOT Act from October of 2001 to November of 2005 and a listing of
additional civil liberties protections contained in the conference
report of H.R. 3119:

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 and 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,
and Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions
of the Criminal Code and the Implementation of the USA
PATRIOT Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security
Letters; and 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,
and Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material
Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations and
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,
and 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,
and Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and
223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law
Enforcement Surveillance;
20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and 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,
and 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;
and Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214,
and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and Sections 6001 and 6002 of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,
improved FISA Investigations;
24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, and the
Age of Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail
Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of
Computer Trespasser Communications; and Section 220:
Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic
Evidence);
25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the
Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition;
26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and 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 and
Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act and 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 and 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

[[Page H584]]

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
and 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 and staff on
the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act;
36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology, and 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 and collect business records and the effect
of the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities;
38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
hearing on Law Enforcement and 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 and 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, and 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, and Property Rights hearing:
Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism.

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 & 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.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me just begin by pointing out that
in the dissent from the bill reported, there are six precise examples
of when the PATRIOT Act has been abused so that no one will be able to
say that they don't know where they are. They are on page 2 and 3 of
the dissents that have been filed with the committee.
What we have, we have passed the conference report already. It was
passed on December 14, 2005. Because of the other body, and the serious
objections that they have raised, we are getting now to three other
points that are

[[Page H585]]

being raised. Two of the points are the basis of my remarks this
afternoon.
The first I would like you to know about in S. 2271 is that amazingly
enough, after all the debate, this measure that we are considering
today makes section 215 intelligence orders for any tangible thing
harder to challenge in court than the current conference report which
allows a recipient to challenge the gag order immediately. This measure
before us that we will be voting on would make the recipient wait a
year, but then to make it really worse, rather than the reviewing court
immediately allowing the gag order, allowing the gag as the
government's carte blanche assertion of national security is
conclusive.
We have added two things. We make the assertion of national security
conclusive, plus we make the person that challenges it not able to
immediately go to court. This is a setback.
The second thing that we do is that we add no meaningful protection
for library records. That is to say that the present conference reports
allow immediate challenge. What we do is that according to the National
Association of Library Records, we make the protection for library
records exempt only if, the national security letters, they don't offer
Internet access. But the American Library Association puts the number
of libraries without Internet access at nearly zero.
What we have done is create a fig leaf that really does nothing to
give the meaningful protection that the library association has
requested and that we tried to get through in our legislation. So it is
with great reluctance that even on two out of the three measures that
are before us in this very small bill, we find that this is
unsupportable.
In addition, finally, what this measure doesn't do is address any of
the core problems with the PATRIOT Act, the main one being that we have
asked for moderate changes that would have ensured that these
extraordinary new powers are directed solely at terrorists or to those
associated with terrorists, and this measure fails to do that. For
those reasons, I am unable to support this measure and urge that it be
defeated.
There is no more difficult task we have as legislators than balancing
our Nation's need for security against our citizens' civil liberties.
Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, and in the midst
of a war against terror without any clear endpoint, it is increasingly
clear that we are failing in that task.
We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act while the
wreck of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when we
refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own
government, including the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens.
And today, we are failing yet again, by taking up S. 2771. Not only is
the bill substantively dangerous, it does nothing to respond to the
serious flaws in the conference report.
First, the bill is dangerous because it makes it practically
impossible to challenge the gag orders that come with secretive 215
orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full
year before challenging a gag order, it deems government certifications
concerning possible harm to national security to be ``conclusive.''
This is far worse than what is proposed by the conference report which
would allow the FISA court to ensure that the law and the Constitution
are not violated.
Second, the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious
problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill
pretends to protect libraries from receiving National Security Letters,
but then revokes that protection if the library offers internet access.
The bill does nothing to prevent the government from using security
letters to obtain confidential information having nothing to do with
terrorism; nothing to protect secret physical searches of homes and
offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving wiretap orders.
If we are serious about combating terror in the 21st century, we must
move beyond symbolic gestures and color coded threat levels, and begin
to make the hard choices needed to protect our Nation. If we really
want to prevent terrorists from targeting our citizens and our cities,
we need keep assault weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists.
And if we really want to protect our people and secure our ports and
other transportation hubs, the administration needs to honor the letter
and the spirit of our security laws and fully fund our homeland
security needs.
The legislation before us today endangers our civil liberties, while
doing nothing meaningful to protect our citizens. I urge a no vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chair of the Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, pardon my immodesty. I believe that this bill has been
thoroughly and consistently examined, but I don't think there has been
a committee other than the House Judiciary Committee, I don't think
there has been a subcommittee, other than the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security, that has worked any more diligently
than have we.
Now, the chairman used the words vulnerable and vulnerability in his
opening statement. We are indeed, we were on 9/11, we are today. But as
the chairman furthermore pointed out, much misleading and inaccurate
information has been associated and directed to the PATRIOT Act. I used
this example on the floor earlier, Mr. Speaker. A constituent of mine
came to me all upset, concerned about the PATRIOT Act.
We must get rid of the PATRIOT Act, he said to me. I said to him,
give me an example how it has adversely affected you. He said, I can't
do it. I said, give me an example of how it has adversely affected
anyone you know. I can't do it, he replied. I further said, give me an
example where any third party has been adversely affected. Again he
came up short.
This is the misleading information that has convinced many people
across our land that it is no good. In this era of instant and
universal communications, if a piece of legislation is as bad as my
constituents thought it was, surely he would have some evidence as to
some information to indicate to me why the bill is so onerous.

{time} 1500

Granted, the bill expanded the parameters of law enforcement, but not
to the detriment of law-abiding citizens.
After 9/11, I made the statement that my most pressing fear is that
the next attack will come by water at ports and/or harbors, the very
issue that plagues us today with the ports issue. We are indeed still
vulnerable, but we are not as vulnerable as we were on 9/11, and part
of that security must be directly related to the PATRIOT Act. We are
not invincible, by any means; but we are more secure, we are more
protected than we were then, because I think we now fully appreciate
the enemy, the terrorism that hangs heavy over our heads; and I think
the PATRIOT Act, Madam Speaker, will serve a good purpose to that end.
I again thank the chairman for having yielded time to me, and I thank
him for his leadership as we have pursued this effort in the past
several months.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my good friend and my
respected chair and the Member who just spoke that one of the things
you have to keep in mind is the information that they are saying hasn't
been brought forward to the public wouldn't be brought forward to the
public under what has been essentially a secret manner of
investigation.
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because it offers
only superficial reform that would have little, if any, impact on
safeguarding our civil liberties. Furthermore, it has become crystal
clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse,
attack, and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this
country in defiance of our Constitution. This administration is
illegally wiretapping American citizens, illegally collecting
information on peace groups, and illegally signing statements to ignore
the torture ban recently enacted by this Congress.
Some of my colleagues will stand up here today and argue the PATRIOT
Act had nothing to do with these nefarious activities, but my
colleagues are not looking at the big picture. The administration is
violating the laws Congress has passed and trampling on the
Constitution of the United States.
I will not give this administration any additional police powers.
Congress has failed to do its job as a coequal branch of government.
The administration's attack on our democracy has to

