F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 357) honoring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 357 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 House Concurrent Resolution 335 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 4710, the ``Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006.'' The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the rent paid by the Federal judiciary is rationally and equitably related to the actual costs of providing their facilities. It may shock Members to learn that this is not the case nor has it been for some time. In fact, the Federal judiciary pays the General Services Administration (GSA) hundreds of millions of dollars more each year than the actual costs of maintaining and operating buildings. Chief Justice Roberts has characterized this practice as resulting in the judiciary being used ``as a profit center for GSA.'' By law, GSA is authorized to establish the rent to be paid by the judiciary. GSA's rates are supposed to approximate commercially equivalent rates. Their charges are not subject to negotiation. Since 1986, the judiciary's annual rent payments to GSA have increased from $133 million to almost $920 million. As a percentage of the judiciary's operating budget, these payments have climbed from 15.7 percent to 20 percent. In contrast, rent for executive branch agencies averages less than one percent of their budgets and no department is charged more than 3 percent. To cope with soaring GSA rent payments, the courts have been compelled to make difficult choices, including a decision over 18 months to reduce employee ranks by 1,850 positions--a full 8 percent of on board staffing levels. Consider the irony: the staffing required by the Judiciary Branch is compromised because the Executive Branch charges our courts too much for rent. In the absence of a swift Congressional response to redress this imbalance, there is little doubt that the continued budgetary pressures, which will result from constantly rising rental costs, will cause the loss of even more court personnel. The administration of justice should not be compromised because our courts are denied the ability to contain their rental costs. The judiciary has taken available action to reign in these expenses, including adopting a 24-month moratorium on new construction and requesting rent relief from GSA. To date though, GSA has refused to work with the courts in any meaningful way to find a solution. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe Congress has a duty to act to ensure the fair, efficient, and equitable adjudication of all legitimate issues brought before the courts. The use of the courts as a ``profit center'' can no longer be tolerated. The bill I am introducing today will put an end to this practice by replacing the ``commercially-equivalent'' rent calculation that GSA has used with a requirement that the courts pay only for the actual operating expenses incurred in providing space. This simple change will result in a dramatic savings in the judiciary's rent expense. This change will also give the judiciary needed flexibility, accountability, and responsibility for balancing the requirements imposed by their capital costs, personnel, and nonsalary expenses. The courts are best positioned to know whether the administration of justice will benefit more by hiring new personnel than by constructing a new courthouse or renovating an older one. Our courts should be empowered to make the decision that is in the public interest and that is most likely to enhance their ability to adjudicate and resolve cases. In his inaugural year-end report on the Federal judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts addressed this issue directly: The disparity between the judiciary's rent and that of other government agencies, and between the cost to GSA of providing space and the amount charged to the judiciary, is unfair . . . [and] the judiciary must . . . find a long-term solution to the problem of ever-increasing rent payments that drain resources needed for the courts to fulfill their vital mission. Mr. Speaker, the solution is for Congress to enact the ``Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006,'' which will require the Administrator of General Services to charge the judiciary only the actual cost of providing space in federally-owned facilities or the actual costs of procuring and servicing leases in privately-owned space. In addition to allowing the federal courts to better plan and control their budget, which will improve the delivery of judicial services to the public, this Act will improve the transparency associated with how the judiciary's funds are spent. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which I am introducing in direct response to the plea of the Chief Justice that this issue ``now warrant[s] immediate attention and action.'' I and the Judiciary Conference of the U.S. look forward to the House passing this legislation without delay.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the two speakers who proposed this brief 5-week extension of the PATRIOT Act are symptomatic of the problems that the opponents of the PATRIOT Act have attempted to tar it with. They are wrong. First, no Federal court has declared unconstitutional as violative of civil rights any of the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act that the sunsets were applied to, none whatsoever. As I stated in my opening remarks, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice is required by the PATRIOT Act to report on civil rights violations to the two Judiciary Committees twice per year. We have received six of those reports on time, and the number of civil rights violations that have been found by the DOJ Inspector General have been zero. Furthermore, there is a provision in the PATRIOT Act that anybody whose civil rights have been violated can obtain a statutory judgment of $10,000 in addition to any proven monetary damages against the Justice Department if they are successful in a lawsuit. The Justice Department has not paid out one dime in either monetary or statutory damages under this law. