H. Rept. 109-174 – USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Part 1)

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-174
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================




    USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

                 July 18, 2005.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3199]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3199) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat 
terrorism, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     5
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     6
Hearings.........................................................    47
Committee Consideration..........................................    47
Vote of the Committee............................................    47
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    71
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    72
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    72
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    73
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    73
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    73
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    81
Markup Transcript................................................    95
Dissenting Views.................................................   444

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO USA PATRIOT ACT.

  A reference in this Act to the USA PATRIOT ACT shall be deemed a 
reference to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA 
PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.

SEC. 3. USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET PROVISIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is repealed.
  (b) Sections 206 and 215 Sunset.--Effective December 31, 2015, the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is amended so that 
sections 501, 502, and 105(c)(2) read as they read on October 25, 2001.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS 
                    AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.

  Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004 (Public Law 108458; 118 Stat. 3742) is amended by--
          (1) striking subsection (b); and
          (2) striking ``(a)'' and all that follows through ``Section'' 
        and inserting ``Section''.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION RELATING TO SECTION 2332B AND THE 
                    MATERIAL SUPPORT SECTIONS OF TITLE 18, UNITED 
                    STATES CODE.

  Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
of 2004 (Public Law 108458; 118 Stat. 3762) is amended by striking 
subsection (g).

SEC. 6. SHARING OF ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION 
                    UNDER SECTION 203(B) OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

  Section 2517(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``Within a reasonable time after a disclosure 
of the contents of a communication under this subsection, an attorney 
for the Government shall file, under seal, a notice with a judge whose 
order authorized or approved the interception of that communication, 
stating the fact that such contents were disclosed and the departments, 
agencies, or entities to which the disclosure was made.''.

SEC. 7. DURATION OF FISA SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS 
                    UNDER SECTION 207 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

  (a) Electronic Surveillance.--Section 105(e) of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(e)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``, as defined in 
        section 101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United 
        States person''; and
          (2) in subsection (2)(B), by striking ``as defined in section 
        101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United States 
        person''.
  (b) Physical Search.--Section 304(d) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)) 
is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``as defined in section 
        101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United States 
        person''; and
          (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``as defined in section 
        101(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``who is not a United States 
        person''.
  (c) Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 402(e) of such 
Act (50 U.S.C. 1842(e)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(e) An'' and inserting ``(e)(1) Except as 
        provided in paragraph (2), an''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
  ``(2) In the case of an application under subsection (c) where the 
applicant has certified that the information likely to be obtained is 
foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person, 
an order, or an extension of an order, under this section may be for a 
period not to exceed one year.''.

SEC. 8. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE USA 
                    PATRIOT ACT.

  (a) Establishment of Relevance Standard.--Subsection (b)(2) of 
section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
U.S.C. 1861) is amended by striking ``to obtain'' and all that follows 
and inserting ``and that the information likely to be obtained from the 
tangible things is reasonably expected to be (A) foreign intelligence 
information not concerning a United States person, or (B) relevant to 
an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or 
clandestine intelligence activities.''.
  (b) Clarification of Judicial Discretion.--Subsection (c)(1) of such 
section is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, if the 
judge finds that the application meets the requirements of subsections 
(a) and (b), the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or 
as modified, approving the release of records.''.
  (c) Authority to Disclose to Attorney.--Subsection (d) of such 
section is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d)(1) No person shall disclose to any person (other than a 
qualified person) that the United States has sought or obtained 
tangible things under this section.
  ``(2) An order under this section shall notify the person to whom the 
order is directed of the nondisclosure requirement under paragraph (1).
  ``(3) Any person to whom an order is directed under this section who 
discloses that the United States has sought to obtain tangible things 
under this section to a qualified person with respect to the order 
shall inform such qualified person of the nondisclosure requirement 
under paragraph (1) and that such qualified person is also subject to 
such nondisclosure requirement.
  ``(4) A qualified person shall be subject to any nondisclosure 
requirement applicable to a person to whom an order is directed under 
this section in the same manner as such person.
  ``(5) In this subsection, the term `qualified person' means--
          ``(A) any person necessary to produce the tangible things 
        pursuant to an order under this section; or
          ``(B) an attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to an 
        order under this section.''.
  (d) Judicial Review.--
          (1) Petition review panel.--Section 103 of the Foreign 
        Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(e)(1) Three judges designated under subsection (a) who reside 
within 20 miles of the District of Columbia, or if all of such judges 
are unavailable, other judges of the court established under subsection 
(a) as may be designated by the Presiding Judge of such court (who is 
designated by the Chief Justice of the United States from among the 
judges of the court), shall comprise a petition review panel which 
shall have jurisdiction to review petitions filed pursuant to section 
501(f)(1).
  ``(2) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the 
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, the 
court established under subsection (a) shall develop and issue 
procedures for the review of petitions filed pursuant to section 
501(f)(1) by the panel established under paragraph (1). Such procedures 
shall provide that review of a petition shall be conducted ex parte and 
in camera and shall also provide for the designation of an Acting 
Presiding Judge.''.
          (2) Proceedings.--Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence 
        Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is further amended by 
        adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(f)(1) A person receiving an order to produce any tangible thing 
under this section may challenge the legality of that order by filing a 
petition in the panel established by section 103(e)(1). The Presiding 
Judge shall conduct an initial review of the petition. If the Presiding 
Judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the Presiding Judge 
shall immediately deny the petition and promptly provide a written 
statement of the reasons for the determination for the record. If the 
Presiding Judge determines that the petition is not frivolous, the 
Presiding Judge shall immediately assign the petition to one of the 
judges serving on such panel. The assigned judge shall promptly 
consider the petition in accordance with procedures developed and 
issued pursuant to section 103(e)(2). The judge considering the 
petition may modify or set aside the order only if the judge finds that 
the order does not meet the requirements of this section or is 
otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not modify or set aside the 
order, the judge shall immediately affirm the order and order the 
recipient to comply therewith. A petition for review of a decision to 
affirm, modify, or set aside an order by the United States or any 
person receiving such order shall be to the court of review established 
under section 103(b), which shall have jurisdiction to consider such 
petitions. The court of review shall immediately provide for the record 
a written statement of the reasons for its decision and, on petition of 
the United States or any person receiving such order for writ of 
certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme 
Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
  ``(2) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be concluded 
as expeditiously as possible. The judge considering a petition filed 
under this subsection shall provide for the record a written statement 
of the reasons for the decision. The record of proceedings, including 
petitions filed, orders granted, and statements of reasons for 
decision, shall be maintained under security measures established by 
the Chief Justice of the United States in consultation with the 
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
  ``(3) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed under seal, 
and the court, upon the government's request, shall review any 
government submission, which may include classified information, as 
well as the government's application and related materials, ex parte 
and in camera.''.

SEC. 9. REPORT ON EMERGENCY DISCLOSURES UNDER SECTION 212 OF THE USA 
                    PATRIOT ACT.

  Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(d) Report.--On an annual basis, the Attorney General shall submit 
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and the Senate a report 
containing--
          ``(1) the number of accounts from which the Department of 
        Justice has received voluntary disclosures under subsection 
        (b)(8); and
          ``(2) a summary of the basis for disclosure in those 
        instances where--
                  ``(A) voluntary disclosure under subsection (b)(8) 
                was made to the Department of Justice; and
                  ``(B) the investigation pertaining to those 
                disclosures was closed without the filing of criminal 
                charges.''.

SEC. 10. SPECIFICITY AND NOTIFICATION FOR ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY 
                    UNDER SECTION 206 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

  (a) Inclusion of Specific Facts in Application.--Section 105(c)(2)(B) 
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``where the Court finds'' and 
inserting ``where the Court finds, based upon specific facts provided 
in the application,''.
  (b) Notification of Surveillance of New Facility or Place.--Section 
105(c)(2) of such Act is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(E) that, in the case of electronic surveillance 
                directed at a facility or place that is not known at 
                the time the order is issued, the applicant shall 
                notify a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 
                within 10 days after electronic surveillance begins to 
                be directed at a new facility or place, and such notice 
                shall contain a statement of the facts and 
                circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify 
                the belief that the facility or place at which the 
                electronic surveillance is or was directed is being 
                used, or is about to be used, by the target of 
                electronic surveillance.''.

SEC. 11. PROHIBITION ON PLANNING TERRORIST ATTACKS ON MASS 
                    TRANSPORTATION.

  Section 1993(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (7);
          (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
          ``(8) surveils, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, or 
        otherwise collects information with the intent to plan or 
        assist in planning any of the acts described in the paragraphs 
        (1) through (7); or''.

SEC. 12. ENHANCED REVIEW OF DETENTIONS.

  Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is amended by--
          (1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
          (2) inserting after ``Department of Justice'' the following: 
        ``, and (B) review detentions of persons under section 3144 of 
        title 18, United States Code, including their length, 
        conditions of access to counsel, frequency of access to 
        counsel, offense at issue, and frequency of appearance before a 
        grand jury''.

SEC. 13. FORFEITURE.

  Section 981(a)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting ``trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological, or 
radiological weapons technology or material, or'' after ``involves''.

SEC. 14. ADDING OFFENSES TO THE DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF 
                    TERRORISM.

  Section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) by inserting ``, 2339D (relating to military-type 
        training from a foreign terrorist organization)'' before ``, or 
        2340A'' ; and
          (2) by inserting ``832 (relating to nuclear and weapons of 
        mass destruction threats),'' after ``831 (relating to nuclear 
        materials),''.

SEC. 15. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2516(1) OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

  (a) Paragraph (c) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``section 37 (relating to violence at 
        international airports), section 175b (relating to biological 
        agents or toxins)'' after ``the following sections of this 
        title:'';
          (2) by inserting ``section 832 (relating to nuclear and 
        weapons of mass destruction threats), section 842 (relating to 
        explosive materials), section 930 (relating to possession of 
        weapons in Federal facilities),'' after ``section 751 (relating 
        to escape),'';
          (3) by inserting ``section 1114 (relating to officers and 
        employees of the United States), section 1116 (relating to 
        protection of foreign officials), sections 13611363 (relating 
        to damage to government buildings and communications), section 
        1366 (relating to destruction of an energy facility),'' after 
        ``section 1014 (relating to loans and credit applications 
        generally; renewals and discounts),'';
          (4) by inserting ``section 1993 (relating to terrorist 
        attacks against mass transportation), sections 2155 and 2156 
        (relating to national-defense utilities), sections 2280 and 
        2281 (relating to violence against maritime navigation),'' 
        after ``section 1344 (relating to bank fraud),''; and
          (5) by inserting ``section 2340A (relating to torture),'' 
        after ``section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor 
        vehicles or motor vehicle parts),''.
  (b) Paragraph (p) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(p) is amended by 
inserting ``, section 1028A (relating to aggravated identity theft)'' 
after ``other documents''.
  (c) Paragraph (q) Amendment.--Section 2516(1)(q) of title 18, United 
States Code is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``2339,'' after ``2332h,''; and
          (2) by striking ``or 2339C'' and inserting ``2339C, or 
        2339D'' .

SEC. 16. DEFINITION OF PERIOD OF REASONABLE DELAY UNDER SECTION 213 OF 
                    THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

  Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by striking ``of its'' and inserting ``, which shall not 
        be more than 180 days, after its''; and
          (2) by inserting ``for additional periods of not more than 90 
        days each'' after ``may thereafter be extended''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3199, introduced by Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, 
Jr., on July 11, 2005, would reauthorize the expiring 
provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and two provisions in the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that 
would expire within the next two years, as amended. The bill 
extended the sunset for 10 years on two of the provisions that 
had amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act relating 
to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders for roving 
wiretaps and for business records.
    H.R. 3199 is based on four years of extensive oversight 
consisting of hearing testimony, Department of Justice 
Inspector General reports, briefings, and oversight 
correspondence. Since April of this year alone, this Committee 
has heard testimony from 35 witnesses during 11 hearings on the 
USA PATRIOT Act. That testimony and related oversight has 
demonstrated that the USA PATRIOT Act has been an effective 
tool against both terrorists and criminals intent on harming 
innocent people, and therefore deserves to be reauthorized with 
some modifications. H.R. 3199 accomplishes this objective by 
reauthorizing provisions set to sunset and making some 
improvements. The bill modifies the following provisions of USA 
PATRIOT Act: (1) Section 203(b) to allow for notification to a 
court that criminal wiretap information has been shared; (2) 
section 206 to clarify when and where law enforcement is 
authorized to use a multi-point or roving wiretap; (3) section 
207 to further extend the maximum duration of orders for 
electronic surveillance and physical searches targeted against 
all agents of foreign powers who are not U.S. persons; (4) 
section 212 to require an annual report to the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees by the Attorney General, which sets forth 
the number of accounts subject to a section 212 disclosure and 
a summary of the basis for disclosure in certain circumstances; 
(5) section 215 to clarify that the information likely to be 
obtained is reasonably expected to: be (A) foreign intelligence 
information NOT concerning a U.S. person or (B) relevant to an 
ongoing investigation to protect against international 
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; (6) section 
215 to clarify that a FISA 215 order may be challenged; (7) 
section 215 to clarify that a recipient of a 215 order may 
consult with a lawyer and the appropriate people necessary to 
challenge and comply with the order; (8) section 215 to clarify 
that the order will only be issued ``if the judge finds that 
the requirements have been met;'' (9) section 215 to set up a 
judicial review process that authorizes the judge to set aside 
or affirm a 215 order that has been challenged. The bill makes 
permanent sections 201, 202, 203 (b) and (d), 204, 207, 209, 
212, 214, 217, 218, 220, 223, and 225, which were scheduled to 
sunset on December 31, 2005, and extends until December 31, 
2015 the sunset of sections 206 and 215. In addition, the bill 
makes permanent section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), which provides an additional 
definition for ``Agent of a Foreign Power,'' to cover the 
``lone wolf'' under 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1). The legislation 
repeals section 6603(g) of the IRTPA, which would sunset 
section 6603, the ``Additions to Offense of Providing Material 
Support to Terrorism''. Finally, H.R. 3199 would enhance 
security of mass transportation; Department of Justice 
Inspector General review, and Judicial and Congressional 
oversight.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon took more than 3,000 lives, caused billions in 
economic losses, triggered U.S. military intervention in 
Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, and led to the 
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism bills. 
Another example of anti-terror legislation that enhanced law 
enforcement authorities and improved information sharing was 
the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002,\1\'' which created the 
Department of Homeland Security. This legislation incorporates 
H.R. 4598, the ``Homeland Security Information Sharing Act'' to 
further improve information sharing with Federal and state and 
local officials. The Homeland Security Act also updated law 
enforcement authorities by including: H.R. 3482 (107th), the 
``Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002,'' which increased 
penalties for cybercrimes and cyberterrorism, and H.R. 4864 
(107th), the ``Anti-Terrorism Explosives Act,'' which 
strengthened penalties for the unlawful possession of explosive 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 107-296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To respond to terrorist threats, Congress also has passed 
legislation to tighten security at America's airports,\2\ to 
fundamentally reform the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service,\3\ and to enhance border security.\4\ Congress also 
created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the 
United States (the ``9/11 Commission''), an independent, 
bipartisan commission created in 2002 to examine the 
circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist 
attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response 
to the attacks. In July 2004, the Commission issued ``The 9/11 
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on 
Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States.'' The 9/11 
Commission noted that most of the USA PATRIOT Act provisions 
are ``relatively noncontroversial, updating America's 
surveillance laws to reflect technological developments in a 
digital age. Some executive actions that have been criticized 
are unrelated to the Patriot Act. The provisions in the Act 
that facilitate the sharing of information among intelligence 
agencies and between law enforcement and intelligence appear, 
on balance, to be beneficial. Because of concerns regarding the 
shifting balance of power to the government, we think that a 
full and informed debate on the Patriot Act would be healthy.'' 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. 
No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001).
    \3\ Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, 107th 
Cong. (2002).
    \4\ Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, 
Pub. L. No. 107-173, 116 Stat. 543 (2002).
    \5\ The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National 
Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States p. 394 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to these legislative initiatives, the House 
Committee on the Judiciary has conducted nearly a 100 hearings 
to better protect the American people against terrorist attacks 
since September 11, 2001. Many of those hearings examined 
legislative initiatives that were adopted as part of the 
``Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,'' 
\6\ which responded to the 9/11 Commission Report and was 
signed into law on December 17, 2004, and H.R. 418, the ``Real 
ID Act of 2005,'' which passed the House by a roll call vote of 
229 to 198.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004).
    \7\ Roll no. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Congressional Response--the USA PATRIOT Act

    To better equip Federal law enforcement and the 
intelligence community with the resources necessary to confront 
these modern threats, Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 
2975, to ``Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,'' on October 2, 2001. H.R. 2975 
was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. The House 
and Senate combined their versions of the legislation into H.R. 
3162, the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
Act of 2001,'' (USA PATRIOT Act). This legislation incorporated 
provisions of H.R. 3004 (107th), the ``Financial Anti-Terrorism 
Act,'' which increased penalties for money laundering and 
financing terrorist organizations; and H.R. 3160 (107th), the 
``Bioterrorism Prevention Act of 2001,'' which provided law 
enforcement personnel greater resources to assess and prevent 
biological attacks on American soil. The USA PATRIOT Act was 
signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat 272 (codified as amended in 
scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. (2003)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The USA PATRIOT Act modernized investigative tools to 
effectively fight the advanced technologies used by terrorists 
and criminals. The USA PATRIOT Act also greatly improved 
information sharing between law enforcement and the 
intelligence community.
            A. Investigative Authorities
    The USA PATRIOT Act was designed to assist in the 
prevention of future terrorist activities as well as in the 
prevention of a broad range of criminal activity that often 
furthers those activities. The law increased penalties for 
Federal terrorism offenses and provided for extended post-
incarceration supervised release for persons convicted of such 
offenses. The bill strengthened Federal money laundering laws, 
added new terrorism offenses, updated the bioterrorism laws, 
funded first responders, and modified immigration law to 
increase the Federal Government's ability to prevent foreign 
terrorists from entering the United States. The Act also 
streamlined and updated the investigative authorities for law 
enforcement and the intelligence community.
    ``Many of the tools the Act provides to fight terrorism 
have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug 
dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the courts. As 
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about 
the Act, `the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, 
but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it 
bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good 
for terrorists.' '' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/, citing the (Cong. Rec., 10/25/
01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example of an authority that was codified in the 
Act is the long-standing discretionary authority of Federal 
judges to grant law enforcement the authority to use ``roving 
wiretaps'' to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug 
offenses and racketeering, under Federal criminal law. When a 
judge issues a roving wiretap order, law enforcement can apply 
the wiretap to a particular suspect, rather than a particular 
phone or communications device. Drug dealers often use a cell 
phone, throw it away and use another cell phone, to carry out 
their illegal activity. Thus, without the authority to use a 
roving wiretap law enforcement would not be able to effectively 
investigate these crimes.
    Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, a Federal 
judge could issue an order for a wiretap in a national security 
or an intelligence investigation similar to a wiretap in a 
criminal case. The law, however, failed to contain authority 
similar to the criminal law that allowed a Federal judge to 
issue a ``roving wiretap'' order in a national security or an 
intelligence case. International terrorists and spies are just 
as sophisticated as drug dealers and are trained to thwart 
surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication 
devices such as cell phones. Accordingly, the USA PATRIOT Act 
authorized the courts the discretion to grant agents permission 
to use the same techniques in national security investigations 
to track terrorists that are used in criminal cases.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            B. Information Sharing
    A lack of full, free, and timely information sharing 
between Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies had 
been a problem, long before the 9/11 attacks. Prior to the 9/11 
attacks, the Government had made attempts to improve 
information sharing. For example, different centers, such as 
the National Drug Intelligence Center, have been created to 
focus on sharing information on specific issues. While these 
centers helped, Government-wide improvement was still needed. 
The lack of information sharing stemmed from the distinct 
historical roles and cultures of law enforcement and the 
intelligence community, and from certain legal restrictions.
    After the 9/11 attacks, criticism increased that the 
Intelligence Community, especially the CIA and FBI, failed to 
share pertinent intelligence information, and as a result, had 
failed to ``connect the dots'' in a way that might have 
uncovered and enabled prevention of the attacks. The criticism 
was twofold: First, collecting agencies had not integrated and 
evaluated all the relevant information they had. Second, they 
had failed to ensure that relevant information they had 
collected was shared with other agencies that would need it to 
prevent attacks such as those that occurred.
    The Administration and the Congress took immediate action 
to reduce statutory impediments to sharing appropriate 
information. First, the USA PATRIOT Act,\11\ began to break 
down the barriers to facilitate information sharing between 
Federal law enforcement officials and the Intelligence 
Community. ``The premise of the USA-Patriot Act is that 
information about foreign terrorists acquired by law 
enforcement agencies, including grand jury information, should 
be available to intelligence agencies. Analysts would be able 
to put together the larger picture of groups plotting against 
U.S. interests.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 242.
    \12\ Richard Best, Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Countering 
Transnational Threats to the U.S. CRS Report #RL30252, December 3, 
2001, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As mentioned earlier, H.R. 4598, the ``Homeland Security 
Information Sharing Act'' continued the effort to break down 
barriers by requiring the President to create procedures to 
strip out classified information so that state and local 
officials may receive relevant information without clearances. 
H.R. 4598 also incorporated H.R. 3285, the ``Federal-Local 
Information Sharing Partnership Act of 2001,'' to remove the 
barriers for state and local officials to share law enforcement 
and intelligence information with Federal officials. H.R. 4598 
was added to the Homeland Security Act, which became Public Law 
No. 107-296.

2. Implementation and Use of the USA PATRIOT Act

    Since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of 
Justice has used many of the tools authorized in the Act in a 
comprehensive campaign to detect and prosecute those who have 
committed, or seek to commit, terrorist crimes. For example, as 
of the fall of 2004, the Department of Justice has conducted 
terrorism investigations that have resulted in the charging of 
310 defendants with criminal offenses, of whom 179 have already 
been convicted. These investigations have led to the discovery 
and disruption of over 150 terrorist cells. In addition, the 
tools provided by the USA PATRIOT Act have enabled the Federal 
Government to remove from the United States over 515 
individuals who were linked to the September 11th 
investigation. The Federal Government has also been able to 
secure at least 23 convictions or guilty pleas as the result of 
70 terrorist financing investigations. Importantly, these 
examples, and all other activities conducted under the 
authorities of the USA PATRIOT Act, have occurred without a 
single substantiated allegation of civil liberties violations 
on the part of Department of Justice employees.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ As of the September 13, 2004 Report Congress on the 
Implementation of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act, only one 
allegation of civil liberties violations may be related to the use of a 
USA PATRIOT Act provision, and the investigations relating to this 
allegation are still underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            A. Oversight Hearings during the 109th Congress
    During the 109th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary 
held 2 Full Committee and 8 Subcommittee oversight hearing on 
all of the provisions of USA PATRIOT Act that will expire on 
December 31, 2005 and several that are not subject to the 
sunset.

                        FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

1. May 6, 2005, Hearing with Attorney General Gonzales

    On May 6, 2005, Attorney General Gonzales testified before 
the Full Committee on the Judiciary. That hearing focused on 
the use of the law enforcement authorities granted under the 
USA PATRIOT Act; whether these tools have, thus far, proved 
useful to the Government's efforts in fighting terrorism; 
whether existing safeguards have been effective in preventing 
civil liberties violations; and whether modifications to the 
Act are needed.

2. June 8, 2005, Hearing with Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey

    On Wednesday, June 8, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., the Committee on 
the Judiciary held its 11th oversight hearing on the 
Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act with Deputy Attorney 
General James B. Comey testifying on the need to Reauthorize 
the USA PATRIOT Act provisions set to expire on December 31, 
2005. This hearing followed the 10 subcommittee hearings and 
provided Members and the Department of Justice the opportunity 
to address anyunanswered questions regarding the USA PATRIOT 
Act.

3. June 10, 2005, Hearing continuation of June 8, 2005

    In accordance with House Rule XI, section 2 (J)(1), 
additional witnesses designated by the minority were called to 
testify on the subject of the ``Reauthorization of the USA 
PATRIOT Act,'' as an extension (or a continuation) of the 
Committee's June 8, 2005 hearing. The witnesses were: Carlina 
Tapia-Ruano, American Immigration Lawyers Association; Dr. 
James J. Zogby, Arab American Institute; Deborah Pearlstein, 
U.S. Law and Security Program; and Chip Pitts, Amnesty 
International USA.

                         SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

1. April 19, 2005, Hearing on Sections 203 (b) and (d) of the USA 
        PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Information Sharing

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on sections 
203 (b) and (d) that addressed information sharing. These 
sections responded to the need to improve information sharing. 
Four witnesses--Mr. Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism 
Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice; 
Ms. Maureen Baginski, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI 
for Intelligence; Congressman Michael McCaul; and Timothy 
Edgar, the National Security Policy Counsel for the American 
Civil Liberties Union--testified.
    Specifically, section 203 facilitates effective sharing of 
information collected through the use of criminal wiretaps, 
grand juries, and other criminal investigations, with Executive 
Branch officials. To protect privacy, the USA PATRIOT Act: (1) 
limits such disclosures to foreign intelligence and 
counterintelligence information, as defined by statute; (2) 
restricts disclosure to officials with a need to know in 
performance of official duties; and (3) retains the limitations 
on public or other unauthorized disclosure. Prior to passage of 
the USA PATRIOT Act, the law hampered law enforcement from 
sharing information with or receiving information from other 
government agencies outside of law enforcement that might 
nevertheless relate to terrorist activities or national 
security.
    Sec. 203(b) deals with information obtained through a 
criminal wiretap. The section amended section 2517 of title 18 
to allow law enforcement officials to share foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of 
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign 
intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of 
section 2510 of this title) obtained through a criminal wiretap 
with law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, 
national defense, or national security personnel for use only 
as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties 
subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of 
such information. This language was similar to section 103 of 
H.R. 2975 that passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously 
in October 2001.
    Sec. 203(d) addresses information obtained through a 
criminal investigation. This section permits law enforcement 
officials to share foreign intelligence or counterintelligence 
(as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 
(50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as 
defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title) 
obtained through a criminal investigation, for use only as 
necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties 
subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of 
such information. This language was similar to section 154 of 
H.R. 2975 that passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously 
in October 2001.

2. April 21, 2005, 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)

    The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
held a hearing on section 209, 217, and 220 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act. Four witnesses--Laura Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Steven M. Martinez, Deputy Assistant Director of the Cyber 
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; James X. Dempsey, 
Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology; 
and Peter Swire, Professor of Law, Mortiz College of Law, the 
Ohio State University--testified.
    In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act (ECPA) to update the 1968 Wiretap Act, recognizing 
that emerging technologies--such as electronic mail and voice 
mail--had rendered the 1968 statute outdated and inadequate. 
These 1986 modifications made the criminal code ``technology 
neutral'' to address future telecommunications technologies. 
``Technology neutral'' means law enforcement investigative 
authorities remain the same regardless of the technology used 
by the criminal to facilitate illegal activity. Thus, law 
enforcement uses the same procedures to seek a court order for 
a wiretap of a computer or a phone used by the criminal.
    As expected, cyber technology has advanced rapidly. As a 
result, people communicate quickly and effectively. 
Unfortunately, technology has also facilitated crime and 
terrorism.
    Understanding these problems, the USA PATRIOT Act updated 
criminal law to address these new challenges. These updates 
also were designed to help law enforcement assess whether 
unlawful conduct is the result of criminal activity or 
terrorist activity and to respond appropriately. Some of these 
provisions are set to expire on December 31, 2005. The April 
21, 2005 hearing covered three of those provisions: Sections 
209, 217, and 220.
    Sec. 209. Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant to 
Warrants. Section 209 amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703 (a) and (b) 
by adding language to cover stored wire communications--such as 
a voice mail. Section 209 updated the law to clarify that the 
criminal code remains technology-neutral. Section 209 clarified 
that stored voice mail is, in fact, a stored communication, and 
therefore is covered by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703. This language is 
similar to section 102 of H.R. 2975 that passed the House 
Judiciary Committee unanimously.
    Sec. 217. Interception of Computer Trespasser 
Communications. The courts have long recognized that providers 
of communications services possess a ``fundamental right to 
take reasonable measures to protect themselves and their 
properties against the illegal acts of a trespasser.'' Bubis v. 
United States, 384 F.2d 643, 648 (9th Cir. 1967). Computer 
owners, however, often lack the expertise, equipment, or 
financial resources required to monitor attacks, and thus had 
no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from 
unauthorized attackers--who could be terrorists or criminals 
engaged in attacking critical infrastructure, or the economy. 
Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the law was 
unclear as to whether a victim of computer trespassing was 
allowed to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring 
unauthorized attacks as they occur.
    These attacks come in many forms that cost companies and 
citizens millions of dollars and endanger public safety. For 
instance, denial-of-service attacks, where the objective of the 
attack is to disable a computer system, can shut down 
businesses or emergency responders or national security 
centers. This type of attack causes the target site's servers 
to run out of memory, and become incapable of responding to the 
queries of legitimate customers or users. The victims of these 
computer trespassers should be able to authorize law 
enforcement to intercept the trespassers' communications, 
similar to a store owner who authorizes the police to stop an 
intruder. To correct this problem, and help to protect national 
security, section 217 of the Act amended the wiretap statute to 
allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons ``acting 
under color of law'' to monitor trespassers on their computer 
systems in a narrow class of cases.
    Sec. 220. Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for 
Electronic Evidence. Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT 
Act, Rule of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure of 
Criminal Procedure 41 required that the ``warrant'' be obtained 
``within the district'' where the property to be searched is 
located. An investigator, for example, located in Boston who is 
investigating a suspected terrorist in that city, might have to 
seek a suspect's electronic e-mail from an Internet service 
provider (ISP) account located in California. The investigator 
would then need to coordinate with agents, prosecutors, and 
judges in the district in California where the ISP is located 
to obtain a warrant to search. Time delays caused by the need 
to coordinate with numerous parties could be devastating to an 
investigation, especially where additional criminal or 
terrorist acts are planned.
    Section 220 of the Act amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703 to 
authorize the court with jurisdiction over the investigation to 
issue the warrant directly, without requiring the intervention 
of its counterpart in the district where the ISP is located. 
Before and after the USA PATRIOT Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(a) 
requires a search warrant to compel service providers to 
disclose unopened e-mails. The USA PATRIOT Act did not affect 
the requirement nor the probable cause standard for a search 
warrant,\14\ but rather addresses investigative delays caused 
by the cross-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. This 
language is similar to section 108 of H.R. 2975 that passed the 
House Judiciary Committee unanimously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The government must receive court authorization through a 
search warrant to search or seize property or a person, with limited 
exceptions. For a search warrant to be issued, the government must 
provide sworn affidavit to the magistrate that grounds exists or there 
is probable cause to believe ground exist--i.e., a crime is or is about 
to be committed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. April 26, 2005 Hearing--Have Sections 204, 207, 214 and 225 of the 
        USA PATRIOT Act, and Sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intelligence 
        Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Improved FISA 
        Investigations?

    On Tuesday, April 26, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to examine sections 204, 207, 214, and 225 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act, and sections 6001 and 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Three witnesses--the 
Honorable Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney for the 
Western District of Pennsylvania; James Baker, Office for 
Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice; and 
Suzanne Spaulding, Managing Director, the Harbour Group, LLC--
testified.
    Sec. 204. Clarification of Intelligence Exceptions from 
Limitations on Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, and 
Electronic Communications (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f)). This section 
amended section 2511(2)(f) of the Federal criminal code, which 
provided that Federal criminal law relating to law enforcement 
electronic surveillance (chapter 119, title 18) and access to 
stored communications and communications transactions records 
(chapter 121, title 18) did not affect the use of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for intelligence purposes. 
Section 204 is a technical clarification amendment, which added 
that chapter 206 of title 18 is also covered by section 
2511(2)(f). Thus, Federal criminal law relating to the use of 
pen registers and trap and trace devices under chapter 206 did 
not affect the use of FISA for intelligence purposes.
    Sec. 207. Duration of FISA Surveillance of Non-United 
States Persons Who Are Agents of a Foreign Power. Prior to 
enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had 90 days to 
carry out surveillance under a FISA court order and 45 days to 
conduct a physical search under FISA, before seeking an 
extension. Because it often takes longer than these established 
periods to get on the premises or to conduct electronic 
surveillance and the delay in reapplying for an extension or 
new order posed a threat to national security, this provision 
added 30 days to the authorized period for surveillance from 90 
days to 120 days. It also extended the period for physical 
searches from 45 days to 90 days.
    Sec. 214. Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority Under 
FISA. Section 214 of the Act amends 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1842 
(Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (FISA)). Section 1842 is the pen register and trap and 
trace provision in the FISA that is modeled after Federal 
criminal law provisions (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3121 et. seq.). A pen 
register gathers out-going telephone or Internet-dialed numbers 
and a trap and trace gathers incoming numbers. This is the 
least intrusive method of electronic surveillance. Section 214 
amends FISA (the pen register and trap and trace provisions) to 
mirror similar provisions that currently exist in criminal law 
(18 U.S.C. Sec. 3121 et. seq.). Prior to the enactment of the 
USA PATRIOT Act, the ``pen register and trap and trace'' 
provisions of FISA went beyond the criminal law requirement of 
certification of relevance, and required the Government to 
provide information that demonstrated that the communication 
instrument (e.g., a telephone line) has been or was about to be 
used to contact a ``foreign power'' or agent of a foreign 
power. This was a greater burden than exists in even a minor 
criminal investigation.
    Section 214 clarifies that an application for pen register 
and trap and trace authority under FISA will be the same as the 
pen register and trap and trace authority defined in the 
criminal law. It requires the attorney for the government to 
certify to the court that the information sought is relevant to 
an ongoing FISA investigation. The statutory burden under FISA 
of having to show that the telephone line has been, or is about 
to be used, to contact a foreign power or terrorist is 
eliminated to conform to the existing and less burdensome 
criminal standards. The attorney for the government still must 
certify the information sought is relevant to an ongoing FISA 
investigation, which continues to be directed at an agent of a 
foreign power. This section codifies lawfulness of court 
authorized pen register and trap and trace device use for non-
content communications over telecommunication technology other 
than by telephone.\15\ Section 214 of the Act is substantively 
similar to section 155 of H.R. 2974, the House version that 
passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. Section 214 
includes protections for U.S. persons, which prohibit the 
investigation from being conducted based solely on activities 
protected by the First Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 50 U.S.C. 1842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 225. Immunity for Compliance with FISA Wiretap. While 
Federal criminal wiretap law immunizes those who assist law 
enforcement in the execution of a criminal wiretap interception 
order, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a), this section provides immunity to 
anyone who complies with a FISA surveillance (wiretap) order.
    Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act. Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign 
Powers. This section amends the definition of ``Agent of a 
Foreign Power'' under section 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801(b)(1) (the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) by adding new 
subparagraph C. Section 1801(b)(1) defined ``Agent of a foreign 
power'' for any person other than a United States person, who--
          (A) acts in the United States as an officer or 
        employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a 
        foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this 
        section;
          (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which 
        engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the 
        United States contrary to the interests of the United 
        States, when the circumstances of such person's 
        presence in the United States indicate that such person 
        may engage in such activities in the United States, or 
        when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in 
        the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires 
        with any person to engage in such activities;
          Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
        Prevention Act added new subparagraph C to the 
        definition, which states ``Agent of a foreign power'' 
        for any person other than a United States person, 
        includes a person who ``engages in international 
        terrorism or activities in preparation thereof.'' This 
        new definition is to reach ``lone wolf'' terrorists who 
        are non-U.S. persons who engage in international 
        terrorism, regardless of whether they are affiliated 
        with an international terrorist group. To address 
        concerns about the provision, the USA PATRIOT Act 
        sunset applies and, had H.R. 3199 not removed the 
        sunset provision, the definition would have expired on 
        December 31, 2005.
          When FISA was enacted in the 1970s, terrorists 
        usually were members of distinct, hierarchical terror 
        groups. Today, the ``lone wolfs'' often are not formal 
        members of any group. Instead, they are part of a 
        movement, such as a Jihad Against America, and 
        occasionally act alone. FISA authority was updated to 
        reflect this new threat.
          It should be noted that this section does not change 
        the requirement for a judicial finding of probable 
        cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. 
        See section 1805(a)(3) and (b). The new definition 
        requires that for a non-U.S. person to be deemed an 
        agent of a foreign power, that person must be engaged 
        in or preparing to engage in international terrorism. 
        Thus, under the probable cause requirement currently in 
        law and the new definition in this section, before a 
        judge can issue a FISA order for surveillance there 
        must be a showing of probable cause that the person is 
        engaged or preparing to engage in international 
        terrorism.
    Section 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act. Additional Semiannual Reporting Requirements 
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The section 
also includes additional reporting requirements to the House 
and Senate Judiciary Committees regarding the use of FISA.

