F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am pleased that this bill and the USA PATRIOT Act will continue to protect civil liberties, while also providing law enforcement the tools they need to fight terrorists intent on harming Americans. I yield further to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is an accurate reading of the bill. I further yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, further reclaiming my time, again, that is an accurate reading of the bill. I further yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rarely disagree with my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), but I want to take some time to correct the record. The delayed notification or so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' warrants were authorized in the late seventies for purposes of racketeering and drug-trafficking investigations and were held constitutional by the Supreme Court in the early eighties as not violative of the fourth amendment. What the PATRIOT Act did was expand this previously existing authority to terrorism investigations. So if the PATRIOT Act never existed, the 18 instances where the delayed-notification warrants were used for terrorism investigations would have been illegal. But all of the other investigations that the gentleman from North Carolina referred to would have been legal under existing practice which have been held constitutional. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is sincere in his opposition to this bill, and I respect that. However, neither the national security letter scheme nor the delayed notification scheme were authorized for the first time by the PATRIOT Act. That was legislation that was in place prior to October 2001 when the original PATRIOT Act was passed and signed into law by the President. What the PATRIOT Act did in both national security letters as well as in delayed notification warrants was simply to extend to anti-terrorism investigations authorities that already existed and up until that time had been found constitutional in investigations such as Mafia investigations, racketeering investigations, and drug-trafficking investigations. So these complaints were not caused by the PATRIOT Act. They were caused by existing legislation, and we should deal with that, not in the context of this bill but elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. Mr. Chairman, the attacks of September 11, 2001, tragically affirmed the urgency of updating America's laws to address the clear and present danger presented by international terrorism. On that day, foreign terrorists maliciously and without provocation attacked the United States, murdered thousands of our citizens, and destroyed symbols of our freedom in a failed effort to break the spirit and resolve of the American people. We must also recall that these terrorists exploited historic divisions between America's law enforcement and intelligence communities that had limited the dissemination of vital and timely information and increased America's vulnerability to terrorist attack. In the wake of the 9/11 atrocities, broad bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress passed the PATRIOT Act that lowered the wall that prohibited our law enforcement and intelligence communities from effectively sharing information, and to enhance investigatory tools necessary to assess, detect, and prevent future terrorist attacks. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence authorities have utilized the expanded information sharing provisions contained in the PATRIOT Act to gain critical knowledge of the attentions of foreign-based terrorists before they occur, while preempting gathering terrorist threats at home. While the PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, that threat has not receded. Exactly 2 weeks ago, innocent citizens in London were murdered in a series of ruthlessly coordinated attacks. Earlier today, it appears, the London subway system came under renewed attack. Last year, the Madrid bombings brought unprecedented terror to the people of Spain, and ongoing terrorist operations around the globe demonstrate the imperative for continued vigilance. When the House Committee on the Judiciary reported the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I pledged to rigorously examine its implementation and the conduct of the war against terrorism. In my words and in my actions as committee Chair, I have maintained this commitment and emphasized the importance of better protecting our citizenry from terrorist attack while, at the same time preserving the values and liberties that distinguish us as Americans. The legislation we consider today reflects this careful balance. H.R. 3199 is based upon 4 years of comprehensive bipartisan oversight consisting of hearing testimony, Inspector General reports, briefings, and oversight letters. Since April of this year alone, the committee has received testimony from 35 witnesses during 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act. This extensive hearing and oversight record has demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective tool against terrorists and other criminals. Of no less importance, and notwithstanding the vague and general suspicion expressed by some of its detractors, the record shows that there is no evidence whatsoever that the PATRIOT Act has been abused to violate Americans' civil liberties. None whatsoever. To further allay concerns expressed by some, this bill makes important revisions to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which pertains to business records obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. I would note that section 215 is probably the most misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented provision of the PATRIOT Act. H.R. 3199 clarifies that the information likely to be obtained through a FISA warrant must relate to foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person, or must be information pertaining to an ongoing international terrorism investigation or clandestine intelligence activities. The legislation also explicitly clarifies that a section 215 order will issue only ``if the judge finds that the requirements have been met,'' and provides a judicial review process to authorize the court to set aside a section 215 order that has been challenged. Contrary to the unfounded allegations of some, there is no evidence that a single section 215 order has been served on any library since the PATRIOT Act was passed in October of 2001. The Committee on the Judiciary last week conducted a nearly 12-hour markup of this legislation, at which 43 amendments were offered and debated. The reported version of this legislation extends for 10 years the sunset on sections 206 and 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206 pertains to roving wiretaps under FISA. This crucial provision updates the law to reflect contemporary communications technology by making a suspected terrorist, rather than a communications device, the proper target of a wiretap. This sunset provision was approved by the committee by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26 to 2. However, while the legislation sets