[[Page H586]]

be reined in. This Congress must not walk away from its role in
providing a check and balance to the administration's exercise of
executive power.
This Congress was not zealous in oversight prior to 2001; but since
that time, this Congress has ignored its constitutional duty, and 200
years of American democracy have suffered. The complacency of this
Congress is clearly viewed by the administration as a license to ignore
the laws it disagrees with, and then it demands Congress pass expanded
police powers.
In the name of the Constitution of the United States of America, I
reject this complacency. I will not vote to give a single new police
power to this administration. I voted against the PATRIOT Act when it
first passed, and I remain even more opposed to this legislation today.
The bill before us today enables the FBI to investigate any American
for any reason without the checks and balances of the judicial system.
History tells us that unchecked police powers with little or no
oversight will be abused and the citizens will be harmed. The
administration's record in this area is concrete proof that history
repeats itself.
I am for police function that protects citizens of this great Nation,
not a police function that is used to terrorize them. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, to stand up
for our Constitution, to stand up for our Bill of Rights, to remember
the long struggle that was instrumental in establishing those
liberties.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, the statement we just heard is at variance with what
has happened since the PATRIOT Act was enacted.
First, none of the 16 provisions that expanded law enforcement powers
has been held unconstitutional by any Federal Court in the country in
over 4 years of being tested. Second, the PATRIOT Act requires the
Justice Department Inspector General to report to Congress twice a year
on civil liberties violations that have been investigated. We have
gotten those reports. There haven't been any. Third, there is a
provision in the PATRIOT Act that said anybody who thinks their civil
liberties are violated can sue the Justice Department and get $10,000
of statutory damages in addition to proven economic damages and
attorneys fees. So far, not a dime has been paid out in judgments or
settlements under this section.
This is an example of how the PATRIOT Act has been distorted by those
who are opposed to it. Let us talk about the PATRIOT Act, because the
PATRIOT Act has passed muster, and the facts and the court decisions
show it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the
chairman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, after 9/11, one of the most responsible things that
this Congress did was to pass the PATRIOT Act. It tore down that wall
that existed between the intelligence community and the law enforcement
community, a wall that was specifically talked about in the 9/11
Commission report as one of the failures of our government to prepare
for the threats that we had prior to 9/11. What we are doing now is
reaffirming that responsible act by this Congress. This today is the
final critical piece of the USA PATRIOT Act, reflecting the careful
balancing of national security and the civil liberties of our citizens.
In total, over 30 changes, additional civil liberty protections, have
been made to the base legislation. It reflects the reality that
security must not be juxtaposed against the notion of rights. It is
absolutely true that the first civil right of all Americans is the
right not to be murdered, not to be murdered by terrorists.
The three additional changes contained in the bill before us, S.
2271, go beyond the 30 additions that we had in the conference report
itself. There are civil liberties protections concerning, first, the
ability to challenge the legality of a section 215 order. Section 215
deals with business records, including library records. Secondly, it
adds civil liberties protections concerning the protection of the
confidentiality of a name of an attorney to whom information has been
disclosed. Third, it places limitations concerning the use of national
security letters with respect to libraries.
These 30-plus changes to the underlying legislation were made despite
the fact that in this last year we had 13 separate hearings on the
PATRIOT Act; and in those 13 hearings we found not a single, single,
incidence of abuse of the law. We placed the Attorney General of the
United States under oath. We placed the number two person at the
Justice Department under oath. We heard from supporters of this act; we
heard from the detractors of this act. We examined the Inspector
General's reports. We had the opportunity to look at classified data
that backed up the request for the use of this act.
I personally did that, as well as other members of the subcommittee
and the full committee; and we could not find a single example of an
established abuse of the statute as written or as applied.
On the basis of the Bali terrorist attacks, the bombing in Spain, the
terrible 7/7 incident in London, the threat to the safety and security
of our citizens continues. It didn't end with the passage of the
PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act, as it has been implemented, has allowed
us to protect ourselves from future such attacks.
We must not now lapse into a pre-9/11 lethargy. Unlike normal
criminal investigations, terrorism presents law enforcement with the
task of preventing a cataclysmic attack. That is why I rise in support
of this bill before us.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from
Virginia, I yield myself 45 seconds, because this is getting a little
bit out of hand.
The assertion has been made that none of the 16 provisions have
violated the law, but two Federal District Courts in New York and
Connecticut have found that the national security letters themselves
are illegal. Two courts, that the national security letters were held
to be illegal. And to say that there have been no abuses, read pages 2
and 3 of the dissent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about
all of the violations that have gone on.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Speaker, the national security letters were not one of the
additional law enforcement powers that were passed as a part of the
PATRIOT Act. They were passed in 1986, 15 years before 9/11 and the
PATRIOT Act was passed.
The gentleman is correct in saying that national security letters
were held unconstitutional, and what we did in this reauthorization
bill is to provide a procedure to challenge them and make them
constitutional, even though they weren't in the original PATRIOT Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, let me just first say I believe it is inappropriate to
even discuss the PATRIOT Act until we have had hearings to find out
what is going on with the NSA wiretaps. The PATRIOT Act could be, in
fact, irrelevant if you are wiretapping at will, as the President has
suggested; and we want to know exactly what is going on with those
wiretaps before we do anything else. But this bill is on the floor, so
we have to discuss that.
Unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill because it still continues
to require no finding of individualized suspicion as a trigger to the
secret record search powers in sections 215 and 505. That means that
innocent Americans can have their sensitive records searched without
any showing that they are an agent of a terrorist organization or
scheming with terrorist organizations or doing anything illegal.
Instead, this continues the problems in the original PATRIOT Act. This
bill addresses several of the problems, but doesn't actually solve
them.
One thing it helps is the fact that the recipient of a national
security letter will be able to consult a lawyer without having to
notify the government of the attorney's name. This is merely cosmetic,
because that has actually been the recent practice.