4. April 28, 2005, Hearing--Have Sections 206 and 215 Improved FISA 
        Investigations?

    On Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing to examine sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. 
Four witnesses--the Honorable Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia; James Baker, Office for 
Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Robert Khuzami, former Assistant United States Attorney in the 
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
New York; and Greg Nojeim, the Associate Director and Chief 
Legislative Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union's 
Washington National Office--testified.
    Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section amends 
105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) to update the authority to allow 
a court to authorize a ``roving wiretap'' ``in circumstances 
where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the 
application may have the effect of thwarting the identification 
of a specified person,'' that a common carrier, landlord, 
custodian, or other person not specified in the Court's order 
be required to furnish the applicant information and technical 
assistance necessary to accomplish electronic surveillance in a 
manner that will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of 
interference with the services that such person is providing to 
the target of electronic surveillance.'' This language was the 
same as the language in section 152 of H.R. 2975 that passed 
the House Judiciary Committee unanimously in the 107th 
Congress.
    Federal judges have had the discretion for decades to grant 
law enforcement the authority to use ``roving wiretaps'' to 
investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and 
racketeering, under Federal criminal law. When a judge issues a 
roving wiretap order, law enforcement can apply the wiretap to 
a particular suspect, rather than to a particular phone or 
communications device.
    While international terrorists and spies are just as 
sophisticated as drug dealers and are trained to thwart 
surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication 
devices such as cell phones, the law prior to the USA PATRIOT 
Act did not contain authority similar to the criminal law that 
allowed a Federal judge to issue a ``roving wiretap'' order in 
a national security or intelligence case. As a result, the 
Government had to return to the FISA court for an order that 
named the new carrier, landlord, etc., before effecting 
surveillance each time the terrorist or spy threw away his or 
her cell phone and used a different cell phone. Under section 
206 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI presents the newly 
discovered carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person with a 
generic order issued by the court, and the FBI can then effect 
FISA coverage as soon as it is technically feasible.
    Sec. 215. Access to Records and Other Items Under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Prior and subsequent to 
enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could obtain 
records from all manner of businesses through grand jury-issued 
subpoenas. Targets of grand jury investigations do not have 
standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena directed at a third 
party. This access includes libraries and bookstores, for 
records relevant to criminal inquiries. For example, in the 
1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury 
subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach. In the 
1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in Queens, New 
York, subpoenaed records from the library at Fifth Avenue and 
42d Street in Manhattan. Investigators believed that the gunman 
was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who 
had checked out his books. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
created similar authority, but with more stringent 
requirements. Section 215 provides the FISA court discretion to 
issue an order for business records related to ``international 
terrorism and clandestine intelligence activities.'' These 
judicial orders conceivably could be issued to bookstores or 
libraries, but section 215 does not single them out. Section 
215 has a very narrow scope that can only be used: (1) ``to 
obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United 
States person''; or (2) ``to protect against international 
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' 50 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1861(b)(2).
          FBI agents cannot obtain records under section 215 
        unless they receive a court order. Grand jury 
        subpoenas, by contrast, do not require judicial 
        approval. Agents cannot use section 215 to unilaterally 
        compel libraries or any other entity to turn over their 
        records. Agents must obtain such documents only by 
        appearing before the FISA court and convincing the 
        court that these business records are needed. See 50 
        U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b). Section 215 goes to great lengths 
        to preserve the First Amendment rights of libraries, 
        their patrons, and other affected entities. It 
        expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct 
        investigations ``of a United States person solely on 
        the basis of activities protected by the first 
        amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'' 
        50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(a)(2).
          Section 215 provides for thorough congressional 
        oversight. Every six months, the Attorney General is 
        required to ``fully inform'' Congress on 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. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1862.
    On April 28, 2005, the United States Attorney for the 
District of Columbia testified that some of the 9/11 hijackers 
used libraries in the United States. He stated:
          Investigators have received information that 
        individuals believed to be 9/11 hijackers Wail 
        Alshehri, Waleed Alshehri, and Marwan Al-Shehhi visited 
        the Del Ray Public Library in Del Ray Beach, Florida. 
        Wail Alshehri and Waleed Alshehri 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 the two. 
        Waleed and Wail Alshehri 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 on 
        September 11th. * * * In addition, investigators 
        tracing the activities of the hijackers determined that 
        on four occasions in August of 2001, individuals using 
        Internet accounts registered to Nawaf Alhazmi and 
        Khalid Almihdhar, 9/11 hijackers, used public access 
        computers in the library of a state college in New 
        Jersey. The computers in the library were used to 
        review and order airline tickets on an Internet travel 
        reservations site. Alhazmi and Almihdhar 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 
        30th, 2001. On that occasion, records indicate that a 
        person using Alhazmi's account used the library's 
        computer to review September 11th reservations that had 
        been previously booked.''
    On April 6, 2005 the Attorney General testified before the 
House Committee on the Judiciary and stated that the FISA court 
has granted the Department's request for a 215 order 35 times 
as of March 30, 2005. He went on to state that the Department 
has not sought a section 215 order to obtain library or book 
store records, medical records, or gun sale records. He also 
explained that the provision to date has been used only to 
obtain driver's license records, public accommodation 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.

5. April 28, 2005, Hearing--Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act--If it 
        Expires Will the ``Wall'' Return?

    On Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing, which focused on section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act. 
Some have argued that Section 218 contributed to lowering the 
``Wall,'' and is set to expire on December 31, 2005. The 
``Wall'' is a metaphorical term that described the legal and 
administrative constraints created to separate the operations 
of law enforcement and the intelligence community. Four 
witnesses--the Honorable Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for 
the Northern District of Illinois; David Kris, former Associate 
Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice; Kate 
Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies; 
and Peter Swire, Professor of Law at Ohio State University--
testified.
    Section 218 amended 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 
1823(a)(7)(B) (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to 
improve information sharing between law enforcement and the 
intelligence community. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act limited surveillance and physical search orders to 
instances where authorities certified that ``the purpose'' of 
the order was for foreign intelligence gathering; subsequent 
case law raised a question of whether it was sufficient to meet 
``the purpose'' requirement that foreign intelligence gathering 
was ``the primary purpose'' or whether ``the purpose'' 
requirement could be satisfied perhaps when a criminal 
investigation was not the primary purpose, 743 F.2d 59; 952 
F.2d 565. Section 218 makes it clear that foreign intelligence 
gathering must be ``a significant'' reason for a FISA 
application, but need not be the primary purpose, as the courts 
had interpreted the law to mean.\16\ Section 218 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act has helped to lower the ``Wall'' that prevented 
sharing of information between law enforcement and the 
intelligence community. This section is subject to the December 
31, 2005 sunset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, FIS Ct. Rev., No. 02-001, 11/
18/02, reversing 71 CrL 615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. May 3, 2005, Oversight Hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 of 
        the USA PATRIOT Act and Their Effect on Law Enforcement 
        Surveillance

    On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security for the Committee held a 
hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act. The hearing focused on the 
effect of sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 on law enforcement 
surveillance. Although section 213 does not sunset, the 
Committee reviewed this section of the USA PATRIOT Act to 
accommodate a request of the Minority. Section 213 covers 
delayed notice search warrants. Four witnesses--the Honorable 
Michael J. Sullivan, U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Massachusetts; Chuck Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy 
Attorney General; Heather MacDonald, John M. Olin Fellow at the 
Manhattan Institute; and the Honorable Bob Barr, former 
Representative of Georgia's Seventh District--testified.
    This hearing examined sections 201, 202, and 203 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act that relate to criminal wiretaps and section 213 
that relates to when notice is provided for certain criminal 
search warrants. Sections 201, 202, and 223 expire on December 
31, 2005. Section 213 does not sunset.
            A. The Wiretap Provisions Set To Expire
            1. Criminal Wiretap Authority Before the USA PATRIOT Act
    ``Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2510-2522 (1994 & Supp. II 
1996), requires the government, unless otherwise permitted, to 
obtain an order of a court before conducting electronic 
surveillance. The government is permitted to seek such orders 
only in connection with the investigation of the criminal 
offenses enumerated in section 2516 of title 18.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ October 17, 2000, Memorandum for the Counsel, Office of 
Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. DOJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Federal investigations, section 2516 distinguishes 
between wire (i.e., telephone) and oral (i.e., face-to-face 
conversation) communications, and electronic communications 
(i.e., conversation using a computer). The USA PATRIOT Act did 
not change these distinctions.
           For wire and oral communications, section 
        2516(1) allows designated senior officials in the 
        Department of Justice to authorize an application for a 
        court order to approve interception of wire and oral 
        communications where the interception may provide 
        evidence of certain Federal offenses known as ``wiretap 
        predicates.'' Wiretap predicates are enumerated crimes 
        for which Congress has authorized law enforcement to 
        use a wiretap over a wire or when oral communications 
        occur.
           For wiretapping electronic communications, 
        Congress authorized Federal investigators, under 18 
        U.S.C. Sec. 2516(3), to apply for a court order for 
        interception of electronic communications where the 
        interception may provide evidence of any Federal 
        felony.
            2. Wiretap Authority as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act
    The USA PATRIOT Act added to the wiretap predicates under 
sections 201 and 202, and added safeguards under section 223 
designed to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of information 
obtained under the Government's updated surveillance authority.
    Sec. 201. Terrorism as a predicate act for authorization of 
wiretaps. This section added new ``wiretap predicates'' under 
section 2516 of title 18 of the Federal criminal code that 
relate to crimes of terrorism. Section 201 provides the courts 
discretion to grant a wiretap for the interception of wire, 
oral, or electronic communications in the investigation of: (1) 
possible crimes relating to chemical weapons under 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 229 and (2) possible crimes relating to terrorism under 18 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B. 
While some crimes involving terrorism were already wiretap 
predicates, others were not. The USA PATRIOT Act closed the gap 
with respect to the use of this key investigative tool that 
significantly enhances law enforcement ability to prevent a 
terrorist attack and prosecute crimes connected with it. Such 
authority already existed for a number of other less serious 
crimes, such as trafficking automobile parts. Prior to the 
enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could already 
conduct wiretaps on electronic communications under section 
2516(3) for these felonies. The USA PATRIOT Act changed the law 
to now permit wiretaps on wire and oral communications as well.
    Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic 
communications relating to computer fraud and abuse. This 
section adds a new ``wiretap predicate'' under section 2516 of 
title 18 of the Federal criminal code for serious computer 
hacking offenses, including cyberterrorism. Specifically, the 
wiretap predicate is for crimes under section 1030 of title 18 
when the violation is a felony that relates to computer fraud 
and abuse. Prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could 
already conduct wiretaps on electronic communications under 
section 2516(3) for such felonies. The USA PATRIOT Act changed 
the law to now also permit wiretaps on wire and oral 
communications.
            3. Wiretap Authority that Remained Unchanged by the USA 
                    PATRIOT Act
    Sections 201 and 202 of the USA PATRIOT Act in no way 
change the strict limitations on how wiretaps may be used. 
Congress enacted Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 \18\ that outlines what is and is not 
permissible with regard to wiretapping and electronic 
eavesdropping.\19\ Title III restrictions go beyond Fourth 
Amendment constitutional protections and include a statutory 
suppression rule to exclude evidence that was collected in 
violation of Title III.\20\ Except under limited circumstances, 
it is unlawful to intercept oral, wire, and electronic 
communications.\21\ Accordingly, under the Act, Federal and 
state law enforcement may only use wiretaps under strict 
limitations.\22\ Congress created these procedures to allow 
limited law enforcement access to private communications and 
communication records for investigations consistent with Fourth 
Amendment rights. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 sets strict 
procedures for the use of a wiretap. Section 2518(1) requires 
the application to be made under written oath or affirmation to 
a judge of competent jurisdiction. Section 2518(1)(b) requires 
that the application set forth, among other things, ``a full 
and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied 
upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order 
should be issued. . . .'' These facts should include, among 
other things, the ``details as to the particular offense that 
has been, is being, or is about to be committed'' and ``the 
identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and 
whose communications are to be intercepted.'' \23\ Section 
2518(3) also includes requirements that for the judge to issue 
a wiretap order the judge must believe (1) there is probable 
cause for belief that an individual is committing, has 
committed, or is about to commit a particular offense 
enumerated in section 2516 of [title 18]; (2) there is probable 
cause for belief that particular communications concerning that 
offense will be obtained through such interception; and (3) 
normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed 
or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to 
be too dangerous.\24\ To further protect privacy, law 
enforcement is required ``to minimize the interception of 
communications not otherwise subject to interception [that is, 
noncriminal conversations] under this chapter, and must 
terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 87 Stat. 197 
(1968)(codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2510-2520 (1970).
    \19\ Charles Doyle & Gina Stevens, Congressional Research Service, 
Library of Congress, Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing 
Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping, at 6 (2001).
    \20\ 87 Stat. 197, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2510-2520 (1970 ed.).
    \21\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511.
    \22\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518.
    \23\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(b).
    \24\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 (emphasis added).
    \25\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 223. Civil Liability for Certain Unauthorized 
Disclosures. This section is similar to section 161 of H.R. 
2975 that passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. 
Section 223 includes safeguards designed to prevent the 
unauthorized disclosure of information obtained under the 
Government's updated surveillance authority, by amending the 
criminal code to provide for administrative discipline of 
Federal officers or employees, as well as by allowing for civil 
actions to be brought against the United States for damages by 
any person aggrieved by such disclosures.
            B. Delayed Notice
            1. Pre-existing Authority for Delayed Notice
    Contrary to reports, the USA PATRIOT Act did not create 
delayed notice search warrants. Delayed notice search warrants 
have been used for decades prior to enactment of the USA 
PATRIOT Act. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held in 
Dalia v. United States that the Fourth Amendment does not 
require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the 
execution of a search warrant.\26\ The Department of Justice 
states that three Federal Courts of Appeals had considered the 
constitutionality of delayed-notice search warrants since 1979 
and upheld their constitutionality.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ See Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979); see also Katz 
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
    \27\ April 4, 2005 U.S. Department of Justice letter to Senator 
Spector. p. 3 citing See United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th 
Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); 
United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. What Delayed Notice Means
    A delayed notice search warrant simply means that a court 
has expressly authorized investigators to delay notifying a 
suspect that a search warrant has been executed (i.e., a court-
ordered search has occurred). The search warrant is the same, 
regardless of when the suspect receives notice. Thus, before a 
search warrant is issued, whether notice is delayed or not, a 
Federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe 
the property to be searched or seized constitutes evidence of a 
criminal offense.
            3. Section 213 Creates a Uniform Nationwide Standard for a 
                    Court To Authorize Delayed Notice
    Congress included section 213 in the USA PATRIOT Act to 
create a uniform nationwide standard for the issuance of these 
warrants. Under section 213 there are limited circumstances 
when a court may delay notice. These circumstances are the same 
predicate circumstances permitted in an application for 
delaying notice in a search warrant for stored communications 
under section 2705(a)(2) of title 18, which predated the USA 
PATRIOT Act. For a court to permit a delay in the notice of a 
search of a suspect's property, the investigator or prosecutor 
must show that there is reasonable cause to believe that if the 
suspect is notified at the same time as the search one of the 
following situations may occur:
           Notification would endanger the life or 
        physical safety of an individual;
           Notification would cause flight from 
        prosecution;
           Notification would result in destruction of, 
        or tampering with, evidence;
           Notification would result in intimidation of 
        potential witnesses; or
           Notification would cause serious jeopardy to 
        an investigation or unduly delay a trial.
            4. Notification Required Within a Reasonable Period of Time
    The subject of the search must be notified within a 
reasonable period of time as determined by the court. Congress 
retained discretion for the courts to review the facts and 
determine what a reasonable period time is to delay the notice, 
as that is necessarily dependent upon the facts of each case. 
According to the Department of Justice, the shortest period of 
time for which the Government has requested delayed-notice for 
a search warrant is 7 days and the longest is 180 days. This 
figure is from a survey of the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices for a 
period between April 1, 2003, and January 31, 2005.
    In an April 4, 2005, letter to Senator Specter, the 
Department of Justice provided statistics on the number of 
search warrants granted and the number of those for which 
delayed notice was sought and granted:
           32,529 search warrants were handled by U.S. 
        District Courts during a 12-month period ending 
        September 30, 2003, according to the Administrative 
        Office of the U.S. Courts.
           61 search warrants had delayed notice in a 
        comparable 14-month period--between April 2003, and 
        July 2004, according to a Department survey of the U.S. 
        Attorney Offices.
           When comparing the two periods, delayed 
        notice under section 213 was granted for only 0.2 
        percent of the total search warrants handled by the 
        courts.
           155 search warrants had delayed notice in 
        the period from enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act on 
        October 26, 2001 through January 31, 2005--a period of 
        more than three years.
           Assuming that the number of search warrants 
        was the same for three years, the number would be 0.15 
        percent of the total search warrants handled by the 
        courts.
           Of the 98 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, 48 
        Offices never used a delayed notice search warrant 
        under section 213 and only 40 Offices--less than half 
        of the total number of U.S. Attorneys' Offices--used a 
        delayed notice search warrant under any authority.
           Of the 40 Offices that used section 213, 17 
        used section 213 only once.

7. Tuesday, May 5, 2005--Oversight Hearing on Section 212 of the USA 
        PATRIOT Act That Allows Emergency Disclosure of Electronic 
        Communications To Protect Life and Limb

    On Thursday, May 5, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
on section 212 of the USA 1PATRIOT Act. Section 212 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act allows computer-service providers to disclose 
electronic communications in life-threatening emergencies to 
law enforcement and is scheduled to expire on December 31, 
2005.
    Four witnesses--the Honorable William Moschella, Assistant 
Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Willie Hulon, Assistant Director of the 
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 
Professor Orrin Kerr, Professor of Law at the George Washington 
University Law School; and James X. Dempsey, Executive Director 
of the Center for Democracy and Technology as the witness for 
the Minority--testified.
    This hearing examined section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
that allows computer-service providers to disclose information 
under emergencies that threaten life or limb. To understand the 
effect of section 212, following is an explanation of the 
prohibitions for disclosing stored electronic communications 
that existed before and exist after enactment of the USA 
PATRIOT Act. The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act 
(ECPA) to authorize Government access to e-mail and other 
electronic communications ``in storage.'' Section 2701(a) of 
that chapter makes it a Federal offense to unlawfully access 
stored communications. Subsection (c) of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 
provides exceptions to the prohibitions in (a). Those 
exceptions include conduct authorized by the person or entity 
providing a wire or electronic communications service; conduct 
authorized by a user of that service with respect to a 
communication of or intended for that user; and exceptions 
described in sections 2702, 2703, 2704, and 2518 of title 18.
    Subsection 2702(a) restricts voluntary disclosure of 
customer communications or records, unless the disclosure falls 
under one of the specified exceptions in subsections 2702(b) or 
2702(c). Subsection 2702(b) provides exceptions for disclosure 
of the contents of a communication. Subsection 2702(c) provides 
exceptions for the disclosure of customer records. Under 
section 2702(c) a provider covered by subsection 2702(a) may 
divulge a record or other information pertaining to a 
subscriber to or customer of such service that does not include 
the contents of communications covered by subsections 
2701(a)(1) or (a)(2).
    Section 2703 provides the standards for Government access 
to electronic communications in storage. Section 2703(a) 
requires a search warrant to compel service providers to 
disclose unopened e-mails.
    Sec. 212. Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications 
to Protect Life and Limb. Section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
amended sections 2702 and 2703 of title 18. Prior to enactment 
of the USA PATRIOT Act, there were two basic problems with the 
disclosure rules for stored electronic communications. First, 
the law contained no provision allowing electronic 
communications service providers to voluntarily disclose 
communications when necessary to protect life and limb. Thus, 
``for example, an Internet service provider (``ISP'') 
independently learned that one of its customers was part of a 
conspiracy to commit an imminent terrorist attack, prompt 
disclosure of the account information to law enforcement could 
save lives. Since providing this information did not fall 
within one of the statutory exceptions, however, an ISP making 
such a disclosure could be sued civilly.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Field Guidance on New Authorities That Relate to Computer 
Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), U.S. Dept. of 
Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, while the law allowed communications service 
providers to protect their rights and property by disclosing 
stored communications that contained content, the law did not 
allow them to disclose communications that contained ``non-
content'' records for such protection. Allowing providers to 
disclose content, but not non-content communications, to 
protect their rights and property had, according to the 
Department of Justice, substantially hindered providers' 
ability to protect themselves from cyber-terrorists and 
criminals.
    The USA PATRIOT Act addresses both issues. To resolve the 
first problem addressing life and limb emergencies, section 212 
amends subsection 2702(b) to authorize communications service 
providers to voluntarily disclose the stored ``content'' and 
``non-content'' communications of their customers or 
subscribers if the provider reasonably believes that an 
emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious 
physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the 
information without delay. This language was later amended in 
2002 under the ``Cyber Security Enhancement Act,'' which was 
introduced by Mr. Lamar Smith, then Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ The Cyber Security Enhancement Act was incorporated into the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Cyber Security Enhancement Act contains a section that 
made a conforming amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act to allow 
communications services providers to disclose communications to 
government entities in emergency situations where the provider 
in good faith believes that there is a danger of death or 
physical injury. For customer communications, the USA PATRIOT 
Act creates an exception that allows emergency disclosures to 
``law enforcement,'' when the provider reasonably believes 
there was immediate danger. For customer records, however, the 
USA PATRIOT Act creates a broader exception allowing disclosure 
of such records to ``a governmental entity.'' This section 
changes the emergency exception for disclosing customer 
communications to include other Government agencies, such as 
emergency response personnel, health officials, and the 
Department of Defense. Thus, the provider could contact, for 
instance, the Centers for Disease Control as well as law 
enforcement. It should be noted that section 212 does not 
impose an affirmative obligation to review customer 
communications in search of such imminent dangers.
    As to the second problem regarding property rights of the 
communications services provider, section 212 amends the law to 
allow communications services providers to disclose non-content 
information (such as the subscriber's login records). ``It 
accomplishes this change by two related sets of amendments. 
First, amendments to sections 2702 and 2703 of title 18 
simplify the treatment of voluntary disclosures by providers by 
moving all such provisions to 2702. Thus, section 2702 now 
regulates all permissive disclosures (of content and non-
content records alike), while section 2703 covers only 
compulsory disclosures by providers. Second, an amendment to 
new subsection 2702(c)(3) clarifies that service providers do 
have the statutory authority to disclose non-content records to 
protect their rights and property. All of these changes will 
sunset December 31, 2005.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Field Guidance on New Authorities That Relate to Computer 
Crime and Electronic Evidence Enacted in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), U.S. Dept. of 
Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Tuesday, May 10, 2005, 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

    On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security for the Committee on the 
Judiciary held a hearing on the USA PATRIOT Act. This hearing 
examined the prohibition of material support to terrorists and 
foreign terrorist organizations and the requirement of the 
Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) to report every 
six months on any violations of civil liberties. Four 
witnesses--the Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice; the Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division of the Department of 
Justice; Mr. Barry Sabin, Chief of the Counterterrorism Section 
of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice; and 
Ahilan Arulanantham, Staff Attorney for the American Civil 
Liberties Union of Southern California--testified.
    The hearing focused on section 805(a)(2)(B) of the USA 
PATRIOT Act as amended by section 6603 of the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which covers 
Material Support, and section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
which requires the IG to report to the Congress ever six months 
on whether the IG has found any civil liberty violations.
            A. Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act
    Section 1001 requires the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice to submit a semiannual report. This 
section does not sunset, but does help the Committee understand 
the existence and extent of civil liberty abuses by the 
Department of Justice. Specifically, section 1001 directs the 
IG to investigate claims of civil rights or civil liberties 
violations allegedly committed by the Department of Justice. 
Since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the IG has issued six 
semi-annual reports. In the sixth (and most recent) report, 
which was issued in March 2005, the IG had yet to find any 
violations under the USA PATRIOT Act.
            1. Background
    Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act is based upon a 
proposal that emerged during consideration of anti-terrorism 
legislation by the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee 
report explains, ``In the wake of several significant incidents 
of security lapses and breach of regulations, there has arisen 
the need for independent oversight of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
is currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. This section 
directs the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to 
appoint a Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil 
Liberties. This section also directs the Deputy Inspector to 
review all information alleging abuses of civil rights, civil 
liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by employees of the 
Department of Justice, which could include allegations of 
inappropriate profiling at the border,'' H.Rept. 107-236, at 
78. (2001).
            2. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
    The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the Department 
of Justice is an independent entity that reports to both the 
Attorney General and Congress. The OIG's mission is to 
investigate allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse in DOJ 
programs and personnel and to promote economy and efficiency in 
DOJ operations. The OIG has jurisdiction to review programs and 
personnel in all DOJ components. Since its creation in 1989, 
the OIG has had the authority to conduct audits and inspections 
in all DOJ components and investigations of employee misconduct 
in all components except the FBI and the Drug Enforcement 
Agency (DEA). On July 11, 2001, the Attorney General expanded 
the OIG's jurisdiction to include criminal and administrative 
investigations of FBI and DEA employees.
            3. Section 1001
    Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act provides the following:
    The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
designate one official who shall:
    (1) review information and receive complaints alleging 
abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and 
officials of the Department of Justice;
    (2) make public through the Internet, radio, television, 
and newspaper advertisements information on the 
responsibilities and functions of, and how to contact, the 
official; and
    (3) submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate on a semi-annual basis a report on the implementation of 
this subsection and detailing any abuses described in paragraph 
(1), including a description of the use of funds appropriations 
used to carry out this subsection.
    To undertake the responsibilities designated to the OIG by 
section 1001, the OIG established the Special Operations Branch 
in its Investigations Division to help manage the OIG's 
investigative responsibilities outlined in the USA PATRIOT Act. 
The Special Operations Branch receives civil rights and civil 
liberties complaints via mail, e-mail, telephone, and 
facsimile. Once a complaint is received, it is reviewed by the 
Investigative Specialist and ASAC responsible for USA PATRIOT 
Act complaints. After review, the complaint is entered into an 
OIG database and a decision is made concerning its disposition. 
The more serious civil rights and civil liberties allegations 
that relate to actions of a DOJ employee or contractor are 
assigned to an OIG Investigations Division field office for 
investigation. The OIG has approximately 120 series 1811 
special agents who conduct investigations of criminal 
violations and administrative misconduct. Because of its 
limited resources, the OIG refers some complaints involving DOJ 
employees to internal affairs offices in DOJ components, such 
as the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for appropriate 
handling. Certain referrals require the component to report the 
results of their investigation to the OIG. In most cases, the 
OIG notifies the complainant of the referral. Complaints 
outside the OIG's jurisdiction that identify a specific issue 
for investigation are forwarded to the appropriate 
investigative entity.
    In addition, the OIG has referred complainants to a variety 
of police department internal affairs offices. Since passage of 
the USA PATRIOT Act, the OIG also has been in close 
communication with the DOJ Civil Rights Division's National 
Origin Working Group (NOWG) to Combat the (Post-9/11 
Discriminatory Backlash). The NOWG regularly forwards 
complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties abuses to 
the OIG for review. Many of the complaints forwarded by the 
NOWG are the result of media database searches.
    When an allegation received from any source involves a 
potential violation of Federal civil rights statutes by a DOJ 
employee, the complaint is discussed with the DOJ Civil Rights 
Division for prosecutorial review. In some cases, the Civil 
Rights Division accepts the case and requests additional 
investigation by either the OIG or FBI. In other cases, the 
Civil Rights Division declines prosecution.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Report to Congress on Implementation of Section 1001 of the 
USA PATRIOT Act (as required by Section 1001(3) of Public Law 107-56) 
(Mar. 2005), Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0503/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            4. Complaints Processed This Reporting Period
    From June 22, 2004, through December 31, 2004, the period 
covered by the sixth report, the OIG processed 1,943 complaints 
that were sent primarily to the OIG's section 1001 e-mail or 
postal address. Of these complaints, 1,748 did not warrant 
further investigation or did not fall within the OIG's 
jurisdiction. Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 
complaints made allegations that did not warrant an 
investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that 
Government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with 
a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had 
laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs. The remaining 
one-quarter of the 1,748 complaints in this category involved 
allegations against agencies or entities outside of the DOJ, 
including other Federal agencies, local governments, or private 
businesses. The OIG referred those complaints to the 
appropriate entity or advised complainants of the entity with 
jurisdiction over their allegations.
    Consequently, 195 complaints involved DOJ employees or 
components and made allegations that required further review. 
Of those complaints, 170 raised management issues rather than 
alleged ``civil rights'' or ``civil liberties'' abuses and were 
referred to DOJ components for handling. For example, inmates 
complained about the general conditions at Federal prisons, 
such as the poor quality of the food or the lack of hygiene 
products. Twelve of the 195 complaints did not provide 
sufficient detail to make a determination whether an abuse was 
alleged. The OIG requested further information but did not 
receive responses from any of these 12 complainants. Finally, 
the OIG requested that the BOP investigate one of the 
complaints and report to the OIG on the investigation's 
findings. That complaint involved an inmate who complained that 
he was sexually harassed by a correctional officer. BOP's 
investigation of the matter is ongoing.
    Therefore, after analyzing these 195 complaints, the OIG 
identified 12 matters that the OIG believed warranted opening a 
section 1001 investigation or conducting a closer review to 
determine if section 1001-related abuse occurred. Of the 12 
matters, the OIG retained one for investigation because the 
complainant made allegations of a potentially criminal nature. 
The OIG closed one because the allegations already had been 
addressed in a previous OIG investigation. The OIG referred the 
remaining ten matters, which appeared to raise largely 
administrative issues, to Department components for further 
investigation or review. For six of the ten matters, the OIG 
requested that the components report their findings to the IG.
    None of the complaints the OIG processed during this 
reporting period alleged misconduct by DOJ employees relating 
to the use of a provision in the USA PATRIOT Act.\32\ In 
addition, the IG has not substantiated claims of alleged 
misconduct resulting from the use of a provision of the USA 
PATRIOT Act in any prior report, although one such allegation 
is still under review.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ An OIG investigation relating to Brandon Mayfield is still 
ongoing as of the date of this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            B. Prohibition on Material Support to Terrorists
            1. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
                    1996
    The USA PATRIOT Act did not create the prohibition on 
material support to terrorists and foreign terrorist 
organizations, but did amend that prohibition. It was the 
``Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,'' that 
created prohibitions to sever material support from 
international terrorists. The 1996 Act was in response to the 
Oklahoma City and first World Trade Center terrorist attacks. 
Subtitle A of Title III of the 1996 Act: (1) established the 
procedure under which a foreign organization may be designated 
as a terrorist organization; (2) proscribes providing such an 
organization with ``material support;'' and (3) established a 
system of civil penalties for banks and other financial 
institutions that fail to freeze and report the assets of such 
organizations. \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996: A 
Summary, Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Law Division, 
Congressional Research Service, June 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 302 of the 1996 Act ``established the procedure for 
designating as foreign terrorist organizations those foreign 
organizations that engage in terrorist activities that threaten 
the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests 
of the United States or the security of U.S. nationals, 8 
U.S.C. Sec. 1189. The designation by the Secretary of State 
lasts for up to two years with the possibility of a two-year 
renewal and may be withdrawn by the Secretary or by law. The 
designation is subject to judicial review on behalf of the 
designated organization if it is arbitrary, contrary to law, or 
in excess of authority. The Government may provide any 
supporting classified information to the court in secret. The 
designation may not be contested by a donor subsequently 
prosecuted for support nor by an alien excluded from the United 
States for association. Assets of a designated organization 
held by a financial institution may be frozen by order of the 
Secretary of the Treasury.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 303 of the 1996 Act ``outlaws providing support to 
a foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B. In 
addition to money and the instrumentalities of war, prohibited 
support extends to food, medical supplies, and any other 
physical asset except medicine itself and religious articles, 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A; 142 Cong.Rec. H3334 (daily ed. April 5, 
1996). The fact that a particular contribution is made and used 
for humanitarian purposes is no defense since the gist of the 
offense is contributing to a tainted organization regardless of 
the purpose or use of the contribution. Violations are 
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years and/or a 
fine of not more than $250,000. Financial institutions that 
fail to report or comply with a freeze order are subject to 
civil penalties of up to the greater of twice the amount 
involved or $50,000. The proscriptions apply both in the United 
States and to Americans and American institutions overseas.'' 
\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. The 1998 Challenge to Material Support Prohibition
    Led by the Humanitarian Law Project, six organizations and 
two individuals challenged the constitutionality of the law in 
1998, contending that it violated the First Amendment.
    They argued, among other things, that the law infringed on 
their free-association rights, granted too much discretion to 
the secretary of state and prohibited their First Amendment 
right to seek and donate funds.
    A Federal district court rejected most of the First 
Amendment claims, but ruled the definition of the term 
``material support'' was vague enough to prevent the government 
from enforcing the law.
    On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals agreed in Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno. 
Just as the lower court had, the appeals court cast aside most 
of the First Amendment arguments.
    The court rejected the free-association claim, finding that 
the statute does not prohibit membership in a group or support 
for the political goals of a group. ``What [the law] prohibits 
is the act of giving material support, and there is no 
constitutional right to facilitate terrorism by giving 
terrorists the weapons and explosives with which to carry out 
their grisly missions,'' the court wrote in its March 3 
opinion.
    The plaintiffs contended that the law could be interpreted 
to prohibit the giving of material support to the so-called 
terrorist groups' nonviolent humanitarian and political 
activities.
    However, the 9th Circuit determined that the First 
Amendment did not protect the right to give funds to terrorist 
groups. These ``terrorist groups do not maintain open books,'' 
the court wrote. ``Therefore, when someone makes a donation to 
them, there is no way to tell how the donation is used.''
    The appeals court distinguished between giving material 
support to a group and advocating the beliefs and ideas of a 
group. ``Advocacy is far different from making donations of 
material support,'' the court wrote.
    The appeals court also dismissed the plaintiffs' argument 
that the statute had empowered the secretary of state with 
``unfettered discretion'' to determine whether a group is a 
terrorist organization.
    The 9th Circuit pointed out that the secretary of state can 
only designate a group as a terrorist group if he or she has 
``reasonable grounds to believe that an organization has 
engaged in terrorist acts.''
    However, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs and 
the lower court that some of the law's language was too vague.
    The law defined ``material support'' as:

    Currency or other financial securities, financial services, 
lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or 
identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, 
lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation and 
other physical assets, except medicine or religion.