expiration dates on certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, congressional oversight of the entire PATRIOT Act must be perpetual. Let me conclude with the following point: For too long opponents of the PATRIOT Act have transformed it into a grossly distorted caricature that bears no relationship whatsoever to the legislation itself. The PATRIOT Act has been misused by some as a springboard to launch limitless allegations that are not only unsubstantiated but are false and irresponsible. Our constituents expect and deserve substantive consideration of this vital issue, and I hope that today's debate reflects the bipartisan seriousness that this issue demands. Mr. Chairman, the security of the American people is the most solemn responsibility of all entrusted to the Congress. Passage of the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 is vital to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement intelligence reforms that have reduced America's vulnerability to terrorist attack. We must never return to the pre- 9/11 mindset that ignores the painful lessons of that day as well as the tragic experiences of our friends and allies. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this vital legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentlewoman's amendment and believe that it is an important consolidation in the criminal law relative to attacks against mass transportation systems. First, we should not have different crimes and different penalties depending upon which type of mass transportation system is attacked. We should have uniform penalties and uniform definitions of criminal activity so someone who attacks a railroad will get the same penalty as someone would in a similar attack against a subway system or a bus or an airplane. Secondly, I think we have to broaden the definition of what is ``attacked'' to make sure that attacks against support systems for mass transportation systems are treated the same way as an attack against the transportation system itself. We should not have a lesser penalty if you put a bomb in the station than if you blow up a train while it is crossing a bridge over a big gorge. And I also think we ought to ensure that terrorists who attack these systems are punished with appropriate severity. The gentlewoman's amendment does all of these things, and I would urge its support and unanimous adoption by the House.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a good amendment and ought to be supported. It makes important changes to the reference in the forfeiture statute to the definition of international terrorism from the definition of domestic terrorism. There are various definitions of terrorism under Federal law. In title XVIII there has been a confusion over a new definition created in the USA PATRIOT Act for domestic terrorism. That provision is supposed to be used for administrative procedures such as nationwide searches, but another part of the PATRIOT Act, section 806, uses the reference for asset forfeiture, which is more of a penalty. This has raised concerns about those who exercise their first amendment rights. As a result, groups from both sides of the political spectrum have wanted to change the definition of domestic terrorism. The amendment fixes the problem by changing the reference in section 806, asset forfeiture, to the definition of a Federal crime of terrorism under section 2332b(g)(5)(B) instead, which lists specific crimes that constitute terrorism. Thus the more general definition may still be used for administrative purposes and the more narrow definition for penalties and criminal prosecutions. I believe that this is a good amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). One of the things that the bill did in section 215 was to provide a procedure for challenging a section 215 order. What this does is it codifies procedures for challenging the receipt of national security letters, and I think that this is a step in the right direction. Let me say that a national security letter is never issued to the target of an investigation. A place where it would be issued would be to get records that are in the custody of someone who may have information relative to the target of the investigation. For example, it appears that one of the people who was involved in the London bombing 2 weeks ago studied at the University of North Carolina. To get the records of this person's attendance at the University of North Carolina would be a subject of a national security letter. Now, I do not know whether one has been issued or one has not been, but that is an example of the type of information that the NSLs are used for. This is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reserving the right to object, let me say that I will not object, because I think this modification is a significant improvement to the original amendment. I realize that this amendment must be further honed, and I pledge to the gentlewoman from Texas my cooperation to attempt to do that in conference. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berman- Delahunt amendment. All it does is require a report to Congress on data mining by agencies. Let me say why this is important. At the end of the last decade, before 9/11 and before the PATRIOT Act was even considered, the FBI had set up a data-mining operation that went far beyond criminal and intelligence investigations and compromised the privacy of literally millions of Americans, and this was done without the knowledge of the Congress of the United States, and it was only as a result of the fact that it did not work and they wasted all of this money that the Congress found out about it. So I think that before any of the agencies go down this route, there ought to be at least a tip-off to the Members of Congress. I grant the Members that the amendment probably is not properly drafted and we can fix this in conference, and I appreciate the commitment of the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do that, but I do not think we should turn it down and send a message to the agencies that they can data mine all they want and we are not going to do anything about it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and hope that the committee adopts it. It provides basic and much-needed protections for our Nation's seaports, and it does so by strengthening the criminal code in various areas where our seaports would be vulnerable to either a criminal act or a terrorist act. Let me state, however, that the Congress has not been sitting idly by since 9/11 on the issue of protecting seaport security. The container security initiative was passed by this Congress several years ago and is being implemented, both in terms of better targeting of containers that come into our ports, as well as security at the ports and screening before the cargo actually arrives. But in terms of people breaking into our ports, perhaps putting bad materials such as bombs or biological or chemical materials in our ports and in the containers in our ports, this is an amendment that is extremely essential. For that reason, I would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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 H.R. 3199.