[[Page H587]]

In terms of these interstate letters, the bill addresses the right to
challenge the gag order which applies to the secret orders under 215,
as well as the national security letters; but it says that you can't
make the challenge for 1 year. It codifies a 1-year period during which
you can't do anything. That makes the present law worse. Presumably,
you could go in right away to challenge the NSA and see the secret
orders; but now you have to wait a year, and at the end of the year,
you can't do anything, because all the government has to do is certify
that the gag order needs to stay in effect. The judge has no discretion
as to overturning that certification. So although this issue is
addressed, it is actually made worse.
Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a question on the protection of
privacy of library patrons in terms of the Internet service providers
as to whether or not the library is an Internet service provider. The
language is a little bit confusing.
Madam Speaker, I would enter into the Record a colloquy between the
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from New Hampshire,
Mr. Sununu, the chief patron of the bill. Assuming that he means what
he said he meant on the floor of the Senate, we don't have a problem
with it. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the
Record the colloquy between the two Senators as to what section 5
actually means.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, is it in order to introduce into
the Record in this body debate that has been taken in the other body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By unanimous consent, it may be done.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, let the
record be clear that as manager of the bill, I do not necessarily agree
with the debate that was taken between the two Senators in the other
body.

{time} 1515

But if the gentleman from Virginia wishes to insert that in the
Record for its hortatory nature, I will not object.
Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, it will be
entered.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce this.
It represents the intent of the chief sponsor of the bill, which we
agree with, although I understand the manager of the bill in the House
may not.

Colloquy Between Senators John Sununu and Dick Durbin on Section 5 of
S. 2271, February 16, 2006

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment, I wish to
address the bill pending before the Senate, and that is S.
2271.
I commend Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who is here
in the Chamber. Were it not for his hard work, we would not
be here today. For weeks, while many of us were doing other
things back home, Senator Sununu was working assiduously with
the White House to find a way to address some very vexing and
challenging issues when it came to modifying the PATRIOT Act.
He has done an excellent job. I commend him and tell him that
I have enjoyed working with him over the last 2 years, where
we have crossed party lines and tried to find ways to keep
the PATRIOT Act as a tool to make America safe but also at
the same time to protect our basic liberties.
Every step of the way, as we considered changes to the
PATRIOT Act, we have been supported by our Nation's
librarians. These are wonderful men and women--
professionals--who are dedicated to the libraries across
America, which are such rich resources. I thank the
librarians of America, especially for their heroic efforts to
amend the PATRIOT Act in a responsible way and, equally as
important, to defend our Constitution.
I understand that section 5 of Senator Sununu's bill, S.
2271, will help protect the privacy of Americans' library
records. I ask the indulgence of the Chair that I might enter
into a colloquy with Senator Sununu relative to section 5.
I would like to ask Senator Sununu, through the Chair, if
he could explain to me what section 5 will accomplish.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor
today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of
the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of
Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that
will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization
conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He
specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he
began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current
law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters
to libraries.
A National Security Letter is a type of administrative
subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement
officials, to get access to documents. It is a document
signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide
certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the
Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge
before being issued.
What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language
that states that libraries operating in their traditional
functions: lending books, providing access to digital books
or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access
to the Internet would not be subject to a national security
letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing
in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain
library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from
Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing
National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it
could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as
they do communication service providers such as a telephone
company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom
consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet
and send and receive e-mail.
Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library
providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a
national security letter, simply by virtue of making that
access available to the public.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. It is
my understanding that most public libraries, as he explained,
offer Internet access to the public. Because of this, they
are concerned that the Government might consider them to be
communications service providers similar to the traditional
providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, and AOL.
So if I understand it correctly, your bill clarifies that
libraries, simply because they provide basic Internet access,
are not communications service providers under the law and
are not subject to national security letters as a result. I
ask the Senator from New Hampshire, through the Chair, is
that a correct conclusion?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the
conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct, A library
providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a
National Security Letter as a result of that particular
service and other services that are very much in keeping with
the traditional role of libraries.
Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access
gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail
by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service.
But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is
providing the communication service--the Internet
communication service provider itself--and not the library,
which is simply making available a computer with access to
the Internet.
So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from
Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on
this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the
law as he described, in addition to providing other
improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil
liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing
law enforcement with the tools that they need in their
terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing
those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I
think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to
the law in giving access to the courts to object to section
215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive
provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient
of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their
attorney to the FBI.
All of these are improvements to the underlying
legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming,
bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I
anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the
days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a
much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, as
well, because that clarification is important. So if a
library offers basic Internet access, and within that access
a patron can, for example, send and receive e-mail by
accessing an Internet-based e-mail service such as Hotmail,
for example, that does not mean the library is a
communications service provider and, therefore, it does not
mean that a library could be subject to these national
security letters of investigation.
By way of comparison, a gas station that has a pay phone
isn't a telephone company. So a library that has Internet
access, where a person can find an Internet e-mail service,
is not a communications service provider; therefore, it would
not fall under the purview of the NSL provision in 18 U.S.C.
2709. It is a critically important distinction. I thank the
Senator from New Hampshire for making that clear and for all
of his good work on this bill.
Libraries are fundamental to America. They symbolize our
access to education. They are available to everyone,
regardless of social or economic status.
When we first introduced the SAFE Act, I went to the
Chicago Public Library to make the announcement. The library
was established in 1873, and for over 130 years it has

[[Page H588]]

