Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Do I get to close?

Mr. WOLF. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But what I would like to do, this is a pilot program, and the pilot, if my memory serves me, ends in September of this year, September of 2006, so the pilot has not finished. So to destroy the pilot before the pilot is finished, what I would like to do is, when we finish the pilot in September or maybe even we could try to expedite it a little bit to see, is to invite the gentlewoman up and ask NAPA to come up with us and sit down and have NAPA take a look at that, maybe at an appropriate time. But I think the pilot has to go. NAPA is a very good organization. We have used the NAPA people with regard to the reorganization of the FBI and many other agencies. What I would ask is we have a ``no'' vote. At the end of the pilot, in September, I am going to remind the staff; we will call NAPA up, also call the EEOC. I would invite the gentlewoman to come to the meeting and kind of see where we are. Fortunately, we will still have time to kind of deal with the issue, because I don't believe that we will be in conference by then. But we are in the middle of the pilot; you don't kill it while the pilot is still operating. This is the National Academy of Public Administration, which so many individuals have used so many times.

Mr. WOLF. Yes, I would yield.

Mr. WOLF. I can't answer that. The staff said they are going to vote. But what I would like to do tomorrow is write the commission or ask the commission that they not vote in July to make it permanent until the pilot is finished.

Mr. WOLF. Yes. I would do that. I would also ask if we can ask the National Academy of Public Administration also be part of that process.

Mr. WOLF. Sure.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment so we can understand what amendment this is.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. I want to be on record I am absolutely, opposed to granting PNTR to Vietnam. If you read the Human Rights Report of the State Department of Vietnam, which probably not many people read, it is a disaster. It is a disaster. I cannot understand why a bill would even come to the floor. On the issue of intellectual property, if you look to see how they are treating the Catholic Church and the Buddhists, do you think they are going to be any better on intellectual property? No way. President Bush is going to visit this fall. We are hoping that the President will meet with dissidents here and also dissidents over there and speak out on human rights, religious freedom and on the intellectual property issue. So anything that we could do in this bill that would be helpful with regard to beefing up intellectual property and doing as much is helpful. But, also, as I told another Member from your side earlier today, it isn't just putting a couple dollars in. I want somebody who really believes, and, as of now, I think this whole issue of trade trumps everything. I wish we could harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, whereby Ronald Reagan just spoke out so boldly on the issue of human rights and religious freedom in Eastern Europe, called the Soviet Union the evil empire, was laughed at by the liberal media, and lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union. That type of approach that Ronald Reagan took would be the right approach to take with regard to Vietnam, whereby we could see additional trade and human rights and religious freedom and, lastly, the respect for intellectual property, so they are not just stealing everything that we have.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand the Ways and Means Committee has concerns with this amendment. Although, looking around, I see no one from the Ways and Means Committee. We also are aware that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has committed to ensuring public health experts are included on this advisory committee. We have been led to believe this issue will be resolved in the near future, but with that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment personally. So I would accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. We are talking about terrorism. Every time the gentleman gets up, he paints something that really is inaccurate; and I think the gentleman from California will explain what you said. There have been changes in the PATRIOT Act. The threat of terrorism and espionage is real. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the World Trade Center. Two of my children live up in your congressional district. And if you read the article the other day about gas in the subways, you sort of make these statements, and you act like the Justice Department and the FBI is going to go after somebody's medical records. They are trying to stop terrorism. They are trying to stop what took place on 9/11 from taking place again. We have a letter from the Justice Department. ``National Security Letters are extremely valuable to investigations of international terrorism.'' Not your MRIs, but international terrorism and espionage, al Qaeda. This Congress stood by and did nothing while Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, which came out in the year 2000. In 2000, Nancy Pelosi supported me in the committee when we got the funding for it. On the cover of the Bremer Commission report that came out in the year 2000, there is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire, and this body did nothing. It stood by and it watched, and the previous administration did nothing. And now there are people that have died because they have done nothing. This is a bad amendment. The PATRIOT Act has been authorized by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Lungren will tell you the changes that have been made. There have been protections put in it. My goodness, do we want to tie the FBI's hands when they are trying to catch bin Laden and people like that? This is a bad amendment. We went through it on the authorizing act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island on the medical records' safety and privacy. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but that is really not what we are talking about tonight. We are dealing with the FBI dealing with terrorism. As I mentioned, a newly released book by a Pulitzer Prize winning author states that al Qaeda came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with lethal gas. We never completely know why they didn't move ahead, but within 45 days. If a National Security Letter would stop something like this, and they are still out there. Al Qaeda is still out there. They are still committed. There is a book by Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy. They are still out there and committed to coming. So if a National Security Letter could stop what took place on 9/11 at the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon over in that area or in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole or the Marine barracks or places like that, we certainly would want to stop that. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. WOLF. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Members should know in our bill our committee established in the Justice Department an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberty for the very reason that Mr. Serrano used to raise, and rightly, to protect to make sure something did not happen.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter that I referenced earlier. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, June 28, 2006. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been advised that Congressman Nadler may offer an amendment to the pending Justice Appropriations bill that would restrict the use of National Security Letters (``NSLs'') relating to medical records. Congressman Nadler offered a very similar amendment last year. That amendment was defeated. We remain opposed to any such amendment. NSLs are similar to subpoenas and may be used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain from specified companies information relevant to authorized investigations of international terrorism and espionage. It is unwise to create carveouts from the scope of these important investigative tools, particularly since there has been no allegation of abuse regarding medical information, the subject of the proposed carveout. NSLs are generally used to obtain: (1) billing and transactional records maintained by telephone companies and Internet service providers; (2) credit reports and other consumer information maintained by consumer reporting agencies; and (3) financial information maintained by financial institutions. It would be an exceedingly rare circumstance in which an NSL issued to one of these institutions would capture medical records. Moreover, the Congress addressed in a full and considered manner the concerns of critics of the use of NSLs when it passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act earlier this year. That bill included numerous changes to all the NSL statutes to clarify and improve the laws' privacy protections. Congress also mandated a comprehensive audit by the Department's Inspector General on the use and effectiveness of NSLs. The findings of that review are expected to be available early next year. It is also interesting to note that Congress has already provided the FBI the authority to obtain health insurance records through the use of administrative subpoenas (without the approval of a judge) when investigating criminal health care fraud. NSLs and administrative subpoenas are very similar except for some of the additional civil liberty protections added to the NSL statutes during the debate to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be odd if the Congress were to make a different policy determination when, rather than a health care fraud matter, the investigation involved international terrorism. NSLs are extremely valuable to investigations of international terrorism and espionage. Information obtained through NSLs has significantly advanced numerous sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations and has assisted the FBI in discovering links to previously unknown terrorist operatives. We see no justification for artificially restricting the reach of those investigative tools. Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no objection to this letter. Sincerely, William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. WOLF. We accept the amendment.