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with NSA wiretaps, and anybody who has been familiar with the operation of the PATRIOT Act knows very, very clearly that it does not have anything to do with NSA wiretaps, and I really wish that the opponents would read the law and stick to the proven testimony of the operation of this act. To say that the Judiciary Committee has not conducted oversight is living in a dream world, and it does not comport with the facts. Mr. Conyers and I have sent joint oversight letters to the Justice Department and published the nonclassified results of those oversight letters on the committee's website. Last year we had 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act and the 16 provisions that expire. And guess what? There was no criticism about 14 of the 16 provisions, which the conference report makes permanent. And to say that the 16 provisions that were passed in the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001 were so egregious that sunsets had to be applied really does not talk about what happened then. Every expansion of law enforcement authority contained in the 2001 bill contained a sunset, and we did the oversight, and we found that in 14 of the 16 provisions there was not a problem. And even the witnesses the Democrats brought before the Judiciary Committee said that there was no problem in 14 of the 16 provisions. In the two provisions where there is a sunset in the conference report, there have not been any civil rights violations proven. I have just said that, but one would think that the people's rights were being trampled on. No courts found that, the DOJ Inspector General has not found that, and I really wish that people who do not like the PATRIOT Act would stick to the facts. Now I would like to talk a little bit about what good the PATRIOT Act has done, and I am going to give credit to Deroy Murdock, who is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. It says: ``Let the Numbers do the Talking.'' First, the total number of individuals who Islamic fanatics murdered on September 11, 2001: 2,977 people whose civil rights were snuffed out because they were murdered; The cash sum that PATRIOT Act section 371 let Customs agents seize when terror-tied New Jersey imam Alaa al-Sadawi tried to smuggle funds into Egypt in his father's airline luggage: $659,000; Pounds of heroin the three al Qaeda- and Taliban-linked San Diego weapons dealers offered undercover FBI agents as partial payment for four Stinger anti-aircraft missiles until PATRIOT Act sections 218 and 504 helped authorities unravel their conspiracy: 1,320 pounds of heroin; Total terror-related defendants captured with the help of PATRIOT Act provisions: 401; Total terror-related defendants who have pled guilty or who have been convicted with the aid of PATRIOT Act provisions: 212; Total feet the Brooklyn Bridge would have plunged into the New York City's East River had the PATRIOT Act not helped authorities stop Iyman Faris's plan to sever the span's cables with acetylene torches: 119. That is New York City. According to Federal prosecutor Ken Wainstein's January 3 comments after meeting with President Bush, the number of U.S. attorneys who use ``the PATRIOT Act tools each and every day in his or her efforts'': 93, out of 93 U.S. attorneys; As U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf notes, total years of prison time earned under the PATRIOT Act by Osama bin Laden's self-proclaimed spiritual adviser, Mohammed al-Moayad, for trying to funnel $20 million to al Qaeda and Hamas: 75; Number of scholars, former Cabinet members, and other prominent Americans, including Democratic ex-CIA Directors James Woolsey and James Schlesinger, who joined in signing a January 25 open letter advocating the PATRIOT Act's reauthorization: 68; Years that David Wayne Hull, former Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, will spend behind bars after PATRIOT Act section 201 helped convict him for plotting to blow up abortion clinics with hand grenades: 12; Number of Northern Virginia Islamofascists jailed after the PATRIOT Act's information-sharing provisions let spies and cops jointly determine that they had trained in Afghan and Pakistani terror camps between 1999 and 2001: Eight; Total al Qaeda associates in Lackawanna, New York who were jailed for 7 to 10 years after the PATRIOT Act finally let cops and intelligence officers sit in the same room to discuss each other's investigations: Six; According to the Associated Press, the number of tickets for American Airlines Flight 77 that Pentagon-bound 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi purchased online, using William Patterson University's library computers, that might have been detected had PATRIOT Act section 215 been in place: Two; The number of the Portland Seven extremists who escaped the PATRIOT Act by being killed by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003: One. The number of individuals whom Muslim terrorists have killed on American soil since the adoption of the PATRIOT Act: zero. Mr. Speaker, this law is working. This law has not violated anybody's civil liberty rights. It has not been held unconstitutional by any Federal court in the country. All of the arguments against the PATRIOT Act are a red herring. It has kept us safer. We ought to continue it. We ought to vote for this bill.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I would remind Members, Mr. Speaker, of both Houses that the conference committee dissolved after the conference report was filed and the House acted in a bipartisan manner to approve it. I believe it is healthy to continue to debate the merits of the PATRIOT Act and to continue vigorous congressional oversight of its authorities. But it is also imperative that we not play political games with the vital tools our law enforcement and intelligence communities need to keep us safe from additional attacks on American soil. We must not rebuild the wall of separation between the FBI and CIA and return to the pre-9/11 mindset that made America vulnerable to a terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extension of the PATRIOT Act so as to give the other body the time to expeditiously pass the conference report on H.R. 3199. As recent events have highlighted, the threat of terrorism has not receded, nor has the urgency of continued vigilance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Inspector General has issued six reports and found no evidence that law enforcement has abused the PATRIOT Act. Opponents of the PATRIOT Act have repeatedly pointed to the Brandon Mayfield case as an example of abuse of the act. Members of Congress asked the DOJ Inspector General to examine whether the PATRIOT Act was abused in this case. On January 6, 2006, the Inspector General concluded: ``We do not find any evidence that the FBI misused any of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act in conducting its investigation of Mayfield.'' Even though no credible evidence of abuse of the PATRIOT Act has been received by Congress, the conference report adopted over 30 new additional civil liberty protections to address concerns about the potential for misuse. For example, the conference report contained several new reporting requirements that will provide additional information for congressional oversight of the act. These provisions establish specific procedures to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review