given the people of the City of Chicago the ability to read
and learn and communicate. Here is what the mission statement
says at that public library:
We welcome and support all people and their enjoyment of
reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. We believe in the
freedom to read, to learn, and to discover.
We have to ensure, in the Senate and in Congress, in the
bills that we pass, including the PATRIOT Act, that this
freedom to read, learn, and discover is preserved for our
children and our grandchildren.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence
of a quorum.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the continued
effort to reauthorize the United States PATRIOT Act. It is well overdue
for this Congress to ensure those trying to protect the American people
have all the tools necessary to combat terrorism.
With the passage of this bill, Congress will have demonstrated its
overwhelming desire to protect our civil liberties while protecting our
homeland. We have taken every precaution to ensure an overzealous
government cannot overstep its constitutional responsibility.
Among other provisions, this legislation allows a person receiving a
FISA production order to produce any tangible item that they deem
necessary to challenge that order before a district court.
This bill also removes libraries from the definition of a wire or
electronic service communication provider for purposes of granting the
national security letters, unless, unless the library actually provides
electronic communication service.
These are commonsense amendments that will continue to fine-tune the
balance between our homeland security and our constitutional rights as
American citizens. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for yielding me the
time and for his outstanding work on this vital issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, just to keep the record straight, in 1986, national
security letters were limited to terrorists. The PATRIOT Act lowered
the standard to anything relevant to an investigation, and now over
30,000 are issued every year. The sham fix does not help us at all.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in a serious war with
terrorism. But we are going after the wrong targets. We are not
protecting ourselves, but we are attacking our liberties. We are not
doing anything adequate to secure the loose nuclear materials all over
the former Soviet Union before they are smuggled to al Qaeda to make
atomic bombs.
We search only 5 percent of the 9 million shipping containers that
come into our country every year, any one of which could contain a
weapon of mass destruction.
But what are we doing? Well, the President has orchestrated a secret
conspiracy to violate the criminal law by ordering clearly illegal
domestic surveillance.
And now we renew the PATRIOT Act with some of the worst provisions
only cosmetically changed and continuing to threaten civil liberties.
Section 215 allows the government to obtain business reports about
people, including library, medical and various other types of business
records, as long as they are ``sought for a terrorism investigation.''
The government simply has to come up with a statement of facts
showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that tangible things
sought are relevant to an authorized investigation. Relevant? Almost
anything can be relevant.
To make matters worse, the recipients of a section 215 order are
subject to an almost unreviewable automatic gag order. Now we are told,
under this bill, that judicial review can take place after a year. At
best. A year? And in order to prevail in challenging a gag order, a
certification by the government that disclosure would harm national
security or impair diplomatic relations would be conclusive, unless
shown it would be in bad faith.
Conclusive? No evidentiary showing, no evidentiary test. That is
absurd. That means there is no test at all. Section 505 authorizes FBI
field office directors to collect in secret almost limitless sensitive
personal information from entities simply by issuing national security
letters.
The FBI can simply say they want your private and sensitive
information and they can get it. This is very much like the writ of
assistance the British used to grant in 1761 that helped start the
American Revolution. Under the conference report, recipients would
theoretically have the ability to challenge these gag orders, but again
that will be virtually impossible.
As with section 215, the government's assertion that the gag order is
necessary to protect the national security would be a conclusive
presumption that the government is telling the truth that the gag order
could stand.
You can only challenge the government's bad faith. This automatic
permanent gag rule very likely violates the first amendment, as two
courts have already found. We ought to have real protections. We ought
to have some procedural safeguards in the PATRIOT Act such as our
entire American tradition demands.
The conference report does not replace the section 215 showing of
relevance standard with the three-part test that was the basis of the
Senate compromise which provided some meaningful due process
protections. It should.
The conference report does not restore the section 505 previous
standard of specific and articulable facts connecting the records
sought to a suspected terrorist. It should.
The conference report does not allow recipients of section 215 orders
and national security letters a meaningful court challenge to the gag
order. It should.
And, finally, the conference report does not sunset section 505,
national security letters, in 4 years. It should.
I very much urge defeat of this PATRIOT Act reauthorization so that
we can mend the bill so it doesn't destroy our constitutional
liberties. Mend it, not end it. But this doesn't help.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I would just say to this side, this bill
has gone through so many iterations, and so many times we have looked
at this. It includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards. And, you
know, I admit that your fighting against this bill has probably
improved it a little bit.
But at this point, we have done so much to help it. I think it is a
very good bill. I commend the author, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his
patience all during this process.
These new civil liberty safeguards include allowing recipients of
search requests or national security letters to seek legal counsel for
appealing the decision to the FISA court and mandated reporting to the
public and Congress on the use of national security letters, data-
mining and delayed-notice search warrants.
This is a vigilant protector of civil rights and national security,
and it is the right balance. It is critical that we pass this bill
today. I would say in passing that part of the PATRIOT Act was a cargo
amendment that I included. I thank the chairman for allowing me to do
that.
In Florida alone, local and State agencies joined together and
developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against
cargo theft, resulting in about a 25 percent decrease in cargo thefts.
Unfortunately, my colleagues, the FBI estimates, and these are only
estimates because we do not have any way to track this information,
overall national loss from cargo theft remains at almost $6 billion
annually.
The interagency cooperation must be expanded from the State level to
include nation-wide enforcement. Cargo theft imperils our Nation's
security, and data indicates profits from cargo theft often go to
organized crime or to terrorist activities.
So for that reason, for 2 years I have been working on this
amendment, which is included as part of the PATRIOT Act, to, first of
all, combat this crime by increasing mandatory minimum sentencing and
directing consolidation of cargo theft trend data--simple collection of
this cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting
system, so in fact that system we have a better understanding of

[[Page H589]]