    The court focused on the terms ``training'' and 
``personnel,'' finding that these terms ``blur[red] the line 
between protected expression and unprotected conduct.''
    ``Someone who advocates the cause of * * * [a terrorist 
organization] * * * could be seen as supplying them with 
personnel,'' the court wrote.
    The appeals court also had trouble with the word 
``training.'' ``For example, a plaintiff who wishes to instruct 
members of a designated group on how to petition the United 
Nations to give aid to their group could plausibly decide that 
such protected expression falls within the scope of the term 
`training.' '' For these reasons, the court ruled that the 
lower court did not ``abuse its discretion'' in issuing a 
preliminary injunction.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Federal appeals panel finds anti-terrorism law 
unconstitutionally vague, David Hudson, First Amendment Center research 
attorney, (April 8, 2000). [emphasis added].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. USA PATRIOT Act Amends the Material Support Provision
    Section 805(a)(2)(B) of the USA PATRIOT Act added the 
phrase ``expert advice or assistance'' to the types of material 
support to terrorists that is banned by the criminal law. Title 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A prohibited providing material support or 
resources to terrorists prior to enactment of the USA PATRIOT 
Act. Prohibition on expert advice or assistance also applies to 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B's prohibition of material support to FTOs. 
The existing definition of ``material support or resources'' 
was not broad enough to encompass expert services and 
assistance--for example, advice provided by a person with 
expertise in aviation matters to facilitate an aircraft 
hijacking, or advice provided by an accountant to facilitate 
the concealment of funds used to support terrorist activities. 
This section accordingly amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A to 
include expert services and assistance, making the offense 
applicable to experts who provide services or assistance 
knowing or intending that the services or assistance is to be 
used in preparing for or carrying out terrorism crimes. This 
also applies to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B.
            4. Challenges to the USA PATRIOT Act Prohibition of 
                    Material Support to Terrorists
            a. December 3, 2003 9th Circuit Decision
    Los Angeles--Civil rights lawyers filed a free-speech 
challenge . . . to a section of the USA Patriot Act that makes 
it illegal to provide ``expert advice and assistance'' to 
groups with alleged links to terrorists.
    The ban is unconstitutionally vague and should be struck 
down, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Right argued 
in a motion filed in Federal court.
    The motion was included in the center's current lawsuit, 
Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, which challenges a 1996 
law that makes it a crime to provide material support to any 
group designated a foreign terrorist organization. Federal 
courts have already struck down portions of that law that 
barred providing personnel or training to terrorist groups, 
saying the provisions were unconstitutionally vague.
    The Patriot Act, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist 
attacks, amended the definition of material support to include 
``expert advice and assistance.''
    The plaintiffs say they want to provide support for lawful, 
nonviolent activities by two groups designated as foreign 
terrorist organizations: the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey 
and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka.
    One of the plaintiffs, Dr. Nagalingam Jeyalangim, would 
like to work as a doctor in his war-torn homeland of Sri Lanka. 
However, because some hospitals are controlled by rebel forces 
there, he fears he could be prosecuted for ``providing material 
support'' to a terrorist group, according to the filing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Patriot Act dealt blow by federal judge, The Associated Press, 
January 26, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Overturns 
                    Circuit's Ruling That the 1996 Terror Financing Law 
                    Was Unconstitutional
    A Federal appeals court reinstated indictments against 
seven Los Angeles residents accused of raising money for a 
terror organization with links to ousted Iraqi ruler Saddam 
Hussein. In a victory for the Bush administration's war on 
terror, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday 
reversed a Los Angeles Federal judge who declared the 1996 
terror financing law unconstitutional.
    The law makes it illegal to funnel money--``material 
support''--to organizations the State Department says are 
linked to terrorism, about 30 groups in all.
    Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government rarely 
used the terror law. Subsequently the administration has used 
the law to win dozens of terror convictions nationwide, from 
Lackawanna, N.Y., to Seattle to Portland, Ore.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    The case stems from a 2001 indictment against the seven 
defendants for allegedly providing several hundred thousand 
dollars to the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which the appeals court said 
``participated in various terrorist activities against the 
Iranian regime'' and ``carried out terrorist activities with 
the support of Saddam Hussein's regime.''
    U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi had invalidated the 
law, saying it did not provide the groups a proper forum to 
contest their terror designations.
    But a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based Federal 
appeals court overruled that decision and went a step further, 
saying individuals accused of supporting the listed groups 
cannot challenge whether the groups should be listed.
    The government, the court said, must prove the ``fact that 
a particular organization was designated at the time the 
material support was given, not whether the government made a 
correct designation.''
    The 9th Circuit decision mirrors a ruling this year by the 
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upholding 
the conviction of a man who funneled money to the militant 
Hezbollah organization while insisting he had a right to 
challenge that group's listing.
    ``The Justice Department is pleased that yet another court 
has upheld the constitutionality of the material-support 
statute, a key weapon in our arsenal of legal remedies in the 
war on terror,'' spokesman John Nowacki said. ``Stopping the 
flow of money and other resources to terrorists is critical to 
our success, and the department will continue to pursue those 
who provide material support for terrorist objectives.''
    The seven Los Angeles defendants said it violated their 
First Amendment rights to be prohibited from contributing money 
to groups they say are not terror organizations. They said they 
should be afforded the right to prove that the group in 
question should not be on the State Department's list.
    Writing for the majority, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld said 
the First Amendment did not protect unlimited speech, and even 
allowed limits on campaign contributions.
    ``It would be anomalous indeed if Congress could prohibit 
the contribution of money for television commercials saying why 
a candidate would be a good or bad choice for political office, 
yet could not prohibit contribution of money to a group 
designated a terrorist organization,'' Kleinfeld wrote.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    According to the indictment, the Los Angeles defendants 
solicited donations at the Los Angeles International Airport 
and wired money to a Mujahedin-e Khalq bank account in Turkey. 
The group had tried unsuccessfully to get removed from the 
terror list.
    No court date has been set for the seven.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ 9th Circuit reinstates terror indictments, the Associated 
Press, December 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            5. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
    Section 6603 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 adds a new crime of material support for 
terrorism for knowingly receiving military training from a 
foreign terrorist organization. The section requires that any 
person charged under this section must have knowledge that the 
organization is a terrorist organization. It also defines the 
term ``military-type training.'' Section 6603 also expands the 
crime of material support to terrorists to include any act of 
international or domestic terrorism.
    Section 6603(c) specifies that any person charged under 
this section must have knowledge that the organization is a 
terrorist organization. It also more clearly defines the term 
``material support.'' The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 attempted to address the court cases 
finding the terms ``training'' and ``personnel'' under the 
prohibition unconstitutionally vague,\40\ and the term ``expert 
advice or assistance'' in material support statute 
unconstitutionally vague.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See Humanitarian Law Project v. United States Department of 
Justice, 352 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2003).
    \41\ Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 112760 (C.D. 
Cal. Jan. 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 
provides more detailed definitions of the terms ``training,'' 
and ``expert advice or assistance'' under section 6603(b); and 
``personnel'' under section 6603(f) by creating new section 
3229B(a)(1)(h) of title 18 that limits the term ``personnel.''
           To address the Ninth Circuit's concern that 
        the term ``training'' is vague and may cover protected 
        First Amendment activity, the Act provides that 
        training includes only instruction or teaching designed 
        to impart a specific skill. This definition addresses 
        the Ninth Circuit's concern that the material support 
        statute could cover imparting general knowledge to a 
        terrorist organization (such as knowledge about 
        international law). It also addresses the Ninth 
        Circuit's concern that the term ``training'' could 
        cover First Amendment protected activity by 
        specifically stating that the statute does not cover 
        such activity.
           To address the Ninth Circuit's concern that 
        the term ``personnel'' is unconstitutionally vague and 
        could be interpreted to cover those independently 
        advocating on behalf of a foreign terrorist 
        organization, the legislation provides that the term 
        ``personnel'' only refers to those either: (1) working 
        under a terrorist organization's direction or control; 
        or (2) managing or supervising the terrorist 
        organization. This definition makes it clear that those 
        independently advocating on behalf of a foreign 
        terrorist organization's goals are not covered by the 
        material support statute.
           To address the Ninth Circuit's concern that 
        the term ``expert advice or assistance'' is vague, the 
        legislation provides that ``expert advice or 
        assistance'' means advice derived from scientific, 
        technical, or other specialized knowledge. This 
        definition is taken from the definition of expertise 
        found in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is well-
        known and well-understood by lawyers and courts. The 
        proposal also addresses the Ninth Circuit's concern 
        that the term ``expert advice or assistance'' could 
        cover First Amendment protected activity by 
        specifically stating that this language does not cover 
        such activity.
    Section 6603(f) contains an exception that ``no person may 
be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term 
`personnel,' `training,' or `expert advice or assistance' if 
the provision of that material support or resources to a 
foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of 
State with the concurrence of the Attorney General.''
    Section 6603(g) also provides that section 6603 sunsets on 
December 31, 2006.
            6. 9th Circuit Lifts 2002 Injunction Protecting Donors to 
                    Terrorist Organizations
    A Federal appeals court yesterday lifted an injunction that 
had barred the government from prosecuting a Los Angeles group 
if it aids organizations labeled as supporting terrorism.
    The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came 
days after President Bush signed legislation overhauling U.S. 
intelligence gathering and terror-enforcement rules. The San 
Francisco-based court said yesterday's decision in Humanitarian 
Law Project v. Dept. of Justice was based partly on the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which 
Bush signed into law on Dec. 17.
    The appeals court, however, did not comment on whether the 
Humanitarian Law Project could ever be prosecuted if it 
provided advice to the Kurdistan Workers' Party or the Tamil 
Tigers Eelam in Sri Lanka.
    The 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit sent the case back to 
the lower courts, wherethe Humanitarian Law Project is expected 
to challenge the new provisions.
    ``The end goal is to get another injunction,'' said David 
Cole, a Georgetown University School of Law scholar who won the 
2002 injunction on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.
    Cole said the group would abide by the court's order.
    The State Department lists the Sri Lanka and Turkey groups 
as terror organizations. That makes it illegal for those in the 
United States to provide financial assistance under a 1996 law 
created in the aftermath of the attack on the Oklahoma City 
Federal building.
    The Humanitarian Law Project was not seeking to give money. 
Rather, it wanted to donate personnel and training time to 
teach the groups about human rights and peacemaking, according 
to court documents.
    The humanitarian group had provided human rights support to 
the Kurdistan party for years before the party was declared a 
terror organization by the United States. The humanitarian 
group challenged the 1996 law in Los Angeles Federal court a 
year later, Cole said.
    The group sought the injunction because it feared its 
members might be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 15 years.
    Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the government rarely 
used the terror law. The administration subsequently has 
employed it to win dozens of terror convictions nationwide, 
from Lackawanna, N.Y., to Seattle and Portland, Ore.
    In 2003, the 9th Circuit said the Humanitarian Law Project 
could donate human rights and peacemaking services because the 
law did not specifically outlaw such assistance. . . .
    The legislation, which creates a national intelligence 
center and the position of national intelligence director, 
makes it illegal to assist the roughly 30 organizations the 
State Department says are linked to terrorism.
    The new law virtually outlaws any form of assistance, 
financial or not.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Yesterday's decision comes a day after a different panel of 
the 9th Circuit reinstated the indictments against seven Los 
Angeles residents accused of raising money for a terror 
organization with links to ousted Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein.
    The group claimed they had a right to challenge whether the 
terror group they were funding--Mujahedin-e Khalq--should be on 
the terror list. The appeals court said the government must 
prove the ``fact that a particular organization was designated 
at the time the material support was given, not whether the 
government made a correct designation.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ 9th Circuit lifts injunction protecting donors, the Associated 
Press, December 22, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. May 26, 2005, Oversight Hearing on Material Witness Provisions of 
        the Criminal Code and the Sections 505 and 804 of the USA 
        PATRIOT Act

    On Thursday, May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security for the Committee on the 
Judiciary held a hearing on material witness provisions of the 
criminal code and sections 505 (related to National Security 
Letters) and 804 (related to jurisdiction over crimes committed 
at U.S. facilities abroad) of the USA PATRIOT Act. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses--Chuck 
Rosenberg, Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General of the 
Department of Justice; Matthew Berry, Counselor to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice; and 
two witnesses for the minority: Gregory Nojeim, Acting Director 
of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil 
Liberties Union; and Shayana Kadidal, Staff Attorney, Center 
for Constitutional Rights.
            A. National Security Letters
            1. What Is a National Security Letter?
    A National Security Letter (NSL) is an administrative 
subpoena that can be used in international counterterrorism or 
foreign counterintelligence investigations. An administrative 
subpoena is an investigative tool that allows the FBI to 
request (compliance varies, see examples) document production 
or testimony without prior approval from a grand jury, court, 
or other judicial entity. Congress grants the administrative 
subpoena power of executive branch entities as well as the 
scope and exercise of these authorities.
            2. Types of National Security Letters
    A NSL can be used under the following circumstances and 
authorities:
           18 U.S.C. Sec. 2709, the Electronic 
        Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), authorizes the FBI 
        to issue NSLs for: (1) telephone subscriber information 
        (limited to name, address, and length of service); (2) 
        telephone local and long distance toll billing records; 
        and (3) electronic communication transactional records.
           12 U.S.C. Sec. 3414(a)(5), the Right to 
        Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), authorizes the FBI to 
        issue NSLs to obtain financial records from banks and 
        other financial institutions.
           15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681u, the Fair Credit 
        Reporting Act (FCRA), authorizes the FBI to issue NSLs 
        to obtain consumer identifying information and the 
        identity of financial institutions from credit bureaus.
           15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681v, Disclosures to 
        governmental agencies for counterterrorism purposes, 
        authorizes the FBI and other agencies to obtain credit 
        reports.
           50 U.S.C. Sec. 436, Requests by authorized 
        investigate agencies, authorizes the FBI and other 
        agencies to obtain financial records.
            3. When Can NSLs Be Issued?
    In addition to the statutory authority set forth above, 
when an NSL can be issued or used is governed by the applicable 
Attorney General Guidelines for FBI National Security 
Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection. NSLs are 
used in international counterterrorism or foreign 
counterintelligence investigations. However, this authority is 
limited further: NSLs issued under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681v (credit 
reports) can only be issued in counterterrorism cases; credit 
reports cannot be obtained for a foreign counterintelligence 
investigation under this section.
    NSLs cannot be used in criminal investigations unrelated to 
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. 
Furthermore, both Executive Order 12333 and the FBI require 
that the FBI accomplish these investigations by the ``least 
intrusive'' means.
            4. Recent Legislative Changes to NSL Authority
          P.L. 107-56, the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' simplified the 
        NSL process. Prior to the Act, an FBI official 
        authorizing the issuance of an NSL had to certify that 
        there were specific and articulable facts that provide 
        a reason to believe that the information sought 
        pertains to a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign 
        power. The USA PATRIOT Act changed this to allow for 
        certification that the NSL is sought for a foreign 
        counterintelligence purpose to protect against 
        international terrorism and clandestine intelligence 
        activities.
    This is consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings on the 
issuance and purpose of administrative subpoenas. Previously 
the signature of a high-ranking official at FBI headquarters 
was required to issue an NSL and the process often took months. 
In many cases, counterintelligence and counterterrorism 
investigations suffered substantial delays while waiting for 
NSLs to be prepared, returned from headquarters, and served. 
The Act streamlines the process for obtaining NSL authority by 
allowing the Director to designate an individual at 
Headquarters, not lower than Deputy Assistant Director, or to 
designate a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office, 
to authorize an NSL.
          The Supreme Court has construed administrative 
        authorities, broadly holding that the ``government need 
        only show that the subpoena was issued for a lawfully 
        authorized purpose and sought information relevant to 
        the agency's inquiry,'' United States v. LaSalle Nat'l 
        Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 313 (1978); United States v. 
        Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 56 (1964); Oklahoma Press 
        Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209 
        (1946).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena 
Authority by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, Pursuant to Pub. 
L. No. 106-544, Section 7, n. 8, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``The Supreme Court has stated in United States v. 
        Morton Salt[, 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950)] that, in 
        evaluating the appropriateness of an administrative 
        subpoena request, a court must simply determine that 
        `the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the 
        demand is not too indefinite and the information sought 
        is reasonably relevant.' '' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena 
Authority by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, Pursuant to Pub. 
L. No. 106-544, Section 7, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           P.L. 108-177, the ``Intelligence 
        Authorization Act for FY 2004,'' amended the Right to 
        Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) (12 U.S.C. Sec. 3401). The 
        Intelligence Authorization Act changed the definition 
        of ``financial institution'' for NSLs to be consistent 
        with the definition of ``financial institution'' used 
        for money laundering under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5312(a)(2). 
        The old definition used for NSLs defined ``financial 
        institution'' to cover any office of a (1) bank; (2) 
        savings bank; (3) card issuer as defined in section 
        1602(n) of title 15; (4) industrial loan company; (5) 
        trust company; (6) savings association; (7) building 
        and loan, or homestead association (including 
        cooperative banks); (8) credit union, or consumer 
        finance institution.
          The money laundering definition under 31 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 5312(a)(2), now applied to NSLs, covers: (1) An 
        insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal 
        Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1813(h))); (2) a 
        commercial bank or trust company; (3) a private banker; 
        (4) an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the U.S.; 
        (5) a credit union; (6) a thrift institution; (7) a 
        broker or dealer registered with the Security and 
        Exchange Commission under the Security Exchange Act of 
        1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 78 et seq.); (8) a broker or 
        dealer in securities or commodities; (9) an investment 
        banker or investment company; (10) a currency exchange; 
        (11) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers' 
        checks, checks, money orders, or similar instruments; 
        (12) an operator of a credit card system; (13) an 
        insurance company; (14) a dealer in precious metals, 
        stones, or jewels; (15) a pawnbroker; (16) a loan or 
        finance company; (17) a travel agency; (18) a licensed 
        sender of money or any other person engaged in the 
        transmission of funds; (19) a telegraph company; (20) a 
        business engaged in vehicle sales, including 
        automobile, airplane, and boat sales; (21) persons 
        involved in real estate closings and settlements; (22) 
        the U.S. Postal Service; (23) an agency of the United 
        States Government or state or local government carrying 
        out a duty or power of a business described in this 
        paragraph; (24) a casino, gambling casino, or gaming 
        establishment with an annual gaming revenue of more 
        than 1 million; (25) any business or agency that 
        engages in any activity that the Secretary of the 
        Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity 
        which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for, 
        any activity in which any business described in this 
        paragraph is authorized to engage; or (26) any other 
        business designed by the Secretary whose case 
        transactions have a high degree of usefulness in 
        criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.
           It should be noted that under the money 
        laundering provision, the Treasury Department also can 
        use an administrative subpoena to get certain 
        information. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5318(a)(4). Moreover, 
        the FBI would usually use a grand jury subpoena (no 
        court needed) to obtain certain information. Finally, 
        the provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 
        2004, Pub. L. No. 108-177, do not change the USA 
        PATRIOT Act.
            5. Previously Proposed Changes to NSLs
           H.R. 3179, the ``Anti-Terrorism Intelligence 
        Tools Improvement Act of 2003,'' (9/25/04) introduced 
        by Representatives Sensenbrenner and Goss in the 108th 
        Congress: The bill would have established a penalty for 
        an individual to disclose that he or she has received a 
        request for information under an NSL and would have 
        authorized the Attorney General to seek judicial 
        enforcement against those refusing to comply with an 
        NSL.
           Under current law, a person is generally 
        prohibited from disclosing that he has received a 
        request for information under an NSL. H.R. 3179 would 
        have added a penalty for such a disclosure, making it a 
        misdemeanor, unless the disclosure was intended to 
        obstruct a terrorism or espionage investigation, then 
        such a disclosure would be subject to imprisonment for 
        not more than five years.
           Currently, no judicial enforcement 
        procedures exist when a recipient of an NSL refuses to 
        comply. H.R. 3179 would have authorized the Attorney 
        General to seek judicial enforcement in NSL cases.
           Statutes granting administrative subpoena 
        authorities usually fall into three enforcement type-
        categories: (1) the statute authorizes an agency to 
        apply directly to an appropriate U.S. District Court 
        for enforcement assistance; (2) the statute requires 
        the agency official to request the Attorney General's 
        aid in applying to a U.S. District Court for 
        enforcement assistance; or (3) the statute contains no 
        identified enforcement mechanism. Some of the statutes 
        granting authority for issuing NSLs contain no 
        enforcement mechanisms.
            6. Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
    In September 2004, the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of New York struck down 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2709, 
the statute authorizing ``national security letters,'' or NSLs, 
for customer records from Internet, telephone, and other 
electronic service providers.
    In Doe v. Ashcroft, the court found that the language of 18 
U.S.C. 2709 and the practices surrounding its use offended (1) 
the Fourth Amendment because ``in all but the exceptional case 
it has the effect of authorizing coercive searches effectively 
immune from any judicial process,'' 334 F.Supp.2d at 506, and 
(2) the First Amendment because its sweeping, permanent gag 
order provision applies ``in every case, to every person, in 
perpetuity, with no vehicle for the ban to ever be lifted from 
the recipient or other persons affected under any 
circumstances, either by the FBI itself, or pursuant to 
judicial process,'' id. at 476. The court concluded that the 
national security letters before it differed from 
administrative subpoenas by want of judicial review either 
before or after ``the seizure'':

          While the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard is 
        permissive in the context of the administrative 
        subpoenas, the constitutionality of the administrative 
        subpoena is predicated on the availability of a neutral 
        tribunal to determine, after a subpoena issued, whether 
        the subpoena actually complies with the Fourth 
        Amendment's demands. In contrast to an actual physical 
        search, which must be justified by the warrant and 
        probable cause requirements occurring before the 
        search, an administrative subpoena ``is regulated by 
        and its justification derives from, [judicial] 
        process'' available after the subpoena is issued.
          Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that an 
        administrative subpoena ``may not be made and 
        enforced'' by the administrative agency; rather, the 
        subpoenaed party must be able to ``obtain judicial 
        review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to 
        suffering penalties for refusing to comply.'' In sum, 
        longstanding Supreme Court doctrine makes clear that an 
        administrative subpoena statute is consistent with the 
        Fourth Amendment when it is subject to ``judicial 
        supervision'' and ``surrounded by every safeguard of 
        judicial restraint.'' 334 F.Supp.2d at 495, quoting 
        inter alia, Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 
        U.S. at 217; See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 544-
        45 (1967).
          By way of emphasizing the troubling sweep of the 
        nondisclosure ban found in 18 U.S.C. 2709(c), the court 
        pointed to legislative proposals in the 108th Congress 
        that might serve as one of several possible models for 
        a more narrowly tailored means of protecting the 
        legitimate governmental interests upon which section 
        2709 rests.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Doyle, Charles, Congressional Research Service RL32880, 
Administrative Subpoenas and National Security Letters in Criminal and 
Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Background and Proposed 
Adjustments Administrative Subpoenas and National Security Letters in 
Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Background and 
Proposed Adjustments. P. 24-25 (April 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            7. Doe v. Ashcroft and H.R. 3179, ``The Anti-Terrorism 
                    Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003''
    In the 108th Congress, Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced 
H.R. 3179, in part to address the fact that some NSL had 
explicit enforcement mechanisms and others did not. The Court 
in Doe v. Ashcroft concluded that there were three problems 
with NSLs: 1) the statute did not clarify whether consulting an 
attorney would violate the prohibition on disclosure under the 
law, 2) the statute contained no explicit provision for the 
Government to seek judicial enforcement, and 3) there was no 
provision imposing penalties against a person who fails to 
comply with an NSL. The Court found that ``H.R. 3179 would have 
addressed two of the issues listed above by explicitly 
providing for judicial enforcement of NSLs and by imposing 
penalties of up to five years' imprisonment for persons who 
unlawfully disclose that they have received an NSL.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            B. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
            1. What Is Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
    Extraterritorial jurisdiction occurs when Federal law 
applies overseas to U.S. citizens and U.S. foreign nationals 
when there is some nexus to the United States, according to the 
Congressional Research Service.

          The Constitution does not forbid either Congressional 
        or state enactment of laws which apply outside the 
        United States. Nor does it prohibit either the Federal 
        government or the states from enforcing American law 
        abroad. In fact, several passages suggest that the 
        Constitution contemplates the application of American 
        law beyond the geographical confines of the United 
        States.\47\ It speaks of ``felonies on the high seas,'' 
        ``offences against the law of nations,'' ``commerce 
        with foreign nations,'' and of the impact of treaties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Doyle, Charles, Congressional Research Service RS21306, 
Terrorism and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Recent 
Developments in Brief. P. 1 (Sept 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Constitution provides the power to enact criminal 
        laws with extraterritorial application. It vests 
        Congress with, among other things, the power ``to 
        regulate commerce with foreign nations * * * to define 
        and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high 
        seas, and offenses against the law of nations * * *'' 
        and gives Congress legislative jurisdiction over places 
        acquired ``for the erection of forts, magazines, 
        arsenals, dock- years, and other needful buildings.''
          The Constitution also limits the manner in which this 
        authority may be exercised. The due process clause of 
        the Fifth Amendment, for instance, bars the 
        extraterritorial application of Federal criminal laws 
        in the absence of a connection between the crime, the 
        defendant, and the United States. Prosecution requires 
        personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject 
        matter jurisdiction over the crime. * * *.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Doyle, Charles, Congressional Research Service RS21306, 
Terrorism and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases: Recent 
Developments in Brief. P. 1 (Sept 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000
    The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act covers 
felonies, committed anywhere overseas, by members of the armed 
forces or those accompanying or employed by the Department of 
Defense, as if they were committed within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3261.\49\ 
While the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act extended 
Federal criminal jurisdiction to Defense Department employees 
and contractors outside the U.S., it does not cover contractors 
working for other agencies. Section 804 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
closed this loophole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Id. At 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Section 804 of the USA PATRIOT Act
    According to the Congressional Research Service:

          [The USA] PATRIOT Act addressed a split in the 
        circuit courts of appeals over whether the Federal laws 
        that outlaw such crimes as murder, rape, and robbery 
        when committed within Federal enclaves in this country 
        also apply on American governmental installations 
        abroad. With the enactment of section 804, they do; at 
        least when either the victim or the offender is a U.S. 
        national. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the dispute 
        centered on the construction of 18 U.S.C. 7(3) which 
        defines the special territorial jurisdiction of the 
        United States. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits held that 
        the definition in subsection 7(3) includes areas in 
        other countries over which the host nation has afforded 
        the United States privileges akin to sovereignty. The 
        Second Circuit held that the subsection is intended to 
        encompass only those areas over which Congress may 
        exercise legislative jurisdiction of the kind 
        ordinarily vested in the Several States.
          Congress resolved the dispute, or at least greatly 
        mitigated its consequences, when it enacted section 804 
        of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military 
        Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. The Military 
        Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act treats felonies, 
        committed anywhere overseas by members of the armed 
        forces or those accompanying or employed by them, as if 
        they were committed within the territorial jurisdiction 
        of the United States, 18 U.S.C. 3261. Section 804 of 
        the USA PATRIOT Act creates a new territorial 
        subsection in 18 U.S.C. 7: the special territorial 
        jurisdiction of the United States includes the overseas 
        business premises of Federal governmental entities and 
        the residences of the members of their staffs, but only 
        for crimes committed by or against Americans (other 
        than those who come within the military extension of 18 
        U.S.C. 3261). The split in the circuits remains of 
        consequence for crimes committed in Federal overseas 
        facilities by foreign nationals who are not associated 
        with the U.S. armed forces. In the Fourth and Ninth 
        Circuits, such crimes may come within the territorial 
        jurisdiction of the United States. In the Second 
        Circuit, they do not.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            C. Material Witness Law
    Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3144 provides that if ``it appears 
from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a 
person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown 
that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the 
person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of 
the person and treat the person in accordance with the 
provisions of section 2142 of this title. No material witness 
may be detained because of inability to comply with any 
condition of release if the testimony of such witness can 
adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention 
is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a 
material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time 
until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to 
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.'' The material witness 
statute is available to both the Government and the defense to 
assure testimony in criminal trials in the interest of justice.
    The statute specifically limits this authority: no material 
witness may be detained if: (1) the witness' testimony can be 
adequately secured by deposition; and (2) further detention is 
not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. However, release 
may be delayed for a reasonable amount of time until the 
material witness' deposition can be taken.
            C. Oversight in the 107th and 108th Congress of the USA 
                    PATRIOT Act
    Due to the concerns that these new authorities could lead 
to civil liberties violations, Congress included reporting 
requirements and a sunset provision. Authorities under sections 
201, 202, 203(b) and (d), 204, 206, 207, 209, 212, 214, 215, 
217, 218, 220, 223 and 225 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 
107-296) expire this year on December 31, 2005.
            1. IG Report Under Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act
    The USA PATRIOT Act contains reporting requirements to 
facilitate ongoing Congressional oversight of the Department of 
Justice and the implementation of the Act. Section 1001 of the 
USA PATRIOT Act requires the Inspector General of the 
Department of Justice to report to the House and Senate 
Committees on the Judiciary on a semi-annual basis on any 
complaints of civil liberties abuses by the Department of 
Justice. In accordance with Section 1001, the Department of 
Justice has sent six reports entitled, ``Report to Congress on 
the implementation of Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act.''
            2. No Evidence of Civil Liberty Violations Has Been 
                    Presented to Congress
    Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein acknowledged the many 
misconceptions surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act at the Senate 
Judiciary Committee's hearing on October 21, 2003, regarding 
Terrorism Prevention Laws.\51\ Senator Feinstein noted that 
despite the fact that 34 states have passed resolutions or 
ordinances against the USA PATRIOT Act mostly due to perceived 
civil rights concerns-she has never had a single abuse of the 
USA PATRIOT Act reported to her. She stated, ``There is a lot 
of public uncertainty about this bill.'' She went on to note: 
``I find it interesting that, of the 21,000 comments I've 
received * * * to have half really against a bill that has 
never come to the Hill is interesting. And to have a 
substantial number relate to the National Entry-Exit 
Registration System, which is not part of the bill, is also 
interesting. Now what I had deduced from this is that there are 
substantial uncertainty--perhaps some ignorance--about what 
this bill actually does do'' \52\ This is interesting but 
understandable, given that every legislative attempt to improve 
national security is labeled ``PATRIOT II'' by groups opposed 
to the USA PATRIOT Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing ``Terrorism Prevention 
Laws'' October 21, 2003, p 15.
    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Feinstein, moreover, has continued to request 
information from the Department of Justice on whether 
violations have occurred. An April 26, 2005 letter responds:

          In a letter dated April 4, 2005, the American Civil 
        Liberties Union (``ACLU'') responded to your March 25 
        request for information regarding alleged ``abuses'' of 
        the USA PATRIOT Act. At your request, the Department of 
        Justice has reviewed the ACLU's allegations. It appears 
        that each matter cited by the ACLU either did not, in 
        fact, involve the USA PATRIOT Act or was an entirely 
        appropriate use of the Act. Thus, the ACLU is mistaken 
        in its assertion in the letter that ``the government 
        has abused and misused the Patriot Act repeatedly'' and 
        its press release, entitled ``Patriot Act Abuses and 
        Misuses Abound,'' that accompanied the letter. * * *'' 
        \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ April 26, 2005, Letter to the Honorable Diane Feinstein from 
William E. Moschella.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Continued Oversight Through Letters to the Department of 
                    Justice
    Furthermore, both the House and the Senate Judiciary 
Committees have conducted continuous oversight. The House 
Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General a letter on June 
13, 2002, with 50 detailed questions on the implementation of 
the USA PATRIOT Act.\54\ The questions were a result of 
extensive consultation between the Majority and Minority 
Committee counsel. Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bryant, 
responded to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Mr. 
Conyers on July 26, 2002, providing lengthy responses to 28 out 
of the 50 questions submitted.\55\ On August 26, 2002, Mr. 
Bryant sent the responses to the remaining questions,\56\ after 
sending responses to six of the questions to the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ June 13, 2002, Letter to the Attorney General from F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., requesting responses to 50 
questions regarding the implementation of the PATRIOT Act.
    \55\ July 26, 2002, Responses from Daniel J. Bryant to F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., to 28 of the 50 questions 
submitted to the Department of Justice on June 13, 2002.
    \56\ August 26, 2002, Responses from Daniel J. Bryant to F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., to the remaining questions 
(six of the responses being sent to the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence) submitted to the Department of Justice on 
June 13, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the Minority 
additional information regarding the Department of Justice's 
responses to these questions.\57\ On April 1, 2003,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ September 20, 2002, Additional information from Daniel J. 
Bryant to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., regarding 
the Department's responses to questions submitted to the Department of 
Justice on June 13, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the Minority 
additional information regarding the Department of Justice's 
responses to these questions.\57\ On April 1, 2003, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers sent a second letter 
to the Department of Justice with additional questions 
regarding the use of pre-existing authorities and the new 
authorities conferred by the USA PATRIOT Act.\58\ Once again, 
the questions were the product of bipartisan coordination by 
Committee counsel. Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jamie E. 
Brown, responded with a May 13, 2003 letter that answered the 
questions she deemed relevant to the Department of Justice and 
forwarded the remaining questions to the appropriate officials 
at the Department of Homeland Security.\59\ On June 13, 2003, 
the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the 
Department of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, sent 
responses to the forwarded questions.\60\ These items are 
posted on the Committee's website and were the subject of 
extensive press coverage.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ September 20, 2002, Additional information from Daniel Bryant 
to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., regarding the 
Department's responses to questions submitted to the Department of 
Justice on June 13, 2002.
    \58\ April 1, 2003, Letter to the Attorney General from F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., regarding the use of 
preexisting authorities and the new authorities conferred by the 
PATRIOT Act.
    \59\ May 13, 2003, Response from Jamie E. Brown to F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., and John Conyers, Jr., to letter sent to the 
Department of Justice on April 1, 2003.
    \60\ June 13, 2003, Responses from Pamela J. Turner at the 
Department of Homeland Security to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., and 
John Conyers, Jr., to questions forwarded from the Department of 
Justice on June 13, 2003.
    \61\ May 20, 2003, Press Release: ``Sensenbrenner/Conyers Release 
Justice Department Oversight Answers Regarding USA PATRIOT Act and War 
on Terrorism''; May 20, 2003, Curt Anderson, ``Fewer than 50 Held 
Without Charges,'' Associated Press Online; May 20, 2003, Curt 
Anderson, ``Government Has Held Fewer Than 50 People as Material 
Witnesses in War on Terror,'' Associated Press Worldstream; May 20, 
2003, ``Sensenbrenner, Conyers Release Justice Department Oversight 
Answers Regarding USA PATRIOT Act, War on Terrorism,'' U.S. Newswire; 
May 21, 2003, Kevin Johnson and Toni Locy, ``Justice Department Reveals 
Tactics Used in Fight Against Terror,'' USA Today; July 22, 2003, Press 
Release: ``Statement Regarding Inspector General's Report on Civil 
Rights/Liberties Complaints''; July 22, 2003, Audrey Hudson, ``US 
Probes PATRIOT Act Complaints, Substantiates Few,'' The Washington 
Times; September 18, 2003, Press Release: ``Sensenbrenner Statement on 
Justice Department's Disclosure of Number of Times Library and Business 
Records have been Sought Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act''; 
September 19, 2003, Audrey Hudson, ``Librarians Dispute Justice's Claim 
on Use of PATRIOT Act,'' The Washington Times; September 24, 2002, 
``Waiting for All the Answers,'' The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Copley 
News Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 20, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Congressman Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, sent a letter to the 
Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) requesting a GAO study of the implementation of the USA 
PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. This report was 
released on June 6, 2005.
    On May 19, 2005, Chairman Sensenbrenner sent a letter to 
Attorney General Gonzales with questions for the record from 
Members of the Committee.\62\ Assistant Attorney General 
Moschella provided responses to 39 of the questions on July 12, 
2005.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ May 19, 2005, Letter to the Attorney General from F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., requesting responses to 44 follow-up questions 
posed during hearings on implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
    \63\ July 12, 2005, Letter to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., from 
William E. Moschella responding to 39 follow-up question on 
implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 19, 2005, Chairman Sensenbrenner also sent a letter 
to Attorney General Gonzales with ten questions on specific 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.\64\ On June 10, 2005 the 
Department responded in a classified letter.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ May 19, 2005, Letter to the Attorney General from F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., requesting responses to 10 questions on provisions 
of the USA PATRIOT Act.
    \65\ June 10, 2005, Letter to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., from 
William E. Moschella responding to 10 questions on provisions of the 
USA PATRIOT Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 1, 2005, Chairman Sensenbrenner sent a letter to 
Attorney General Gonzales requesting additional information on 
behalf of Minority Members of the Committee on the use of the 
USA PATRIOT Act.\66\ On July 12, 2005 Assistant Attorney 
General Moschella responded.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ July 1, 2005, Letter to the Attorney General from F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., requesting responses to 18 follow-up questions 
posed during hearings on implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
    \67\ July 12, 2005, Letter to F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., from 
William E. Moschella responding to 18 follow-up questions posed during 
hearings on implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            4. Continued Oversight Through Hearings
    The House Judiciary Committee also has held hearings as 
part of its ongoing oversight efforts. On May 20, 2003, the 
Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held an oversight 
hearing entitled, ``Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the 
Fourth Amendment After September 11th: Where and When Can 
Government Go to Prevent Terrorist Attacks.'' Then, on June 5, 
2003, the Attorney General testified before the full Committee 
on the Judiciary at an oversight hearing on the United States 
Department of Justice. Both the hearing on May 20 and the 
hearing on June 5 discussed oversight aspects of the USA 
PATRIOT Act.
    The Senate Judiciary Committee has been active in its 
oversight responsibilities regarding the implementation of the 
USA PATRIOT Act as well. The Senate Judiciary Committee held 
hearings on December 6, 2001; April 17, 2002; June 6, 2002; 
July 25, 2002; September 10, 2002; and July 23, 2003; September 
22, 2004; April 5, 2005; and May 10, 2005--all in regard to the 
USA PATRIOT Act or oversight efforts at the Department of 
Justice. Counsel to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security have monitored these activities and are in 
regular contact with their counterparts in the other body.
            5. Continued Oversight Through Briefings
    Further, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security of this Committee requested that officials from the 
Department of Justice appear and answer questions regarding the 
implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. In response to our 
requests, the Department of Justice gave briefings to Members, 
counsel, and staff. During a briefing held on August 7, 2003, 
Department officials covered the long-standing authority for 
law enforcement to conduct delayed searches and collect 
business records, as well as the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act 
on those authorities. During a second briefing, held on 
February 3, 2004, the Department of Justice discussed its views 
of S. 1709, the ``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 
2003,'' and H.R. 3352, the House companion bill, as both bills 
proposed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act.
    The Department of Justice has also provided two classified 
briefings on the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act (FISA) under the USA PATRIOT Act for Members of the 
Judiciary Committee. On June 10, 2003, and October 29, 2003, 
the Justice Department provided these briefings. The Department 
also provided a law enforcement sensitive briefing on FISA to 
the House Judiciary Committee Members and staff on March 22, 
2005 and a classified briefing on June 7, 2005.