for those wishing to challenge the national security letter or a section 215 order, two of the authorities most criticized by opponents. Additionally, the conference report increases accountability by requiring the FBI director, deputy director, or executive assistant director to authorize applications that request the FISA court to issue a section 215 order for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational record and tax return records. The conference report also requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders. Because time does not permit me to detail all of the civil liberty protections contained in the conference report, the following list details each of those safeguards. Additional Civil Liberties Protections Contained in the Conference Report on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005'' The conference report contains the following additional safeguards: Requires a description of a specific target in both the application and the court order for ``roving wiretaps,'' and specific facts in the application that show that the target's actions may thwart surveillance efforts--if the target's true identity is unknown. Requires that the FBI must notify the court within 10 days after beginning surveillance of any new phone for all ``roving wiretaps.'' The notice must include the total number of electronic surveillances conducted under the court's multipoint order. Includes new reporting requirements to Congress, including new details about the use of ``roving'' authority. Requires that for delayed notice search warrants that notice of the search be given within 30 days of its execution, unless the facts justify a later date, eliminating the open-ended period of delay permissible under current law. Allows for extensions of the delay period in giving notice of a search, but only upon an updated showing of the need for further delay. Also, it limits any extension to 90 days or less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay. Adds new reporting requirements to Congress on the use of delayed notice search warrants. Requires for section 215 orders, relating to investigator's access to business records, a statement of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or espionage. This provides additional safeguards to the original USA PATRIOT Act, which required the government only to certify that the records at issue were sought for an authorized investigation--without any factual showing. Requires a three part test for section 215 orders that ensures the records are sought for: a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation; or an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation. This test combined with the newly required statement of facts should mitigate concerns of government ``fishing expeditions,'' while maintaining the flexibility for legitimate terrorism investigations. Explicitly guarantees the right for recipients of section 215 orders to consult legal counsel and seek judicial review. Requires high level approval by either the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or Executive Assistant Director for requests for certain records, including library records, medical records, educational records, and tax return records. Limits the scope of section 215 orders to materials that could be obtained via grand jury subpoena or a similar court order for the production of records. Limits retention, and prohibits dissemination, of information concerning U.S. persons. Requires that the DOJ Inspector General conduct two separate audits of the FBI's use of section 215 orders that will examine: any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to 215 orders, including any improper or illegal use of the authority; the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the FBI; and an assessment of whether the minimization procedures protect the constitutional rights of United States persons. Requires enhanced reporting to Congress of section 215 orders, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library records, medical records, educational records, and other sensitive types of records. Requires public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders. Allows recipients of National Security Letters (NSLs) to consult with legal counsel. Creates an explicit right to judicial review of NSL requests. Permits a reviewing court to modify or set aside an NSL if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful--this is the same standard used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case. Provides for judicial review of the nondisclosure requirements. Adds a ``knowing and willfully'' standard that must be proven before someone who discloses an NSL can be subject to a 1-year misdemeanor offense. Requires the DOJ IG to conduct two comprehensive audits of the FBI's use of NSLs. Requires the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of applying minimization procedures to NSLs to ensure the protection of constitutional rights of U.S. persons. Adds a new ``sunshine'' provision that requires annual public reporting on NSLs. Provides for expanded congressional access to significant FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence Committees. Includes a provision requiring the FISA Court to submit its rules and procedures to Congress. Creates new reporting requirements for the use of emergency authorities under FISA. Requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures of communications information made under section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Requires the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress on the Department's data-mining activities.

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 H.R. 4659 currently under consideration.