it, and we can coordinate between different law enforcement agencies.
These are vital steps to fight this growing nation-wide threat, and I
am pleased to have it included in the PATRIOT Act.
I ask my colleagues to realize the amount of work that has gone into
this bill. It is absolutely necessary we pass it. I urge my colleagues
to vote for it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman for your efforts to pass this
critical legislation.
Our founding fathers knew our young Nation faced dangerous security
challenges from its amorphous and expansive border and aggressive
European powers. With that in mind, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The price
of freedom is eternal vigilance.''
The situation confronting us today mirrors that of our founders. Our
border is even larger and more difficult to control. With additional
points of entry at every airport, prohibiting entry of those intent on
doing harm is even more complex. Advanced technologies allow
individuals across the oceans to coordinate attacks within our cities.
This is an eventuality impossible for our founding fathers to foresee,
and yet necessary for us to combat. We must keep pace with the changing
environment. The PATRIOT Act equips us to do that by breaking down
communication barriers between law enforcement and intelligence
agencies, a weakness identified by the 9/11 Commission.
In Florida, law enforcement increased interagency cooperation with
impressive results. In 2001, local and state agencies joined together
and developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against
cargo theft, resulting in a 25% decrease in cargo thefts.
Unfortunately, the FBI estimates overall national loss from cargo theft
remains more than $6 billion annually. Interagency cooperation must be
expanded from the state level to include nationwide enforcement. Cargo
theft imperils our national security, and data indicates profits from
cargo theft often funds organized crime or terrorist activities. For
two years, I have worked to pass legislation combating this crime by
increasing mandatory minimum sentences and directing consolidation of
cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting system
to better coordinate enforcement activities. These are vital steps to
fight this growing nationwide threat, and I am pleased they were
included in this PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
As we debate these amendments to the PATRIOT Act, I hear echoes of
another founding father's words. Benjamin Franklin's assertion that,
``They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,'' resounds as an admonition
to those of us standing in this chamber to ensure proper oversight and
protect civil liberties.
This legislation includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards.
These include: allowing recipients of search requests or National
Security Letters to seek legal counsel for appealing the decision to
the FISA Court, and mandated reporting to the public and Congress on
the use of National Security Letters, data mining, and delayed notice
search warrants.
As vigilant protectors of national security, and critical guardians
of civil liberties, with full realization of the immediate threat we
face, I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Due
diligence has been observed . . . investigated . . . executed . . . and
critiqued. Now it is time to pass this Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Madam Speaker, this is an extremely important debate. I
want to begin by expressing my disappointment that this bill is being
considered as a suspension along with the naming of post offices. Well,
you know what, this is not a post-office-naming bill. This is a bill
that deals with constitutional rights. It is an issue about which seven
States in this country have raised concerns, as have hundreds of
municipalities from one end of America to the other.
This is a bill that should allow for amendments and serious debate
and not be considered simply as a suspension.
Madam Speaker, many Americans are wondering how it could be that in
terms of national security, our President believes that it is okay for
a foreign government with terrorist ties to run major ports in America;
that that is okay. But when some of us say that maybe kids or just
ordinary American citizens should be allowed to read the books that
they want in libraries without being investigated by government agents,
without any evidence that they are engaged in terrorist activities or
have any ties to terrorism, that we cannot protect.
Madam Speaker, there is growing concern in this country with regard
to the state of our civil liberties and our constitutional rights.
Whether it is the President of the United States engaging, through the
NSA, in illegal wiretaps without court orders, or the widespread use of
national security letters, millions of Americans, whether they are
progressives, whether they are conservatives or in between, are very
concerned about Big Brother investigating the private lives, the
private reading habits of ordinary Americans.
Madam Speaker, in June of 2005, I offered an amendment that passed
with a very strong bipartisan vote, which said that libraries and book
stores should be exempt from section 215, that it is wrong for the
government to be able to access the reading records or the book
purchases of innocent Americans unless they can establish that those
individuals have ties with terrorism.
All of us want our government to be vigorous in protecting the
American people against terrorism. But we want to do that in a way that
does not undermine the constitutional rights of the American people.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership took that amendment, which
passed with strong bipartisan support, and they tossed it out. They
rejected the will of a vast majority of the Members of the House of
Representatives and did not incorporate that language into the final
bill.
Madam Speaker, this is an issue of huge consequence. Fighting
terrorism is an enormously important issue, but we can and must do it
without undermining the constitutional rights of the American people.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as I indicated before, we need
to have hearings on the NSA wiretaps. The question there is not whether
or not the wiretaps can take place, but whether or not they take place
in the concept of checks and balances.
Also, we need to know what kinds of wiretaps are going on, and it
would be nice to have hearings on that before we consider the PATRIOT
Act. But when one of the previous speakers talked about the due process
involved, we have to remind people that the due process is not for the
person whose records are being gathered, but due process on the library
that does not have enough money to operate the library, whether or not
they have a right to go out and hire a lawyer to protect somebody
else's rights.
The person affected does not have any rights in this situation. It is
just the library and their own good will. If they want to go out and
protect somebody's rights, they have that opportunity. These are
extraordinary rights, police rights and police powers; and we need to
make sure that people actually understand what is going on here.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Madam Speaker, it has been said that there have been no abuses of the
PATRIOT Act. Let me just run down what has already been reported, and
probably there have been more, since we filed our report.
It was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, to tap his
phone, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his
children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
It has 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. It has been used to
unconstitutionally coerce an Internet service provider to divulge
information about e-mail activity and Web surfing on its system, and
then gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

{time} 1530

Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it has

[[Page H590]]

been used to obtain reading records from libraries 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 reading
information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.
Finally, it has been used to charge and detain and prosecute Muslim
students in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable
material.
Let us not support this PATRIOT Act today.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, I can't believe what I have heard from my friends on
the other side of the aisle. If they succeed in defeating this bill, it
is a case of be sorry for getting what you ask for. This bill actually
puts more civil liberties protections into the PATRIOT Act than the
conference report which has already been passed by both Houses and is