                                Hearings

    The full Committee on the Judiciary held 3 days of hearings 
on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act on April 6, June 
8, and June 10 of 2005; and the Committee's Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a total of 9 
hearings on April 19, April 21, April 26, April 28, May 3, May 
5, May 10, and May 26 of 2005. On April 28 the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held two hearings.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 13, 2005, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3199 with amendment by 
a recorded vote of 23 yeas to 14 nays and 2 passes, a quorum 
being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 3199.
    1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Lungren to section 2702 
of title 18. Section 2702 of title 18 was amended by section 
212 of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 to allow Internet service 
providers to voluntarily disclose the contents of electronic 
communications and subscriber information in emergencies 
involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. 
The amendment would require the Attorney General to report 
annually to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate 
and set forth the number of accounts subject to a voluntary 
disclosure under section 212. The report would also have to 
summarize the basis for disclosure in certain circumstances. 
The amendment passed by voice vote.
    2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to amend section 
501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to 
change the current standard necessary for obtaining a section 
215 order to request business records held by third parties to 
require a showing of ``specific and articulable facts giving 
reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain 
is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.'' The 
amendment also would allow the recipient to challenge the order 
and to petition the court to set aside the non-disclosure 
requirement. Theamendment failed by a vote of 12 yeas and 23 
nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment was offered by Mr. Flake to amend section 
8(c) of H.R. 3199 to clarify further that a person can disclose 
to an attorney the receipt of a 215 order not only to respond, 
but to challenge, the order. The amendment passed by voice 
vote.
    4. An amendment was offered by Ms. Waters to amend section 
505 of the USA PATRIOT Act to prohibit the issuance of national 
security letters for records from health insurance companies. 
The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 14 yeas and 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Issa to amend section 
105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 
This section was modified by section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
to authorize roving wiretaps in FISA investigations. The 
amendment will (1) require applications for roving wiretap 
surveillance authority to include specific facts upon which the 
court can make its determination and (2) if the authority is 
granted, require the applicant to notify the court within 10 
days of the initiation of surveillance on a new facility or 
place and to notify the court of the facts and circumstances 
relied upon by the applicant to justify the belief that the 
target would be using each new facility. The amendment passed 
by a recorded vote of 34 yeas and 0 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             34               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to second the 
amendment offered by Mr. Lungren for a 10-year sunset for 
sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The amendment 
would have reduced the 10-year to a 4-year sunset. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 15 yeas and 21 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to second the 
amendment offered by Mr. Lungren for a 10-year sunset for 
sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The amendment 
would have reduced the 10-year to a 6-year sunset. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 9 yeas and 18 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              9              18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment was offered by Mr. Lungren that would 
provide a sunset for sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act. Under the amendment these provisions would expire in 10 
years. This amendment passed by a recorded vote of 26 yeas and 
2 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             26               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler (for himself and 
Ms. Lofgren) to strike section 3 of H.R. 3199. Section 3 
repeals section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act that states 
authorities under sections 201, 202, 203(b) and (d), 204, 206, 
207, 209, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 220, 223, and 225 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-296) expire on December 31, 2005. Mr. 
Lungren's amendment that passed would place a 10-year sunset on 
two of those sixteen provisions. Mr. Nadler's amendment would 
place a 10-year sunset on the remaining fourteen sections. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 21 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment was offered by Mr. Van Hollen (for himself 
and Mr. Conyers) to amend section 2339A(a) of title 18 to 
specify that the transfer of a firearm to an individual whose 
name appears in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization 
File maintained by the Attorney General was under covered. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 15 yeas to 22 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................                              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment was offered by Mr. Schiff to prohibit 
surveillance for planning of terrorist attacks on mass 
transportation. The amendment passed by voice vote.
    12. An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren to amend 
section 2339A of title 18 to specify that the transfer of 50-
caliber sniper weapons to a member of al Qaeda. The amendment 
failed by a recorded vote of 13 yeas to 22 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren to amend 
section 1001 of USA PATRIOT Act to require the Inspector 
General for the Department of Justice to conduct a review of 
material witness detentions under section 3144 of title 18. The 
amendment passed by a recorded vote of 34 yeas to 0 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             34               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment was offered by Mr. Schiff to amend section 
105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to require 
that where the identity of the target of surveillance is not 
known, a specific description is provided of the target. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 15 yeas to 22 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to require that 
when a warrant is executed in a district other than the 
district in which it was issued, a recipient may seek to quash 
that warrant in the district in which it is served, or, if the 
``person is a corporation,'' in any district in the State 
wherein the corporation was incorporated. The amendment failed 
by a recorded vote of 14 yeas to 24 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment was offered en bloc by Mr. Schiff to, 
among other things, extend civil forfeiture in certain 
circumstances to ``trafficking in nuclear, chemical, 
biological, or radiological weapons technology or material;'' 
amend the current definition of ``federal crime of terrorism,'' 
to include new predicate terrorism offenses; and add new 
``wiretap predicates'' under section 2516 of title 18 of the 
Federal criminal code that relate to crimes of terrorism. The 
amendment passed by voice vote.
    17. An amendment was offered by Mr. Schiff to eliminate the 
nondisclosure requirement of a Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court order for business records from a library or 
bookstore, or for medical records, when an individual is a 
citizen of the United States, at the conclusion of 
investigation. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 13 
yeas and 20 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. An amendment was offered by Mr. Wexler to amend section 
2339A(a) of title 18, the material support to terrorists 
provisions of the Federal criminal code, by inserting ``reveals 
any information pertaining to the identity of undercover 
intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources that the 
person has or should have reason to believe would be sufficient 
to be used to identify a United States intelligence 
operative.'' The amendment failed by voice vote.
    19. An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren that no Act of 
Congress shall be construed to suspend habeas corpus. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 14 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt (for himself and 
Ms. Waters) to strike section 8(c) of H.R. 3199 to eliminate 
the nondisclosure requirement of a Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court order for business records in a national 
security case unless law enforcement in an ``application for 
such an order provides specific and articulable facts giving 
the applicant reason to believe that disclosure would result'' 
in adverse affects specified in the amendment. The amendment 
failed by a recorded vote of 13 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to entitle a 
person who prevails on a challenge of the legality of a section 
215 order to reasonable attorneys fees, if any, incurred by the 
person in pursuing the challenge. The amendment failed by a 
recorded vote of 14 yeas to 22 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. An amendment was offered by Mr. Schiff to extend for 3 
years the sunset provision relating to individual terrorists as 
agents of foreign powers. The amendment failed by a recorded 
vote of 14 yeas to 22 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to provide 
notice of a physical search or surveillance if the subject of 
such search or surveillance is a United States person who is 
not an agent of a foreign power. The amendment failed by a 
recorded vote of 10 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             10              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. An amendment was offered by Mr. Flake (for himself and 
Mr. Nadler) to section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18 to clarify a 
reasonable period of time for notice of a search warrant to 
with a period of time of up to 180 days, with extensions of up 
to 90 day increments. The amendment passed by voice vote.
    25. An amendment was offered by Mr. Conyers to create a 
statutory suppression rule for electronic surveillance and to 
require increased reporting. The amendment failed by a recorded 
vote of 14 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler that would amend 
the laws governing national security letters to require the 
government to demonstrate why the request should not be 
disclosed. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 14 yeas 
to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to amend section 
105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to require 
surveillance may be directed at a place or facility only for 
such time as the applicant believes that such facility or place 
is being used, or about to be used by the target of the 
surveillance. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 13 
yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. An amendment was offered by Mr. Schiff that would 
require public disclosure of the use of national security 
letters. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 15 yeas and 
21 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee that would 
amend section 501(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act to exclude medical records from the types of 
business records a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 
order may seek. The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 12 
yeas to 24 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             12              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. An amendment was offered by Mr. Van Hollen to require 
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to review 
the progress of the development of procedures established by 
the Terrorist Screening Center for the removal of misidentified 
individuals from the Terrorist Screening Database. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 15 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             15              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to authorize 
disclosure of the receipt of a national security letter to 
qualified persons, as defined by the amendment. The amendment 
failed by a recorded vote of 16 yeas to 23 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             16              23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to broaden the 
exemption in the prohibition of providing material support to 
terrorists to also cover ``medical services, drinking water, 
food, children's clothing, educational supplies or services, 
and other humanitarian materials and services that could not be 
diverted to military ends'' to terrorists. The amendment failed 
by a recorded vote of 7 yeas to 31 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              7              31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to require 
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to review 
the use of any investigative authority under the Attorney 
General Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprises 
and Domestic Security/Terrorism Investigations beyond those 
approved by Attorney General Dick Thornburg in March 21, 1989. 
The amendment failed by a recorded vote of 13 yeas to 25 nays.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................                              X
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................                              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13              25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. An amendment was offered by Nadler (for himself and Mr. 
Scott) to amend the statutes authorizing national security 
letters regarding judicial review. The amendment failed by 
voice vote.
    35. Motion to report H.R. 3199, as amended was agreed to by 
a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 14 nays and 2 pass.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                                           Pass
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................                              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................                              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................                                           Pass
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Van Hollen..................................................                              X
Ms. Wasserman Schultz...........................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             23              14          2 Pass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 3199, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                     July 18, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3199, the USA 
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3199--USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 
        2005

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3199 would have no 
significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill 
could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates 
that any such effects would not be significant.
    The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-56), as well as the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
(Public Law 108-458), expanded the powers of federal law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate and 
prosecute terrorist acts. H.R. 3199 would permanently authorize 
certain provisions of these acts, many of which will otherwise 
expire on December 31, 2005. In addition, the bill would make 
several other changes to the laws relating to investigations of 
potential terrorist activity.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 3199 
could be subject to civil and criminal fines, the federal 
government might collect additional fines if the legislation is 
enacted. Collections of civil fines are recorded in the budget 
as revenues. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, then 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. CBO 
expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would 
not be significant because of the relatively small number of 
cases affected.
    Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
excludes from the application of that act any legislative 
provisions that are necessary for national security. CBO has 
determined that the provisions of this bill are either excluded 
from UMRA because they are necessary for the national security 
or they contain no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates.
    On July 18, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
3199 as ordered reported by the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence on July 13, 2005. The two versions of 
the bill are similar and the cost estimates are identical.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
3199, will continue to provide enhanced law enforcement and 
intelligence investigative tools and improved information 
sharing while protecting civil liberties. By clarifying the 
authority provided under the USA PATRIOT Act and by eliminating 
much of the sunset provision in that Act and the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevent Act, this bill provides certainty 
in the Federal criminal law, ensures that the metaphorical 
``Wall'' is not rebuilt and thus information sharing can 
continue to improve between law enforcement and the 
Intelligence Community, and maintains the advancements in law 
enforcement technology to investigate and thwart terrorist and 
criminal activities.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The section-by-section represents the bill as reported by 
the Committee on the Judiciary.

Section 1. Short Title

    This Act would be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' Because the Act would 
repeal sunsets under the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the title refers 
to both Acts.

Section 2. References to PATRIOT Act

    This section states that for this Reauthorization Act, the 
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate 
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism shall be 
referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act.

Section 3. Repeal of USA PATRIOT Act sunset provision

    This section repeals section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act 
that stated authorities under sections 201, 202, 203(b) and 
(d), 204, 207, 209, 212, 214, 217, 218, 220, 223 and 225 of the 
USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-296) would expire this year on 
December 31, 2005. The provision sunsetting sections 206 and 
215 is extended until December 31, 2015.
    The twelve hearings provided evidence that parts of the USA 
PATRIOT Act needed to be clarified, as Attorney General 
Gonzales and other Department of Justice officials have 
testified. However, witnesses did not provide any evidence that 
the Government or law enforcement was abusing the authorities 
of the USA PATRIOT Act to the Congress or to the Department of 
Justice Inspector General. The IG, as required by section 1001 
of the USA PATRIOT Act, has issued 6 semiannual reports and has 
not found abuse by Department of Justice employees of these new 
authorities.

Section 4. Repeal of sunset of Individual Terrorists as Agents of 
        Foreign Powers

    Section 4 of this bill repeals section 6001(b) of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). 
Section 6001(b) sunsets section 6001 of IRTPA, which provided a 
additional definition for ``Agent of a Foreign Power,'' to 
cover the ``lone wolf'' under 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1). Section 
1801(b)(1) defined ``Agent of a foreign power'' for any person 
other than a United States person, who--
          (A) acts in the United States as an officer or 
        employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a 
        foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this 
        section;
          (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which 
        engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the 
        United States contrary to the interests of the United 
        States, when the circumstances of such person's 
        presence in the United States indicate that such person 
        may engage in such activities in the United States, or 
        when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in 
        the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires 
        with any person to engage in such activities;
    Section 6001 of the IRTPA added new subparagraph C to the 
definition, which states ``Agent of a foreign power'' for any 
person other than a United States person, includes a person who 
``engages in international terrorism or activities in 
preparation thereof;''.
    Section 6001(b) addressed oversight concerns about the 
provision, by applying the USA PATRIOT Act sunset to the 
provision so that definition sunsets on December 31, 2005.

Section 5. Repeal of sunset provision relating to section 2332B and the 
        Material Support sections of Title 18, United States Code

    This section repeals section 6603(g) of the IRTPA, which 
would sunset section 6603, the ``Additions to Offense of 
Providing Material Support to Terrorism''. This sunset is 
problematic in many respects. First, it sunsets a criminal 
offense and not a law enforcement tool and, second, the sunset 
would effectively make the underlying provision 
unconstitutional. Section 805(a)(2)(B) of the USA PATRIOT Act 
was amended by section 6603 of the IRTPA of 2004, which covers 
the prohibition against providing material support to 
terrorists. The changes made in the IRTPA actually addressed 
court concerns on the constitutionality of the Federal crime of 
providing material support to terrorists.
    On May 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held a hearing on the material support 
provision as enhanced by the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and the 
IRTPA of 2004. The ban on providing material support to 
terrorists pre-dates the USA PATRIOT Act, as it was created in 
1996 in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The 
1996 Act, in part, was in response to the Oklahoma City and 
first World Trade Center terrorist attacks and made it illegal 
to knowingly provide material support to a group designated as 
a Foreign Terrorist Organization, better known as an FTO.
    In 1998 a group, led by the Humanitarian Law Project, 
challenged the constitutionality of the ban, arguing it the 
violated the First Amendment. Both the 9th Circuit District 
Court and the Appeals Court rejected most of the First 
Amendment claims. The Appeals Court, for instance, rejected the 
free-association claim, finding that the statute does not 
prohibit membership in a group or support for the political 
goals of a group. The Appeals Court pointed out that ``What 
[the law] prohibits is the act of giving material support, and 
there is no constitutional right to facilitate terrorism by 
giving terrorists the weapons and explosives with which to 
carry out their grisly missions.''
    The 9th Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs' contention 
that the law could be interpreted to prohibit the giving of 
material support to the so-called terrorist groups' nonviolent 
humanitarian and political activities, concluding that the 
First Amendment did not create a right to give funds to 
terrorist groups. Money is fungible and the Court recognized 
that ``when someone makes a donation to [terrorist groups], 
there is no way to tell how the donation is used.''
    The Court did find that the language was too vague in 
areas, and focused on the terms ``training'' and ``personnel.'' 
The 9th Circuit also found in another case that the term 
``expert advice or assistance'' was unconstitutionally vague. 
``Expert advice or assistance'' is language from the USA 
PATRIOT Act. Congress corrected these vagueness problems with 
section 6603 of the IRTPA of 2004.
    On December 21, 2004, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court 
recognized this correction in lifting an injunction that had 
barred the Government from prosecuting a Los Angeles group, if 
the group aided organizations classified as supporting 
terrorism. According to an Associated Press story dated 
December 22, 2004, the Court ``said [its December 21] decision 
in Humanitarian Law Project v. Dept. of Justice was based 
partly on the IRTPA of 2004, which [President] Bush signed into 
law on [December 17, 2004].''

Section 6. Sharing of electronic, wire, and oral interception 
        information

    Section 6 responds to concerns that additional judicial 
oversight was needed for the sharing of criminal wiretap 
information to the Intelligence Community. Section 6 of the Act 
amends section 2517(6) of title 18, which was added by section 
203(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring that ``an officer or 
attorney who makes a disclosure under this subsection shall, 
within a reasonable time after that disclosure, notify the 
court that issued the wiretap order that such information was 
shared.'' The Department of Justice stated at one of the many 
hearings on the USA PATRIOT Act that they could ``take [such a 
proposal] under consideration and have a discussion about 
[it].'' But ``[w]ith respect to 203(d), relating to that 
sharing of information, [it] would put an unreasonable burden 
in terms of how we seek to exchange the information in a task 
force [i.e., JTTF and NTTC] approach.''
    On April 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 
and Homeland Security held a hearing on Section 203, which 
facilitates effective sharing of information collected through 
the use of criminal wiretaps, grand juries, and other criminal 
investigations, with Executive Branch officials. To protect 
privacy, the USA PATRIOT Act: (1) limited such disclosures to 
foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, as 
defined by statute; (2) restricted disclosure to officials with 
a need to know in performance of official duties; and (3) 
retained the limitations on public or other unauthorized 
disclosure. Prior to passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the law 
hampered law enforcement from sharing information with or 
receiving information from other Government agencies outside of 
law enforcement that might nevertheless relate to terrorist 
activities or national security.
    Section 203(b) deals with information obtained through a 
criminal wiretap. The section amended section 2517 of title 18 
to allow law enforcement officials to share foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of 
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign 
intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of 
section 2510 of this title) obtained through a criminal wiretap 
with law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, 
national defense, or national security personnel for use only 
as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties 
subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of 
such information. The language in the USA PATRIOT Act is 
similar to section 103 of H.R. 2975, the PATRIOT Act that the 
House Judiciary Committee reported favorably with unanimous 
consent.
    While some argued that the Committee should require similar 
notice to a court with regard to section 203(d), which 
authorizes the sharing of information from a criminal 
investigation, the Committee concluded that such a change would 
effectively eliminate the ability of law enforcement and anti-
terrorism task forces--such as the Joint Terrorism Task Forces 
(JTTFs)--to operate. Much of that information used by these 
task forces is not under a court order requiring notice. To 
require notice defeats the purpose of section 203(d) and would 
create a statutory ``wall'' preventing vital information from 
being shared.

Section 7. Duration of FISA of Non-United States persons

    Prior to enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Government 
had 90 days to carry out surveillance and 45 days to conduct a 
physical search under a FISA court order before seeking an 
extension. Because it often takes longer than these established 
periods to get on the premises or to conduct electronic 
surveillance, and the delay in applying for an extension or 
reapplying for a new order posed a threat to national security. 
To address this problem, the USA PATRIOT Act added 30 days to 
the authorized period for surveillance from 90 days to 120 
days. It also extended the period for physical searches from 45 
days to 90 days.
    Attorney General Gonzalez requested at the April 6, 2005, 
hearing before the Full Committee that section 207 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act be amended. He stated: ``Another important FISA-
related Patriot Act provision is Section 207. Prior to this 
law, the Justice Department invested considerable time 
returning to court to renew existing orders. Section 207 
substantially reduced this investment of time by increasing the 
maximum time duration for FISA, electronic surveillance, and 
physical search orders.''
    The Department of Justice estimates that the enactment of 
section 207 has saved nearly 60,000 attorney hours, or 30 
lawyers a year's of work. According to the Justice Department, 
this estimate did not account for time saved by FBI agents, 
administrative staff, and the judiciary. This section of H.R. 
3199 would extend the maximum duration of orders for electronic 
surveillance and physical search targeted against agents of 
foreign powers who are not United States persons. Specifically, 
initial orders authorizing searches and electronic surveillance 
would be for periods of up to 120 days, and renewal orders 
would extend for periods of up to one year.
    The USA PATRIOT Act did not amend the permissible duration 
of orders for pen register and trap and trace surveillance 
under FISA. The current duration of initial and renewal orders 
for installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace 
device is for a period not to exceed 90 days. This section 
would extend the maximum duration of both initial and renewal 
orders for pen register and trap and trace surveillance, in 
cases where the Government certified that the information 
likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not 
concerning a United States person, for a period of one year.
    This section would allow the United States and the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court to focus more scrutiny on 
applications for surveillance involving United States persons. 
This section would also allow intelligence officials to spend 
more time investigating potential terrorist or espionage 
activity by non-U.S. persons, rather than wasting valuable time 
returning to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to 
extend surveillance against such persons that had already been 
authorized. Indeed, the Department of Justice estimates that 
had these proposals been included in the USA PATRIOT Act, the 
Department would have saved 25,000 attorney hours. These ideas 
were specifically endorsed in the recent report of the WMD 
Commission, which said that the amendments would allow the 
Department both to ``focus their attention where it is most 
needed'' and maintain the current level of oversight paid to 
cases implicating the civil liberties of Americans.

Section 8. Access to certain business records under section 501 of FISA

    Section 7 of the bill would clarify that a recipient of a 
215 order may consult with a lawyer and the appropriate people 
necessary to respond to the order. The section would also 
clarify that the FISA order may be challenged.
    Additionally, the language amends section 215 to clarify 
that the court has discretion to issue an order. The amending 
language states that ``if a judge finds that the application 
meets the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the judge 
shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, 
approving the release of records.'' The current language is 
unclear with respect to the discretion it provides to judges 
because it states that the ``judge shall'' issue an order and 
later mentions that this order will only be issued ``if the 
judge finds that the requirements have been met.'' The language 
does not clearly specify what those requirements, so the 
language in H.R. 3199 does.
    As was highlighted by the hearings held by this Committee, 
for years prior to and since enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
law enforcement could obtain records from all manner of 
businesses through grand jury issued subpoenas. Section 215 of 
the USA PATRIOT Act created similar authority, but with more 
stringent requirements. Section 215 authorizes the FISA court 
the discretion to issue an order for business records related 
to ``international terrorism and clandestine intelligence 
activities.'' These judicial orders conceivably could be issued 
to bookstores or libraries, but section 215 does not single 
them out. Section 215 has a very narrow scope that can only be 
used (1) ``to obtain foreign intelligence information not 
concerning a United States person''; or (2) ``to protect 
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 
activities.'' 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b)(2).
    FBI agents cannot obtain records under section 215 unless 
they receive a court order. Grand jury subpoenas, by contrast, 
do not require judicial approval. Agents cannot use section 215 
to unilaterally compel libraries or any other entity to turn 
over their records. Agents must obtain such documents only by 
appearing before the FISA court and convincing the court that 
these business records are needed. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b). 
Additionally, section 215 goes to great lengths to preserve the 
First Amendment rights of libraries, their patrons, and other 
affected entities as it expressly provides that the FBI cannot 
conduct investigations ``of a United States person solely on 
the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States.'' 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(a)(2). 
Section 215 provides for thorough congressional oversight; 
every six months, the Attorney General is required to ``fully 
inform'' Congress on 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. See 50 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1862.

Section 9. Report relating to emergency disclosures under section 212 
        of the USA PATRIOT Act

    This section would amend section 2702 of title 18, as 
amended by section 212 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 212 
allowed Internet service providers to voluntarily disclose the 
contents of electronic communications as well as subscriber 
information in emergencies involving immediate danger of death 
or serious physical injury. To address concerns that this 
authority, in certain circumstances, is not subject to adequate 
congressional, judicial or public oversight (particularly in 
situations where the authority is used but criminal charges do 
not result) the amendment would require the Attorney General to 
report annually to the Judiciary Committees of the House and 
Senate and set forth the number of accounts subject to a 
section 212 disclosure. The report would also have to summarize 
the basis for disclosure in certain circumstances. The 
Committee believes this would strengthen oversight on the use 
of thisauthority without undermining important law enforcement 
prerogatives, and without tipping off perpetrators while simultaneously 
preserving the vitality of this life saving authority.

Section 10. Specificity and notification for roving surveillance under 
        the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

    Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act enabled use of roving 
wiretaps in FISA investigations. The Amendment would require 
intelligence investigators to notify to the FISA Court within 
10 days each time it initiates surveillance on a new 
communications facility pursuant to a FISA roving wiretap. By 
requiring that the FISA Court be regularly informed on an 
ongoing basis for all multi-point wiretaps, the Amendment would 
address Members' concerns that the open-ended authorization to 
surveil new locations could be abused. The Amendment does this 
by providing an extra layer of judicial review and ensures that 
intelligence investigators will not abuse the multi-point 
authority. This approach is superior in the FISA context (where 
surveillance is often long-running and subject to extensive and 
sophisticated counter-surveillance measures) than a proximity 
test or ascertainment requirement that could endanger an 
investigation or field agents conducting the investigation.

Section 11. Prohibition on planning terrorist attacks on mass 
        transportation

    This section amends section 1993a of title 18 of the 
Federal Criminal code that protects against Terrorist attacks 
and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems. 
Section 1993 of title 18 covers attacks on mass transportation 
systems but did not cover the planning for such attacks. This 
provision closes that loophole and makes it a crime to 
``surveil, photograph, videotape, diagram, or to otherwise 
collect information with the intent to plan or assist in 
planning any of the acts described'' in paragraphs (1)-(5) of 
section 1993a.

Section 12. Enhanced review of material witness detention

    This section would amend section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act to require the Inspector General for the Department of 
Justice to conduct a review of material witness detentions 
under section 3144 of title 18.

Section 13. Forfeiture

    The USA PATRIOT Act amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981 to expressly 
provide that any property used to commit or facilitate the 
commission of, derived from, or otherwise involved in a Federal 
crime of terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331) is 
subject to civil forfeiture provisions. Prior to the USA 
PATRIOT Act, only the ``proceeds'' of a crime of terrorism were 
subject to civil forfeiture provisions. This amendment would 
extend forfeiture to ``trafficking in nuclear, chemical, 
biological, or radiological weapons technology or material,'' 
after ''activities''.

Section 14. Predicate offenses

    This section amended the current definition of ``federal 
crime of terrorism,'' to include new predicate offenses. This 
list of predicate offenses is referenced by other sections of 
the Act, and certain provisions of the Act are made applicable 
to offenses appearing on this list. This section adds crimes 
relating to military-type training from a foreign terrorist 
organization; and relating to nuclear and weapons of mass 
destruction threats.

Section 15. Wiretap predicates

    ``Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2510-2522 (1994 & Supp. II 
1996), requires the government, unless otherwise permitted, to 
obtain an order of a court before conducting electronic 
surveillance. The government is permitted to seek such orders 
only in connection with the investigation of the criminal 
offenses enumerated in section 2516 of title 18.'' \68\ This 
section added new ``wiretap predicates'' under section 2516 of 
title 18 of the Federal criminal code that relate to crimes of 
terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ October 17, 2000, Memorandum for the Counsel, Office of 
Intelligence Policy and Review, U.S. DOJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 16. Defines reasonable period of delay under the USA PATRIOT 
        Act

    Contrary to reports, the USA PATRIOT Act did not create 
delayed notice search warrants. Delayed notice search warrants 
have been used for decades prior to enactment of the USA 
PATRIOT Act. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held in 
Dalia v. United States that the Fourth Amendment does not 
require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the 
execution of a search warrant.\69\ The Department of Justice 
states that three Federal courts of appeals had considered the 
constitutionality of delayed-notice search warrants since 1979 
and upheld their constitutionality.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ See Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979); see also Katz 
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
    \70\ April 4, 2005 U.S. Department of Justice letter to Senator 
Spector. p. 3 citing See United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th 
Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); 
United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A delayed notice search warrant simply means that a court 
has expressly authorized investigations to delay notifying a 
suspect that a search warrant has been executed (i.e., a court-
ordered search has occurred). The search warrant is the same 
regardless of when the suspect receives notice. Thus, before a 
search warrant is issued, whether notice is delayed or not, a 
Federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe 
the property to be searched or seized constitutes evidence of a 
criminal offense.
    Congress included section 213 in the USA PATRIOT Act to 
create a uniform nationwide standard for the issuance of these 
warrants. Under section 213 there are limited circumstances 
when a court may delay notice. These circumstances are the same 
predicate circumstances permitted in an application for 
delaying notice in a search warrant for stored communications 
under section 2705(a)(2) of title 18, which predated the USA 
PATRIOT Act. For a court to permit a delay in the notice of a 
search of a suspect's property, the investigator or prosecutor 
must show that there is reasonable cause to believe that if the 
suspect is notified at the same time as the search one of the 
following situations may occur:
         notification would endanger the life or 
        physical safety of an individual;
         notification would cause flight from 
        prosecution;
         notification would result in destruction of, 
        or tampering with, evidence;
         notification would result in intimidation of 
        potential witnesses; or
         notification would cause serious jeopardy to 
        an investigation or unduly delay a trial.
    Section 213 permits delay limited only by a reasonableness 
requirement. Members are concerned by this seemingly open-ended 
term. This Amendment would permit delays for up to 180 days, 
and would enable orders to be renewable in up to 90 day 
increments.

            Changes in Existing Law by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no changes 
are proposed is shown in roman):

USA PATRIOT ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 224. SUNSET.

  [(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
title and the amendments made by this title (other than 
sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 
221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall 
cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.
  [(b) Exception.--With respect to any particular foreign 
intelligence investigation that began before the date on which 
the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have 
effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential 
offense that began or occurred before the date on which such 
provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue 
in effect.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 1001. REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

  The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
designate one official who shall--
          (1)(A) review information and receive complaints 
        alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by 
        employees and officials of the Department of Justice, 
        and (B) review detentions of persons under section 3144 
        of title 18, United States Code, including their 
        length, conditions of access to counsel, frequency of 
        access to counsel, offense at issue, and frequency of 
        appearance before a grand jury;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



 TITLE I--ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         DESIGNATION OF JUDGES

      Sec. 103. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) Three judges designated under subsection (a) who 
reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia, or if all 
of such judges are unavailable, other judges of the court 
established under subsection (a) as may be designated by the 
Presiding Judge of such court (who is designated by the Chief 
Justice of the United States from among the judges of the 
court), shall comprise a petition review panel which shall have 
jurisdiction to review petitions filed pursuant to section 
501(f)(1).
  (2) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 
2005, the court established under subsection (a) shall develop 
and issue procedures for the review of petitions filed pursuant 
to section 501(f)(1) by the panel established under paragraph 
(1). Such procedures shall provide that review of a petition 
shall be conducted ex parte and in camera and shall also 
provide for the designation of an Acting Presiding Judge.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER

      Sec. 105. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) An order approving an electronic surveillance under this 
section shall--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) direct--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) that, upon the request of the applicant, 
                a specified communication or other common 
                carrier, landlord, custodian, or other 
                specified person, or in circumstances [where 
                the Court finds] where the Court finds, based 
                upon specific facts provided in the 
                application, that the actions of the target of 
                the application may have the effect of 
                thwarting the identification of a specified 
                person, such other persons, furnish the 
                applicant forthwith all information, 
                facilities, or technical assistance necessary 
                to accomplish the electronic surveillance in 
                such a manner as will protect its secrecy and 
                produce a minimum of interference with the 
                services that such carrier, landlord, 
                custodian, or other person is providing that 
                target of electronic surveillance;
                  (C) that such carrier, landlord, custodian, 
                or other person maintain under security 
                procedures approved by the Attorney General and 
                the Director of National Intelligence any 
                records concerning the surveillance or the aid 
                furnished that such person wishes to retain; 
                [and]
                  (D) that the applicant compensate, at the 
                prevailing rate, such carrier, landlord, 
                custodian, or other person for furnishing such 
                aid[.]; and
                  (E) that, in the case of electronic 
                surveillance directed at a facility or place 
                that is not known at the time the order is 
                issued, the applicant shall notify a judge 
                having jurisdiction under section 103 within 10 
                days after electronic surveillance begins to be 
                directed at a new facility or place, and such 
                notice shall contain a statement of the facts 
                and circumstances relied upon by the applicant 
                to justify the belief that the facility or 
                place at which the electronic surveillance is 
                or was directed is being used, or is about to 
                be used, by the target of electronic 
                surveillance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) An order issued under this section may approve an 
electronic surveillance for the period necessary to achieve its 
purpose, or for ninety days, whichever is less, except that (A) 
an order under this section shall approve an electronic 
surveillance targeted against a foreign power, as defined in 
section 101(a), (1), (2), or (3), for the period specified in 
the application or for one year, whichever is less, and (B) an 
order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against an 
agent of a foreign power[, as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A)] 
who is not a United States person may be for the period 
specified in the application or for 120 days, whichever is 
less.
  (2) Extensions of an order issued under this title may be 
granted on the same basis as an original order upon an 
application for an extension and new findings made in the same 
manner as required for an original order, except that (A) an 
extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance 
targeted against a foreign power, a defined in section 101(a) 
(5) or (6), or against a foreign power as defined in section 
101(a)(4) that is not a United States person, may be for a 
period not to exceed one year if the judge finds probable cause 
to believe that no communication of any individual United 
States person will be acquired during the period, and (B) an 
extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance 
targeted against an agent of a foreign power [as defined in 
section 101(b)(1)(A)] who is not a United States person may be 
for a period not to exceed 1 year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   TITLE III--PHYSICAL SEARCHES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER

  Sec. 304. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) An order issued under this section may approve a 
physical search for the period necessary to achieve its 
purpose, or for 90 days, whichever is less, except that (A) an 
order under this section shall approve a physical search 
targeted against a foreign power, as defined in paragraph (1), 
(2), or (3) of section 101(a), for the period specified in the 
application or for one year, whichever is less, and (B) an 
order under this section for a physical search targeted against 
an agent of a foreign power [as defined in section 
101(b)(1)(A)] who is not a United States person may be for the 
period specified in the application or for 120 days, whichever 
is less.
  (2) Extensions of an order issued under this title may be 
granted on the same basis as the original order upon an 
application for an extension and new findings made in the same 
manner as required for the original order, except that an 
extension of an order under this Act for a physical search 
targeted against a foreign power, as defined in section 101(a) 
(5) or (6), or against a foreign power, as defined in section 
101(a)(4), that is not a United States person, or against an 
agent of a foreign power [as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A)] 
who is not a United States person, may be for a period not to 
exceed one year if the judge finds probable cause to believe 
that no property of any individual United States person will be 
acquired during the period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    TITLE IV--PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND 
                 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS

  Sec. 402. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) An] (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an order 
issued under this section shall authorize the installation and 
use of a pen register or trap and trace device for a period not 
to exceed 90 days. Extensions of such an order may be granted, 
but only upon an application for an order under this section 
and upon the judicial finding required by subsection (d). The 
period of extension shall be for a period not to exceed 90 
days.
  (2) In the case of an application under subsection (c) where 
the applicant has certified that the information likely to be 
obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a 
United States person, an order, or an extension of an order, 
under this section may be for a period not to exceed one year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 TITLE V--ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                                PURPOSES

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                    AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Each application under this section--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) shall specify that the records concerned are 
        sought for an authorized investigation conducted in 
        accordance with subsection (a)(2) [to obtain foreign 
        intelligence information not concerning a United States 
        person or to protect against international terrorism or 
        clandestine intelligence activities.] and that the 
        information likely to be obtained from the tangible 
        things is reasonably expected to be (A) foreign 
        intelligence information not concerning a United States 
        person, or (B) relevant to an ongoing investigation to 
        protect against international terrorism or clandestine 
        intelligence activities.
  [(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, 
the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as 
modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds 
that the application meets the requirements of this section.]
  (c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, if 
the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of 
subsections (a) and (b), the judge shall enter an ex parte 
order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of 
records.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than 
those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under 
this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
sought or obtained tangible things under this section.]
  (d)(1) No person shall disclose to any person (other than a 
qualified person) that the United States has sought or obtained 
tangible things under this section.
  (2) An order under this section shall notify the person to 
whom the order is directed of the nondisclosure requirement 
under paragraph (1).
  (3) Any person to whom an order is directed under this 
section who discloses that the United States has sought to 
obtain tangible things under this section to a qualified person 
with respect to the order shall inform such qualified person of 
the nondisclosure requirement under paragraph (1) and that such 
qualified person is also subject to such nondisclosure 
requirement.
  (4) A qualified person shall be subject to any nondisclosure 
requirement applicable to a person to whom an order is directed 
under this section in the same manner as such person.
  (5) In this subsection, the term ``qualified person'' means--
          (A) any person necessary to produce the tangible 
        things pursuant to an order under this section; or
          (B) an attorney to obtain legal advice with respect 
        to an order under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) A person receiving an order to produce any tangible 
thing under this section may challenge the legality of that 
order by filing a petition in the panel established by section 
103(e)(1). The Presiding Judge shall conduct an initial review 
of the petition. If the Presiding Judge determines that the 
petition is frivolous, the Presiding Judge shall immediately 
deny the petition and promptly provide a written statement of 
the reasons for the determination for the record. If the 
Presiding Judge determines that the petition is not frivolous, 
the Presiding Judge shall immediately assign the petition to 
one of the judges serving on such panel. The assigned judge 
shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with 
procedures developed and issued pursuant to section 103(e)(2). 
The judge considering the petition may modify or set aside the 
order only if the judge finds that the order does not meet the 
requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the 
judge does not modify or set aside the order, the judge shall 
immediately affirm the order and order the recipient to comply 
therewith. A petition for review of a decision to affirm, 
modify, or set aside an order by the United States or any 
person receiving such order shall be to the court of review 
established under section 103(b), which shall have jurisdiction 
to consider such petitions. The court of review shall 
immediately provide for the record a written statement of the 
reasons for its decision and, on petition of the United States 
or any person receiving such order for writ of certiorari, the 
record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, 
which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
  (2) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be 
concluded as expeditiously as possible. The judge considering a 
petition filed under this subsection shall provide for the 
record a written statement of the reasons for the decision. The 
record of proceedings, including petitions filed, orders 
granted, and statements of reasons for decision, shall be 
maintained under security measures established by the Chief 
Justice of the United States in consultation with the Attorney 
General and the Director of National Intelligence.
  (3) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed under 
seal, and the court, upon the government's request, shall 
review any government submission, which may include classified 
information, as well as the government's application and 
related materials, ex parte and in camera.

[Effective December 31, 2015, section 3(b) of H.R. 3199 as reported by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, provides that the Foreign Intelligence 
  Surveillance Act of 1978 is amended so that sections 501, 502, and 
           105(c)(2) read as they read on October 25, 2001.]

                          ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER

      Sec. 105. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) An order approving an electronic surveillance under this 
section shall--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) direct--
                  (A) that the minimization procedures be 
                followed;
                  (B) that, upon the request of the applicant, 
                a specified communication or other common 
                carrier, landlord, custodian, or other 
                specified person furnish the applicant 
                forthwith all information, facilities, or 
                technical assistance necessary to accomplish 
                the electronic surveillance in such a manner as 
                will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum 
                of interference with the services that such 
                carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person 
                is providing that target of electronic 
                surveillance;
                  (C) that such carrier, landlord, custodian, 
                or other person maintain under security 
                procedures approved by the Attorney General and 
                the Director of National Intelligence any 
                records concerning the surveillance or the aid 
                furnished that such person wishes to retain; 
                and
                  (D) that the applicant compensate, at the 
                prevailing rate, such carrier, landlord, 
                custodian, or other person for furnishing such 
                aid.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                    AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

  (a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or 
a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than 
Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for 
an order requiring the production of any tangible things 
(including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) 
for an investigation 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.
  (2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
          (A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the 
        Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a 
        successor order); and
          (B) not be conducted of a United States person solely 
        upon the basis of activities protected by the first 
        amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  (b) Each application under this section--
          (1) shall be made to--
                  (A) a judge of the court established by 
                section 103(a); or
                  (B) a United States Magistrate Judge under 
                chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who 
                is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of 
                the United States to have the power to hear 
                applications and grant orders for the 
                production of tangible things under this 
                section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
          (2) shall specify that the records concerned are 
        sought for an authorized investigation conducted in 
        accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign 
        intelligence information not concerning a United States 
        person or to protect against international terrorism or 
        clandestine intelligence activities.
  (c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the 
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as 
modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds 
that the application meets the requirements of this section.
  (2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it 
is issued for purposes of an investigation described in 
subsection (a).
  (d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than 
those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under 
this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
  (e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things 
under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to 
any other person for such production. Such production shall not 
be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other 
proceeding or context.

SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

  (a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully 
inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
House of Representatives and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the 
production of tangible things under section 402.
  (b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide 
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with 
respect to the preceding 6-month period--
          (1) the total number of applications made for orders 
        approving requests for the production of tangible 
        things under section 402; and
          (2) the total number of such orders either granted, 
        modified, or denied.
                              ----------                              


Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     TITLE VI--TERRORISM PREVENTION

     Subtitle A--Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers

    SEC. 6001. INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN 
POWERS.
  [(a) In General.--Section] Section 101(b)(1) of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(C) engages in international terrorism or 
                activities in preparation therefore; or''.
  [(b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 
subject to the sunset provision in section 224 of Public Law 
107-56 (115 Stat. 295), including the exception provided in 
subsection (b) of such section 224.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle E--Criminal History Background Checks

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    SEC. 6603. ADDITIONS TO OFFENSE OF PROVIDING MATERIAL 
SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.
  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) Sunset Provision.--
          [(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), this section and the amendments made by this 
        section shall cease to be effective on December 31, 
        2006.
          [(2) Exception.--This section and the amendments made 
        by this section shall continue in effect with respect 
        to any particular offense that--
                  [(A) is prohibited by this section or 
                amendments made by this section; and
                  [(B) began or occurred before December 31, 
                2006.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 46--FORFEITURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 981. Civil forfeiture

  (a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the 
United States:
          (A)  * * *
          (B) Any property, real or personal, within the 
        jurisdiction of the United States, constituting, 
        derived from, or traceable to, any proceeds obtained 
        directly or indirectly from an offense against a 
        foreign nation, or any property used to facilitate such 
        an offense, if the offense--
          (i) involves trafficking in nuclear, chemical, 
        biological, or radiological weapons technology or 
        material, or the manufacture, importation, sale, or 
        distribution of a controlled substance (as that term is 
        defined for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act), 
        or any other conduct described in section 
        1956(c)(7)(B);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 97--RAILROADS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass 
                    transportation systems

  (a) General prohibitions.--Whoever willfully--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) conveys or causes to be conveyed false 
        information, knowing the information to be false, 
        concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or 
        to be made, to do any act which would be a crime 
        prohibited by this subsection; [or]
          (8) surveils, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, or 
        otherwise collects information with the intent to plan 
        or assist in planning any of the acts described in the 
        paragraphs (1) through (7); or
          [(8)] (9) attempts, threatens, or conspires to do any 
        of the aforesaid acts,

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 113B--TERRORISM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) the term ``Federal crime of terrorism'' means an 
        offense that--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) is a violation of--
                          (i) section 32 (relating to 
                        destruction of aircraft or aircraft 
                        facilities), 37 (relating to violence 
                        at international airports), 81 
                        (relating to arson within special 
                        maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 
                        175 or 175b (relating to biological 
                        weapons), 175c (relating to variola 
                        virus), 229 (relating to chemical 
                        weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or 
                        (d) of section 351 (relating to 
                        congressional, cabinet, and Supreme 
                        Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 
                        (relating to nuclear materials), 832 
                        (relating to nuclear and weapons of 
                        mass destruction threats), 832 
                        (relating to participation in nuclear 
                        and weapons of mass destruction threats 
                        to the United States) 842(m) or (n) 
                        (relating to plastic explosives), 
                        844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and 
                        bombing of Government property risking 
                        or causing death), 844(i) (relating to 
                        arson and bombing of property used in 
                        interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating 
                        to killing or attempted killing during 
                        an attack on a Federal facility with a 
                        dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating 
                        to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or 
                        maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) 
                        (relating to protection of computers), 
                        1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as 
                        defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through 
                        (v) (relating to protection of 
                        computers), 1114 (relating to killing 
                        or attempted killing of officers and 
                        employees of the United States), 1116 
                        (relating to murder or manslaughter of 
                        foreign officials, official guests, or 
                        internationally protected persons), 
                        1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 
                        (relating to government property or 
                        contracts), 1362 (relating to 
                        destruction of communication lines, 
                        stations, or systems), 1363 (relating 
                        to injury to buildings or property 
                        within special maritime and territorial 
                        jurisdiction of the United States), 
                        1366(a) (relating to destruction of an 
                        energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or 
                        (d) (relating to Presidential and 
                        Presidential staff assassination and 
                        kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking 
                        trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist 
                        attacks and other acts of violence 
                        against mass transportation systems), 
                        2155 (relating to destruction of 
                        national defense materials, premises, 
                        or utilities), 2156 (relating to 
                        national defense material, premises, or 
                        utilities), 2280 (relating to violence 
                        against maritime navigation), 2281 
                        (relating to violence against maritime 
                        fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to 
                        certain homicides and other violence 
                        against United States nationals 
                        occurring outside of the United 
                        States), 2332a (relating to use of 
                        weapons of mass destruction), 2332b 
                        (relating to acts of terrorism 
                        transcending national boundaries), 
                        2332f (relating to bombing of public 
                        places and facilities), 2332g (relating 
                        to missile systems designed to destroy 
                        aircraft), 2332h (relating to 
                        radiological dispersal devices), 2339 
                        (relating to harboring terrorists), 
                        2339A (relating to providing material 
                        support to terrorists), 2339B (relating 
                        to providing material support to 
                        terrorist organizations), 2339C 
                        (relating to financing of terrorism, 
                        2339D (relating to military-type 
                        training from a foreign terrorist 
                        organization), or 2340A (relating to 
                        torture) of this title;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND 
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2516. Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic 
                    communications

  (1) The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate 
Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting 
Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Criminal Division specially designated by the Attorney General, 
may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent 
jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with 
section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving 
the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having 
responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which 
the application is made, when such interception may provide or 
has provided evidence of--
          (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (c) any offense which is punishable under the 
        following sections of this title: section 37 (relating 
        to violence at international airports), section 175b 
        (relating to biological agents or toxins) section 201 
        (bribery of public officials and witnesses), section 
        215 (relating to bribery of bank officials), section 
        224 (bribery in sporting contests), subsection (d), 
        (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of section 844 (unlawful use 
        of explosives), section 1032 (relating to concealment 
        of assets), section 1084 (transmission of wagering 
        information), section 751 (relating to escape), section 
        832 (relating to nuclear and weapons of mass 
        destruction threats), section 842 (relating to 
        explosive materials), section 930 (relating to 
        possession of weapons in Federal facilities), section 
        1014 (relating to loans and credit applications 
        generally; renewals and discounts), section 1114 
        (relating to officers and employees of the United 
        States), section 1116 (relating to protection of 
        foreign officials), sections 1361-1363 (relating to 
        damage to government buildings and communications), 
        section 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy 
        facility), sections 1503, 1512, and 1513 (influencing 
        or injuring an officer, juror, or witness generally), 
        section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations), 
        section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law 
        enforcement), section 1591 (sex trafficking of children 
        by force, fraud, or coercion), section 1751 
        (Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, 
        kidnapping, and assault), section 1951 (interference 
        with commerce by threats or violence), section 1952 
        (interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid 
        of racketeering enterprises), section 1958 (relating to 
        use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission 
        of murder for hire), section 1959 (relating to violent 
        crimes in aid of racketeering activity), section 1954 
        (offer, acceptance, or solicitation to influence 
        operations of employee benefit plan), section 1955 
        (prohibition of business enterprises of gambling), 
        section 1956 (laundering of monetary instruments), 
        section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary 
        transactions in property derived from specified 
        unlawful activity), section 659 (theft from interstate 
        shipment), section 664 (embezzlement from pension and 
        welfare funds), section 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or 
        television), section 1344 (relating to bank fraud), 
        section 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks against 
        mass transportation), sections 2155 and 2156 (relating 
        to national-defense utilities), sections 2280 and 2281 
        (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 
        sections 2251 and 2252 (sexual exploitation of 
        children), section 2251A (selling or buying of 
        children), section 2252A (relating to material 
        constituting or containing child pornography), section 
        1466A (relating to child obscenity), section 2260 
        (production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor 
        for importation into the United States), sections 2421, 
        2422, 2423, and 2425 (relating to transportation for 
        illegal sexual activity and related crimes),sections 
        2312, 2313, 2314, and 2315 (interstate transportation 
        of stolen property), section 2321 (relating to 
        trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
        parts), section 2340A (relating to torture), section 
        1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1029 
        (relating to fraud and related activity in connection 
        with access devices), section 3146 (relating to penalty 
        for failure to appear), section 3521(b)(3) (relating to 
        witness relocation and assistance), section 32 
        (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft 
        facilities), section 38 (relating to aircraft parts 
        fraud), section 1963 (violations with respect to 
        racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations), 
        section 115 (relating to threatening or retaliating 
        against a Federal official), section 1341 (relating to 
        mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 
        (relating to computer fraud and abuse), section 351 
        (violations with respect to congressional, Cabinet, or 
        Supreme Court assassinations, kidnapping, and assault), 
        section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions 
        involving nuclear materials), section 33 (relating to 
        destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle 
        facilities), section 175 (relating to biological 
        weapons), section 175c (relating to variola virus), 
        section 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), a felony 
        violation of section 1028 (relating to production of 
        false identification documentation), section 1425 
        (relating to the procurement of citizenship or 
        nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to 
        the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship 
        papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of 
        naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1541 
        (relating to passport issuance without authority), 
        section 1542 (relating to false statements in passport 
        applications), section 1543 (relating to forgery or 
        false use of passports), section 1544 (relating to 
        misuse of passports), or section 1546 (relating to 
        fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other 
        documents);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (p) a felony violation of section 1028 (relating to 
        production of false identification documents), section 
        1542 (relating to false statements in passport 
        applications), section 1546 (relating to fraud and 
        misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, section 
        1028A (relating to aggravated identity theft)) of this 
        title or a violation of section 274, 277, or 278 of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (relating to the 
        smuggling of aliens); or
          (q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating 
        to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 
        2332d, 2332f, 2332g, 2332h 2339, 2339A, 2339B, or 2339C 
        2339D of this title (relating to terrorism); or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2517. Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, 
                    oral, or electronic communications

  (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney 
for the Government, who by any means authorized by this 
chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, 
oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived 
therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law 
enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national 
defense, or national security official to the extent that such 
contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence 
(as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 
(50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as 
defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to 
assist the official who is to receive that information in the 
performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who 
receives information pursuant to this provision may use that 
information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's 
official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized 
disclosure of such information. Within a reasonable time after 
a disclosure of the contents of a communication under this 
subsection, an attorney for the Government shall file, under 
seal, a notice with a judge whose order authorized or approved 
the interception of that communication, stating the fact that 
such contents were disclosed and the departments, agencies, or 
entities to which the disclosure was made.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      CHAPTER 121--STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND 
TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Report.--On an annual basis, the Attorney General shall 
submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and the 
Senate a report containing--
          (1) the number of accounts from which the Department 
        of Justice has received voluntary disclosures under 
        subsection (b)(8); and
          (2) a summary of the basis for disclosure in those 
        instances where--
                  (A) voluntary disclosure under subsection 
                (b)(8) was made to the Department of Justice; 
                and
                  (B) the investigation pertaining to those 
                disclosures was closed without the filing of 
                criminal charges.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 205--SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 3103a. Additional grounds for issuing warrant

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Delay.--With respect to the issuance of any warrant or 
court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to 
search for and seize any property or material that constitutes 
evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the 
United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to 
be given may be delayed if--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such 
        notice within a reasonable period [of its] , which 
        shall not be more than 180 days, after its execution, 
        which period may thereafter be extended for additional 
        periods of not more than 90 days each by the court for 
        good cause shown.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                             JULY 13, 2005

