Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to national security letters. We saw this amendment for the first time Monday night. It is unclear to me why health insurance records are different than any other records. We do not know how this amendment would impact a counterterrorism investigation. We just do not know. And here we are with 7\1/2\ minutes on each side. What is this? This is no way to protect the country. I could never support 7\1/2\ minutes. And I do not care if it is just the naming of some government building somewhere. So I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this. Seven-and-a-half minutes? We cannot do it. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will have 2 minutes, and I will have 1 minute. If my math is right, we do have 3 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have 4 minutes remaining if my arithmetic is still good. And I have two more speakers, plus I am going to close in 30 seconds. How much does the other side have?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to this issue. The Committee on the Judiciary is planning on marking up the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the near future, and the authorizers will certainly give this very close attention. The authority of the Justice Department to obtain a library or bookstore record is not without appropriate checks and balances. A Federal judge must approve the use of this authority before the Department of Justice can obtain business records, including book records. This authority can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person, or ``to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' It cannot be used to review the reading habits of the general public. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record a letter from the Justice Department dated June 14. It says the following: ``Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber. ``In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from the public libraries in Miami Beach. Similar in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's book. ``Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited the library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world.'' Lastly, it goes on to say, ``We know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence, which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, `How to Be Invisible,' to further his scheme, was critical during his trial.'' Mr. Chairman, I include the entire letter for the Record. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, June 14, 2005. Hon. Frank Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice is pleased to provide information about section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (``PATRIOT Act''), an invaluable authority afforded to national security investigators when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Act more than three years ago. It is critical that Congress' decision whether to continue this vital tool in the war on terror be informed by reason, rather than rhetoric. We would oppose any amendment that would unduly restrict our ability to compel the production of records relevant to sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations. As stated in the statement of Administration policy released today on H.R. 2862--Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006--if any amendment that would weaken the PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to the President for his signature, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides a useful tool for catching terrorists and spies by specifically authorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISA Court'') to require a person or organization to produce ``tangible things'' that are relevant to international terrorism and espionage investigations. These are the same types of materials that prosecutors have long been able to obtain with grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations. Moreover, section 215 and grand jury subpoenas are both governed by a similar relevance standard; with respect to section 215, the requested records must be relevant to a national security investigation while with respect to grand jury subpoenas, the requested records must be relevant to a criminal investigation. As a result, section 215 applies in a much narrower set of circumstances than do grand jury subpoenas. While grand jury subpoenas can be used to investigate all types of criminal conduct, section 215 can only be used ``to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.'' 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(a)(1). Further, contrary to misleading rhetoric about section 215, it does not empower FBI agents to obtain records without a court order. Rather, section 215 can be used to obtain documents only with an order from the FISA Court. Thus the Department's use of section 215 requires more scrutiny than do grand jury subpoenas, which are generally issued without prior judicial approval. Moreover, we have taken the position in litigation that: 1) recipients of a section 215 order may disclose receipt of an order to an attorney and; 2) recipients may challenge a section 215 order in FISA court. In addition, the Attorney General has testified that the Department of Justice supports amending section 215 to clarify any ambiguity related to these points. In addition to the requirement of court approval, this provision establishes other important safeguards. For instance, section 215 provides for thorough congressional oversight. On a semi-annual basis, the Attorney General is required to ``fully inform'' Congress on the Department's use of section 215. In addition, the Attorney General must report to Congress the number of times agents have sought a court order under section 215, as well as the number of times such requests were granted, modified, or denied during the preceding six month period. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1862. The Attorney General recently declassified the fact that as of March 30, 2005 section 215 of the PATRIOT Act had been used 35 times, and had never been used to obtain bookstore or library records, medical records, or gun sale records. Rather, section 215 orders had only been used to obtain driver's license records, public accommodations records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and subscriber information, such as names and addresses, for telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen register devices. These figures demonstrate that investigators have used this tool judiciously and responsibly. The provision, moreover, has assisted the Department's national security investigations as there can be a number of situations in which the ability to access documents pursuant to a section 215 order is critical to an international terrorism or espionage investigation, particularly in the early stages of an investigation when officers are trying to develop leads. Section 215 has been attacked for its potential application to libraries, with some critics suggesting that libraries should be exempted from it or that the provision should be repealed altogether. These critics ignore statutory context, well-established grand jury practice, and the reality of the terrorist threat. First, although a section 215 order could be issued to a bookstore or library if it possessed records relevant to an espionage or international terrorism investigation, the provision does not single them out or even mention them. Indeed, as noted above, the provision, as of March 30, 2005, had never been used to request library records. And, in any event, such a request would have to be approved by a court, ensuring an independent check on the Department's investigators. Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber. In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach. Similarly, in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's books. Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited a library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world. The library's hard drives were scrubbed after each user finished, and he used the computer at the library because he believed that the library permitted him to communicate free of any monitoring. This individual is now in Federal custody. In addition, investigators tracing the activities of the 9- 11 hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of 2001, individuals using internet accounts registered to Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdar used public access computers in the library of a State college in New Jersey. The computers in the library were used to shop for and review airline tickets on an internet travel reservations site. Al Hazmi and Al Mihdar were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which took off from Dulles Airport and crashed into the Pentagon. The last documented visit to the library occurred on August 30, 2001. On that occasion, records indicate that a person using Al Hazmi's account used the library's computer to review September 11 reservations that had been previously booked. Similarly, investigators have received information that individuals believed to be Wail Al Shehri, Waleed Al Shehri, and Marwan Al Shehhi visited the Delray Beach Public Library, in Delray Beach, Florida. Wail Al Shehri and Waleed Al Shehri entered the library one afternoon in July of 2001 and asked to use the library's computers to access the internet. After about an hour, a third man, Marwan Al Shehhi, joined them. Waleed and Wail Al Shehri were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, while Al Shehhi was the pilot who took control of United Airlines Flight 175. Both of those flights crashed into the World Trade Center. A witness who recognized photos of the three individuals that ran in newspaper articles after the September 11 attacks, provided the information about the Delray Beach library visit. While no records exist to confirm the hijackers' visit to the Delray Beach library, the timing, location and behavior described are consistent with other information gathered in the course of the investigation. We also know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in Northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence--which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, How to be Invisible, to further his scheme--was critical during his trial. Simply put, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides national security investigators with an important tool for investigating and intercepting terrorism, and at the same time establishes robust safeguards to protect law-abiding Americans. We hope that this information assists you. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no objection to submission of this letter. Sincerely, William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentlewoman. As we understand more and learn about it, we will keep good faith and work with the gentlewoman, and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I do not have a colloquy before me. We are aware of the amendment. The gentlewoman makes some valid points. What I told the staff to say is we would work to see what could be done with regard to the filing. But I understand the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank her for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment; is that accurate?

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I again want to remind Members, though, that the language in the bill prohibits them from moving ahead until they come to the Committee on Appropriations. So I oppose the language because the language unnecessarily restricts the agency's ability to restructure itself to meet the ever-changing needs of its constituency. We will listen to the gentlewoman, but an outright ban on closing or consolidating offices does not seem responsible in this tight budgetary requirement. We know that the EEOC is currently managing in a tight budget, and I think tying their hands could actually make the matters worse. I am sure the gentlewoman is going to move ahead with her amendment. I think that is fine. We will work with her if she wins. God bless her. If she loses, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I will work to make sure that before we approve any reprogramming, we talk to her and also let her see what the GAO says when they come up with their report. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been a leader on this issue. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think Members ought to know that the U.S. State Department lists the Cuban dictatorship as one of five remaining state sponsors of terror. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria. According to the State Department's most recent patterns of global terrorism, Cuba continues to support foreign terrorist organizations and several terrorists and dozens of fugitives from the U.S., as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) just spoke. Also, if anyone is listening on the other side, I have sincerely asked for the opportunity to visit the country of Cuba through the legal ways. Everyone who always wants to lift the sanctions gets to go, but in a sincere effort at going down to find out what happens, I never can go. Something tells me there is something funny about this. We want to go on good faith. We ask to go through the normal process. We cannot get there. I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge the rejection of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for bringing this up. We will work with him and see what we can do to help.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment. The fact that it is offered and, hopefully, defeated on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others, will put pressure on. I think the U.N. will have an obligation to adopt the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations and, also, the administration will have an opportunity, but also an obligation to do that, because the U.N. has failed. It failed in Darfur, it failed in Rwanda, it failed in Srebrenic, and it failed in Sarajevo. Hopefully, this amendment will fail, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will have an opportunity to have his bill and voted on tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was led to believe the gentleman was going to withdraw the amendment. In the interest of time, I would just say that I understand what the gentleman is saying. He makes some very valid points. We can look into that. But if the gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will not take the body's time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II of the bill through page 52, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.