ready to be enrolled and sent to the President for his signature.
So if you have your way and you vote down the bill that was authored
by the gentleman from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu, you are not going
to have the additional civil liberties protections that are contained
in Senate 2271. That is not going to stop the conference report which
you opposed in December, as is your right, from going to the President
and being signed without these additional civil liberties protections.
If you are for more civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act,
vote for this bill. If you are against them, vote against this bill.
But the fate of this bill has no bearing on the fact that the
conference report on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has been cleared
by both Houses and is ready to go to the White House. So think before
you vote ``no.'' I am voting ``aye'' because this is a good bill, and
we ought to vote on this bill based upon what is in it rather than what
is in other legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to S. 2271, a bill that circumvents the regular legislative process and
fails to truly improve the PATRIOT Act.
Last year, I rejected the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and the
conference report because I thought Congress could strike a more
reasonable balance in empowering law enforcement and protecting civil
liberties. I was concerned then, as I am now, that the reauthorization
language would remove the protection of sunsets to most of the PATRIOT
Act, which was critical to earn support for such sweeping legislation
in 2001. These sunset provisions ensure that Congress will continuously
be able to take a closer look at how law enforcement powers are
implemented and the effectiveness of balancing security and freedom. I
continue to believe that Congressional oversight over one of the most
fundamental challenges of our time would not hinder our society but
enhance it.
First, let us be clear about what we are voting on today--an
amendment to a conference report. Conference reports are not amendable.
Conference reports are the product of conference committees that have
hammered out the differences between House and Senate versions of
legislation. A conference report is one of the last stages of the
legislative process and it must be wholly rejected or accepted by the
two chambers.
Since the Majority and the Administration cannot pass the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization conference report on its merits through the regular
legislative process, the House must now consider a bill that amends the
report. Instead of being honest with the American people that the
conference report is flawed, the Majority is attempting to maneuver
legislation through the House that they purport will ``fix'' the
underlying problems of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and fast-track
the bill to President Bush's desk.
Even if this ``fix'' was added to the conference report, many
discrepancies in the protection of privacy, civil liberties and
Congressional oversight still remain. For example, with no meaningful
changes to the conference report, access is still allowed to sensitive
personal records, including medical, business and library records
(Section 215) and national security letters that request personal
information are still issued with no judicial review (Section 505).
Today, I reject the idea that the Majority and the Administration can
use this bill as political cover to gain enough support for passage of
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. The fact remains that the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization still needs more work, more safeguards, and more
oversight. As the 109th Congress continues to discuss protecting the
homeland and civil liberties, I challenge my colleagues to have an open
review and debate on improving the PATRIOT Act, and to work together--
in a bipartisan manner--to strengthen national security in a way that
is consistent with the fundamental rights and freedoms this country was
founded on.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the PATRIOT Act, which
plays an instrumental role in the detection and prevention of terrorist
attacks.
Terrorists will strike again. It is not a question of if, but of
when, where and of what magnitude. We are in a race to stop the
terrorists before they use weapons of mass destruction against us.
The PATRIOT Act empowers our intelligence and law enforcement
communities to play vital roles in helping the United States win this
race.
To fight the war on terrorism, our intelligence agencies must have
the right tools. However, with these added tools, there must be added
oversight. The protection of our civil liberties is of utmost concern
to me.
For this reason, Congresswoman Maloney and I have offered H.R. 1310,
the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, which would reconstitute the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as an independent agency
within the Executive Branch.
The establishment and adequate funding of the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Board was a crucial recommendation by the 9/11 Commission. In
its Final Report on 9/11 Commission recommendations, the commission
notes ``very little urgency'' and ``insufficient'' funding as it
relates to the establishment of the Board.
The bottom line is, we can no longer think in terms of the Cold War
paradigm of containment, reaction and mutually-assured destruction. The
modern threat requires us to detect and prevent attacks.
The PATRIOT Act improves our anti-terrorism capabilities by focusing
on intelligence gathering, immigration, criminal justice and the
financial infrastructure.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271,
the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.
I am strongly committed to fighting and winning the war on terror.
The most solemn obligation of government is to protect the citizenry,
and we need to make sure that law enforcement has the powers it needs
to do so.
At the same time, governments throughout history, including our own,
have abused their authority in the name of promoting such security.
Americans should feel comfortable that while government is protecting
them from others, their private lives are protected from unwarranted
government intrusion. The right to privacy is one of our most precious
rights, a hallmark of the American experiment.
I opposed the initial USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 because it threatened
our civil liberties. As I have said before, while the compromise makes
some improvements to the original USA PATRIOT Act, it does not go far
enough to preserve civil liberties.
It will remain too easy for the government to fish through the
private information of innocent Americans. This includes medical, gun,
library, and financial records. Institutions that receive requests for
information are still prevented from talking about them, and their
ability to successfully challenge these ``gag orders'' is limited or
nonexistent. Government's power to conduct secret searches of one's
personal effects without prior notice, so called ``sneak and peak''
authority, remains too expansive.
S. 2271 only makes three changes to the prior act. First, it allows
recipients of Section 215 orders to challenge accompanying ``gag
orders.'' However, it delays any action for at least one year and makes
a successful challenge virtually impossible. Second, it clarifies that
recipients of Section 215 orders and National Security Letters (NSLs)
do not have to disclose to the government the identities of attorneys
consulted to assist in responding to these requests. Finally, it seeks
to exclude libraries from the reach of NSLs. Unfortunately, there is
considerable disagreement about whether the language in S. 2271
actually will accomplish its goal of clarifying that libraries are not
subject to NSLs.
These changes, taken as a whole, are at best small improvements
which, most significantly, do not address the larger concerns I
discussed earlier. As such, I cannot endorse S. 2271 and this
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
I am pleased that Senator Specter and others have said they will
revisit the USA PATRIOT Act to deal with the many problems that remain.
I look forward to a new bill that more properly balances our need to
protect civil liberties and provide tools necessary in fighting
terrorism.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, the Patriot Act Conference Report which
Congress will amend today deals with the outcry leveled at provisions
in the original Patriot Act that allow the government to have access to
library records.
I strongly agree that the original PATRIOT Act was too broad: it
permitted the FBI and