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present, and without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee during 
consideration of noticed bills. Hearing none, so ordered.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, we are having trouble hearing you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Excuse me. Pursuant to notice, I 
now call up the bill H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' for purposes of 
markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. 
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open 
for amendment at any point. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The bill, H.R. 3199, follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair now recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes to explain the bill.
    Today we are marking up H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT and 
Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' in the wake 
of deadly and tragic terrorist attacks. Last week, innocent 
people in London were murdered in a series of coordinated 
attacks executed with ruthless precision. And last year, Spain 
was victimized by similar acts of terrorism directed at mass 
transit. We pray for the innocent victims and their families of 
these recent attacks and stand firmly with them in their time 
of grief.
    Though the terrorists' goal is to shake the foundation of 
our democracies, these heinous acts have only strengthened our 
resolve to defeat them. I believe that both Congress and the 
Bush administration deserve credit for reacting quickly to take 
the terrorist threat head on by providing the hard-working men 
and women of law enforcement, the intelligence community, and 
our armed services with the tool they need to prevent another 
attack here at home. The PATRIOT Act was one important 
initiative.
    While many, including myself, continue to be wary of the 
Government having any more authority than absolutely necessary, 
we must view attacks as an important reminder that the specter 
of terrorism remains a clear and present danger to free nations 
around the world, and that we are still very much at war 
against an enemy that will do anything in its power to kill 
innocent citizens.
    I strongly believe that we must not take any steps that 
might compromise the ability of law enforcement to thwart 
future acts of terrorism. Accordingly, the legislation that I 
have introduced and we consider here today will permanently 
extend the important antiterrorism tools contained in the 
PATRIOT Act.
    This bill is based upon 4 years of extensive oversight 
consisting of hearing testimony, Inspector General reports, 
briefings, and oversight letter. The materials on the left side 
of the clerk's table over there show the Committee's efforts to 
engage in aggressive oversight. Since April of this year alone, 
the Committee has heard testimony from 35 witnesses during 11 
hearings on the PATRIOT Act. That testimony and oversight has 
demonstrated that the PATRIOT Act has been an effective tool 
against terrorists as well as criminals intent on harming 
innocent people and, therefore, deserves to be extended 
permanently, subject to several modifications contained in the 
bill.
    While there should continue to be a healthy public debate 
on how best to ensure the safety of our citizens, the security 
of the American people should not be subject to arbitrary 
expiration dates and should not provide an excuse for divisive 
partisan debates or political fundraising. To address concerns 
that judicial--judicial oversight is necessary when criminal 
wiretap information was shared with the intelligence community, 
the bill would amend current law to require that an officer or 
attorney who makes a disclosure under this subsection within a 
reasonable time after that disclosure notify the court that 
issued the wiretap order that such information was shared.
    Based upon concerns expressed by the Commission on Weapons 
of Mass Destruction, the bill extends the duration of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order for non-United 
States persons. DOJ estimates that the enactment of Section 207 
has saved nearly 60,000 attorney hours or 30 lawyers a year's 
worth of work.
    Finally, this bill addresses Section 215, which has been 
inaccurately characterized by many and, as a result, has 
unnecessarily caused much public consternation. While I 
recognize the good intentions of those voting to limit the 
authority of Section 215, I am concerned that limitations only 
make Americans more vulnerable to terrorism.
    This bill amends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to clarify 
that the information likely to be obtained is reasonably 
expected to be foreign intelligence information not concerning 
a U.S. person or information relevant to an ongoing 
investigation to protect against international terrorism or 
clandestine intelligence activities.
    The legislation would also clarify that a FISA 215 order 
may be challenged and that a recipient of a 215 order may 
consult with the lawyer and the appropriate people necessary to 
respond to the order.
    Finally, the bill expressly clarifies that an order will 
only be issued if the judge finds that the requirements have 
been met and sets up a judicial review process that authorizes 
the judge to set aside or affirm a 215 order has been changed.
    As Chairman of this Committee, I have made every effort to 
strike an appropriate balance between liberty and security. 
This bill reflects this balance and is the product of 
comprehensive and bipartisan legislative consideration. I urge 
that the bill be approved, and I recognize the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to see 
my colleagues back after the strenuous All Star Game in Detroit 
yesterday evening, which required me to get up a 4 o'clock. But 
might I ask unanimous consent for the gentlelady from Texas, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, to speak for 1 minute out of order because she 
is going to be leaving to return there for some very important 
activity that's going on.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. This is a very important day. I thank you 
very much, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Chairman. Because of my 10-year 
membership on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the 
Science Committee, I will be attending the restoration of human 
Space Shuttle flight in Florida today and will be in and out 
and not at my desk. I recognize that our Nation is looking at a 
very important step, and today, of course, that step is looking 
at the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
    I look forward to the debate in the days to come, and I 
remind my colleagues that I know that this is a Nation of laws, 
but it is also a Nation of liberty, and the PATRIOT Act must 
reflect that liberty.
    I thank my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that any 
additional statement may be put into the record for this 
Committee.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and the Chair 
will reset the clock for the gentleman from Michigan, who is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Members of the Committee, we begin the important 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, but I don't think this 
discussion can proceed correctly unless we acknowledge that the 
PATRIOT Act that the Committee passed 36-0 was suspended and 
pulled out of the Rules Committee and replaced with a bill that 
no one on the Committee that I know of had seen before it came 
from the Rules Committee. So we're working under an extremely 
serious abuse of process on a measure of this magnitude.
    Nevertheless, my comments divide into three categories: 
first of all, there's the 16 sunset provisions which we are 
called to re-examine; the second are problems with the PATRIOT 
Act that were not the object of sunset provisions, some of 
which we were afforded hearings, at least one, maybe two, to 
deal with these problems with the PATRIOT Act; and the third 
category that I would bring to your attention, my colleagues, 
is the abuses of process that are not within the PATRIOT Act 
but could easily be confused for being part of the PATRIOT Act, 
some because of the secrecy of the way some of these things are 
handled by the administration, the Department of Justice, the 
FBI. Sometimes you can't tell whether it's PATRIOT Act or not.
    So let me just point out a couple of the problems in the 
sunsetting provisions. Section 206 and 215 leap out at us as we 
review this matter. The roving wiretaps, Section 206, which 
allows surveillance orders which specify neither person nor 
place to be surveilled. It's a roving wiretap, a John Doe 
roving wiretap, and we essentially do not address this measure 
to my satisfaction.
    The second matter is the Section 215 that allows the FBI to 
get an order, a secret order, for anything from anyone whenever 
they ask a secret court. The bill has a convoluted proposal 
that falls far short of satisfactory protecting the civil 
liberties of our citizenry.
    Now, within the PATRIOT Act itself, I bring your attention 
to the material support statute which makes criminals out of 
people who give money to charities or volunteer their services 
with no intention to ever help terrorists, and if it turns out 
that there is a mistake made, this helps them get prosecuted. I 
object to this.
    Section 213, the infamous sneak-and-peek provision, which 
gives unprecedented authority to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to go into a citizen's home or business without 
telling him or her for indefinite periods of time. The bill 
does not satisfactorily address this matter.
    And then there is the national security letters, which have 
no judicial review, compel people to turn over sensitive 
records, and gags them from even discussing their situation 
with a lawyer.
    We also have the problem of administrative subpoenas. 
Administrative subpoenas circuit--get around the regular 
process of subpoenas in which a court reviews them, and they're 
issued by the Department of Justice. And so I think this is a 
very big problem.
    May I point out in closing that the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired 
and without objection is recognized for an additional minute.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the Chair.
    There are some non-PATRIOT Act abuses that are still--that 
should be the subject of our concerns, and one is the abuse and 
torture of detainees at at least three places in the Western 
hemisphere, and other places, actually, of violence, abuse, 
harassment, which violates the Geneva Convention and the 
Convention Against Torture.
    Then we have the abuse of the immigration system to deny 
due process rights and indefinitely detain people within the 
borders; the use of racial profiling, which has rounded up 
thousands of Middle Eastern and Muslim men with no known effect 
of preventing terrorism; weeks, months later, they are 
released. They're frequently held incommunicado from their 
family or counsel. And, finally, the abuse of the material 
witness statute to detain those who the Department may not 
having anything else to hold them on, and so they hold them as 
a material witness.
    All of these are issues I hope we will be able to consider 
in the course of this markup, and I thank the Chair for the 
additional time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once 
again expired. Without objection, all members may insert 
opening statements in the record at this point.
    Are there amendments?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, for 
what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, recently I wrote a letter complaining about 
having a full Committee markup without a hearing on the bill or 
a Subcommittee mark. As the gentleman from Michigan has pointed 
out, the last time we considered the PATRIOT Act, we considered 
a bill, did hard work, but after all the hard work had been 
done, they switched versions and we considered on the floor 
something other than what we had considered.
    Here we had extensive hearings in general, but none on the 
bill itself. There's been no opportunity for the public to have 
input on the bill or to prepare amendments to the bill as 
introduced.
    Now, it was my understanding from the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee that we would have hearings on the bill, and we 
wrote a letter--I haven't received a response. Perhaps if I 
yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, he could explain 
what his understanding was about a hearing on the bill after it 
had been introduced. Wasn't it our understanding that there 
would be a hearing? I yield.
    Mr. Coble. If the gentleman would yield, this is a case of 
first impression because the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia and I have gotten along very harmoniously and will 
continue to do so. But, Mr. Scott, I don't recall that. I don't 
recall that I indicated any subsequent hearing on this bill.
    You will recall, Mr. Scott and colleagues, that our 
Subcommittee hosted nine hearings on this matter. The full 
Committee, as best I recall, Mr. Chairman, hosted two or three, 
I think three, giving a total of 12 hearings. And, Mr. Scott, 
if that was your impression, I think you misunderstood me 
because I don't recall having said that.
    Mr. Scott. Well, apparently I did--reclaiming my time, 
apparently I did misunderstand because it was my understanding 
that we would, after all those hearings, have a hearing on the 
bill. Obviously that's not the case, and, Mr. Chairman, I just 
want to register my complaint that we are not having a hearing 
or a Subcommittee mark on a bill that is extremely complex and 
I think could benefit from a hearing on the bill so that the 
public could have input and a Subcommittee mark so that many of 
the more controversial areas could be identified. But obviously 
that's not going to be the case, and we'll do the best we can 
under this procedure.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate--begin by 
associating myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Virginia, and I believe I joined in sending that letter. But I 
want to go a little further or a little differently.
    It's not just that we haven't had a hearing on the bill. We 
had extensive hearings, and I want to commend the Chairman and 
the Committee for holding extensive hearings on the general 
subject matter. But the Chairman's mark, that is to say, the 
bill that we have before us that we're going to be dealing 
with, was only made available to anyone, I think, late Friday. 
And as I said 4 years ago--and the Chairman and I engaged in a 
colloquy on the floor 4 years ago on this subject--this is the 
kind of bill of a complex nature and a sensitive and delicate 
nature where we are balancing a very, very legitimate and 
pressing and compelling need for promoting the security of the 
people of this Nation with equally compelling need for 
preserving the liberties of the people of this Nation. And we 
have to do a bill that does both and balances it to the best of 
our ability.
    And when the bill came out 4 years ago, this bill was only 
in print, as I recall, Wednesday at 10 o'clock, and we started 
debating at 11 o'clock and voted at 1 o'clock. And I said at 
that time that this is the kind of bill that, because of the 
sensitive balancing nature, should be available to the public. 
We should send it out to the law schools, to the Civil 
Liberties Union, to the American Conservative Union, to other 
people, get their comments on the text, get their suggested 
amendments, not just those that our staff dreams up in 2 days, 
but get--vet this in public, vet this through the various 
experts around the country, and then go into a markup.
    We were told 4 years ago we didn't have time, that if we 
waited a week, there would be blood on our hands. The Chairman 
on the floor said it was true that we were doing this in great 
haste, but the ideas in this bill have been around a long time. 
I said on the floor, yeah, the ideas have been around a long 
time, good ideas, bad ideas, mediocre ideas, and which ideas 
have gotten into the bill and to what extent wasn't clear since 
we haven't had a chance to read it.
    Now, there is no commensurate rush. This bill is not 
expiring tomorrow. Nothing expires until the end of the year. 
So I would--I had suggested, and I still believe that since 
nobody saw this mark, this bill until Friday night, we should 
take a week or two--a week and mark up the bill a week later so 
that people in the country at large--the Civil Liberties Union, 
the Conservative Union, the various libertarian groups, the law 
schools, everybody has a chance to look at this text, look at 
proposed amendments. There's no reason why we shouldn't make 
proposed amendments from both sides of the aisle available, and 
get people's comments. Why should we legislate in a vacuum as 
if all wisdom resides in this room?
    Now, I will concede a considerable amount of wisdom does 
reside in this room on both sides of the aisle, but not always, 
though. So I would--it may be a little late at this point, but 
I would hope that we wouldn't finish work on this this week. We 
really should put it off for at least a week because we should 
give the country a chance to express itself--not the entire 
country but interested parties, law school professors, as I 
have said before, people, law enforcement people, civil 
liberties people, an opportunity to look at this bill, not just 
at the concept, not just at the existing law, but at the bill, 
and at the suggested amendments and express themselves. We 
might get some better ideas, and maybe that would reduce the 
number of amendments that we feel compelled to offer. Maybe it 
would increase it. Who knows? But we might legislate in a more 
informed manner.
    And since this bill does not expire until the end of the 
year, there's not a rush. There is plenty of business on the 
floor to keep the floor busy. And, in fact, because of the--I 
will say, the efficient manner in which the leadership of this 
House has conducted business this year, we're way ahead of the 
Senate. We're going to have to wait for them anyway. We've done 
all the appropriations bills. They've done one or two of them. 
So we've got plenty of time. I don't understand the nature of 
the rush here and why we can't simply consider this a week 
before we--before we're asked to vote on these amendments and 
give people outside this Committee room the chance to comment 
and maybe to give us a little more wisdom.
    I thank the Chairman and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Are there amendments? The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from California 
please inform the clerk which amendment he wishes to offer?
    Mr. Lungren. It's the longer of the two.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Lungren 
of California. At the appropriate place insert the following: 
SEC----. Report. Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, 
as amended by section 212 of the US PATRIOT Act, is amended by 
inserting at the end of the following: (d) Report.--On an 
annual basis, the Attorney General shall submit to the 
Committees on the Judiciary of the House and the Senate a 
report containing--(1) the number of accounts from which the 
Department of Justice has received voluntary disclosures under 
subsection (b)(8) of this section; and (2) a summary of the 
basis for disclosure in those instances where--(A) voluntary 
disclosure under subsection (b)(8) of this section were made to 
the Department of Justice; and (B) the investigation pertaining 
to those disclosures was closed without the following of 
criminal charges.
    [The amendment of Mr. Lungren follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this deals with Section 212 of the PATRIOT 
Act. That is the section which permits the disclosure of the 
content of a communication while in electronic storage to 
Government entities by a service provider. Specifically, the 
provider is allowed to divulge the contents of a communication 
where the provider reasonably believes that an emergency 
involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury 
to any person requires the disclosure of the information 
without delay.
    Under such exceptional life-threatening circumstances, 
permitting the disclosure of such information to law 
enforcement is certainly understandable. I think our hearings 
showed that. However, at the same time, since it also does 
involve the contents of a communication by a third party, I 
felt that some accountability is necessary to ensure that this 
authority is not being abused.
    My amendment provides that the Attorney General shall on an 
annual basis submit to this Committee and our counterpart in 
the other body a report which must reveal the number of 
accounts from which the Department receives disclosures of 
information under Section 212. My amendment would also 
specifically require the Department to provide a summary of the 
basis for disclosure in those cases where the investigation was 
closed without the filing of criminal charges. This information 
I believe should be highly beneficial to the Committee, 
fulfilling our oversight responsibility in the future, and I 
ask for your support.
    I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is the best way for us to 
have a ready manner of looking at this particular section. In 
the hearings that we had, I found no basis for claiming that 
there has been abuse of this section. I don't believe on its 
face it is an abusive section. But I do believe that it could 
be subject to abuse in the future and, therefore, this allows 
us as Members of Congress to have an ability to track this on a 
regular basis.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Lungren. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I 
would just ask some questions.
    I did not hear the gentleman refer to any other language 
other than just simply increased reporting to Congress. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes. It requires--it requires a report. No 
such report is required at the present time for this specific 
section.
    Mr. Delahunt. Can the gentleman inform me whether it 
provides notice to persons whose communications have been 
disclosed?
    Mr. Lungren. It does not provide notice. I considered that. 
I considered going to a court. I also considered giving notice. 
But because of the possibility of a continuing ongoing 
investigation, I thought this was the best way for us to enter 
into it. We're the other party that looks at it that would 
hopefully have regular oversight of the Justice Department in 
this regard.
    Mr. Delahunt. Does it provide in any way, shape, or form 
for after-the-fact review by a court?
    Mr. Lungren. No, it does not. I considered that. I thought 
upon consideration this made more sense.
    Mr. Delahunt. I would hope that the gentleman would 
consider a conversation with myself and other members who 
support this amendment but feel that there should be additional 
provisions within this--within this particular amendment that 
would consider those particular aspects.
    Mr. Lungren. I will consider that, yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren. Those in favor will say 
aye? Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call up amendment--
Nadler amendment 001.XML.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler. 
Section A. Strike section (b) of section 8 and insert the 
following----
    Mr. Nadler. I think you have the wrong amendment--oh, no, 
I'm sorry. You're right.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will continue to report.
    The Clerk. (b) Applications for orders. Subsection (b) of 
section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended--(1) in paragraph (1), by 
striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking 
the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by 
adding at the end the following----
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The gentleman--
without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this amendment amends 
Section 215 in three ways: Section 215 authorizes the FBI to 
get a secret order for any document or anything, as long as the 
FBI says it is relevant to a terrorist investigation. The FBI 
would go to a--would obtain an order from a secret FISA court 
to obtain a broad array of highly personal records, such as 
those held by hotels, libraries, doctors, and schools, or any 
other, quote, tangible things. They can do this without 
probable cause in domestic intelligence investigations to 
protect against terrorism or spying.
    Under Section 215, this power can be used against literally 
anyone, even if the person is not suspected of any wrongdoing 
and is completely unconnected to terrorism, espionage, or other 
criminal activity. Section 215 in effect allows the FBI to 
conduct fishing expeditions against any American citizen 
innocent of anything.
    This amendment would amend Section 215 in three ways: It 
would restore a standard of individualized suspicion, saying 
that you could get an order if you have--if you can show 
specific and articulable facts leading you to believe that this 
person is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist.
    Second, it allows the recipient of a Section 215 order to 
challenge the order in court. This is a common-sense protection 
that is sorely lacking in the current law.
    Now, the recipient, not the target--this isn't good enough, 
but we can't do the target. Remember, the recipient could be 
the Internet service provider or the library. And the Internet 
service provider may be perfectly happy to provide the records 
of some subscriber. But at least this gives them the ability to 
go to court when they get the order if they think it proper. It 
doesn't give the target of the order the ability to go to 
court. He doesn't know about it. But the recipient, if they 
wish, can challenge it in court.
    And, thirdly, it gives the recipient the ability to 
petition the court to set aside the non-disclosure requirement. 
Remember, you're not allowed to disclose that you got this 
order. And this would enable the recipient not only to petition 
the court to oppose the order, but to petition the court, if it 
granted the order, to set aside the non-disclosure requirements 
if it is--unless it is shown that some adverse result will come 
from disclosure. In other words, they could go to court and say 
let us tell the target or the public that you gave us this 
order and that we complied with it afterwards, unless someone 
can--unless the FBI can make a showing that disclosure of this 
would have some adverse effect.
    The Chairman's bill does allow for a limited version of 
judicial review of Section 215, but that review is very narrow. 
It would require the recipient to file the claim for review in 
a specialized court which would only meet in Washington. If you 
were residing or your place of business was anywhere in the 
country other than Washington, this would be highly 
disadvantageous and maybe impossible, depending upon the 
expense. This amendment would say you could go to court and 
petition the court in any Federal--not just in Washington, D.C.
    I think that allowing a standard of individualized 
suspicion that you say you can only get this information if you 
say--if you can show to the court specific and articulable 
facts why you believe that this fellow is a terrorist or an 
agent of a foreign power, allowing the recipient to challenge 
the order in court and allowing the recipient to ask the court 
in its discretion to waive the non-disclosure requirement 
afterward are reasonable amendments which balance the liberty 
interests that we all have with the security interests that we 
all have, too.
    I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, when you look at this amendment, 
it is obvious that the standard proposed here is much more 
rigorous than the relevance standard under which Federal grand 
juries and ordinary criminal investigations can subpoena the 
same records. This particular amendment would prevent the FISA 
court from issuing an order under Section 215 unless the 
Government provides specific and articulable facts giving 
reasons to believe that the person to whom the records pertain 
is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
    As I say, this is a higher standard. The standard would, in 
my judgment, hinder the Government from using a Section 215 
order to develop evidence at the early stages of an 
investigation when such an order is most useful.
    Consider an example where investigators are tracking down a 
known al Qaeda operative who's having dinner with three people 
who split the check four ways and each uses a credit card. 
While law enforcement could demonstrate that this information 
is relevant to an ongoing investigation, they would not be able 
to demonstrate sufficient and articulable facts that those 
individuals are agents of a foreign power.
    One of the things that we have tried to understand here is 
that this is in the area of attempting to deal with activities 
before they expand into what would be known as a criminal act. 
This is in the nature of trying to stop terrorists before they 
act, not in the nature of a regular criminal investigation 
which oftentimes is begun when you start to examine the crime 
scene, develop the forensic evidence, and then try and prove 
your case. This is a far different situation, and it strikes, I 
believe, precisely at when a 215 order is most useful. Raising 
this standard above relevance and requiring specific and 
articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to 
whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a 
foreign power would significantly, therefore, reduce the 
utility of Section 215.
    Also, with the--I guess it's the--it's either in the middle 
of the gentleman's amendment or towards the end, where he talks 
about allowing this to be challenged in either a U.S. district 
court or in the FISA court, Section 215 orders are issued by 
the FISA court, and any motion to set aside or amend the order 
I would argue should be directed to the issuing court. It is 
the FISA court that is better equipped than district courts to 
handle sensitive classified information at issue in terrorism 
cases.
    So let us remember why we have this section. This section 
is specifically to deal with the new reality that we have 
facing us, and that is terrorism, with respect to transnational 
organizations as well as a lone wolf, but primarily 
transnational organizations. And that's why we need the section 
as it is. I understand the gentleman's desire to try and raise 
this standard to specific and articulable facts, giving reason, 
as the words he has. But I believe this much more rigorous 
standard beyond the relevance standard would be destructive to 
the purposes of Section 215.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Is the 
gentleman's objection to the first part of the amendment an 
objection to the requirement of specific and articulable facts 
or that it is limited to a suspect--a suspected agent of a 
foreign power, a suspected terrorist?
    Mr. Lungren. I would suggest that it's in both--both 
sections. You know, I think you need the relevance standard. 
There was an argument about whether or not there should be a 
relevance standard. I don't think there's any doubt there ought 
to be a relevance standard. It is in this bill as an 
articulated standard. One of the questions we had at the 
hearings at the very beginning was shouldn't there be some 
relevance requirement. The response we heard from the Justice 
Department was that's the practice, that's what we require, 
that's what the courts require.
    So what the Chairman of the Committee has done is put that 
relevance standard in here.
    Mr. Berman. I appreciate----
    Mr. Lungren. I believe that's sufficient.
    Mr. Berman. I appreciate that, but let me just--I mean, the 
gentleman cited a hypothetical, which I have some sympathy for. 
I mean, you do want--to the extent you're using these, they're 
to go early and gather information.
    Mr. Lungren. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. But you talked about people who had 
associated----
    Mr. Lungren. Right.
    Mr. Berman.--with someone who was suspected of being an 
agent of a foreign power.
    Mr. Lungren. Right.
    Mr. Berman. I'm just wondering if--is there something a 
little--something that is more--more specific than just a 
simple relevance standard but is not so inflexible to keep you 
from, for instance, subpoenaing--getting--searching and getting 
a hold of the records, whatever they are, of Mohammed Atta's 
roommate----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Berman. I'd ask unanimous consent for one additional 
minute.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Berman. I just throw out the possibility that there's 
something between what you think is appropriate, the relevance 
standard, based on the hypothetical you cited, and a number of 
other hypotheticals which could allow this FISA warrant or 
subpoena to be--to be utilized and not be limited simply to 
someone for which there are specific and articulable facts is 
an agent of a foreign power.
    Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would allow me to respond to 
that, the standard proposed here is really the relevance 
standard under which Federal grand juries in normal 
circumstances operate. What the gentleman's amendment suggests 
is that we go above that to specific and articulable facts. 
Between the two, it seemed to me the standard that is well 
recognized has been utilized in the grand jury circumstance 
would be the appropriate one, that the system understands, that 
the prosecutors understand, that the courts understand, and 
that, in fact, has been used. And I thought that was the 
subject of the inquiry we had during the hearings, which was 
the concern people had that we didn't have any standard, we 
didn't have a relevance standard.
    And so in speaking with the gentlemen and women on the 
other side and with the Chairman, it seemed to me, as I talked 
with the Chairman and the staff, that a relevance standard 
articulated specifically was sufficient for what we needed.
    Mr. Berman. Well, I will perhaps pursue this later on.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. I want to find out if this is correct, and I'd 
like to make sure that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, 
is following this. Section 215 broadens significantly who such 
orders can be used against, and herein lies the problem. 
Records prior to the PATRIOT Act could only be sought if the 
Government showed that the person whose records are sought is a 
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Now the 
Government need only show that the records are sought for a, 
quote, authorized investigation, unquote. And I ask the 
gentleman from New York: Is that a part of the problem that we 
have with the 215 as it presently----
    Mr. Nadler. Well, yet, the--yes, 215 has been expanded so 
that not only are we relaxing the standard, but we're relaxing 
the--against whom it--against whom it can be issued and for 
what it can be issued. So it becomes a roving fishing 
expedition generally, which is why narrowing the standard to 
articulable facts, which was the standard for all these other 
things before, is what we're trying to do.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield on that point, Mr. 
Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Lungren. See, here's the concern, and it goes to the--
to the scenario that the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, 
had brought up.
    It's my understanding that if investigators were to learn 
that someone lived with Mohammed Atta prior to the September 11 
attacks but knew nothing else about the individual, 
investigators, reasonable investigators I think would want to 
find out more about the individual. They'd want to find out 
about his credit, his bank, his travel, his phone records. And 
under the specific and articulable facts standard, the 
investigators would not be able to request this information 
using Section 215.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Well, it's not my time.
    Mr. Conyers. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I yield.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Well, Mr. Lungren, I think that if 
someone was a roommate of Mohammed Atta, that would be a 
specific and articulable fact connecting him to an agent of a 
foreign power.
    Why? Because Mohammed Atta----
    Mr. Lungren. If the gentleman would yield, it's my 
understanding, speaking with--speaking with representatives of 
the Justice Department, in fact, that would not----
    Mr. Nadler. I'm sorry, say that----
    Mr. Lungren. But they would have to show a relevance 
standard, but that falls short of specific and articulable 
facts. The specific and articulable facts standard is too high.
    Now, I will have to tell you, I am relying on those who 
have pursued cases such as this, and the information I have is 
that that is too high a hurdle. And, again, I would just 
repeat, when we went into this, the whole argument we had when 
we had the hearing--I can recall it--was don't you believe, 
Representative of the Justice Department, we need to have a 
relevance standard? Would you object to a relevance standard? 
And the response was, no, in fact, that's how we proceed. We--
--
    Mr. Conyers. All right. I'd like to yield to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Berman. I think your point of limiting it to the agent 
of a foreign power, that has meaning to me, and the problem--
the problem with that. I still think there is--you keep citing 
hypotheticals that involve an association with a suspected 
agent of a foreign power, and then say in order to do that, 
let's just have a relevance standard.
    This isn't a typical search warrant. This is a FISA search 
warrant. And I still think--I guess I still think there is a 
middle ground here that provides the Department with the 
flexibility to use FISA in these cases, but that is a little 
tighter than just a simple relevance standard, but not as 
limiting as the person has to be a suspected agent of a foreign 
power. And I just--I just want to harp on that because I may 
want to come back to that.
    I mean, I will vote for the gentleman's amendment because 
I'm unhappy simply with the relevance standard, but I think the 
right place to land on this is somewhere between the two.
    Mr. Conyers. And so do I. I hope this discussion has 
supported the Nadler amendment, and I return the time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Yeah, I think I'd like to pose a question to 
Mr. Lungren in terms of the other two aspects of the Nadler 
amendment relative to opportunity to challenge and disclosure--
or elimination of the gag rule after a hearing, because I think 
what I find particularly interesting is that Mr. Nadler reaches 
a conclusion that being a roommate of Mohammed Atta is an 
articulable fact. And your--and I have the same memory. The 
statement from the representative of the Department of Justice 
that would not constitute an articulable fact says to me that 
there is a role here, a more--a significant role for judicial 
review than currently exists. If either Mr. Nadler or Mr. 
Lungren would want to comment.
    Mr. Lungren. I don't--I mean, if the gentleman is talking 
about going beyond the FISA court? Is that the suggestion of 
the gentleman?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    Mr. Lungren. Because that's the review that takes place 
now.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I'll yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Berman. Here's the problem. You equate this with a 
grand jury investigation, but those are not secret warrants. 
Someone has a right to challenge them. It is the combination of 
this secret warrant which the bill now will allow the person 
who is required to deliver the records to learn about. I don't 
understand exactly what that means, the person who gets the 
warrant can't disclose it. If the person who gets the warrant 
isn't the person who can produce the records, somebody's going 
to have to learn about it anyway. It's--but since the object of 
this warrant, the target of this warrant is never going to know 
about it, the notion of requiring something more than the 
standard you'd have for a grand jury is real.
    At the same time, I think people who have--where you can 
provide specific and articulable facts that someone is the 
target who was associated with the suspected agent of a foreign 
power, I think the Justice Department should have FISA warrants 
available to get those records in this fashion, and that's--I 
think that's the whole point, is you can't just simply put this 
off as, oh, this is like a grand jury investigation, because a 
grand jury investigation, those warrants aren't secret and the 
target of it can challenge the warrant, and there's a very 
established procedure to raise with the judiciary in a public 
way, the question of whether they're--the warrant was 
overbroad.
    Here we're not going to have that for very understandable 
reasons, so let's give the FISA court some--a little bit more 
specificity than simply a broad claim of relevance to make its 
judgment about whether or not to issue the warrant.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I think the point that 
Mr. Berman is taking is the availability of a motion to quash 
exists in terms of a criminal investigation, whereas it does 
not exist in this particular case.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield on that?
    Mr. Delahunt. I'll yield.
    Mr. Lungren. I would cite page 7, starting at line 16 of 
the bill.
    Mr. Delahunt. Okay.
    Mr. Lungren. Which says that a person receiving an order to 
produce any tangible thing under this section may challenge the 
legality of that order by filing a petition in the special 
panel established by the bill. That's a special panel under----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren.--the FISA court, and then one would have, if 
I'm not mistaken, the court of review shall immediately provide 
for the record a written statement, and the petition of the 
individual involved can go directly to the Supreme Court under 
seal. That's a new provision.
    Mr. Delahunt. I understand that. Reclaiming my time, 
however, what we're talking about is the--it's the ISP, not the 
target of the investigation. With that, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Lungren, the fact is that as Mr. Berman said, here the 
target of the investigation never hears about this. In a 
grand--you can't simply analogize it to a grand jury situation. 
In the grand jury situation, the target is served--knows about 
it. He can make the motion to quash. He can make the motion to 
limit the scope of the production--of the order. In this 
situation, he doesn't know about it. The ISP, who is the--who 
has the records, or perhaps the library or whoever else, or the 
travel agency or the credit card company, they get the 
subpoena, the target doesn't. The target never gets the 
opportunity to quash, number one.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 
minutes on this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts will be given an additional 2 minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield. I continue to yield to the gentleman 
from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. So it is necessary to limit it 
somewhat.
    Now, I believe that in the situation that you've stated 
before--and maybe--that if you can--if a known terrorist, a 
known agent of al Qaeda is having lunch and splitting the 
credit cards with two other guys, that's enough--that's an 
articulable fact to connect those two guys with him and, 
therefore, to justify under this standard. But--that's an 
articulable fact connecting him to a foreign power, because if 
a foreign power--al Qaeda is considered a foreign power.
    But going further than that--but, again, I would be open 
to--to some intermediate standard in this, say a simple 
standard of relevance, where you can--where you can get 
virtually anything and the target knows nothing about it and 
can't move to quash or to limit is not sufficient. And I would 
also say in response to what Mr. Lungren said before, the 
second part of the amendment, it simply allows you to go in and 
allows the recipient of the order, the ISP or the library or 
the credit card company, to oppose the order in a Federal 
court, not just a FISA court. Yes, the FISA court is a good 
court to do that, but the Federal court can also do things in 
secret. And a Federal court is just as able as a FISA court to 
weigh the interests here, but a Federal court has the advantage 
of not being only in Washington, D.C. If you're a local library 
or a local car rental company in California, it's very 
difficult for you to go to Washington to move in court to 
oppose the order.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I'd pose to Mr. Lungren 
the question that was just--the observation and put it in the 
form of a question made by the gentleman from New York, whether 
he would have an objection to that aspect of this particular 
amendment, the right to challenge in either the FISA or--
obviously in an in-camera proceeding in a Federal district 
court.
    Mr. Lungren. Well, before I respond--or in trying to 
respond to that, I would just say I'm confused by some of the 
comments that were made----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman 
will be given an additional 2 minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Suggesting that a grand jury subpoena is in 
all or most circumstances disclosed to an individual whose 
records may be a subject of the subpoena. There are non-
disclosure orders given often with respect to those things, and 
people are not aware of what goes on in the grand jury. So I'm 
trying to figure out----
    Mr. Delahunt. Right, but my response, reclaiming my time, 
would be that that--under those particular circumstances, there 
is judicial intervention and a non-disclosure order is issued 
by a court in a traditional Title III criminal investigation. 
That is not the case here. What we have is this automatic gag 
order that is evoked in the legislation.
    With that, I continue to yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
    Mr. Nadler. I think I've said what I wanted to say. This 
has three sections. Again, if the specific and articulable 
facts--and, again, this may show why we should have had a 
hearing specifically on the--on the draft. If that's too high, 
maybe we should find some other standard intermediate, because 
a simple standard of relevance under these subject--under these 
circumstances is too broad a fishing expedition. And, again, we 
should allow the recipient of the order to go into any Federal 
court in camera if the court--well, it would have to be in 
camera. And don't forget the third part of the amendment, which 
says that you can challenge the non-disclosure part of it, too.
    In the interest of not having 50 amendments, I put all 
three of them together. I would be willing to separate if 
someone----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has once again expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Nadler. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the ayes and nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall is requested and will be 
ordered. Those in favor of the Nadler amendment will as your 
names are called answer aye, those opposed, no, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to 
cast or change their votes? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members in the chamber who 
wish to cast or change their votes? If not, the clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? For what purpose does the 
gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
    Mr. Flake. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Flake. In 
Section 501(d) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978, as proposed to be amended by Section 8(c), strike ``in 
response to'' each place it appears and insert ``with respect 
to.''
    [The amendment of Mr. Flake follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment simply 
strikes the words ``in response to'' under 215 in the bill and 
adds the words ``with respect to.'' This amendment would 
further clarify that a person can disclose to an attorney the 
receipt of a 215 order to not only respond but to challenge the 
order. While I don't believe that it's the purpose of this 
legislation to deny consultation to challenge, I believe that 
the concerns raised by Section 215 merit more specificity in 
the bill. Thus, this amendment makes it clear that a person who 
has received a 215 order may disclose that information to an 
attorney not just to respond to the order but to challenge the 
order.
    This clarification provides additional protections for 
librarians, bookstore and small business owners to be able to 
have a clear, viable, legal recourse when faced with a 215 
request. It seems clear that when we're talking about possibly 
allowing the Government to access important and sensitive 
records, we need to make sure that people's rights are 
explicitly protected in the law. I urge my colleagues to accept 
the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Flake. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake. 
Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Are there further amendments? 
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I have an amendment at the desk, number 4.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 
amendment number 4.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Add at the end the following: Section. Limitation on 
authority to delay notice of search warrants. Section 3103(a) 
of Title 18, United States Code, is amended (1) in subsection 
(b), (A), in paragraph (1), by striking ``may have an adverse 
result as defined in Section 2705'' and inserting ``will 
endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result 
in flight from prosecution or the intimidation of a potential 
witness, result in the destruction or tampering with the 
evidence sought under the warrant, or seriously jeopardize or 
delay an investigation of international or domestic 
terrorism,''; and (b)----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading be waived.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates a wide 
open catch-all for sneak-and-peek which says you can get a 
sneak-and-peek warrant if the notification would seriously 
jeopardize the investigation, which is any investigation, or 
unduly delay a trial, any trial. And it also limits the 
investigation and delay to terrorism cases.
    What we're constantly told is the justification for the 
sneak-and-peek extraordinary powers is that the Government has 
to invade our privacy and spread information all over town to 
protect us from terrorism. Yet we find that the vast majority 
of the delayed notice cases do not involve terrorism cases at 
all, but just ordinary street crime.
    The amendment also places some reasonable time limit over 
oversights and how long a notice can be delayed and how that 
delay can be extended. With such invasive powers, restrictions, 
and oversight--in restrictions, oversight is crucial. There's 
no real remedy or serious disincentive for a mistake or other 
unwarranted access to someone's privacy in these sneak-and-peek 
warrants. So it's crucial that you have some kind of review and 
oversight mechanisms.
    One of the things it does, for example, is requires the 
notice after 7 days, or you can extend that in 30-day 
increments for as long as you want. But you have to show cause 
for a continued reason to delay. We've been told that some of 
these delayed notification indefinitely without end, and 
there's no way ever to get notice. I think you need to continue 
after so many years. I think at some point notice should be 
given that your house was searched. That's the normal process, 
and I hope you'd adopt the amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and 
I'd like to point out that this is a good reason why we have a 
sunset clause. What's in the bill was written in haste. What 
the gentleman has written by amendment is tightly drawn and 
very thoughtful and a good example of why the sunset really is 
important, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate the concerns that Mr. Scott has, particularly 
with regard to a reasonable period, and I am, in fact, drafting 
an amendment that I hope to offer on the floor that will deal 
with that aspect. And so I do have the same concerns, but I 
think 7 calendar days is probably too short. And so I would 
love to work with the gentleman from Virginia on the floor 
amendment, if I can.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman----
    Mr. Flake. I yield back----
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. If I haven't yielded back, I would yield.
    Mr. Scott. What time period did you have in your amendment 
that you'll be considering?
    Mr. Flake. I'm still working with others on that.
    Mr. Scott. And if you'll continue to yield, I'd point out 
that the 7-day period is a presumption that you can delay it 7 
days, but you can get it extended in 30-day increments forever, 
so long as you can show good cause.
    Mr. Flake. I will have a similar provision in my bill, a 
reasonable----
    Mr. Scott. Well, with that, Mr. Chairman, I think I'd like 
to work with the gentleman from Arizona, and I'll withdraw the 
amendment at this point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments? The gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Waters, for what purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Ms. Waters of 
California. Add at the end the following: Section--National 
Security Letters. A national security letter shall not be 
issued to a health insurance company under any of the 
provisions of law amended by Section 505 of the Uniting--
Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate 
tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism, US PATRIOT 
Act of 2001.
    [The amendment of Ms. Waters follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would prohibit Section 205, National 
Security--National Security Letters, from being applied to help 
insurance companies. Mr. Chairman, as it stands, the Government 
can issue secret national security letters to help insurance 
companies without any judicial review or approval. Therefore, 
health insurance providers can be compelled to produce highly 
private and personal medical information without any court 
review. And the target of the national security letter would 
never be notified that such confidential information had been 
produced.
    Mr. Chairman, we must be concerned and even ask how do 
medical records pertain to terrorism investigations. What kind 
of information will this lend to the investigations? There are 
no clear answers to these questions. Records that are so highly 
personal and that on their face do not seem to bear any 
significance to terrorism investigations should be subject to 
judicial review so that the Government will be required to 
prove to a judge why such confidential information would be 
important to such an investigation.
    Mr. Chairman, in a criminal investigation, the Government 
can only obtain such personal records through the issuance of a 
search warrant. However, the Government must first prove that 
there is probable cause that a crime has been or will be 
committed.
    Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why the Government should 
be allowed to demand the production of such personal private 
records without any judicial review or notice to the target. 
And though my--through my very special amendment, checks and 
balances can be injected into the production of our 
confidential medical records.
    I just think it needs no further explanation. I think that 
the average individual would just be opposed to allowing their 
medical records to be accessed without judicial review and 
without any notice at all at any time to the target of the so-
called investigation. And I would simply ask for an aye vote 
and reserve the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. The question was posed, Why would health 
records ever be relevant in a terrorism investigation and why 
would you need a national security letter for investigation? 
Well, let's see. Anthrax, dealing with other biological or 
chemical agents. Someone might be treated for that to gain 
immunities to that such that when they are dealing with those 
particular contaminants they may not be deleteriously affected.
    So I think one of the things we have to keep in mind is 
what is the context of this law. This law is in response to the 
terrorist attacks that we suffered on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission 
specifically said the greatest complaint against the 
legislative and executive branch of the Federal Government was 
that we failed in a lack of creativity, a lack of imagination, 
in other words, thinking within the box instead of outside the 
box. So I am not as--I am not put at ease by suggesting that I 
know all of the potential attempts that terrorists might make 
to attack us.
    Recently, I, along with other members of the Homeland 
Security Committee, had an opportunity to go down and do a 
day's review at the Center for Disease Control, CDC, which in 
many ways is responsible for our response to potential attacks 
such as those I've mentioned. If that is as great a concern as 
was expressed to us on our review down there, it seems to me 
for us to create a total exemption here for health records 
because we can't anticipate where they might be relevant is a 
step that I don't think we want to take.
    Mr. Gohmert. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes, if I might add, as a judge, we constantly 
saw people and these criminals, terrorists that want to hurt 
other people deal with dangerous elements. They are often 
injured in trying to prepare things to injure others. And these 
health records could be in the right situations--and I saw 
those as a judge--helpful in determining have they been working 
with these dangerous elements and components that would be used 
later. They could be very helpful.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and, you 
know, I think that you make a number of good points. But I want 
to ask you one question, and that is, the use of the national 
security letter which has, I think, the least number of 
safeguards applied to it, because there is no court review, 
there is no going before a grand jury. And I guess my question 
is: Under what circumstances is it necessary to use the 
extraordinary remedy of a national security letter as opposed 
to going to the FISA court for this information or going to the 
grand jury for this information where there are greater checks? 
When would it be necessary to use the national security letter 
where there is really no oversight?
    Mr. Lungren. I am sorry. I was----
    Mr. Schiff. Let me try again.
    Mr. Lungren. I apologize. I'm not showing disrespect to the 
gentleman.
    Mr. Schiff. And my question is not rhetorical. I generally 
would like an answer. And that is, I think that you make a good 
point that in an anthrax investigation or some other biological 
kind of investigation, that you may need these records. My 
question though is there are several methods of getting them. 
In a criminal investigation you can go through the grand jury 
where there's a check. In the FISA Court you need court 
permission to get it where there's a check. With the national 
security letter, there is the least checks and balances.
    And my question is, why do we need to use the national 
security letter in this context? What kind of circumstances 
would require us to use the extraordinary remedy of a national 
security letter as opposed to the more traditional approach of 
going to the grand jury or going to a FISA court?
    Mr. Lungren. Well, it's my understanding that these are 
preliminary investigations before you have probable cause. 
These are investigations that have not arisen to the level of a 
criminal investigation, so you're not going to be doing a grand 
jury investigation. They are by their very nature go to the 
question of national security, and I guess the question the 
gentleman is asking is why do we have these at all?
    I am not the expert in that. I would just say I would not 
support us creating an exemption for them in the--for health 
records for the very reasons I gave.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield again?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Without objection the gentleman will be given an additional 
minute.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate what you're saying, but if you're 
saying that there isn't probable cause so you can't get a grand 
jury subpoena, and there's no foreign agent or foreign power 
involved, so you can't go to the FISA court, then what do you 
have as the basis for getting this very personal private 
record, something not involving foreign power and something 
less than probable cause? To get something that personal like a 
medical record, I think there should be a stronger basis than 
that. And there may very well be a good argument, but I just 
haven't heard it yet today, and I'm--if somebody else on the 
other side of the aisle can answer that question, I would be 
delighted to know.
    Mr. Issa. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Issa. I might remind the gentleman from California that 
in 2001 when we had an anthrax actual event here, we did not 
know whether it was foreign power, and if--and I don't know if 
it was done--if there was an evaluation of people's health 
records to find out if somebody showed the symptoms where they 
might have either been a victim or in fact a perpetrator, that 
that would have been broad, it would have had no probable cause 
against them, and to the extent that people didn't have an 
enzyme or some other indication, nothing further would have 
happened. It would have been the classic example where national 
security was at stake, thousands of people might have been 
checked in order to be eliminated or to be included, and no 
further action was taken.
    To me, the anthrax, not scare, but events that we lived 
through would be a good example.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time is again 
expired.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Two points on that. One is--and I'd offer my 
colleague from California--do you know whether a national 
security letter was ever issued in the anthrax investigation? 
My guess is they probably used the traditional remedies of 
grand jury subpoenas. And No. 2, there's not a grand jury in 
the country that would turn down a subpoena in an anthrax 
investigation of that nature.
    So, again, there may be very good reasons why we need a 
national security letter to get health records, but I'd like to 
know what they are before I have to vote on this, and I still 
am not quite hearing it. I yield back.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I'd be happy to yield to my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I understand the concerns about just simply a 
blanket exemption that would deny the Government the 
opportunity to examine health records, but I think the point 
that the gentleman is making by inference is that there are no 
standards whatsoever as a result of the PATRIOT Act. It's my 
understanding that prior to the passage of the PATRIOT Act, 
specific and articulable facts given reason to believe the 
records pertain to an agent of a foreign power was the 
standard. That, I dare say, given the experience that we've 
had, given the hearings that we've conducted, ought to be 
reinserted as part of the issuance of national security 
letters. Give us a standard. That's what we're talking about 
here.
    And if any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
think that that is too high a standard, I would like to hear 
them offer a rationale, because in the real world that is 
simply not a very high standard, but it does invoke a 
oversight, if you will, as opposed simply to allow the FBI, 
based on an assertion, to issue a NSL that no one is aware of, 
and, you know, maybe it requires a little more work. But this 
isn't about conveniencing Government. It certainly, I don't 
think, would warrant any delay. A delay would be an impediment. 
This is about privacy rights, about individual liberties. This 
is not balancing with national security concerns, but it's not 
a matter of convenience for the Department of Justice. And I 
think that's what our focus has to remain during the course of 
our deliberations on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Delahunt. I'll yield to the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that we have some options 
here. One is really what the gentleman has said, which is to 
set out standards that we agree are reasonable for the use of 
these powers by the Government or to provide--three are certain 
elements entitled to enhance privacy, and to fall back on 
ordinary means to obtain such records. I don't know if anyone 
is going to offer later an amendment relating to library 
records or bookstore records, but the ability of people to read 
what they want, to have their health care records respected is 
something that means a lot.
    Now, I'm going to support this amendment because if this 
amendment passes, there are still plenty of ways for 
prosecutors to obtain these records if they can make a case 
that they're necessary. So I would yield to the gentlelady from 
California further on that point.
    Ms. Waters. I appreciate that. And I think the discussion 
that we've had helps to illuminate why there's such concern 
about what we do in renewing the PATRIOT Act. This Committee, 
on PATRIOT Act I, acted in a most responsible way, and we came 
together to produce the PATRIOT Act, and we took out a lot of 
the problems that were originally identified with the PATRIOT 
Act because Americans simply said, we want you public 
policymakers to protect us from terrorism, but we do not want 
you to destroy all of our civil liberties. And the's really the 
national discussion about the PATRIOT Act. Can we produce good 
public policy that will help protect us from terrorism, at the 
same time not throw all of our civil liberties out of the 
window. And this is a prime example of that.
    Americans do not want national security letters that would 
allow the Government to simply have access too all of our 
medical and health records without showing probable cause. We 
have in law the means by which this can be done.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired, 
and without objection will be given an additional minute.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This can be done with judicial review. And I'm simply 
saying that we use what we have in existing law to obtain those 
records if we can go and show probable cause--and I think any 
judge would support that. I don't know why we have to throw 
that out the window and have open access to these private and 
personal records without that kind of review.
    So I would simply ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I think it is reasonable. I think it is the right 
thing to do, and I think this is what Americans expect of us.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters. Those in favor will 
say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Goodlatte. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall is requested by the 
gentleman from North Carolina. Those in favor of the Waters 
amendment will, as your names are called, answer aye; those 
opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? Gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are three further amendments?
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Issa. At 
the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new 
section:
    Section - Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
    (a) Inclusion of specific facts in application. Section 
105(c)(2)(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (50 USC 105(c)(2)(B), as amended by Section 206 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act is amended by striking----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Issa follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On both sides of the 
aisle I think that we all remember, those of us who were here, 
how important it was to modernize the definition of a wiretap, 
that in fact this section was created because the use of 
cellular phones, and particularly disposing of cellular phones 
on as often as a daily basis, had made the conventional wiretap 
unusable. In this procedure we felt in October 2001, that we 
were entering a new phase, one that would need oversight.
    Today as part of our oversight during the sunset 
reconsideration, I offer this amendment which deals with the 
one most vexing issue, which is, are we giving people the 
ability to go on jumping from phone to phone beyond the 
original intent of a roving wiretap? To that extent this 
amendment will require that the intelligence investigators 
notify the FISA Court within 10 days each time it initiates 
surveillance on a new communication facility pursuant to the 
FISA--I have a terrible time with that, FISA, yeah, thank you, 
FISA as in Issa--roving wiretap.
    Mr. Chairman, I can see that we all understand that these 
kinds of wiretaps can go on for months or years, and commonly 
do, and they may stay with one cellular phone for months on 
end. However, if somebody is disposing of their wiretap every 
single day, every 10 days, under my amendment, we would be back 
in informing the court that there was an expansion. This would 
prevent what many have said would be the bugging of all of Los 
Angeles. Just the opposite, this will give the court constant 
oversight on what might be a very often basis, but I think 
appropriately so to meet people's concerns, and I would ask on 
both sides of the aisle, all of us who worked on the original 
legislation, to vote for this perfecting amendment.
    And with that, I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. 
Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
    Mr. Issa. I would ask a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recorded vote is requested. Those 
in favor of the Issa amendment will, as your names are called, 
answer aye, those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Berman. Berman is aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. How am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Delahunt is not recorded.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will try again to report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 34 ayes and no noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Lungren of 
California.
    Add at the end the following:
    Sec. 9 Sunset for Certain Provisions.
    Sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 
amendments made by those sections, shall cease to have effect 
on December 31, 2015.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Lungren follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly simple 
amendment. It would put a 10-year sunset on Sections 205 and 
215 of the PATRIOT Act. I believe that the sunset provisions in 
the current law have given us an opportunity, a prod, if you 
will, to look at certain sections of the PATRIOT Act in a way 
that is probably more intense and deeper than we would 
otherwise have done. Having attended, I believe, all of the 
Subcommittee hearings on those provisions, as well as the full 
Committee hearings, I'm satisfied that there is no evidence of 
abuse in the substance of the law, nor abuse of civil liberties 
in the application of the law by the Justice Department during 
the time that these laws have been in effect.
    Nonetheless, it seems to me that the two most controversial 
provisions which were sunsetted in the original law are 
Sections 206, the roving wiretap, and Section 215 which deals 
with business records. For that reason, I thought that it would 
be appropriate for us to have a sunset.
    As a supporter of the bill it's my belief that sunsetting 
these two provisions which have drawn a disproportionate amount 
of attention, will in fact serve as an assurance to those 
inside and outside of this body of our continued diligence.
    My amendment is not in anyway, I would repeat, intended to 
be a criticism of the implementation of the Act by the 
administration. It is, however, an effort to show the American 
people that we will remain vigilant in reviewing these 
particular provisions. Even some members have said to me that 
they support provisions such as these so long as there is a 
terrorist threat. None have suggested to me that this terrorist 
threat is going to go away within the next several years. As a 
matter of fact, the President has recently suggested that this 
is a generational fight because it is a generational threat 
that we face.
    For that reason, it is my believe that a sunset in the year 
2015 is appropriate under the circumstances. It will contribute 
to the continuation of vigorous oversight by this Committee, as 
well as careful and conscientious implementation of this 
legislation by this administration and the administrations to 
follow. I do not in any way wish to suggest that this Committee 
has been derelict in its duty. As a matter of fact, I would 
congratulate this Committee for the work that it has done in 
providing vigorous oversight.
    But it is my belief that from time to time Congress has not 
been as vigilant as it should be in oversight of a number of 
different matters, and that having this with respect to what I 
believe are the two most controversial aspects of this law, 
will be of benefit.
    I might say that there are some who have suggested that by 
even offering such amendment, it will be interpreted as 
criticism of the underlying law on my part, or criticism of the 
administration, or criticism of the current Congress. This 
amendment is not offered for that purpose. Rather it is in some 
ways a tribute to the work that has been done by the 
administration and by this Congress, specifically this 
Committee, in dealing with the very difficult and delicate 
balance that we must strike, and that is to prevent those who 
would wish to destroy us and what we stand for by acts of 
terror in ensuring that we do not tear up the Constitution in 
the process of defending ourselves and those we represent.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the--second 
degree amendment to the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the second 
degree amendment.
    Mr. Scott. No. 7, it's No. 7.
    The Clerk. An amendment to the Lungren amendment to H.R. 
3199 offered by Mr. Scott.
    Strike ``2015'' and insert ``2009.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I support 
the direction the amendment is going in. This second degree 
amendment will change the 10-year sunset to a 4-year sunset. 
The 10-year sunset would allow this to go through without 
review, clean through the rest of this administration and the 
next term of the--the term of the President elected in 2008 and 
almost through the term of the person elected in 2012. There 
are many questions that we have.
    As it's been pointed out, we have rushed through the first 
passage of the PATRIOT Act, and sometimes these sunsets help 
you get answers to questions that you may ask. For example, Mr. 
Chairman, I've just been handed a letter dated July 11th, 2 
days ago, it was sent 2 days ago, received today, from the 
Attorney General responding to a question that was asked at a 
hearing on April 6th, and now because of--I imagine because of 
this hearing, we're finally getting an answer to a question. 
We'll have questions like many of the amendments will address, 
but I think it's important that we, because of the significant 
intrusion in civil liberties, that we keep an eye on this, and 
have the power of the sunset to require answers to questions. I 
therefore would ask you to accept a 4-year sunset rather than 
the 10-year sunset in the underlying----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I want to thank you for doing this, Mr. Scott, 
because 10 years is way too long. I mean every decade we take a 
look at this, it will be new Congresses, new Presidents. There 
could be a huge pile building up in the course of a decade. And 
I think this amendment is made real by your amendment to the 
amendment. I support it with great enthusiasm.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member has 
pointed out, you can go through the next President--through 
this presidential term and another entire presidential term 
without this thing coming up for renewal, and we would think 
that the next President elected in 2008 ought to have the 
responsibility to respond to some questions we may ask. We 
don't know who that President may be.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Virginia 
yield back?
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
want to commend the gentleman from California for offering the 
underlying amendment, and I strongly support it. There are a 
number of reasons for having sunset provisions, and I have, and 
many others have supported them in a number of areas, and I 
would like to see them in other areas of our legislation that 
we pass because it provides for more accountability on a part 
of any administration, and because it gives us the opportunity 
to have it automatically come back to us at some point in time 
to make adjustments. Times change, circumstances change, and 
when that occurs, it's appropriate for the Congress to have the 
initiative to act to make those changes and improvements.
    I do not agree with the substitute or the secondary 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia. We've just 
been through a period where we've had a 4-year sunset, and 