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4659, to extend until March 10 crucial provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire this Friday. On December 23 of last year, both Houses unanimously passed a short- term extension of the PATRIOT Act to preserve critical antiterrorism initiatives that were set to expire at the end of last year. Unfortunately, we must pass another extension today because a minority of Members of the other body have blocked an up-or-down vote on the conference report for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 which the full House passed by a broad bipartisan vote of 257-171 on December 14. The opponents in the other body have repeatedly cited their concern for civil liberties as a justification for their obstruction. Ironically, the conference report that has been blocked contains dozens of vital civil liberty protections, many included at their request. The original PATRIOT Act contains none of these protections. As a result, we are once again forced to extend the current PATRIOT Act rather than to implement the current important civil liberties protections contained in the conference report that even its detractors acknowledge is an improvement over current law. When the PATRIOT Act was first passed in October of 2001, I pledged to rigorously examine its implementation to ensure that new law enforcement authorities did not violate civil liberties. Since April of 2005 alone, the House Judiciary Committee received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act. In addition to hearings, I have requested, along with Ranking Member Conyers, written responses from the Attorney General to detailed questions regarding use of the PATRIOT Act and whether any of its provisions have been used to violate individuals' civil liberties. A chronology of these legislative and oversight activities follows: Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act From October, 2001, to November, 2005: 1. November 9, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary staff on press accounts of FBI use of NSLs; 2. October 25, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for House & Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Committees on Intelligence staff on press accounts of FBI use of NSLs; 3. October 6, 2005, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on press accounts of mistakes in FBI applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the USA PATRIOT Act; 4. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to July 1, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 5. July 12, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to May 19, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 6. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 7. July 11, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 8. July 5, 2005, letter from FBI Director Meuller to Senate Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 9. July 1, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Rep. Bobby Scott responding to questions regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 10. July 1, 2005, letter from House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; . 11. June 29, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary responding to April 5, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 12. June 10, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act; 13. June 8, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act; 14. May 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on Material Witness Provisions of the Criminal Code & the Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act; Section 505 that Addresses National Security Letters; & Section 804 that Addresses Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed at U.S. Facilities Abroad; 15. May 19, 2005, letter from House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 16. May 10, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on the prohibition of Material Support to Terrorists & Foreign Terrorist Organizations & on the DOJ Inspector General's Reports on Civil Liberty Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act; 17. May 10, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on continued oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act; 18. May 5, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to Protect Life and Limb; 19. May 3, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, & 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act & Their Effect on Law Enforcement Surveillance; 20. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing: Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act--If It Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?; 21. April 28, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 206 and 215 Improved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Investigations?; 22. April 26, 2005, letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to April 4, 2005, letter regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 23. April 26, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing: Have Sections 204, 207, 214, & 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act, & Sections 6001 & 6002 of the Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, improved FISA Investigations?; 24. April 21, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on Crime, Terrorism, & the Age of Technology--(Section 209: Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant to Warrants; Section 217: Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications; & Section 220: Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence); 25. April 20, 2005, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: A Review of the Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition; 26. April 19, 2005, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, & Homeland Security hearing on Sections 203(b) and (d) of the USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing; 27. April 6, 2005, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing with Attorney General Gonzales; 28. April 5, 2005, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act; 29. March 22, 2005, Department of Justice law enforcement sensitive briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 30. September 22, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: A Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation & Proposals, Including the USA PATRIOT Act & the SAFE Act May 5, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing: Aiding Terrorists--a Review of the Material Support Statute; 31. May 20, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on FBI Oversight: Terrorism; 32. April 14, 2004, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Preventing & Responding to Acts of Terrorism: A Review of Current Law; 33. February 3, 2004, Department of Justice briefing for House Committee on the Judiciary staff on its views of S. 1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both bills proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act; 34. November 20, 2003, request by Chairmen Sensenbrenner & Hostettler to GAO requesting a study of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. Report was released on June 6, 2005; 35. October 29, 2003, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on the use of FlSA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 36. September 10, 2003, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, & Homeland Security hearing on Terrorism: Two Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots; 37. August 7, 2003, Department of Justice briefing for House Committee on the Judiciary Members and staff regarding the long-standing authority for law enforcement to conduct delayed searches & collect