[[Page H591]]

other agencies to issue National Security Letters (NSL)--secret
administrative subpoenas--without court approval to obtain a wide range
of data from libraries that had little or nothing to do with fighting
terrorists.
But embedded in the law was something I felt and still feel was
essential to prevent and disrupt terrorist plots: it covered Internet
sites at libraries that also function as Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), places terrorists use to communicate with each other--something
they have done effectively in the effort to evade being monitored.
Though it was extremely unpopular, I voted against early efforts to
repeal Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act--the so called Library
Provision--because those efforts included ISPs. Last year, Congressman
Bernie Sanders' amendment Section 215 expressly did not include ISPs,
and I spoke for it on the floor.
Today's bill modifies the PATRIOT Act by barring the government from
using NSLs to obtain records from libraries functioning in their
traditional roles. Only libraries that also function as ISPs are now
covered. This compromise is right and the law ensures that we can
continue to monitor terrorist activity on the Internet.
In my view, however, we need to do more. Congress should fold
additional checks and balances into the NSL process to protect business
and other records in the same way this bill protects libraries. Checks
and balances--such as those contained in legislation sponsored by the
Intelligence Committee Democrats and senior Judiciary Committee
Democrats--would subject NSLs to judicial oversight and enhanced
congressional scrutiny.
The specter of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is very real. It is a
prospect that keeps me up at night. Clearly, we need modem tools to
track 21st century threats, but not at the expense of our precious
liberties, which are the essential foundation of American democracy.
Today's bill to amend the PATRIOT Act is a step in the right direction.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, today, the House considers S. 2271,
The USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.
I opposed the original 2001 PATRIOT Act because it failed to strike
an appropriate balance between giving law enforcement agencies the
tools necessary to protect Americans from terrorism and maintaining the
freedoms that protect America from tyranny. Like the 2001 bill, the
PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is unacceptable, and the
amendments proposed by S. 2771 again fall short of the mark.
Last year, the Senate unanimously agreed to legislation striking an
appropriate balance between security and liberty. That bill offered an
opportunity to fight terrorism effectively without giving up our rights
and freedoms. By contrast, S. 2271 would make minor changes to the
PATRIOT Act, and the final result falls well short of the standard set
by the Senate legislation.
We should insist on real PATRIOT Act reform that protects both our
safety and our freedom. Until then, I cannot support fig leaf
legislation intended to cover up the basic problems of the PATRIOT Act.
You not only have to do the right thing, you have to do it in the
right way. This act and these amendments do neither.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose S. 2271, Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments to the PATRIOT Act. This legislation fails to
address any of the core fundamental flaws with the original PATRIOT Act
and makes controversial provisions permanent which threaten American's
civil liberties. By making the sunset provisions permanent, we are
losing the opportunity for a meaningful review.
Time and time again, we have extended the reauthorization deadline in
an effort to fix the flaws and yet once more we have brought forth
legislation that compromises our civil rights in exchange for
government control.
As we saw last year, the administration was cavalier with domestic
spying through the National Security Administration. Their ability to
undermine the American public should worry my colleagues and makes me
question the reasoning behind giving additional authority with the USA
Patriot Act.
In S. 2271, a recipient of national security letters (NSL) is able to
challenge a nondisclosure (gag) order but they must wait a year until
they can file a petition and that order can be renewed indefinitely at
the government's discretion, making it harder to challenge.
In addition, S. 2271 fails to provide meaningful protection for the
privacy of library patrons and library records. It exempts libraries
that operate in their traditional role, but does not exempt those who
use or offer electronic communication services such as Internet access.
This legislation gives the administration too much flexibility and
does not force Congress to review the act as needed. In a country that
prides itself on civil rights and freedom of speech we must have the
ability to question and modify legislation. We must maintain a system
with checks and balances to ensure that our government works for our
citizens in a transparent way.
The lack of transparency is further demonstrated with the Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. Methamphetamine has taken Oregon, as well
as this country, by storm. I fully support efforts to combat this
epidemic; however, I will not vote for the egregious PATRIOT Act just
because it includes methamphetamine provisions. This is a cheap tactic
and we should not be using victims of this epidemic as political chess
pieces.
I have no doubt that we can keep America safe without compromising
our civil liberties. Sadly, the bill does compromise our rights.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, while I will vote for this
bill, I cannot be enthusiastic about it because it does very little to
improve the laws it amends. And I cannot help regretting that the House
is not being allowed to even consider improving the bill itself.
By refusing to allow any amendments to be considered, the Republican
leadership not only is missing an opportunity to refine and clarify the
language of this Senate bill, it is insisting on preventing any attempt
to broaden the bill so it will do more to strike the right balance
between fighting terrorism and respecting civil liberties. This is not
the right way for us to do our work.
The bill in effect amends the conference report on H.R. 3199, the
bill to revise and renew various provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT Act''
(more commonly called simply the ``PATRIOT Act'') that was passed by
the House last year.
I voted against that conference report.
I support renewing the new tools the PATRIOT Act provided to fight
terrorists. But I also thought then--and still think today--Congress
should take care to protect Americans' civil liberties. And, after
careful review, I concluded that the conference report did not do
enough to reduce the potential that the authority it gives to the FBI
and other agencies could be abused or misused in ways that intrude on
Americans' privacy and civil liberties--a potential that has led more
than 300 communities as well as Colorado and six other States--
governments that in all represent over 62 million people--to pass
resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act.
I had hoped I could vote for the conference report, because earlier
the Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in
responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still
providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the
threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad.
I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate,
and I hoped that the conference report would closely resemble that
Senate-passed bill. Unhappily, those hopes were not fulfilled--but I
took new hope when the Senate refused to cut off debate on the
conference report and it became clear that there would be an effort to
revise it to address concerns about its effects on civil liberties.
Specifically, I hoped that the conference report would be revised to
include provisions like those in H.R. 1526, the ``Security and Freedom
Ensured Act of 2005,'' or SAFE Act. I am a cosponsor of that bill,
which would amend the PATRIOT Act in several important ways.
It would modify the provisions regarding ``roving wiretaps'' to
require that: (1) an order approving an electronic surveillance specify
either the identity of the target or the place to be wiretapped; and
(2) surveillance is to be conducted only when the suspect is present.
It would revise provisions governing so-called ``sneak and peek''
search warrants to: (1) limit them to cases where immediate notice of
issuance would endanger someone's life or physical safety, result in
flight from prosecution or intimidation of a potential witness, or lead
to destruction of or tampering with evidence sought; and (2) require
notice of the warrant within 7 days (instead of just a ``reasonable
period'') after execution, with extensions for additional periods of up
to 21 days if the court finds reasonable cause.
It would require the FBI to have a more specific reason to seek to
obtain that person's business records for foreign intelligence and
international terrorism investigations.
It would provide that libraries shall not be treated as wire or
electronic communication service providers under provisions granting
counterintelligence access to provider subscriber information, toll
billing records, or electronic communication transactional records.
It would redefine ``domestic terrorism'' to mean activities that
involve acts dangerous to human life that constitute a Federal crime of
terrorism. And it would add several provisions to the list subject to
``sunset,'' so that Congress would have more incentive to review their
implementation and to consider possible changes.
I think the SAFE Act sets an appropriate standard for legislation to
revise and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
Unfortunately, the conference report did not meet that standard, and
even more unfortunately the negotiations that followed the Senate's
refusal to end debate on the conference

[[Page H592]]