during that time there have been uncovered no abuses on the 
part of the Justice Department of the provisions that we passed 
in the original PATRIOT Act, and I see no reason to have this 
on such a short leash. This will give us an opportunity to put 
it over a longer period of time. It will help to establish the 
precedent that we should impose sunsets like this in other 
areas where we pass legislation. It will empower the Congress 
in doing so because it will improve our oversight authority, 
and it will improve our opportunity to make changes and 
enhancement as time goes by, but to do it every 4 years is 
simply too quickly, and given the fact that we are in a war on 
terror that is going to go on for a long time, I think this is 
an appropriate period of time for us to have a sunset 
provision.
    And I urge my colleagues to reject the secondary amendment 
and to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in support of Mr. Scott's amendment. I think we all 
agree that there should be sunset provisions. The gentleman 
just argued that this is about making sure we have sunset 
provisions. He won't find an argument, I don't think, with any 
of us on this side of the aisle about sunset provisions. It's 
just a matter of how many years are we talking about?
    This business of fighting terrorism continues to be an 
evolving situation, where we're all learning more about the 
various ways in which we could be attacked, and the various 
ways in which we could provide more security, and I still think 
we have a long way to go as we look at some of our 
transportation systems and our ports, and I still think that 
there is public policy to be developed that could be very 
helpful in fighting terrorist as it relates to the way that we 
bring in goods and products from other countries in particular.
    So I think it is important for us to have good oversight. 
Good oversight does not mean that you have a sunset provision 
that's so far out that you don't do the reviews and make the 
adjustments that you need to make. Good oversight means that 
you're constantly looking, you're constantly reviewing, and I 
think 4 years is a reasonable amount of time. And so I would 
reject the original amendment by my colleague from California, 
and support the alternative amendment by Mr. Scott because I 
think it makes more sense and it gives us the possibility of 
giving the kind of oversight to this very special era of 
terrorism----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you. I heard it mentioned that this 
might set a bad precedent if we start sunsetting too much.
    Well, we have 16 provisions that are sunsetted in the first 
PATRIOT Act. This is the first new one that I've heard, and 
this would just--this is very critical. I mean if we're really 
serious about reviewing this, we can review it. Nobody will be 
hurt if very few are revealed. And it also should be remembers 
that many times we can't even figure out where an abuse has 
occurred because of the general vagueness of the law as it 
exists right now. So I wouldn't want anybody to take to heart 
that there have never been any provisions of abuse because we 
don't know about it. We don't know about any because we don't 
have the process to find out about any. And so I support the 
gentlelady from California and the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentlewoman 
from California. Do you yield back?
    Ms. Waters. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose Mr. 
Scott's amendment to my amendment because I would so much like 
to see a Scott-Lungren amendment at sometime before I leave 
this House.
    I appreciate that there are differences here, and I 
understand how we're trying to strike a balance here. I think 
the point made by Mr. Goodlatte is a good one. We've just gone 
through a 4-year sunset, and I would have to say we have looked 
diligently and have found no record of abuses.
    It is difficult to figure out what the date is. I'm 
reminded that I have been gone so long that I'm now back here 
when we're going to be considering a reauthorization of the 
Voting Rights Act. People ought to understand the Voting Rights 
Act sunsets. I was back here in the '80's, it was either '82 or 
'84 when we last--'82. So we have a sunset that goes 24 or 5 
years on that law. And yet there are changed circumstances as 
the gentlelady from California mentioned. There are new things.
    And folks should recall there was a real question when the 
Ranking Member of the full Committee, when Mr. Hyde, when the 
Chairman of the full Committee and I were all serving back here 
in the '80's, there was a question whether the Voting Rights 
Act was going to be reauthorized because of changed 
circumstances of those States which feel the application of the 
Voting Rights Act, and yet we made a decision that it was 
appropriate. And then when we did that, we gave it this 20-some 
year life with a sunset.
    So the suggestion that a 10-year sunset is irrelevant or 
somehow meaningless, I would reject based on the experience 
that I've seen with another major law that we have dealt with.
    And by the way, I commend the Chairman for his speech 
before the NAACP this last week in which he mentioned that we 
expect to deal with the reauthorization of the Voting Rights 
Act even a year early. So it shows we don't have to wait until 
the sunset. We always have the oversight.
    I was trying to strike a balance here, and also I'm trying 
to be practical. I'm trying to have a provision that will pass 
and remain law when we get to the floor.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the Chairman, and I'm rising in support 
of Mr. Scott's second degree amendment. But I think it would be 
remiss of me to do that without applauding first the original 
amendment by Mr. Lungren. Perhaps the most disturbing thing to 
me about the Chairman's proposed mark from which we are working 
today was that it had no sunset provisions in it, and one of 
the things that I had said to my constituents after we passed 
the original PATRIOT Act, was that one of the real important 
things that we were able to insert into that bill was a sunset 
provisions. And I reminded them that throughout our history 
when we have had dramatic incidents occur, quite often the 
legislative body has overreacted or has taken steps that needed 
to occur for a temporary period of time, but should not be the 
law henceforth now and forever.
    I would like not to accept the underlying proposition that 
terrorism will be with us forever, that forever we will have to 
compromise our basic--some basic rights that I believe the 
PATRIOT Act has compromised. And I honestly think we ought to 
be reviewing this bill and its provisions on a regular ongoing 
basis. And I'm sure there's nothing in the fact that there is 
no sunset that prohibits us from doing that or would be nothing 
that would prohibit us from going back and amending the PATRIOT 
Act at any point. But legislative and political realities and 
time realities as they are, suggest that we simply are not 
going to do that in the absence of a sunset provision.
    If 4 years from now circumstances have changed for the 
better in some respects, I would be tremendously happy. If 4 
years from now circumstances have changed for the worse, 
technology may have advanced in some ways that would dictate a 
change in some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act--technology 
is advancing so rapidly that we don't know what's on the 
horizon 4 years from now. And the longer we delay forcing 
ourselves to review any kind of encroachments, impediments, 
stepping on the toes of the freedoms that our country has held 
so dear over the years, I think the more of a disservice we do 
to our country, and the more we really say to the terrorists 
that we have given in to you by compromising on some of the 
things that our Nation stands for and that our world should be 
aspiring to stand for.
    So I know this is a judgment, this is not a knock on what 
Mr. Lungren has tried to do. I actually applaud what he has 
done and I'm delighted that we are going to have some kind of 
sunset in whatever goes out of this Committee--at least it 
looks that way at this point--but given a choice between a 
short or a longer one, I would certainly favor the shorter 
sunset. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair moves to strike the last word and recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes.
    I think all of the members and the public know that the 
sunset that is currently contained in the PATRIOT Act was 
something that I insisted upon when the PATRIOT Act was 
considered immediately after September 11. And I did so because 
whenever we talk about expanding law enforcement powers and 
potential encroachment upon civil liberties, there is a very 
subjective line that is drawn that nobody will know whether it 
was done correctly or not until there has been some experience 
under the new law.
    I guess what puzzles me a bit is that the people who are 
arguing for a shorter sunset now were the ones that were 
arguing for a longer sunset 4 years go.
    Be that as it may, we have had almost 4 years of experience 
under the PATRIOT Act. There has been no section of the 16 
sections of the PATRIOT Act where law enforcement powers were 
expanded that has been declared unconstitutional by a Federal 
court. There also have been no lawsuits brought under the Frank 
amendment that provides a civil remedy with statutory damages 
for Americans whose civil rights were violated under the 
PATRIOT Act. And the Justice Department Inspector General has 
found no civil rights violations under the PATRIOT Act, and he 
was given that specific authority to investigate and reach 
those conclusions as a part of those protections that this 
Committee wrote in the PATRIOT Act in September and October 
2001.
    Having said that, let me say that what type of oversight is 
done by any congressional Committee, this one or any of our 
other Committees, is entirely dependent upon the Committee's 
attitude toward oversight and specifically the attitude of the 
Chairman of the Committee and the Chairmen of the Subcommittees 
toward oversight. I think people who have seen my performance 
here and prior to that in the Science Committee realize that I 
am an oversight hawk, and I have been as much of a hawk against 
an administration of my own party as Chairman of this Committee 
as I was over NASA during the Clinton administration as 
Chairman of the Science Committee. Oversight was one of the 
constitutional responsibilities the Founders gave the Congress, 
and in my opinion we should be doing more of it rather than 
less of it.
    But chairmen come and chairmen go, and I am term limited as 
Chairman, and 2 years from now there will be another person 
that will be sitting in this chair that may have a different 
view toward oversight.
    The oversight that Mr. Conyers and I have done on the 
PATRIOT Act have been as a result of Mr. Conyers and my 
insistence that the oversight be vigorous and pointed. And we 
have had differences with the Justice Department and 
specifically former Attorney General Ashcroft to the point 
where I had to threaten to subpoena him in order for us to get 
information that this Committee needed to have in the discharge 
of our oversight responsibilities. I can say that in the last 
couple of years the responses from the Justice Department had 
been much better, and I comment them for that.
    But again, this is my philosophy and that of Mr. Conyers 
toward oversight, and that may change as time goes on.
    I support, reluctantly, the longer sunset provisions, and 
the reason I do that is because it will force a review. But let 
me say, I don't think we should have different strokes for 
different folks, saying that we should have a real short sunset 
on the PATRIOT Act and a real long one on the Voting Rights 
Act. The principle is the same. And I will support and 
introduce legislation for a very long period of extension of 
the Voting Rights Act because I think that the 25 years that 
was passed in 1982 worked very well.
    Having a sunset as proposed by Mr. Lungren, in my opinion 
will get the debate on the PATRIOT Act out of the political 
arena, and believe me, it is in the political arena now. And 
having debate on the PATRIOT Act being a part of a presidential 
election campaign and then the new Congress immediately 
afterwards, this debate has not been the best in terms of 
dealing with the actual issues of the PATRIOT Act.
    So I would ask the members of this Committee to vote 
against the Scott amendment for the shorter sunset, for the 
Lungren amendment for the longer sunset, and I would urge 
whomever succeeds me as Chairman of the Committee in January 
2007 to be just as diligent in discharging oversight 
responsibilities as I believe Mr. Conyers and I have been.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for unanimous consent 
for one additional minute and ask the Chairman to yield for a 
question?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the Chair is 
given an additional minute. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. The Chairman made a statement about somebody, 
some period of time ago when we were doing the original bill, 
opposing a shorter sunset. I wanted to make sure that we didn't 
leave the wrong impression here. I don't have a recollection of 
that on my part.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If I can reclaim----
    Mr. Watt. Maybe you were referring to somebody else.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If I can reclaim my time, I can 
understand why he didn't have a recollection on that because 
the final sunset provisions were negotiated in the Speaker's 
office, and it was the then Democratic controlled Senate that 
wanted a real short sunset, and it was Mr. Conyers and I who 
were present in that meeting that wanted a longer one.
    Mr. Watt. A longer one or a shorter one?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That was the difference between 3 
years, 4 years and 5 years. We were for 5, they were for 3, and 
we split the difference.
    Mr. Watt. So it wasn't as dramatic as we're talking about 
here today?
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the Chairman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will ask unanimous 
consent for an additional minute and yield to the gentlewoman 
from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I will not use an entire minute. I would just 
like to note for the record that during the weekend drafting 
session on the PATRIOT Act I recommended a 2-year statute of 
limitations, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Duly noted.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. My time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank the Chairman. I would note that he 
makes the observation that within the provisions of the PATRIOT 
Act there appears to be no abuse that's been discovered by the 
Department of Justice. Now, one could opine that the sunset 
provision itself serves in some way as deterrence to abuse 
because there will be inevitably hearings to review the 
conduct. So I grant you the fact that, at least as it relates 
to the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, there does not appear to 
be any abuse that has been discovered so far.
    At the same time I think we have to recognize that the 
Inspector General of the Department of Justice did find serious 
problems with the detainees being held in New York, but I don't 
want to digress.
    And I applaud the Chairman for his aggressive oversight. I 
also applaud the gentleman from California. I think this is a 
step in the right direction. I want it as a matter of record, 
that my own opinion is that 2 years is perfect, and I would go 
so far as to sunset the entire PATRIOT Act, because as the 
Chairman has indicated, Chairmans come, Chairmans go, 
minorities come, they change, and majorities come and change. 
But there is a natural tension between the branches that's 
healthy in a democracy.
    And what I found particularly revealing during the course 
of the hearings that were conducted by Mr. Coble with your 
support, obviously, was that we received a level of cooperation 
and collaboration from the Department of Justice that I have 
not experienced in my previous 9 years of service on this 
Committee.
    I think as much as it is about the PATRIOT Act, it is also 
about the role of Congress in terms of the relationship with 
the Executive and the Judiciary, and it provides us with 
leverage to encourage cooperation and collaboration, because I 
know you, myself and other members, and not just this 
particular Committee, have found at times it extremely 
difficult to receive the kind of cooperation that ought to be 
forthcoming from the Executive.
    I'm reminded of serving on the Government Reform Committee 
when there was a inquiry into the conduct of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation in Boston, and the Republican Chair of that 
Committee, Dan Burton, as you did, had to threaten the Attorney 
General of the United States with a contempt citation to secure 
cooperation.
    So I say to my colleagues on both sides--and by the way, 
this is not a partisan issue, this is historic and is an 
institutional issue. I don't think we can sunset often enough, 
and I think if we chart a different course in terms of the 
future, the sunset will serve the Congress well despite who the 
Chairman is. And again, I would compliment the Chair on being 
aggressive in terms of oversight, and I would go so far as to 
say before you move on, I would commend to you consideration of 
establishing within the Committee an additional Subcommittee to 
deal specifically with the issue of oversight in 
investigations.
    It's been done under Chairman Hyde in the International 
Relations Committee, and I think it's overdue and it's needed.
    With that I'll yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    As the gentleman from Massachusetts is pointing out, 
whatever success there has been with the PATRIOT Act I think is 
because of the sunset, not in spite of the sunset. We've had 
problems with the national security letters, reclassification 
or misclassification of some cases of terrorists, racial 
profiling, as the Chairman has indicated, we've had to threaten 
subpoenas, and clearly there's been more cooperation from the 
administration in those inquiries involving sections with a 
sunset than those involving sections without a sunset. So I 
would hope that we would keep a sunset that would at least 
require the next President of the United States to have some 
time during his administration where he'll have to respond to 
questions.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. I just want to say in Arizona we love sunsets. I 
particularly like sunsets of all Government programs, but in 
this case I would thank the gentleman from California for 
offering this compromise, this 10-year sunset, and I think it's 
appropriate and I plan to support it.
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you 
raised the question of comparing the sunset to the sunset of 
the Voting Rights Act. I think there's a difference and all 
sunsets are not equivalent. This sunset is dealing with very 
sensitive, as I've said before, as we've all said before, very 
sensitive powers that we're giving Government that pose 
potential threats to the liberty that we all hold dear.
    Now, it's easy to say there have been abuses, and maybe 
there haven't, although there's still a lot of secrecy, and I 
wouldn't agree that there have been no abuses. But even if 
there hadn't been, doesn't mean there won't be next year under 
the next Chairman of this Committee, under the next President, 
under the next Attorney General.
    Sunsets in this respect make us keep reviewing it, and 
that's fine. What is the danger of a sunset, that it makes us 
do a little more work? So what? It keeps it front and center, 
and this kind of thing ought to be kept front and center. The 
Voting Rights Act imposes certain requirements on States to 
make sure that their citizens get the rights they're entitled 
to. Should it sunset? Well, maybe, because maybe those States 
now have changed and don't have to have a Federal imposition on 
them to guarantee those rights. But worse comes to worst, so 
what again? They're giving the rights that ought to be given.
    Here the sunset is to make sure that our citizens have 
liberty and rights, and we ought to have a fairly frequent 
sunset. I commend the gentleman from California for offering 
this amendment. I wish it were for more than just these two 
sections, and there will be amendments for sunsets for more 
sections before this markup is over, but 10 years is too long.
    Lots of things can happen in 10 years. Why shouldn't the 
next President have to be concerned about--a 4-year sunset 
means the next President, not this one. Why shouldn't the next 
President have to be concerned about justifying retention of 
these police powers? We don't know how long the war on terror 
is going to go on, we don't know how it's going to be waged. We 
don't know if abuses are going to occur.
    And a 4-year amendment, and if that amendment--and if that 
fails, we'll offer an amendment for a 6-year sunset--at least 
keeps our feet to the fire. That's what this is about, keeping 
our feet to the fire to keep our eye on the ball to protect the 
liberty of American citizens against possible abuses, and it's 
nothing to say we're not saying anything by this amendment or 
by trying to speed up this amendment by the 4-year secondary 
amendment, to say that the current Attorney General or the 
current President or the current Chairman of this Committee, or 
the current anybody, is doing anything right or wrong. It's 
simply saying that it's a useful tool to make sure that we 
focus on it more than once every 10 year, and frankly, the 
liberties of Americans are worth focusing on a lot more often 
than once every 10 years.
    So I support the Scott secondary amendment, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Scott amendment and I 
expect to also oppose the underlying amendment, and I want to 
explain why.
    It's likely on the underlying amendment that I'm going to 
find myself in the good company of many of my colleague on the 
other side of the podium, though not necessarily for the same 
reason. They feel that the 10-year period is too long. I happen 
to feel that we don't need sunsets at all for the reasons that 
have already been stated by many others.
    The PATRIOT Act has worked well. There have been no abuses. 
And regardless of whether there are sunsets or not, I am sure 
that the oversight will continue, and that can address any 
possible abuses that might come up.
    I'd also like to note, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me 
that the arguments made against the 3-year sunset could also be 
made against the 10-year sunset. As I say, the PATRIOT Act has 
been working well.
    So I just wanted to state for the record that I am going to 
oppose both the Scott amendment and the underlying amendment as 
well.
    I'll yield back.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have yet to really get 
an understanding from the sponsor of the amendment--and 
frankly, I don't even--from the base amendment, and frankly 
from you, Mr. Chairman, of what's the harm of going to 2009? I 
think the Chairman deserves a great deal of credit for (A) 
inserting the sunset, but also generally the way that we've 
taken on issues here.
    I mean essentially what--I think in our Committee under 
your leadership for the first time in a very long time we did a 
reauthorization of the Justice Department, something that had 
gone on for years without being reauthorized.
    Frankly, what I would say that this is, is essentially a 
forced reauthorization. I think it has been salutary to have 
the sunset provisions in because it's gotten people on both 
sides of the issue having a discussion about it. It's forced us 
to be at this point--I doubt very much if there were not sunset 
provisions in the original we'd be having hearings right now. 
And I think on both sides of the aisle concerns have been 
expressed about how far reaching or whether it was not far 
reaching enough.
    I am puzzled by whether or not making it 2009 in any way 
weakens our chances on the floor. That's the only argument I've 
heard from the gentleman from California about why 2015 rather 
than 2009, it strikes a so-called balance. Frankly, the 
concerns that have been raised by opponents would be further 
assuaged by having a shorter sunset, not a longer sunset, that 
if you believe that you're trying to get votes from people who 
are like myself, who are kind of some parts of the bill we've 
got no problem with, some parts of the bill we have serious 
problems with. There are people on the far right and far left 
who expressed concerns.
    If you truly want to give the tools to the Justice 
Department for additional time, and you don't want the bill to 
be defeated all together, a shorter sunset seems to be better 
way.
    And also from the day-to-day practical prosecution of the 
law, I find it hard to believe that any prosecutor would say or 
any criminal would say, well, here's a decision I'm going to 
make because we've got a sunset coming up in a few years. I 
don't think any terrorist is going to say, all right, I'm going 
to hold off a little longer because we have a sunset coming up 
in 2009. So I'm in 2007 contemplating a crime, but I'm going to 
wait because I think it's going to sunset.
    I mean practically speaking, that's not going to happen, 
and if that makes them push off their plans for terrorism, then 
we should have sunset every year because maybe they'll just 
keep putting it off and see if we don't renew it.
    I guess my simple question is--and it hasn't been answered 
here--is what's the matter with a shorter sunset? How does it 
harm anyone? Why does the Justice Department mind that much? 
It's not an indictment of them or it's not ad argument that 
they've done things poorly. What it is, is that the present 
sunset has been a successful fulcrum, (A) to get this back 
before this Committee; (B) to get a full discussion of it 
before the country.
    You know you say that there haven't been abuses. We've also 
found out in a lot of cases there hasn't been a great deal of 
use of it. That's something worth knowing as well that would 
have not come out, would not have had the pressure to come out 
were it not for a shorter sunset.
    And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I applaud the gentleman for his, I think, 
insightful comments. I think we should be thinking about when 
this legislation comes to the floor because there are concerns 
there, and only has to remember some of the votes that we have 
witnessed that have occurred on the Floor because people have 
legitimate concerns.
    And I dare say, this sunset, this sunset and the duration 
of the sunset--and it should be expanded in my opinion--is 
something that I think the majority of members of the House 
will find--will welcome.
    Just to support my earlier comments about oversight and the 
relationship between the branches, someone just passed me a 
press release from Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman dated 
June 14, who were speaking about the need for the 
administration to fulfill its obligations under the National 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004, and 
I'll submit this into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The press release was not available in time to be included 
in this report.]
    Mr. Delahunt. They noted a series of reports, strategic 
plans and preliminary actions whose deadlines have come and 
gone. Among them, the National Transportation Strategy, the 
first step towards streamlining the Federal security clearance 
process, a number of port security strategic plans, aviation 
security staffing standards, a baggage screening cost-sharing 
plan, three reports on diplomatic initiatives to root out 
terrorists.
    I dare say that if we do not have, as Mr. Weiner indicated, 
the leverage, the fulcrum, you know, even if we mandate 
reports--it would be interesting for me if both majority and 
minority staff would review the reports mandated by the PATRIOT 
Act and other antiterrorism statutes to see whether they've 
been filed.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from New 
York has expired. The question is----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, to your left.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I wouldn't need to make it quick if--well, 
anyway.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. I want to join in support of the secondary 
amendment, and the reason I wanted to be recognized on this--I 
know many others have spoken already, but I frankly think this 
is probably the most important amendment we're going to have 
today, and indeed I think one of the most important provisions 
that we in the original PATRIOT bill was the sunset provision 
that the Chairman insisted upon. And at the time I strongly 
supported a 2-year sunset, even a shorter leash.
    My concern with that sunset being 4 years originally was 
that it might take us 4 years before the Committee, as a 
Committee, really did the kind of vigilant oversight that we 
should do. The PATRIOT bill was basically a bargain. It said we 
will give law enforcement greater power, and in exchange we 
will do greater oversight.
    I think many of the powers of the PATRIOT bill needed to be 
conveyed to keep pace with changes in technology and changes in 
the way that terrorists operated. But much as I was concerned, 
I think that with the 4-year sunset the Committee as a 
Committee did not do oversight until 3\1/2\ years into the 
sunset. And I appreciate what the Chairman did with the Ranking 
Member individually, but the Committee as a Committee, in terms 
of holding hearings, having witnesses, and giving each of the 
members a chance to participate in the oversight really didn't 
happen till 3, 3\1/2\ years into the life of the PATRIOT bill.
    And I'm afraid that if we extend this by 10 years, it will 
be 9\1/2\ years before we go through this exercise again, and 
that's just too long. It's not just a function of the Chairman 
not being the Chairman. Most of the members of this Committee 
will no longer be on the Committee. Heck, most of the members 
of this Committee will probably no longer be in the Congress 
who were present when the bill passed and are present today.
    To put things in context, my colleague from New York, Mr. 
Weiner, he'll be finishing his second term as mayor of New York 
when this comes up again. [Laughter.]
    My 3-year-old will be a teenager, and I'm not ready for 
that. [Laughter.]
    I'm not ready for either of those things. [Laughter.]
    No, I am ready for Anthony to be mayor.
    We reauthorize departments with great frequency. We 
reauthorize our transportation bill every 6 years. There's 
little risk, unless there are great abuses, that if we 
sunsetted this bill in another 4 years, that it wouldn't be re-
extended in 4 years. I don't expect there will be abuse of the 
bill or dramatic abuse of the bill, and I would expect that 
with a 4-year sunset, the worst that will happen is that we'll 
be back here in 3\1/2\ years, and I would hope sooner, to be 
looking at some of these provisions again.
    So the downside--I can't even find the upside--in that it 
compels us as a Committee to do the oversight that we should be 
doing, I think, is substantial. And probably a more realistic 
sunset date would be the single greatest step that could be 
taken by the majority to outreach to the minority to have a 
reauthorization that enjoys very broad bipartisan support.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott second 
degree amendment to the Lungren amendment. Those in favor will 
say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Conyers. A record vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Record vote is requested and will 
be ordered. Those in favor of the Scott amendment to the 
Lungren amendment will, as your names are called, answer aye; 
those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. There are no further members who 
wish to cast or change their vote. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The question----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I have a secondary amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk.
    Mr. Nadler. The 2011.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Second degree amendment to the Lungren amendment 
to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler. Strike ``2015'' and insert 
``2011.''
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is prepared to declare 
the Committee in recess until 2 o'clock, at which time, Mr. 
Nadler will be recognized for 5 minutes to explain his 
amendment. Members will please be prompt.
    The Committee is in recess.
    [Whereupon, the Committee was recessed from 12:27 p.m. to 
2:07 p.m.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A working quorum is present.
    When the Committee recessed for lunch, pending was an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren, to which a second degree amendment by the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Nadler, had been offered. We will now resume 
consideration of the Nadler second degree amendment, and the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment, this secondary amendment 
doesn't need too much discussion. Most of the discussion I 
think we can just read into the record, the discussion on the 
last secondary amendment for the 4-year extension. This simply 
says instead of a 10-year extension, as Mr. Lungren would have 
it--sunset, rather--it should be a 6-year sunset.
    Before we broke, we had discussion on Mr. Scott's amendment 
for a 4-year sunset, and the majority thought that that was too 
fast, that 10 years was a better idea. I am compromising at 6 
years.
    Now, one objection--and frankly, again, just to be brief, 
when you are dealing with liberty and with giving Government 
more power, then I think 10 years is just too long. Now, it had 
been expressed that maybe if a 4-year extension was too short 
and, among other reasons, that would come into effect in 2009, 
it would put it into the next presidential election--well, this 
would not. This would be 2011. It would be the third year of 
the next presidential term. It doesn't get mixed up in party 
politics in the 2008 election.
    And again, if we think these things should be sunsetted--
and I certainly agree they should be--a 6-year sunset is 
reasonable. Over 6 years we can see what happens. And to 
require Congress to look at things every 6 years, things that 
potentially threaten people's liberties, albeit maybe we have 
to do it because of terrorism, is not too often to do. So I 
think 6 years is a reasonable amount of time, and I offer the 
secondary amendment to what I regard as a good amendment by Mr. 
Lungren.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
    I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from 
New York had it half right. He was right when he said that all 
of the arguments that were made in favor of the Scott amendment 
applied to his amendment. What he omitted is that all of the 
arguments made against the Scott amendment also apply to this 
amendment. And since the Scott amendment was rejected, I think 
we ought to reject this----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nadler. All the arguments but one, as I pointed out. 
One of the arguments against the Scott amendment was that it 
would put it into the 2008 presidential election because it 
would sunset in 2009. This does not do that. This would sunset 
in 2011, the third year of a presidential term, and that 
argument----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And reclaiming my time----
    Mr. Nadler.--is inapplicable.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time, 2015 is the 
third year of a presidential term, too. And I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The question is on agreeing to the Nadler second degree 
amendment to the Lungren amendment. Those in favor will say 
aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    rollcall will be ordered. Those in favor of the Nadler 
amendment to the Lungren amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, pass. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members in the chamber who 
wish--The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 9 ayes and 18 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the second degree amendment is 
not agreed to.
    The question is on----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request 
for a Scott-Lungren amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state the 
request.
    Mr. Scott. The amendment reads that the provisions shall 
cease to have effect on December 31, 2005--excuse me, 2015. The 
amendment would be to insert language ``and after,'' so it 
would read, ``would cease to have effect on and after December 
31, 2015.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the modification 
to the amendment is agreed to. Hearing none, so ordered.
    The question now occurs on the Lungren amendment as 
modified. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from California 
wish to ask for a rollcall?
    Mr. Schiff. No. I just had an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentleman from California 
asked for a rollcall. rollcall will be ordered.
    Those in favor of the Lungren amendment as modified will, 
as your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And 
the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members in the chamber who 
wish to cast or change--Yes, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members in the chamber who 
wish to cast or change their votes? If not, the clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 26 ayes and 2 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from New York 
has a burning sunset amendment. I would ask to be recognized 
after one of my colleagues, after Mr. Nadler.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is trying to share the 
wealth, but if this is not the time for the gentleman from 
California to partake of the wealth, for what purpose does the 
gentleman from New York seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
forbearance of the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Chairman, I do think--I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have three Mr. Nadler 
amendments.
    Mr. Nadler. It says ``strike section 3.'' This is the one 
by Mr. Nadler and Mrs. Lofgren.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler 
and Ms. Lofgren. Strike section 3 and insert the following: 
Security. 3. Sunset. Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is 
amended by--(1) Inserting ``206'' in section (a) after 
``205,''; (2) Inserting ``215'' in section (a) before ``216,''; 
and (3) Striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2015.''
    The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is short, is not quite 
self-explanatory. What it does is extend the 10-year sunset, 
which we have just adopted for two sections, to the other 14 
sections that are currently sunsetted under the law and that 
under the bill in chief would be permanent. This simply says 
that all the reasons for the sunsets that we just passed for 10 
years for the two existing sections, for these two sections, we 
should do for the other 14 sections that do sunset now, and 
instead of permanentizing them, we should sunset them after 10 
years.
    So I take from Mr. Lungren the 10 years and we should--all 
the same reasons why the two sections that we just did should 
be sunsetted in 10 years apply to these sections, too. They are 
extensions of various powers. We are to review them. This 
includes Section 201, Authority to Intercept Wire or Electronic 
Communications Relating to Terrorism; 202, Wiretaps Relating to 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Offenses; Section 203, Authority to 
Share Electronic, Wire, and Oral Interception Information with 
Foreign Intelligence Operations; Duration of FISA Surveillance 
of Non-USA Persons; Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to 
Warrants; Pen Register and Trap and Trace; Interception of 
Computer Trespass Communications; and so forth.
    All of these are basically new powers granted by the 
PATRIOT Act. All of them were sunsetted now; all of them, I 
think, should be sunsetted in 10 years for the same reasons.
    And I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Oh, yes. I do not yield back, I yield to the 
gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I will be very quick. As the cosponsor of the 
amendment, I won't repeat what Mr. Nadler said, but I would 
merely note that some of the provisions that would be covered 
by the amendment really are provisions that relate to 
technology. And it is important both for civil liberties, but 
also from the technological point of view, that we have a 
schedule for reviewing those issues. Because the technology, I 
guarantee you, will change, and if we don't have a set time for 
us to review those changes, we may end up with a consequence 
that we never intended. And I think that is an additional 
reason to support the amendment.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding, and yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from New York 
yield back?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I know this is well-intentioned, 
but I would like to point out to all of my colleagues that when 
we did this, the PATRIOT Act, initially, one of the reasons for 
the sunsets was this was new. And we wanted the 4 years in 
which to observe what happened. We have had not only the 4 
years but countless hearings. We have looked at this in detail. 
Mr. Lungren, appropriately, looked and said although there has 
been no misconduct, he would like to, and we have now passed an 
amendment to hold open a little bit longer, or a lot longer 
period on two provisions.
    But I think that we fail to do our job as a Committee if we 
simply punt and say, well, we are going to keep it all open. 
And I would suggest that, if we are going to do that, then let 
us simply amend I think it is Section 28, and, you know, we 
could do everything. We could sunset the entire Homeland 
Security, for that matter, every 10 years.
    I think there is a point of, if we work together 
diligently--and I promised my office to work together just as I 
have seen the Chairman's office working--to make sure that we 
have, if we have concerns, we have areas both here and, 
potentially, on the floor, that we reach those amendments on a 
bipartisan basis so that we can make sure that we don't need to 
simply leave something unanswered and hope for the best for the 
next 10 years.
    I would ask my colleagues, at a minimum after this 
amendment, to delay any further amendments on sunsetting in 
favor of let's get to substantive changes that might be 
appropriate so that we can not have sunsetting, but rather have 
a law which we are confident will last for the entire decades 
to come.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. I would yield.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, this is, as far as I know, the 
last amendment on sunsetting. But I would point out that 
nothing in sunsetting--we don't hold it open for 10 years. That 
is not correct. The law is the law. This makes us come back and 
review it in 10 years. And certainly nothing that says review 
it in 10 years precludes our reviewing it in 10 minutes or 10 
months or next year, as we ought to on a continuing basis.
    But at the minimum, since these are police powers that have 
to balance carefully, we ought to at least make sure that our 
successors--or us, if we are still here----
    Mr. Issa. I appreciate the gentleman from New York. And I 
would reclaim and yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Texas.
    Mr. Smith. I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
    Mr. Chairman, I, too, oppose this amendment, which applies 
to all 16 of the sunsetted provisions of the PATRIOT Act. The 
PATRIOT Act was a long overdue measure aimed at first closing 
gaping holes in the Government's ability to collect vital 
intelligence information on the global terrorist network, and 
second, protecting Americans from another attack. It was 
supported overwhelmingly by the American people and passed by a 
margin of 98-1 in the Senate and 347-66 in the House.
    Even the ACLU said, in a recent press release, that ``most 
of the voluminous PATRIOT Act is actually unobjectionable from 
a civil liberties point of view'' and that ``the law makes 
important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools 
they need to protect against terrorist attacks.''
    In order to make sure that we did not overreact to the 
September 11 murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans by 
enacting legislation that went too far, we placed sunsets on 
some PATRIOT Act provisions. Nearly 4 years later, successes in 
terrorist investigations show not only that the PATRIOT Act was 
the right way to go, but also that the sunsets were not 
necessary. There has not been even one substantiated abuse of 
power under the PATRIOT Act, but there have been terrorist 
prosecutions. The sunsets should not be reinstated across the 
board.
    The information sharing powers created by Section 218, for 
example, which would be sunsetted again by this amendment, were 
instrumental in disrupting terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, 
Florida, and Virginia, and in prosecuting a number of 
individuals tied to terrorist organizations.
    The Section 212 power to authorize electronic 
communications service providers to disclose records to the 
Government if there is the threat of death or serious injury, 
which would be sunsetted again under this amendment, allowed 
investigators to prevent the bombing of a high school and 
allowed investigators in Texas to apprehend an individual who 
threatened to attack a mosque.
    This amendment would have a chilling effect on current and 
future investigations because of the uncertainty a sunset 
places on the direction of an investigation. If investigators 
believe that they may no longer have the ability to share 
information, obtain roving wiretaps, or obtain certain business 
records, they may hesitate to pursue the investigation.
    Mr. Chairman, sunsets may have had a proper place when they 
were enacted at the beginning of this landmark legislation in 
the aftermath of September 11th, but since then the 
effectiveness of the PATRIOT Act has been proved many times 
over. There should be no sunsetting of all these provisions or 
any sunsetting of our willingness or ability to keep America 
safe.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The question is on----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I agree that most of the, or at 
least a lot of the PATRIOT Act is in fact good law. In fact, 
this Committee reported a version of the PATRIOT Act 
unanimously. And so we felt that a lot of it could have been 
passed without a lot of controversy. People have said that it 
has worked okay. There have been misclassifications of 
terrorism cases and there have been problems, so when the 
suggestion is made that there are no problems, I don't want 
that comment to go without controversy. We have seen, because 
we have had the sunsets, we have had much better cooperation 
from the administration because of the sunsets. The Chairman 
has indicated that we had to threaten a subpoena to get the 
cooperation, at least on some issues, from the Attorney 
General.
    And I would hope that we would adopt this. I think 10 years 
is too long, but we have already had that debate. So long as we 
find on reauthorization, when it comes up for reauthorization, 
that it is worked, there won't be any problem reauthorizing it. 
It just ensures it will have oversight. So I would hope that we 
would adopt the amendment, and I yield----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman from Virginia yield?
    Mr. Scott. I will yield.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, I want to agree with you, because the 
original PATRIOT Act that was unanimously voted out had 2-year 
sunset provisions. Two years, not four, and certainly not 10. 
And so I would like to remind the Committee that our collective 
work product was far more carefully tailored than now.
    And I couldn't agree with you more. You know, a member 
making a statement that there are no PATRIOT Act violations 
does not, unfortunately, turn it into gospel. That is just one 
person's view. We are putting together a paper here that shows 
that there were dozens and dozens of violations that have come 
to our attention, and probably others that we haven't found out 
about yet.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you very much. And reclaiming my time, I 
yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I just want to add that, you know, as was said a moment 
ago, much of the Patriot--and the ACLU said much of the PATRIOT 
Act is unobjectionable and is fine and uncontroversial and no 
one objects to it. But parts of the PATRIOT Act, especially the 
parts that were sunsetted, get very expanded and perhaps, in 
some hands and in some times and in some places, dangerous 
powers to police authorities. They may not have been misused; 
they may have been misused. Who knows in the future? They may 
be very necessary in the war on terrorism for now, maybe for 
the future. But the one thing that sunsetting says is that we 
should not get too comfortable with expanded police powers in 
this country. We should be nervous about expanded police powers 
in this country, because they threaten liberty. They may be 
necessary in an age of terrorism, but we should be nervous 
about them, we should be grudging about them, and we should 
review them. And all the sunset provision says is review those 
expanded police powers in 10 years. It is worth the extra time 
for this Committee to protect liberty.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, and the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York asks 
for a rollcall. Those in favor of the Nadler-Lofgren amendment 
will, as your names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. 
And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Van Hollen.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Van 
Hollen and Mr. Conyers. At the end of the bill, add the 
following: Section ___. Knowing transfer of firearm to 
individual named in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization 
File treated as providing material support to terrorists.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Conyers follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to 
offer this amendment together with Mr. Conyers.
    There is an existing provision in the PATRIOT Act entitled 
``Providing Material Support to Terrorists,'' which does 
something I think we all agree needs to be done, which says 
simply that if you are somebody who is providing aid and 
comfort and providing material support to somebody conducting a 
terrorist act, then you, too, should be held accountable.
    What this amendment does, very simply, it says that if you 
knowingly--and I want to stress this is not if you have reason 
to know, this is not if you speculate, that you might know--
this is if you know that somebody is on the terrorist watch 
list and you provide that individual with firearms, like a 
semiautomatic weapon or other controlled weapons, that you can 
be held responsible for that action. And it seems to me that if 
we want to address the roots of the problem as we have in the 
existing bill, where we say that someone who provides material 
support to a terrorist will also be held accountable and 
responsible, it makes sense that if we know that somebody is on 
the terrorist watch list and you go out and sell them, you 
know, 12 AK47s, that you also should be held responsible under 
this provision providing material support to terrorists.
    So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt 
this amendment, and I yield to Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank my colleague for joining with me, and 
me joining with him, in this amendment. Terrorists' access to 
guns. What could be more relevant in a PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization? We are not talking about weapons of mass 
destruction, we are talking about guns, period, in the hands of 
any terrorist is a danger to Americans, particularly inside the 
United States.
    And so what we are trying to do with Van Hollen-Conyers is 
to close an alarming loophole that allows suspected and actual 
members of terrorist organizations to legally purchase guns. I 
will not repeat that sentence because it speaks for itself.
    A GAO report: 56 firearm purchase attempts were made by 
individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the 
Federal Government. Forty-seven of these cases, transactions of 
sale were permitted to proceed because officials couldn't find 
any disqualifying information such as a felony conviction or 
court-determined mental defectiveness in the individual 
applicant's background.
    So under the law as it stands without this amendment, even 
in the PATRIOT Act neither suspected or actual membership in a 
terrorist organization is a sufficient ground in and of itself 
to prevent such a purchase from taking place. I think this 
Committee is not about to let a PATRIOT Act reauthorization 
come out knowing that this is the case and that we must act.
    I deliberately did not mention assault weapons because they 
are going to come up in a special amendment. So, my colleagues, 
please join us so that we can really wage the best war that we 
can against terrorists in the United States by keeping domestic 
guns out of their hands for those who know who they are selling 
them to. Again, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated, this 
turns on knowledge and intent, and I think that it is the least 
that we can do on a bill such as this.
    I return the time back to my colleague, if he chooses to 
use it.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Well, I thank my colleague. I think the 
point has been made here. And I do want to stress that this is 
where you are knowingly transferring, where an individual 
knowingly transfers firearms to somebody who is on the 
terrorist watch list. It seems to fit very well into the 
provision that already exists with respect to providing 
material support to terrorists. And I urge my colleagues to 
adopt the amendment.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized to speak in 
opposition.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And although I agree 
with the sentiment in this amendment, and all of us want to 
take all weapons out of the hands of terrorists, I would seek 
to answer the question that was asked by the Ranking Member 
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, although it may have been 
rhetorical, what could be more relevant than taking guns out of 
the hands of terrorists; I would submit taking bombs out of the 
hands of terrorists would be more relevant, given the 
circumstances that we have seen in the history of terrorism.
    But it is not my particular concern. I would like to find a 
way, too, that we could verify that the terrorists are on the 
watch list for a reason. But in fact, we can't know if they are 
on the list or not because it is a classified list. And so I 
understand the amendment says ``knowingly'' the name appears on 
the file. I don't know how an individual that might be 
providing that gun would know that they were on the list, since 
it is classified.
    And then the second point is that there is a list, though, 
and that list is the list of those who are disabled of their 
firearms rights. And it is a list that has been determined to 
be consistent with the Second Amendment of our Constitution. 
And those conditions are, people who have been adjudicated in 
one form or another for having a legitimate reason to have 
their Second Amendment gun rights denied, these would be people 
who have committed a felony, people who are a fugitive from 
justice, addicted to a controlled substance, or adjudicated 
mentally defective or an illegal alien, or dishonorably 
discharged from the military, or having renounced their U.S. 
citizenship or be subject to a restraining order, or being 
convicted of a crime of domestic violence. We make sure that 
when people are denied their constitutional rights to keep and 
own firearms that they have a process by which they go on the 
list where they are denied, they have an opportunity to appeal 
that, an opportunity for their case to be heard. And in this 
case, not only do they not have an opportunity to be on the 
terrorist watch list, they may not know that they are on the 
watch list. And if they might hear a rumor that they are, for 
example, be denied boarding an airplane, which has happened to 
some of our colleagues, then they only suspect that they are 
on; it might confirm they are on, but they may not know why.
    So I think that even though the intent of this amendment is 
a good one, to take the weapons out of the hands of terrorists, 
it reaches beyond a point where we have constitutionally ever 
reached before with regard to their restraint on access to guns 
under the Second Amendment. So the language and the intent is 
good, but the effect on our Second Amendment of the 
Constitution, I believe, is----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman from Iowa yield to me 
briefly?
    Mr. King. I would be happy to, Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
    What I have heard you say is that terrorists have a 
constitutional right to weapons, a protected constitutional 
right----
    Mr. King. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Conyers. Right?
    Mr. King. Of course not. And in fact these people are not 
adjudicated as terrorists. You said yourself that they were 
known or suspected to be on the terrorist watch list, those 56 
people that applied. I don't think that you stated before this 
Committee that they were all on the terrorist watch list, 
because that would have been at least acknowledging an 
understanding of what was on the classified list itself.
    So I would conclude by urging a No vote and I would yield 
back my time.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
    Mr. King. I have yielded back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman and members, this amendment appears to be the 
most reasonable, well thought-out amendment going directly to 
the heart of protecting us from terrorists or people who would 
do us harm. And yet, I am absolutely amazed that the gentleman 
on the opposite side of the aisle who just spoke is concerned 
about protecting the rights of suspected terrorists.
    It seems to me we have sat here and we have listened to 
some of the same voices talk about how we can obtain private 
medical records, how we could place people under investigation 
without judicial review, how we can have access to e-mails, and 
surveillance of all kinds, invading the rights of folks who you 
don't even have to show probable cause. And here we have an 
objection to trying to keep guns out of the hands of suspected 
terrorists.
    I don't understand it. It doesn't make good sense to me. 
And for those who would paint themselves as being concerned 
about how we secure this country, how we secure the homeland, 
how we really deal with this problem of terrorism, given that 
there is some information that would lead a reasonable person 
to believe that this person could be a terrorist, and you don't 
want to keep firearms out of their hands, I don't understand 
it. And we certainly must have a recorded vote on this. And I 
yield----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you. What I found interesting in the 
opposition from one of the members on the other side is that 
the objective was right and the language was right, but there 
was some concern about his interpretation of, perhaps, that 
this would be problematic to the Second Amendment.
    I just want to reiterate that the Van Hollen-Conyers 
amendment says that the person would only be in trouble under 
this section if they knowingly sold to someone who appeared on 
the list. So it is not as if he gets to guess or they have to 
do intelligence. They just have to know. I mean, if the intent 
was fine of the bill, well, that is at least a step in the 
right direction. If the language was acknowledged to being 
right, then the only problem is that the reading of it must be 
faulty.
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Ms. Weiner. I don't control the time, but I certainly hope 
that the gentlelady will because I am dying to know what is it 
that you think is not good about it if you like the intent and 
the language? And I will yield back.
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentle----
    Mr. Conyers. I just want to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. She didn't yield to you.
    Mr. Conyers. I just want to point out what is left for us 
to do in this bill reauthorizing a PATRIOT Act and allowing 
people to knowingly sell to terrorists or suspected terrorists. 
Then that makes everything else we do secondary. We just opened 
the barn door. I can't figure out why we should stay around 
here for another day or so and mull over dozens of other very 
worthwhile amendments when we have already agreed that the 
constitutional rights of terrorists are protected by the Second 
Amendment to the Constitution--a proposition I have never heard 
in all of my years on the Judiciary Committee.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, I am going to yield because 
I am so anxious to get to the vote on this. I think it is very 
important that we have a recorded vote. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question----
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman? Over here.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California did 
not hear the gentlewoman from California's request to go to a 
vote quickly?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes, I did, but there are some remarks on the 
record that I----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, then, the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Strike the last word in opposition to the 
amendment.
    I mean, we know this is serious business. When I was 
attorney general, I set up a violence suppression unit that did 
nothing but go and take guns off the street from those who were 
convicted felons, those who were violent offenders. We took 
literally thousands off the street. We put people away for long 
periods of time. We had to deal with the gang issue. And one of 
the constitutional issues that comes up with lists of gangs is 
who has access to those lists, because on your gang list you 
often have people who are affiliated with gangs but don't have 
a criminal history. You can't mix them into criminal history 
records precisely because they are different categories. Some 
law enforcement have access to them, others do not.
    It is my understanding--and someone can correct if I am 
wrong--it is my understanding that the Violent Gang and 
Terrorist Organization File maintained by the Attorney General 
is classified. Now, if that is the case, what we are doing here 
is trying to fool people with an amendment that seems to do 
something. If it is a classified list, how can anybody who 
doesn't have a classified clearance be able to see it?
    And so what we are talking about here is a feel-good 
amendment that doesn't go to the question of dealing with 
terrorists or gang members. And I know it makes people feel 
good to talk about some sort of list that answers the 
questions, but having gone through this in one of my past lives 
and knowing that you have different categories of information 
on different lists, access to which is granted to only certain 
people under certain standards----
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
    Ms. Waters. Two questions I see. First, I don't believe it 
is classified. But if we assume that it is, the amendment 
itself would apply only if the individual knew that the person 
was on that list. So----
    Mr. Lungren. And there be no reason of knowing unless they 
had a classified----
    Ms. Waters. That is not true. If they knew, if they knew 
and sold it anyhow, that is the only time this would apply. So 
the gentleman's objection, even though I don't think it is 
classified, would not actually cause a problem.
    And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Lungren. Well, the other thing is, if this list is what 
I think it is, at certain moments in time you have people who 
are not members of a terrorist group or members of a gang, but 
have been put on there because of a suspicion that they may be. 
And that is one of the reasons that you don't allow access to 
some of these lists. I am just talking about from the 
standpoint of lists I know with respect to gang----
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
    Mr. Lungren. You have to be very careful about designating 
people as gang individuals and putting that out somewhere. And 
there have been carefully drawn limitations on who gets access 
to it and who doesn't.
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. I mean, this is an interesting discussion, 
but----
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes, sure.
    Mr. Weiner. I am just curious. If the United States 
Government and the agencies in charge of making sure that 
people who are terrorists don't get onto planes, don't get 
access to secure places, if a person is on that list, isn't 
that--and someone knows they are on that list and sells them a 
weapon anyway, isn't that kind of a kind of precaution we might 
want to maybe possibly have? What is the harm? What is the harm 
that you see in saying that if someone knowing knows they are 
on that list, a list, by the way, that we rely upon for much 
tougher sanctions than this bill, what is the harm of saying if 
someone knowingly sells to someone----
    Mr. Lungren. Well, I will take back my time, because what 
we are doing here is silly. Because you know the people don't 
have that information. This is the reason why we decide that we 
don't give airlines the list. We give them--they are allowed to 
make queries into the list to find out if people are there. 
They don't know why people are on or not on. It is one of the 
reasons we try and make a delineation between law enforcement 
people who have had an opportunity to be cleared to know this 
information, and others.
    So if you want to, you know, vote for the bill, or vote----
    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren.--means something, you can. But the fact of the 
matter is it means absolutely nothing.
    Ms. Waters. What if Karl Rove leaked the information?
    Mr. King. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. I will yield whatever time I have.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman from California. And I 
would point out there is a distinction here, and that is the 
list that I read, the nine classifications of those who have 
been disabled of their constitutional rights, all the people 
who have been adjudicated, the list we are talking about in 
this amendment, though well-intentioned, is a list that 
includes those people who are under suspicion, not those who 
are adjudicated. And that is a real violation of the same kind 
of things that you are trying to avoid in many of your other 
amendments.
    And I would yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, seek recognition?
    Mr. Watt. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I had to step out and I walked back 
in to what appears to me to be a surreal discussion. I want to 
address one aspect of it. I mean, I thought that one of the 
real problems we had with the PATRIOT Act across the board was 
the extent to which it treads on constitutional rights. And Mr. 
King's argument about the Second Amendment is the one that I 
just couldn't quite come to grips with. He seemed to be 
suggesting that he couldn't support this amendment because it 
would tread on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.
    I did want to remind him of the provisions in the Sixth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
provides that accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and 
public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district in 
which the crime shall have been committed, which district shall 
have been previously ascertained by law; and be informed of the 
nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the 
witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining 
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel 
for his defense.
    If the marginal--even if you assume that the Second 
Amendment says what you believe that it says, I can't imagine 
that you think that what we have done is more an impediment on 
the Second Amendment than it is on this amendment. I mean, we 
have people locked up, no charges brought against them, no 
right to counsel, no--I mean, you know. So I thought we all had 
accepted that there was going to be some infringement. That is 
why we had such a long debate about the sunset provisions, 
because, you know, at least you could go back and review the 
extent to which this is happening and get us back at some point 
to a balance that protects our constitutional rights. But you 
can't with integrity argue that you can protect only the Second 
Amendment, unless you are going to argue just as vigorously and 
vehemently that you are going to protect the other 
constitutional protections here.
    So, I mean, I--now, I don't have any problem with you 
standing up for the Second Amendment. I mean, you know, I just 
want you to make it a little bit broader than the Second 
Amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. There is a whole bunch of provisions in the 
Constitution that we are treading and shredding--hopefully, 
temporarily. I just wanted to point that out. I will yield to 
the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
wanted to make a quick related point, and that is that a lot of 
the provisions of the Patriot bill that we are discussing today 
involve the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable 
searches and seizures. And in all the cases that we are talking 
about, about surveillance under FISA or other provisions, we 
are talking about people who are suspects. None of these people 
are adjudicated felons. We are all talking about suspects, and 
in some cases, with standards less than probable cause.
    Now, here, yes, we are talking about people who are 
suspects, although I guess you could have people who are 
convicted also that are part of the Violent Gang and Terrorist 
Organization File. But yes, we are talking about suspects and 
their rights under the Fourth Amendment and suspects and their 
rights under the Second Amendment. And I find it, you know, 
very incongruous that we are saying that the Fourth Amendment 
rights we are willing to----
    Mr. Watt. Fudge.
    Mr. Schiff. Well, I wouldn't use the word ``fudge,'' but, 
you know, we are willing to push the envelope on the Fourth 
Amendment vis-a-vis these suspect, but when it comes to the 
sacrosanct Second Amendment, and we are talking about knowingly 
giving a firearm to somebody who is a potential terrorist, that 
that is okay because they are only potentially terrorists. But 
we can surveill potential terrorists; we just can't take their 
gun away.
    That seems to me an extraordinary result, that we can go up 
on a wiretap of a potential terrorist, but we can't stop 
someone from knowingly giving guns to a potential terrorist. 
And I don't know why the Fourth Amendment, apart from reasons 
that are unspoken here in Committee but plain to everyone in 
this Committee, I don't know why the Second Amendment is 
getting so much more vigilant protection here than the Fourth 
or, as my colleague mentions, the Sixth.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The question is on the Van Hollen amendment. Those in favor 
will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Conyers. Record vote, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A record vote will be ordered. 
Those in favor of the Van Hollen amendment will, as your names 
are called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will 
call the role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further members who 
wish to cast or change their vote, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
Berman and Delahunt, on data mining report.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Berman 
and Mr. Delahunt. At the appropriate place in the bill, insert 
the following: Section ___. Data mining report. (a) 
Definitions. In this section----
    [The amendment of Mr. Berman and Mr. Delahunt follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas reserves a 
point of order. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read. Subject to the reservation, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment that Mr. Delahunt and I are offering would 
require the departments and agencies of the Federal Government 
to report to Congress on the development and implementation of 
data mining technologies.
    When Mr. Delahunt offered this amendment on behalf of both 
of us during the intelligence reform markup of this Committee, 
it was accepted by a voice vote. The General Accounting Office 
issued a report in May 2004 that identified almost 200 data 
mining projects throughout the Federal Government that were 
either operational or in the planning stages. Many of them make 
use of personally identifiable data obtained by private sector 
databases.
    Two concerns lead us to this amendment. The first is that 
Americans rightly have privacy concerns about these data mining 
technologies, particularly when we hear that there are 200 of 
them in the works. When the Total Information Awareness Program 
came to light, there was tremendous public concern about the 
extent of the project.
    Congress ought to know about these programs not just as 
they are being put into place, but as they are being developed, 
so that we can ensure that privacy concerns are taken into 
account.
    The second reason for the amendment is that the budget for 
the Total Information Awareness Program in the Defense budget 
alone in 2004 was $169 million. The Defense appropriations bill 
cut all of that funding. These technologies are not free. They 
are expensive to develop and run. When Congress is unaware of 
their development and steps in only at the implementation to 
cut funding, taxpayer dollars are wasted.
    Law enforcement must have the necessary means to protect 
our safety, but the use of data mining technologies should not 
be allowed to put Americans' privacy at risk. By implementing a 
reporting requirement, we can ensure that Congress knows in 
advance of implementation and is able to respond appropriately.
    I know that there is a question about the germaneness of 
this amendment, and I know that when it was adopted last time, 
there were problems in sequential referrals because we seek to 
get reports on data mining in a number of different agencies, 
not just agencies that the Judiciary Committee has oversight 
on. At the appropriate time----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California and 
other members of the Committee know that the chair has been 
very concerned about data mining in an unchecked and 
unreportable manner by agencies of the Executive Department. 
Now, when the original PATRIOT Act was first considered, the 
final version of the PATRIOT Act did have provisions checking 
data mining activity by the Justice Department.
    I believe that the concern of the gentleman from California 
is a very well-founded one. And while I don't think that the 
amendment he is offering is germane under the rules of the 
House, I do think that he is talking about a legitimate subject 
that should be legislated on sometime further on in the 
legislative process, either in this bill or in subsequent 
legislation. And I will give my commitment to the gentleman 
from California to work with him on this subject, because I 
believe that he has spotted something that does need to be 
addressed.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you very much. Reclaiming my time, I 
thank the Chairman very much both for his comments and for his 
commitment. And before I withdraw the amendment, I would like 
to yield to my cosponsor, Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I won't take any time. I just appreciate the 
offer by the chair. I think this is an issue, however, that has 
really raised concerns on a broad swath among the American 
people in terms of privacy interests and something that really 
compels us to address. And I am hopeful that before the 
legislation we are considering today comes to the floor, that 
we will be able to work out, in an appropriate fashion, 
language so that it could be incorporated in that legislation.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Berman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman withdraw his 
amendment?
    Mr. Berman. I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. The 
point of order is thus moot.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff, seek recognition?
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Nine, offered by Mr. Schiff and Ms. Waters. Add 
at the end of Section 8, page 9, after line 11, the following 
new Subsection E: Prohibition on delegation of application for 
order of production of records from library or bookstore or 
medical records containing personally identifiable information. 
Subsection A of such Section is amended----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask consent that the 
amendment be deemed as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and the 
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff and Ms. Waters follows:]
      
