F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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, I believe this amendment is a good one because it centralizes responsibility in the hands of the Director of the FBI in signing off on 215 applications for bookstore and library records. But in the context of the overall debate, what I think is missing from this debate is not whether there is a potential for abuse by the Justice Department, but whether there is an actual record of abuse. And there has been no record of abuse by the Justice Department with bookstores and libraries. They have publicly responded repeatedly that they have not used the 215 order to look at the records of people checking out books or buying books at either bookstores or libraries. Now, what this bill does is it makes an improvement to the law where there is a specific method of contesting a 215 order by the recipient. But to say that all of these records should be exempt from law enforcement scrutiny is to turn our bookstores and libraries into a sanctuary. We cannot allow that to happen.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. After listening to the speech of the distinguished minority leader, I have reached the conclusion she has not read the bill. She has not looked at the oversight that the Committee on the Judiciary has done over the last 3\1/2\ years. We have an oversight record of bipartisan letters sent to the Justice Department, Inspector General's reports, and hearings that have a stack of paper that is about 2 feet high. In this bill we have had 12 hearings with 35 witnesses, people who have come from all over the spectrum; and 13 of the 16 sections of the PATRIOT Act that are sunsetted are not controversial. The three controversial sections, two of them are sunsetted; the third one, as a result of some of the testimony, has been amended, and that is the delayed notification warrants. The fact of the matter remains that no federal court has found that any of the 16 sunsetted sections are unconstitutional, and the Inspector General, who is required by the PATRIOT Act itself to report to the Congress twice a year, has not found any civil liberties violations. Let us stick to the facts. Let us stick to the result of the oversight. Let us stop the hyperbole. And let us stop the scare tactics that seem to surround the debate of those who are opposed to this law for whatever purpose.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have heard another attack on delayed notification or sneak-and-peek warrants. Let me tell you what has happened earlier this month. A U.S. district judge in Washington State executed or authorized a delayed-notification warrant to look into a building on the U.S. side of the northern border. And what was discovered but a rather sophisticated tunnel between Canada and the United States to smuggle contraband, and perhaps terrorists, through the border and into this country without being detected by our border patrol. Using a delayed-notice search warrant, the DEA and other agents entered the home on July 2 to examine the tunnel. Shortly thereafter, a U.S. district judge authorized the installation of cameras and listening devices in the home to monitor the activities in the home. Using these twice, Federal, State and local law enforcement officials observed multiple trips by three defendants through the tunnel carrying large hockey bags or garbage bags. These bags were loaded into a van on the U.S. side and driven south for delivery. Ninety-three pounds of marijuana were found in these bags when the Washington State Patrol stopped the car. That never would have happened without a delayed-notification warrant. And if they can bring 93 pounds of marijuana in, they can bring terrorists in as well. These warrants are good. They protect us. They ought to be kept. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

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 myself 1\1/2\ minutes to rebut my good friend from California. Mr. Chairman, effective oversight is a function of effective congressional leadership and not as a result of legislative sunsets. If we restricted oversight to legislative sunsets, only about 5 percent of the laws that we pass are sunset, and most of those are appropriations bills. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is the chairman of an oversight subcommittee on the Committee on International Relations. I do not see any sunsets coming on bills coming out of the Committee on International Relations because I have faith in the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) being able to do effective oversight. The Committee on the Judiciary has done a huge amount of oversight. We have had extensive hearings. There has been more process and more hearings and more witnesses on more sides of the issue on the PATRIOT Act than practically any other piece of legislation that I have faced in my 26-plus years as a Member of Congress. Thirty-five witnesses, 12 hearings, oversight letters, responses, inspectors general reports. I wish I had brought all of the paper that has come about as a result of the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight, because it would stack this high off the table here in the House Chamber. Mr. Chairman, the following is a listing of the oversight activities so that the American public and everybody can see that this committee has done its job. It has done its job effectively, and it has made sure that the civil liberties of the people of this country have not been infringed upon. Hearing Chronology: House Judiciary Committee Consideration of the USA Patriot Act, As of June 21, 2005 full committee consideration June 10, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Carlina Tapia-Ruano, First Vice-President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Minority witness); Dr. James J. Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute (Minority witness); Deborah Pearlstein, Director of Human Rights First (Minority witness); and Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International USA. June 8, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act: Deputy Attorney General James B. Corney. April 6, 2005: Full Committee--Oversight Hearing on the Department of Justice, The Use of the Law Enforcement Authorities Granted under the USA PATRIOT Act: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. subcommittee consideration May 26, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight 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: Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Matthew Berry, Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Gregory Nojeim, Acting Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union (Minority witness); and Shayana Kadidal, Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights (Minority witness). May 10, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on the Prohibition of Material Support to Terrorists and Foreign Terrorist Organizations and on the DOJ Inspector General's report on Civil Liberty Violations under the USA PATRIOT Act: Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector General of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); and Ahilan Arulanantham, Staff Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (Minority witness). May 5, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act that Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to Protect Life and Limb: Honorable William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); Willie Hulon, Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority witness); Professor Orrin Kerr, Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School (Majority witness); and James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology (Minority witness). May 3, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law Enforcement Surveillance: Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts (Majority witness); Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General (Majority witness); Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute (Majority witness); and the Honorable Bob Barr, former Representative of Georgia's Seventh District (Minority witness). April 28, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act--If it Expires will the ``Wall'' Return?: Honorable Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of lllinois (Majority witness); David Kris, former Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies (Minority witness); and Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University (Minority witness). April 28, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Have sections 206 and 215 improved FISA Investigations? (Part II): Honorable Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (Majority witness); James Baker, Office for Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); Robert Khuzami, former Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (Majority witness); and Greg Nojeim, the Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office (Minority witness). April 26, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing--Have sections 204, 207, 214 and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act. and Sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intellience Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, improved FISA Investigations? (Part I): Honorable Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Majority witness); James Baker, Office for Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); and Suzanne Spaulding, Managing Director, the Harbour Group, LLC (Minority witness). April 21, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight 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: Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Majority witness); Steven M. Martinez, Deputy Assistant Director of the Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Majority witness); James X. Dempsey, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology (Majority witness as a favor to Minority); and Peter Swire, Professor of Law, Mortiz College of Law, the Ohio State University (Minority witness). April 19, 2005: Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee--Oversight Hearing on Sections 203 (b) and (d) of the USA PATRIOT Act and their Effect on Information Sharing: Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Majority witness); Maureen Baginski, Executive Assistant Director of FBI Intelligence (Majority witness); Congressman Michael McCaul (Majority witness); and Timothy Edgar, the National Security Policy Counsel for American Civil Liberties Union (Minority witness). Witnesses (alphabetical) 1. Arulanantham, Ahilan T.--Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union 2. Baker, James A.--Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Department of Justice *testified twice 3. Baginski, Maureen--Executive Assistant Director for the Office of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation 4. Barr, Bob--Former Member of Congress, Atlanta, Georgia 5. Berry, Matthew--Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 6. Buchanan, Mary Beth--United States Attorney, Western District of Pennsylvania 7. Comey, James B.--Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 8. Dempsey, Jim--Executive Director, Center for Democracy and Technology *testified twice 9. Edgar, Timothy--National Security Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union 10. Fine, Glenn A.--Inspector General, United States Department of Justice 11. Fitzgerald, Patrick--U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Illinois 12. Gonzales, Alberto--Attorney General of the United States 13. Hulon, Willie T.--Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation 14. Kadidal, Shayana--Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights 15. Katsas, Gregory--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 16. Kerr, Orin S.--Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington University 17. Khuzami, Robert S.--Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York 18. Kris, David--Vice President for Corporate Compliance, Time Warner Corporation 19. Mac Donald, Heather--John M. Olin Fellow, The Manhattan Institute 20. Martin, Kate--Director, Center for National Security Studies 21. Martinez, Steven M.--Deputy Assistant Director of Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation 22. McCaul, Michael--U.S. Representative & former Chief of Counterterrorism and National Security for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Western Judicial District of Texas 23. Moschella, William--Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 24. Nojeim, Gregory T.--Associate Director/Chief Legisaltive Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union *testified twice 25. Parsky, Laura H.--Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice 26. Pearlstein, Deborah--Director, U.S. Law and Security Program 27. Pitts, Chip--Chair of the Board, Amnesty International

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of his amendment. And let me say first that the amendment that was made by the PATRIOT Act to allow a Federal judge, and only a Federal judge, to authorize a roving wiretap simply brought the law up to where the technology has gone because before the PATRIOT Act was passed you could not get an effective wiretap order on a cell phone. So the terrorists and the drug smugglers and the racketeers simply conducted their business on cell phones because you could not determine whether or not the cell phone was actually being used within the district in which the Federal court that issued the roving wiretap order sat. So by passing the PATRIOT Act we were able to get the Justice Department the authority to ask a Federal judge to give a wiretap order against the cell phone or any communications device that might be used by the target. And that gets around the disposable cell phone issue. The Issa amendment merely states that the judge has to be notified at the earliest reasonable time, but no later than 15 days after a roving wiretap order directs surveillance at a location not known at the time when the wiretap order was issued. And this increases judicial supervision and accountability and protects the civil liberties of the American people. Now, earlier today both the minority leader and her deputy, the minority whip, were talking about the fact that there has been no oversight done by the Judiciary Committee over the PATRIOT Act. That, frankly, insults what both Democrats and Republicans have done on oversight of the PATRIOT Act on a bipartisan basis. Right here is the result of the oversight that the Judiciary Committee has done in the last 3\1/2\ years on this law. This is a stack of paper that is almost 2 feet high. I doubt that any other committee of Congress has done as much oversight on a single law as my committee has done on the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 ask unanimous consent claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and just let me give a little bit of the history of this. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) is correct that the first responder grants were a part of the original PATRIOT Act. We did not know how to divide up the first responder grants properly, so we put a formula in. Well, it ended up that the formula had some anomalies, and it ended up being out of date. As a result, in the last Congress the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Homeland Security worked out an agreement where the formula would be modified, where there would be certain floors for States, a lot of the money would be threat-based and the types of grants were consolidated so that there would be a simpler application process. That bill was passed 409 to 10. There were just a few Members that voted against it. Then it went over to the other body and nothing happened to it. We have attempted to redo the first responder grants again in this Congress, and there is no hope that the other body will take the stand- alone bill and enact it into law. By adopting this amendment, we are going to be in a stronger position to actually make the needed changes in the formula law of the United States of America this year without further delay. That is why this amendment should be supported. I would hope that it would have an overwhelming vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Good oversight is done by congressional leadership, not by sunsets. There has been good oversight over the PATRIOT Act right from the beginning. The Committee on the Judiciary has spent a lot of time overseeing the Justice Department, with oversight letters, questions that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have sent jointly to the Justice Department, Inspector General reports, and this is the result of it: Almost two feet of responses. And what have these responses said? First of all, there has been no provision, of the 16 sunsetted provisions, that have been found unconstitutional by any Federal court in the Nation. The Inspector General's report has found no civil liberties violations under the PATRIOT Act, and I think that the question we ought to ask ourselves today is whether we should weigh the potential for abuse of this law against the actual record of abuse. There is no actual record of abuse with all of the oversight that we have been doing. Now, we have had 12 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, the 16 sunsetted provisions. Thirteen of the 16 provisions are noncontroversial. There have not been witnesses that have appeared before the committee that have said that there are problems, and that includes the provision that tore down the wall after 9/11 that prevented the CIA and the FBI from exchanging intelligence information. This motion to recommit will bring that wall back up in 2009. I think we ought to look at the record. We ought to look at the actual record of abuse. There has been none. Only 5 percent of our legislation is sunsetted. Why sunset legislation where there has been no actual record of abuse and there has been vigorous oversight? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3199, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and the table of contents, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 3135, the Private Property Protection Act. On June 23, the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, held that ``economic development'' can be a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings II Clause. In doing so, the Supreme Court allowed the government to take private property from one small homeowner and give it to a large corporation for a private research facility. As the dissent in that case pointed out, under the majority's opinion, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party . . . [T]he government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' In 1795, a Supreme Court more in touch with the true meaning of the Constitution declared ``possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man . . . No man would become a member of a community, in which he `` could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact. . .'' And Abraham Lincoln often spoke of how at the heart of the evil practice of slavery was a denial of property rights: ``It is the same tyrannical principle,'' he said. ``It is the same spirit that says, `You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. ' '' Sadly, the Supreme Court imposed such a tyranny on all Americans on June 23. Today I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection Act to restore the property rights of all Americans the Supreme Court took away last week. This legislation will prevent the Federal government from using economic development as a justification for taking privately owned property. It will also prohibit any State or municipality from doing the same thing whenever Federal funds would be involved with the project. Federal taxpayers should not be forced to contribute in any way to the abuse of government power. The NAACP and the AARP have said, ``The takings that result [from the Court's decision] will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.'' The American Farm Bureau Federation stated ``each of our members is threatened by the decision . . . with the loss of productive farm and ranch land solely to allow someone else to put it to a different private use . . .'' And the representatives of religious organizations have stated that the Supreme Court's decision will ``grant municipalities a special license to invade the autonomy of and take the property of religious institutions. Houses of worship and other religious institutions are, by their very nature, non-profit and almost universally tax-exempt. These fundamental characteristics of religious institutions render their property singularly vulnerable to being taken under the rationale approved by the [Supreme] court.'' I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation, and to ensure that churches, homes, farms, and other private property cannot be bulldozed in abusive land grabs that redound to the sole benefit of other private individuals whose only claim to that land is that their greater wealth will increase tax revenues.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of the resolution. (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)