report did not result in legislation that would bring the conference
report into line with the ``SAFE'' Act.
Instead, those negotiations resulted in the bill now before the
House, on which the only choice allowed by the Republican leadership is
``yes'' or ``no.''
The bill would make some revisions in the conference report.
Specifically, it would--(1) allow recipients of a production order
under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to ask a judge of the special
court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
to modify or quash the ``gag rule'' that bars disclosure of the order;
(2) end the rule that recipients of a Section 215 order or national
security letter (NSL) must name any attorney consulted about the order
or NSL; and (3) clarify that libraries, the services of which include
offering patrons access to the Internet, are not subject to NSLs,
unless they are functioning as electronic communication service
providers.
However, a challenge to the gag rule could not be brought until a
year after an order or NSL is issued, and the bill would establish as
conclusive a government certification that a waiver may endanger
national security unless it was made in bad faith.
At best, these are very minor improvements in the conference report.
And the language of the bill is not without ambiguity on several
points--which is why the Republican leadership should have allowed
consideration of clarifying amendments.
But, unfortunately, both the House and the Senate have approved the
conference report and it is ready to go to the President to be signed
into law. So, the choice now before the House is whether to pass this
bill or whether we instead will allow the conference report to become
law without even these minor improvements.
And on that question, I think our country is better served by
enactment of this inadequate and incomplete bill than by its defeat--
and so I will vote for it.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, contrary to its proponents' claims, S. 2271
fails to address the constitutional flaws in the PATRIOT Act or protect
innocent Americans against future abuses of their civil liberties.
Rather, passing this bill makes the permanent authorization of most of
the act inevitable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against S.
2271 in order to force the House and Senate to craft a new legislation
giving the government the tools necessary to fight terrorism without
sacrificing constitutional liberties.
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee essentially admitted
that S. 2271 does nothing to address the core concerns
constitutionalists and civil libertarians have with the PATRIOT Act. In
fact, he has announced his intention to introduce his own PATRIOT Act
reform bill! However, if S. 2271 passes and PATRIOT Act extension
becomes law, it is highly unlikely that this Congress will consider any
other PATRIOT Act reform legislation.
USA Today's Editorial of March 1, ``Patriot Act `compromise' trades
liberty for safety,'' accurately describes how people concerned about
individual liberty should react to S. 2271's ``reforms'': ``Big Deal.
By any standard of respect for the Bill of Rights, those provisions
never should have been in the law in the first place. What is it about
the Fourth Amendment (`The right of the people to be secure . . .
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated') that
Congress doesn't get?''
Among S. 2271's flaws are provisions restricting recipients of a
``gag'' order regarding government seizure of private records from
seeking judicial review of such orders for a year and requiring that
recipients prove government officials acted in ``bad faith,'' a
ridiculously high standard, simply to be able to communicate that the
government has ordered them to turn over private records. The bill also
requires that recipients of National Security Letters, which can be
abused to sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, provide
the FBI with the names of any attorneys from whom they have sought
legal counsel from. S. 2271 would thus prohibit a National Security
Letter recipient from even asking a lawyer for advice on complying with
the letter without having to report it to the FBI. In fact, S. 2271
requires National Security Letter recipients to give the FBI the names
of anyone they tell about the letter. This provision will likely have a
chilling effect on a recipient of a National Security Letters ability
to seek legal advice or other assistance in challenging or even
complying with the National Security Letter.
Madam Speaker, S. 2271 does not address the fundamental
constitutional problems with the PATRIOT Act. To the contrary, S. 2271
will make most of the PATRIOT Act's dramatic expansions of federal
power a permanent feature of American life. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to reject this bill and work to ensure government can
effectively fight terrorism without sacrificing the liberty of law-
abiding Americans.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the PATRIOT
Act Amendments.
James Madison, our 4th President, said, ``I believe there are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and
silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations.''
The PATRIOT Act and its subsequent amendments are exactly what the
``Father of the Constitution'' was talking about.
Democracy means the ``common people rule''. And the ``common people''
of the 17th district have proclaimed that Americans should not have to
compromise their civil liberties in order to combat extremism. The
local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and
Watsonville, California have all passed resolutions expressing their
concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty nature of the PATRIOT
Act.
As we promote democracy at other countries, should we not ourselves
be practicing and preserving democracy within our own society?
Madam Speaker, I urge a no vote on the PATRIOT Act amendments.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271, the USA
PATRIOT Act. Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. This bill
is a great example of what happens when you put Republican Senators in
a room with Dick Cheney to negotiate over Constitutional rights. It's
like two foxes negotiating over who can do more damage to the henhouse
without upsetting the neighbors.
Examining this deal more closely, we see that giving the American
people the right to consult a lawyer or challenge a gag order in court
is somehow considered a concession by the Bush Administration. Other
than that, it's the same old PATRIOT Act that criminalizes speech,
protest, and meetings of citizens while also eliminating the right to
due process and a search warrant.
This bill permanently extends 14 of 16 expiring provisions of the
PATRIOT Act. Government can still listen in on your phone conversations
without any proof that a terrorist is using the phone and can conduct
secret searches of your property. The law will still allow our
Government to send a letter to your bank, Internet Service Provider,
insurance company, or any other business demanding information about
you. The only difference is that businesses no longer have to tell the
FBI when they consult an attorney about the request.
A government official can still forbid a business from telling anyone
that records have been obtained, although this gag would last for an
initial one-year period rather than indefinitely. However, the gag can
be renewed and doing so is actually made easier by this supposed grand
compromise. Finally, the Bush Administration has magnanimously agreed
not to look at your library borrowing records, although this agreement
makes it easier for them to find out what websites you visit while at
the library.
Madam Speaker, the PATRIOT Act can never be fixed because it starts
with the fundamental presumption that the Constitution gets in the way
of protecting Americans. In fact, we need the Constitution more than
ever to protect us from politicians who think they're above the law.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2271. This bill
makes a few cosmetic changes, but the changes do little to address the
serious civil liberties concerns that I and countless Americans have
raised during the debate over the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
For example, nothing has been done to integrate needed checks and
balances into the National Security Letter (NSL) process. NSLs are
requests for financial, telecommunications, credit, and other business
records issued directly by government agencies in national security
investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act,
the FBI and other issuing agencies could issue an NSL only if there was
some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT
Act, the government only has to show the request is relevant to an
investigation. The lowering of this standard has resulted in an all-
time high number of NSLs issued. Passage of this legislation will do
nothing to change this disturbing trend or enhance congressional or
judicial oversight over NSLs.
This bill also fails to address issues related to the President's
National Security Agency (NSA) domestic surveillance program. I
strongly believe this program must be subject to statutory
restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA). Congress should not stand by in silence and allow this
controversial program to continue unchecked.
Unfortunately, in spite of having adequate time to engage in
constructive discussions to fix the PATRIOT Act reauthorization
Conference Report, the sponsors of S. 2271 chose again to exclude
Democrats from negotiations. Instead, they've offered a bill that

[[Page H593]]

makes only a few superficial changes to the Conference Report, and
because this bill is being considered under suspension of the rules, we
don't have an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments that could
greatly improve the PATRIOT Act and ensure the protection of privacy
and civil liberties as well as our national security.
I oppose this bill and find it regrettable that an important
opportunity to initiate real reforms to this legislation has been
squandered.
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, later this afternoon we will consider
additional reauthorizing amendments to the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act
Conference Report is a balance between liberty and security. Chairman
Sensenbrenner and those of us serving on the House Judiciary Committee
dedicated ourselves to achieving this end. The additional safeguards
that we will agree to today will further enhance the safety and
security of the American people, and I enthusiastically support that.
It is time, after two extensions and a debate worthy of the high
standards of American democracy, that we send the PATRIOT Act to the
President for his signature.
We all lived through September 11th. I was here at the Capitol that
day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above
the Pentagon. And we are reminded yet today that their desire to do
such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is
real.
Since September 11th, we have seen attacks on buses and subway cars
in London, attacks on commuter trains in Madrid, hotel bombings in
Amman, and nightclub bombings in Bali. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-
Zawahire have spoken recently in videotapes expressing their desire to
bring further terrorist destruction upon America. There is no doubt
that we are under an extreme threat each day. However, there also is no
doubt about America's determination to protect itself.

Just recently the President recounted how a planned al Qaeda attack
on an office tower in Los Angeles was thwarted, thanks in part to the
tools provided under the PATRIOT Act. The information sharing
provisions of the PATRIOT Act also have enabled investigators to break-
up terror cells in Portland, Oregon and Lackawanna, New York. Thwarting
terrorist attacks such as these at home is accomplished by the hard
work of the men and women in the law enforcement and intelligence
communities. But, it also is done by making sure that these brave men
and women have available to them the powers necessary to do the job,
such as those in the PATRIOT Act.
For that reason, making permanent 14 of the 16 expiring PATRIOT Act
provisions is so important. The two remaining provisions, Section 206
which authorizes roving wiretaps used by law enforcement to perform
surveillance on terrorists or spies who throwaway their cell phones and
change locations frequently and Section 215 which authorizes the FBI to
ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts to issue an order for
business records of terrorists to be used by the FBI in its
investigations, are extended for 4 years.
We must equip law enforcement and intelligence officials with the
tools necessary for them to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.
We also must safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that
make our lives so free and fulfilling. We are doing both today. Madam
Speaker, our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and
safeguard their civil liberties, and today we fulfill that duty by
passing this bill and sending the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act to
the President to sign.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2271.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.

____________________