business records & the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act on those authorities; 38. July 23, 2003, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on Law Enforcement & Terrorism; 39. June 13, 2003, letter from Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 40. June 10, 2003, Department of Justice classified briefing for Committee on the Judiciary Members & staff on the use of FISA under the USA PATRIOT Act; 41. June 5, 2003, House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the U.S. Department of Justice, including its use of the provisions authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act; 42. May 20, 2003, House Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing: Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can Government Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks; 43. May 13, 2003, letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jamie Brown to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 44. April 1, 2003, letter from the House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 45. October 9, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, & Homeland Security hearing: Tools Against Terror: How the Administration is Implementing New Laws in the Fight to Protect our Homeland; 46. September 20, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 47. September 10, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act in Practice: Shedding Light on the FISA Process; 48. August 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 49. July 26, 2002, letter from Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant to the House Committee on the Judiciary responding to questions regarding the USA PATRIOT Act; 50. July 25, 2002, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the Department of Justice, including its implementation of the authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act; 51. June 13, 2002, letter from the House Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General regarding use of the USA PATRIOT Act; 52. April 17, 2002, Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts hearing: ``Should the Office of Homeland Security Have More Power? A Case Study in Information Sharing;'' 53. December 6, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; 54. December 4, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; 55. November 28, 2001, Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on DOJ Oversight: Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism; and 56. October 3, 2001, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, & Property Rights hearing: Protecting Constitutional Freedoms in the Face of Terrorism.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, during the last 2 days, the eulogies that have been given on behalf of Mrs. King hit the nail on the head. This was a woman who became a widow when her husband was tragically assassinated and had very young children, and she could have withdrawn from society and spent all of her time and all of her efforts raising those kids to become grown men and grown women. She did more than that. She knew that it was her destiny to carry on her assassinated husband's legacy, and that is why we have heard such eloquent speeches on both sides of the aisle on behalf of this resolution which I was honored to introduce. May God have mercy on the soul of Coretta Scott King, and may she join the angels and saints in paradise. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from North Carolina an additional minute.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on the pending resolution be enlarged by 30 minutes, equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays on H.R. 4659 be vacated to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include the following House Judiciary Committee press releases that highlight important civil liberty safeguards that are contained in the PATRIOT Act conference report. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #1-- Requiring High-Level Approval and Additional Reporting to Congress for Section 215 Requests for Sensitive Information Such as Library or Medical Records: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for a foreign terrorism or spy investigation. This authority provides counterterrorism and law enforcement officials a helpful tool to uncover what activities suspected terrorists or spies are engaged in. The Department of Justice testified in April 2005 to the House Judiciary Committee that a Section 215 order had not been used to request sensitive information such as library, bookstore, medical, or gun records and no evidence has been presented to demonstrate otherwise. Nonetheless, some have raised concerns that this authority could be abused by mid- level officials to seek sensitive categories of records about law-abiding Americans. To address these concerns, the conference report provides that when the documents sought relate to certain sensitive categories of records (such as library, bookstore, tax return, firearms sales, educational, and medical records), only the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or Official-in-Charge of Intelligence may approve the application before it can be submitted to the FISA court. Without the personal approval of one of these 3 officials, the 215 order for these sensitive categories of records may not be issued. Additionally, the conference report establishes enhanced reporting requirements to Congress regarding the use of Section 215, including a breakdown of its use to obtain library, medical, educational, and other sensitive types of records in order to further protect this authority from possibly being abused. These civil liberty safeguards contained in the conference report do not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #2-- Statement of Facts Showing Relevance to a Terrorism or Foreign Spy Investigation Required for Section 215 Requests: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for a foreign terrorism or spy investigation. This authority provides counter-terrorism and law enforcement officials a helpful and less invasive tool to both uncover what activities suspected terrorists or spies are engaged in and clear innocent people suspected of terrorism or spying. Without Section 215 authority, counter- terrorism and law enforcement officials seeking to discover whether a person is involved in terrorism or spying activity would be forced to use more invasive investigative techniques such as obtaining a search warrant. Current law only requires that an application for a Section 215 order state that the requested records are sought for an authorized investigation to collect foreign terrorism or spy information. The conference report requires that a Section 215 application must include a statement of facts demonstrating that the records sought are ``relevant'' to an authorized investigation to obtain terrorism or foreign intelligence information. This statement of facts requirement contains language offered by Senator Leahy. This statement of facts civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. In addition, the conference report maintains the specific prohibition that the requested information not concern a U.S. person unless it is to protect against international terrorism or spying activities. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #3-- Explicitly Allowing a FISA Court Judge to Deny or Modify a Section 215 Request: Under current law, upon receiving the Section 215 application, the FISA Court judge must approve or modify the order; the current law does not include specific authority for the court to deny an application. The PATRIOT Act conference report explicitly provides a FISA Court judge the discretion to not only approve or modify a Section 215 application, but also to deny an application. This civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #4-- Requiring Minimization Procedures to Limit Retention and Dissemination of Information Obtained About U.S. Persons From Section 215 Requests: In order to address concerns that information sought in a Section 215 order might be unnecessarily retained or disseminated, the PATRIOT Act conference report requires that the Attorney General create minimization procedures for the retention and dissemination of this data and that the FBI use these procedures. Specifically, the A.G. must establish minimization procedures to minimize the retention, and dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning non-consenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information. This civil liberty provision provides another safeguard to ensure information about innocent U.S. persons is not kept or used in nefarious or inappropriate ways. This civil liberty safeguard is not contained in current law and was requested by Senator Leahy. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #5-- Explicitly Providing for a Judicial Challenge to a Section 215 Order: Current law requires judicial review before a Section 215 order can be issued. Specifically, the FISA Court is required to review all applications before a Section 215 order is approved. However, current law does not provide a judicial review process after a 215 order has been issued. The pending PATRIOT Act conference report explicitly establishes a judicial review process after the 215 order has been issued to allow the recipient of a 215 order to challenge the order before the FISA Court. The FISA Court may quash a Section 215 request if it does not meet the requirements of the statute or is otherwise unlawful. This civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #6-- Explicitly Clarifying that a Recipient of a Section 215 Order May Disclose Receipt to an Attorney or Others Necessary to Comply with or Challenge the Order: Current law prohibits the recipient of a 215 order from disclosing the receipt of such an order except to those necessary to comply with the order. This is done for 2 main reasons: 1) fear of tipping off terrorists or spies that they are being investigated; and 2) irreparably harming the reputations of innocent people by publicly disclosing their activities were investigated because of terrorism or spying links. Current law is silent as to whether a 215 order recipient may disclose the receipt of such an order to an attorney to comply with the order. The pending PATRIOT Act conference report clarifies this issue by stating explicitly that the recipient of a 215 order may disclose receipt to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order. This civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #7-- Requiring Public Reporting of the Number of Section 215 Orders: On April 6, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee that as of March 30, 2005, the FISA Court had approved the Justice Department's request for a Section 215 order 35 times. However, under current law, the number of Section 215 orders is not required to be made public. At the request of Senator Leahy and other Senate Democratic conferees, the PATRIOT Act conference report requires the Justice Department to report to the public annually the aggregate number of Section 215 applications submitted, approved, modified, and denied. Despite the concerns of some that this public reporting requirement unnecessarily informs America's enemies of the sources and methods being used to thwart terrorism and spying, the conference reports includes this civil liberty safeguard to assuage any concerns that the Section 215 authority is being abused. This civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #8-- Requiring the Justice Department's Independent Inspector General to Conduct an Audit of Each Justice Department Use of Section 215 Orders: The PATRIOT Act conference report provides additional public information and congressional oversight by requiring the Justice Department's independent Inspector General to conduct an audit for each Justice Department use of Section 215 orders. These audits will be compiled into two Inspector General public reports with classified annexes. This civil liberty safeguard contained in the conference report does not exist under current law. PATRIOT Act Conference Report Civil Liberty Safeguard #9-- Explicitly Providing for a Judicial Challenge to a National Security Letter (NSL): Current law does not specify that an NSL can be challenged in court and provides no process for challenging an NSL. The conference report provides explicit authority to challenge in court an NSL under all existing statutes authorizing NSLs. Specifically, the conference report provides that the recipient of an NSL may petition for an order modifying or setting aside the NSL request in the U.S. district court for the district where the recipient does business or resides. This civil liberty safeguard is stronger than the Senate-passed bill, which only addressed one of the NSL statutes, does not exist under current law, and was written by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Originally created by a Democrat-led Congress and signed into law by President Carter, NSLs are a long-standing tool by which the FBI and other appropriate federal law enforcement officials request, for sensitive foreign spying or international terrorism investigations, subscriber information and toll billing records of a wire or electronic communication service provider, such as a phone company or

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 House Resolution 655.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California 2 minutes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).