Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who serves on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition. The debate has been good, though; and I think it is good we have had it. Let me say, first, that the PATRIOT Act does not allow or authorize martial law. It is important we know that. It does not. Second, in the statement the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) made, it was inaccurate when he stated that grand jury subpoenas issued for business records, including library records, in ordinary criminal investigations are governed by a probable cause standard. That is not so. Rather, grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations are governed by a standard of relevance, the same standard that applies to the issuance of court orders for the production of business records in intelligence investigations pursuant to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. So, really, you cannot just get down here and say this and say that, because we are moving people. People are listening back in their offices. Third, there has been a lot of talk about legal issues here. We have not been hit since 9/11. No one has died in an attack on this country since 9/11. We know that. We also know that al Qaeda, and frankly, Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1995 and nobody did a darn thing about it. Nobody did a thing about it. They could have picked him up several times, and they did nothing about it. But we know that Osama bin Laden and others want to bring about death and destruction and kill American citizens. We have seen the beheading of Nicholas Berg and others. Has the PATRIOT Act helped us and our safety? I believe it has, and based on briefings that other Members on both sides have had, they do believe that it has actually helped us and kept what took place at the Pentagon, in my area, and I agree with what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, up in their area, where they have deep, deep concern. We know it does and has helped. Now, on this amendment, was Mr. Mueller, the Director of the FBI, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) would agree, has been asked what he thinks of this amendment? Has he been asked if this amendment hurt their efforts with regard to cutting off al Qaeda and other groups from killing United States citizens? We see the letter that came from the Justice Department. I put it in the Record. It said, ``You should know,'' this was to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), ``we have confirmed that as recently as this past winter and spring,'' winter and spring, two times apparently, ``a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda,'' the al Qaeda who did the 9/11, al Qaeda who did Tanzania, al Qaeda who did Nairobi, al Qaeda who did the USS Cole, al Qaeda who did the World Trade Center in 1993, that al Qaeda that ``used Internet services provided by a public library.'' Now, this says in here to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that in the winter and the spring somebody connected with al Qaeda used the Internet at a public library. If we can stop what took place in my area with regard to the Pentagon, then I want to stop that, because we have gone to enough funerals, and you all have gone to enough, and two of my children live in New York City, and I know how the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and those of you feel. It says they have used it. Lastly, will this create a safe haven? I do not know. Let us let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the members of the Committee on the Judiciary look at it. It comes to an end. The Congress had wisdom to bring it to a sunset in 2005. Have hearings been held? I would ask the gentleman, Have hearings been held on this issue by the Committee on the Judiciary? There have not been. I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I will not be at that 2 o'clock meeting we are going to have. The hearings have not been held. Since hearings have not been held, since the FBI has not been asked, since we have not been hit, I strongly urge Members on both sides, even though you have reservations and doubts, to vote down this amendment and allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to do their work and make sure that whatever they do is appropriate and constitutional and in the best interests of this country. Mr. Chairman. I urge members for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. To drop this on this committee a day before it is brought up, I do not care what side you are on, it just should not be done that way. How would this amendment treat Osama bin Laden? How would it treat Mohamad Atta? How would it treat people like that? This amendment should be certainly covered by extensive hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary and also the Committee on Armed Services, but not language that we got yesterday with no opportunity to look at the impact. Would this language result in the release of a terrorist? Should we look at and fully explore the ramifications and the consequences? Could the result of this be the release of a terrorist within the United States to commit further terrorist acts? The amendment would prevent an enemy combatant from being detained, would prevent Osama bin Laden, let us not say enemy combatant, would prevent Osama bin Laden from being detained for more than 30 days. What is the rationale for only being able to detain Osama bin Laden for 30 days? Should it be 45 days? A bad amendment, late, not the approach. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the Smith amendment was withdrawn without prejudice be vacated, to the end that the Chair now put the question thereon.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, my answer is ``absolutely.''

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will continue to yield, as the gentleman said, the bill includes $2.6 million and 25 positions. Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman, because I went over to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, and every member of the court ought to go over there and see it. Those two decisions from the court have severely hurt law enforcement with regard to child exploitation. So, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is absolutely right. And if the gentleman comes up with language that he thinks would be appropriate to put on this bill, I will do anything. And I thank the gentleman for what he has done. I cannot understand, and I stipulate that all the men and women on the court are good people, but I cannot understand. The decision by Justice Kennedy is actually shocking. So I agree with the gentleman, and we will work with him and do anything we can to help.

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As imperfect as the U.N. is, there is no other forum which exists to further the U.S. goals. The Security Council's unanimous resolution on Iraq on June 8 was critical to a U.S. priority and to the Bush administration, their effort with regard to bringing some sort of resolution to the issue in Darfur in Sudan, the peacekeeping effort to stop the genocide in Liberia and in Sierra Leone and other places. So the U.S. maintains a key factor here. So I think there are so many arguments that in the interest of time I would hope the amendment would be overwhelmingly defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I sometimes think the institution that we serve here is so economically driven that we worship at the alter of trade. We are becoming an economic institution. I remember the days of Ronald Reagan where we were more concerned about freedom than anything else. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is not here. He said things are better in China. Things are not better in China. I opposed MFN for China. Things are worse in China. There are 11 Catholic bishops in jail in China. They have just arrested the person who was identified with regard to SARS. They are persecuting the Tibetans, the Muslims, the evangelicals. Things are worse in China today with MFN and with trade than they have been for a long time. Secondly, I am really kind of sorry that we are really divided. We should be together, and I think things like this send messages that are not necessarily positive. I wish there had been more discussion, quite frankly, on both sides about those who are being persecuted and those who have been arrested and those who are in jail. Have any Members read the book, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has met with him, and I have met with him once, by Armando Valladares? The persecution and the suffering that has gone on. I have heard almost no one here tonight say that if Castro were to open up the prisons and the jails and release the people, I may change my position. But we should be asking Castro to do something, and we never do that. Why does Castro not open up the prison doors and allow peaceful people out? Why does Castro not allow the journalists to write whatever they want? Why does he not do that? So there should be more discussion on this and less interest in economic interests on both sides and more on human rights and religious freedom. Lastly, Ronald Reagan took away MFN from Rumania when all the business interests and the Congress was opposed to it. Ronald Reagan was the one who stood up with regard to Communism. The policy in Castro's Cuba has not been a total failure. They are no longer exporting their political situation around the world. In the interests of those who are suffering, we should be together; and I would hope that whatever amendment would be offered, and it is too late to amend this amendment, so whatever amendment would be offered would also carry the stipulation that those who are in prison for what they believe in, for religious freedom and persecution, as we do whatever the Flake amendment does, that the prison jails are opened and that people be released. With that I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?