      

  


    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to do this in 
less than five.
    This is a very simple amendment to Section 215 that says 
that vis a vis the records that have the most concerns among 
all of our constituents--library records, or bookstore records, 
or medical records--that the existing authority in Section 215, 
which allows the Director of the FBI to delegate to a 
subordinate the decision to seek these records he would not be 
able to delegate. That is that in the limited case of 
libraries, bookstores, and medical records that you could still 
get them under Section 215, but they'd have to be approved by 
the Director of the FBI himself or herself.
    I imagine, listening to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that--and in particular as far as the Attorney 
General has certified--the library provision has never been 
used, at least as of the last public disclosure. So it would be 
very seldom that I would hope that a library or bookstore or 
medical record would be sought, and I don't think this would 
impose an undue burden on the Director of the FBI, and given 
the sensitivity of this, I think it makes sense for the FBI 
Director and the Director alone to make that decision, not 
delegate it away.
    The fact that the library record provision may or may not 
have been used at this point doesn't alter the fact that it 
affects the behavior of all of our constituents, who are 
concerned that their records might be the subject of search. So 
I think this added protection is warranted. It won't inhibit 
what the FBI does, but it will add another layer of safeguard, 
and I would urge my colleagues' support.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes. I'd be happy to.
    Ms. Lofgren. I will support the gentleman's amendment, but 
I would note, and I guess this is really a question that this 
is actually a more conservative approach than the House itself 
took in the amendment to the appropriations that essentially 
prevailed--Mr. Sanders' amendments several weeks ago. Isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, it is. I mean this doesn't exclude the 
ability to get these records, but it says in this narrow 
category of the most sensitive information, it's a decision 
that the Director of the FBI should not be able to delegate to 
a field agent or a subordinate, but should be made at the top.
    Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman will further yield. I will 
support the amendment. I actually prefer what the House voted 
on, and I suspect the gentleman may as well. But certainly, 
what you've recommended is an improvement over the laws that 
exist today, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman, and I'd be prepared to 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
    The Chair realizes that there have been problems so with 
the interpretation of Section 215 and that a clarification of 
procedures and standards are in order.
    The Flake Amendment that was adopted this morning does 
provide a partial clarification. The actual line of authority 
issue that the gentleman from California Mr. Schiff's amendment 
deals with is at the present time being worked out, and will be 
the subject of a floor amendment when we get there next week.
    I would be willing to offer to work with the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff, and the gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters, to work out language should they withdraw their 
amendment at this time.
    But if they won't withdraw the amendment at this time, then 
I would urge the members to vote against it.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Schiff. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer to 
work together, and I would, given the likelihood of success in 
Committee, accept the Chairman's invitation to work together on 
language for the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. Are 
there----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, since I have withdrawn that, may 
I offer another?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Of course. The clerk will report 
the amendment.
    Does the gentleman from----
    Mr. Schiff. It's being provided to the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the clerk have a Schiff 
Amendment?
    Mr. Schiff. My staff is bringing it to the desk right now, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Perhaps--the Chair will recognize 
another member for offering an amendment and get back to Mr. 
Schiff. The gentleman from New York. Excuse me, the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Wexler, has had little to say today. For what 
purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Wexler. It's a compliment for me to be from New York, 
Mr. Chairman. Others may not feel that way, but I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Florida 
have an amendment at the desk?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes, I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the Wexler 
Amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a Wexler Amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. I will now try the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Do you have an amendment at the desk?
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the Wexler 
Amendment.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Wexler of 
Florida. At the end of the bill add the following section 
preventing the revelation of information pertaining to active 
intelligence agents.
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, I move that the----
    The Clerk. Section 2239----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Reserve the point of order.
    The Clerk. A of Title 18 United States Code is amended by 
inserting reveals any information pertaining to the identity of 
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and 
sources that the person has or should----
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas reserves a 
point of order, subject to the reservation. Without the 
objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the 
gentleman from Florida will be recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Wexler follows:]
      
      

  


    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would 
expand Section 805 of the bill, which is the section which 
defines material support for terrorism to include acts that 
assist terrorist groups by undermining the safety of our 
intelligence agents by leaking information leading to the 
disclosure of their identities.
    While it already a crime to knowingly disclose classified 
information that identifies a covert agent under Title 50, 
Section 421, of the U.S. Code, this amendment would strengthen 
existing protections by categorizing veiled or leading comments 
that identify undercover intelligence officers or agents as 
providing material support for terrorism, especially at this 
critical juncture when the Federal Government is calling on 
patriotic Americans to fight our War on Terrorism by serving in 
dangerous intelligence gathering positions.
    We must treat the secrecy of covert agents with the 
greatest possible care. After the outrageous outing of Valerie 
Plame as a CIA operative, it is time for Congress to send an 
unequivocal message to our intelligence community that we are 
prepared to do our part to protect them, as they risk their 
lives to protect our nation from terrorism.
    Flagrant disregard for the safety of our intelligence 
officials and their contacts is a shameful betrayal of our 
intelligence community and greatly diminishes America's counter 
terrorism efforts.
    If brave and patriotic CIA and other intelligence 
operatives, whose unknown and unsung service is so crucial to 
the safety of our nation, are to effectively, objectively, and 
independently gather and analyze intelligence, they must trust 
absolutely that their identities are safe from both knowing 
admissions and from leading comments.
    If we learned anything, just one thing from the catastrophe 
of September 11th, it is when our intelligence officials fail, 
every American becomes vulnerable to attack. CIA and other 
intelligence officials must not fear political retribution, 
whatever their conclusions or opinions are. They must not be 
pressured to abridge their conclusions and certainly the 
secrecy of their identities must be held sacred.
    Those Americans, no matter how prominent or powerful they 
may be, who compromise the identity of our intelligence 
operatives, are doing nothing short of providing material 
support for terrorism. They undermine the security of the 
United States and should be subject to prosecution under the 
Patriot Act.
    It is critical that we include extra protection for 
America's covert agents provided for in this amendment.
    Surely, every member of this Committee condemns the outing 
of Ms. Plame, and I urge you to support the greater security 
for our intelligence operatives that they deserve, which is 
contained in this amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Texas 
insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the 
amendment has been redrafted and is now marginally germane, so 
I will withdraw my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 
King.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. I thank the Chairman and, you know, I listen with 
amazement to this amendment as it's being described by the 
gentleman from Florida, and I think I read about four words 
into this amendment before I identified this as the Carl Rove 
Amendment. And, you know, I'm wondering why it's not the Sandy 
Berger Amendment. I mean he really did have paper in his socks, 
and there really was something substantive there, but I didn't 
see any action on your part during that entire minimal and 
quiet investigation that took place.
    And this is a serious business that we're ahead here 
marking up the PATRIOT Act, and there are a lot of amendments 
to be dealt with today, but this doesn't belong in this bill.
    It's already a crime to divulge this information. And it 
isn't material support. It's a different definition. Material 
support is very clear and to expand it in this fashion, and 
then add, add the language that the person has or should have 
reason to believe would be sufficient to be used to identify a 
United States intelligence operative or should have reason to 
believe is about as ambiguous as anything I've ever read and 
anything that's come before this Committee. Who's going to make 
the judgment on what they should have had reason to believe? 
Can we make that today or can we do that after the fact?
    So this redefines material support as something that's not 
material support. It's already a crime. There's already a way 
to deal with this, and that will be dealt with in due course in 
a proper fashion, and it should not be dealt with in the 
political field here while we're marking up a very important 
serious bill that's going to be protecting the safety of all 
the people in this nation for the next generation to come.
    So I'd urge a no vote on the Wexler Amendment, and I'd 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Berman, seek recognition?
    Okay. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Weiner. First of all, let the record indicate that now 
the consensus in the nation is complete regarding Carl Rove, 
and it even includes the majority members of the Judiciary 
Committee. And with that, I yield to my colleague from Florida, 
Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you. I specifically didn't mention any 
names. But since the gentleman from Iowa did----
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Wexler. No, no, no.
    Mr. King. Valerie Plame would be a name.
    Mr. Wexler. I'm sorry?
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Wexler. Sure.
    Mr. King. Valerie Plame would be a name that you mentioned 
in your remarks----
    Mr. Wexler. That's true.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from New York.
    Mr. Wexler. Yes, I did. I didn't mention any names in terms 
of people in the context of alleged violation of law. But since 
the gentleman from Iowa did, I think it's appropriate to 
respond in the context of Mr. Rove.
    The present standard used to protect the identity of 
undercover agents actually criminalizes the knowing disclosure 
of classified information that identifies that covert agent, as 
the gentleman from Iowa so correctly pointed out.
    It's clear, however, that Mr. Rove knew about the 
prohibition and carefully designed his comments to be revealing 
enough to lead a reporter to undercover Ms. Plame's identity 
without revealing Ms. Plame's actual name or affiliation 
outright. The effect, however, on the safety, security, and the 
ability of our undercover agents to do their job is exactly the 
same.
    Whether his unquestionably egregious actions qualify as a 
violation of current law is obviously still under review. I'm 
not offering an opinion.
    But what I do know is that our covert agents deserve the 
greatest possible degree of protection, not something that 
could possibly be circumvented with if I only say it this way, 
I'll avoid the law, but the effect will be the same: an 
undercover CIA agent, her or his identity, will be disclosed to 
the entire world, thereby, jeopardizing our intelligence 
operation.
    The amendment would simply provide a broader standard of 
protection for the identity of undercover agents by amending 
Section 805 of the PATRIOT Act to include any information 
pertaining to the identity of an undercover intelligence 
officer. That's the least we should do to make certain that our 
CIA and intelligence officers have their identities protected.
    This is bigger than Mr. Rove. It's bigger than any 
individual----
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Wexler. I yield to the gentleman from California?
    Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before the 
gentleman from Iowa gets too distraught about an amendment that 
proposes as a criminal standard has or should have reason to 
believe, I'm wondering if he had any information about how many 
of our criminal statues that can impose imprisonment or fines 
have that standard already in the law, because I haven't 
noticed any particular concern about narrowing the breadth of 
that phrase in the existing statutes.
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time belongs to the gentleman from 
New York.
    Mr. Weiner. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Wexler 
Amendment, members of the Committee, simply extends the Section 
805 to cover the specific case where, by using veiled 
references, you end up naming the person without putting the 
spelling of the name and the name of the organization.
    And for that reason, it's a very important extension 
because this could be used again and again and again by people 
who want to avoid what the law presently provides to get around 
it. So I think this is a very useful and important amendment. I 
thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Weiner. And just reclaiming my time, you know, so far, 
we've heard the opponents to amendments that would seek to ban 
guns being sold to terrorists as silly. Something that seeks to 
make the laws tougher on leaking the names of covert operatives 
that could get them killed, it's being called political. 
Perhaps one of these amendments will be considered on its 
merits one of these days; that you'll say I don't believe that 
we should conceal the identity of covert operatives. I don't 
believe that we should prevent guns from coming into the hands 
of terrorists.
    Let's have--this is an opportunity for us here to discuss 
the merits of some of these things, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to take the opportunity to do it.
    You know, a pedantic it's silly or it's political does not 
do anything to diminish the merit of it, and I urge a yes vote 
on the Wexler Amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired, 
and the Chairman is to strike the last word and recognizes 
himself for 5 minutes.
    It's no secret that there has been a special prosecutor 
that has been appointed by the Attorney General to look into 
the entire issue.
    That special prosecutor is well known as a bulldog in the 
prosecutorial community and let's the chips fall where they 
may. I believe in his role as U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
District of Illinois, he indicted the former Republican 
governor of that state.
    I don't think any of us can say whether the law on 
disclosing the names of covert CIA agents is adequate or 
inadequate until that special prosecutor issues his report, and 
either indicts people or decides that there is insufficient 
evidence to indict people.
    This is a serious issue, but until Mr. Fitzgerald completes 
this investigation, I honestly think that we really do not know 
how useful or not useful the current law is in tracking down 
those that disclose the names of covert CIA agents.
    I think my Ranking Member and I and perhaps Mr. Lungren, 
who were here at the time in the early '80's, remember that we 
dealt with this issue in terms of drafting the current criminal 
statute, extensively. And while that statute has never really 
come into play before now, I think it is into play now. I would 
also point out that even though the name of Carl Rove has been 
mentioned, this law would have no--or this proposed amendment 
would have no application to any case that may or may not 
involved Mr. Rove, because if this was enacted today, it would 
be an ex post facto law and the circumstances relative to the 
leaking of Ms. Plame's name to reporters for the news media 
could not be prosecuted under the law that is proposed by the 
Wexler Amendment.
    For all these reasons, I would urge the defeat of this 
amendment.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although 
the Chairman just said that he's not sure where we should be 
going on this, and that it's something that we should probably 
be looking at, I wanted to cite for you the remarks of George 
Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States. 
In his speech at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush 
Center for Intelligence on April 26th of 1999, he said these 
are our enemies. ``To combat them, we need more intelligence, 
not less. We need more human intelligence. That means we need 
more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence 
and more protection for our sources, particularly our human 
sources, people that are risking their lives for their country.
    ``Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my 
life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who 
betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, 
in my view, the most insidious of traitors.''
    It is pretty clear that we need more protection and not 
less in the law, and of all places to insert that protection, I 
would think it would be appropriate to insert it in the PATRIOT 
Act. And the gentleman from Iowa earlier stated that he could 
not--that he has not seen less more vague language than the 
language in the gentleman from Florida's amendment. One has 
only to peruse the vast majority of the PATRIOT Act to look and 
find vague language when it comes to the protections that are 
afforded to people who deserve quite a bit more certainty and 
clarity in the law than the PATRIOT Act affords them.
    Mr. King. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentlelady, and I--the reason that I 
said I haven't seen language this ambiguous is because of the 
phrase or should have reason to believe. And I didn't believe 
when I said that, that that language existed anywhere in the 
U.S. Code and since that time we've confirmed that that 
language doesn't exist anywhere in the U.S. Code, so I think 
that would be a solid statement that this is very ambiguous, 
and I thank and I yield back.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. Has the gentleman looked at the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act in making this decision, the conclusion about the 
U.S. criminal statutes?
    Mr. King. We had staff search the entire code.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I've reclaimed my 
time.
    Mr. King. I can't answer specifically.
    Mr. Berman. If I--may I just?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. I'll yield to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Berman. It is my belief, based on working on this 
statute in the days when only Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Hyde 
and Mr. Lundgren and Mr. Conyers would remember that one of the 
clear standards or vague standards in the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act is that when you pass money to your corporate 
agents, that if you knew or should have had reason to know that 
that--knew or should have reason to know that that money was 
going to be used to bribe a foreign government official for 
corrupt purposes that is a crime. I'm unclear about what code 
you searched?
    Mr. Wexler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time belongs to the gentlewoman 
from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    Mr. Wexler. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
    Mr. Wexler. How about we make a deal? If Mr. King is right 
and the language is not in the U.S. Code, and, therefore, it is 
so nebulous, I'll withdraw the amendment. But if it is in the 
U.S. Code, then we accept it, because then, clearly, it's not 
nebulous, and we've got the criminal law that already exists. 
That's fair; right?
    Mr. King. If the gentlelady would yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman from Florida 
yield?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. As the honest broker here, maybe 
the gentleman could withdraw his amendment, and we can look 
further in the U.S. Code, and he can always reoffer it.
    Mr. Wexler. What did I get out of that deal?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The commitment you can reoffer it.
    Mr. Wexler. The Chairman certainly seems quite genuine, so 
I would respect his wishes if that's the case.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. Are 
there further amendments?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have that amendment at the desk 
now.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff, has an amendment at the desk.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff. 
At the end of the bill add the following new section. Section 
Prohibition on Planning Terrorists Attacks on Mass 
Transportation. Section 1993 (a)(3) of title 18, United States 
Code is amended a) by redesignating paragraphs 6 through 8 as 7 
through 9, respectively, and b) by inserting after paragraph 5 
the following: 6. Surveils, photographs, videotapes, diagrams 
or otherwise collects information with the intent to plan or 
assist in planning any of the acts in the preceding paragraphs.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is 
fairly straightforward. It amends the section of the PATRIOT 
bill that was designed to strengthen the criminal laws against 
terrorism in Section 801 of the PATRIOT bill. And it provides 
that if you were involved in surveilling, photographing, 
videotaping, diagraming or otherwise collecting information 
about a mass transit system with the intent to plan or assist 
in basically committing a terrorist act against that mass 
transit system, that ought to be a prohibited offense----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think it should be a prohibited 
offense, too, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The rules don't call for a point 
of----
    Mr. Nadler. I just have a question.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, if maybe the gentleman 
should California should not yield back.
    Mr. Schiff. I think I'd be yielding to the gentleman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I have a question. Under your 
amendment, it's an element of the crime that he has to have the 
intent to plan or assist. So if someone is simply 
photographing, you'd have to prove intent?
    Mr. Schiff. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nadler. Okay. I think it's a good amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The question is on agreeing 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman from 
California want a rollcall?
    Ms. Lofgren. No, I was just trying to be recognized for an 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the ayes appear to have it on 
the Schiff Amendment. The ayes have it. And the amendment is 
agreed to.
    For what purpose the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lofgren, seek recognition?
    Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Number five.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Ms. Lofgren of 
California. Add the end of the bill, add the following: 
Section, Preventing the Transfer of 50-Caliber Sniper Weapons 
to Terrorists. Section 2239 (A) of Title 18 United States Code 
is amended 1) in Subsection A by inserting 1) transfers 50 
caliber sniper weapon to an individual knowing that the 
individual is a member of al-Qaeda, or 2) after whoever and 2) 
in Subsection----
    Ms. Lofgren. I'd ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. This is a simple and commonsense amendment 
that would punish those who sell dangerous rifles to known 
terrorists who are al-Qaeda members. I think the case for the 
amendment is clear and immediate. It's not a gun control issue. 
It's a national security issue. Fifty caliber anti-armor sniper 
rifles are an ideal tool for terrorists. Armored personnel 
carriers, rail cars carrying hazardous materials and most 
disturbingly civilian aircraft are vulnerable to these types of 
rifles.
    In fact, even early promotional materials for the 50-
caliber rifle referenced their threat to civilian aircraft. The 
promotional materials state that the weapon could target, and I 
quote: ``the compressor section of jet engines, making it 
capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a 
single hit delivered to a vital area.'' The rifle's brochure 
goes on to say that the cost effectiveness of the 50-caliber 
cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased 
for less than $10 can be used to destroy or disable a modern 
jet aircraft.
    The military also recognizes this threat. A 1995 Rand 
report inspired the Air Force to train a special counter sniper 
team to respond to the 50-caliber sniper threat to its aircraft 
and personnel. Since 9/11, our country has made great efforts 
to secure our civilian airplanes and airports. Terrorists will 
obviously adapt to our tactics, so it's vital that we think 
ahead. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if 
we make it difficult to get weapons on a plane or into an 
airport, terrorists may look to destroy airplanes from longer 
distances, and that's what the 50-caliber rifle is designed to 
do.
    These rifles are accurate at ranges of at least 1,000 yards 
and even further in the hands of trained marksman. In essence, 
these weapons could give a terrorist the ability to take a shot 
at an aircraft from beyond most airport security perimeters.
    There is already evidence that terrorists have sought these 
weapons. According to the Violence Policy Center, al-Qaeda 
bought 25 50-caliber anti-armor sniper rifles in the 1980's.
    Although I personally believe that these weapons should be 
outlawed altogether, this amendment doesn't do that. It's more 
modest.
    It simply provides that if you transfer a 50-caliber rifle 
to someone who you know is a member of al-Qaeda, that you will 
be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. In 
truth, this Congress should outlaw the transfer of any type of 
weapon to a person who's on the Terrorist Watch List, as Mr. 
Van Hollen suggest earlier. But today, at the least, let's 
outlaw the transfer of armor piercing, long-range sniper rifles 
to known al-Qaeda members. I don't see how anyone on this 
Committee could oppose that goal.
    Preventing terrorism on our shores does not only mean 
securing our borders, it means preventing terrorists from 
obtaining the weapons they need to carry out their destructive 
acts.
    This modest amendment will help to do that, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it. I would note that the discussion of--
that we had under Mr. Van Hollen's amendment is avoided here. 
There need be no discussion, as my colleague from California 
indicated earlier about whether or not a list is accessible, 
whether it is classified. This amendment simply says if you 
know that the person you're selling a 50-caliber weapon to is 
an al-Qaeda member, then you fall within the statute.
    So I hope that this amendment will be supported. I cannot 
imagine why anyone would not support it. And, Mr. Weiner, are 
you asking for--and I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield.
    Mr. Lungren. Or just a question.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Lungren. And that is can the gentlelady tell me whether 
or not this activity is currently prohibited under current law. 
Because as I read it, it says whoever knowingly provides 
material support or resources to a foreign terrorist 
organization. This would be material support or resources. al-
Qaeda is an identified foreign terrorist organization; is 
involved in a prohibited activity. So I'm just asking----
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, no.
    Mr. Lungren. Yours appears to be more narrowly drawn than 
what the general law is now----
    Ms. Lofgren. No, because this would not be to al-Qaeda 
generally. It would be any member, any member of al-Qaeda.
    Mr. Lungren. Well, as I understand--maybe someone could 
tell me if I'm wrong. But as I would understand it, if you give 
it to----
    Ms. Lofgren. I think you are.
    Mr. Lungren.--individual as a member of a terrorist 
organization, that could be deemed as giving material support 
to the terrorist organization.
    Ms. Lofgren. This makes us very--you've got a deeming in 
there that I don't think the statute has clearly identified.
    This makes it all totally clear. If you know that the 
person who is buying this 50-caliber weapon is an al-Qaeda 
member, then you've fallen afoul of the statute.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired. 
The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. I thank the Chairman, and I--you know, I have 
watched this consistent approach to the 50-caliber weapons 
consistently the last few years. I don't really know why the 
50-caliber weapons have been demonized, but it continues.
    And I'd inform the Committee a little bit of the history of 
50-caliber weapons. They go back. I call them the original 
buffalo guns, the Sharps 50-caliber. Buffalo Bill Cody. They 
were the guns that settled the West.
    They're a traditional gun in this country. They're hanging 
in the Smithsonian. There's more modern versions, of course, 
like there are with many other calibers of weapons.
    To pick on the 50-caliber, if you could do that 
successfully, then you're going to see a 51-caliber, a 49-
caliber. But that's not necessarily the point of this 
amendment.
    And I concur with the gentleman from California in that 
there's already--it's already against the law to transfer these 
weapons to al-Qaeda members today, but I believe the flaw in 
this amendment is that it's only al-Qaeda.
    And if you address al-Qaeda and say we cannot then send 50-
caliber weapons to them, which I believe is against the law 
under the current code, then, by implication, if you continue 
adding to this section of the code, you're going to see the 
implication that you can transfer to maybe some other terrorist 
organization that's on that list of 41 terrorist watch lists.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. King. I would yield. I yield to the lady from 
California.
    Ms. Lofgren. If this would pass, I would happily offer 
additional amendments with additional terrorists organizations.
    Mr. King. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the alertness of 
the gentlelady from California, and I yield back to the 
gentleman from California.
    Mr. Lungren. I'm just trying to figure out how you give 
something to an organization without giving it to an 
individual?
    Does someone give the weapon to the corporate organization 
al-Qaeda? It seems to me it's inherent in the already existing 
statute that one gives a weapon to a member of a terrorist 
organization; one is giving to the terrorist organization 
knowingly, knowingly; knowing that the individual is a member.
    So I think what the gentlelady is suggesting is already 
covered and it doesn't have to be a 50-caliber. It could be any 
type of weapon as I read the statute currently.
    Mr. King. Reclaiming my time. And I'd add that the 
ammunition that's referenced by the gentlelady as ammunition is 
very strictly controlled ammunition. There's never been a jet 
or a plane shot down by a 50-caliber weapon, and it would be 
unlikely I think to ever get that perfect lucky shot at a 
moving jet for that to ever happen; but other calibers to do it 
as well under the same scenario. I'd yield to the gentleman 
from Texas.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, he's yielded to me. Thank you. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Iowa. 18 U.S.C. Section 2, this 
is the Federal Criminal Code. It says whoever commits an 
offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, 
commands, induces, procures its commission is punishable as a 
principal. And I'm telling you what. That's pretty stout 
evidence. I've seen a whole lot less evidence convict and 
accomplice as a principal. If you transfer any kind of weaponry 
to a member of al-Qaeda, and you know they're a member of al-
Qaeda, I'd say pretty well most everywhere except certain 
counties in California, you're toast. You're going to be 
convicted as a principal and I'd a whole lot--rather than be 
convicted--I'm sorry--deference to the gentleman from 
California.
    But the law takes care of this already. You do anything 
knowing that somebody is a member of a terrorist organization, 
you're going to be a principal as a terrorist yourself. Thank 
you. I yield back to Mr.----
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman from Texas and I would add 
that this amendment, though it maybe it's well intentioned, it 
does clutter the code. It's clearly prohibited in the existing 
code that we have, and I'd urge a no vote on the amendment. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. I guarantee you I won't take 5 minutes. I just 
want to submit somewhere in the record the Barney Frank 
statements from years gone by when he served on this Committee. 
Redundancy is sometimes good. And when we hear people saying 
that the only objection that they have to something is because 
it's already in the statute, and is redundant, then you know--
then you know they've kind of lost the way here.
    Our statutes are replete with redundancies, and the fact 
that this may already be covered--may that doesn't trouble me 
at all. I'm wisely in favor of redundancy on this issue to make 
it absolutely clear.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. I yield to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate his comment. I don't believe it 
is redundant, but if it is, I heartily concur that to be clear 
on this matter is to defend our country, and I would hope--I 
understand that we have a different point of view, and it's not 
entirely just based on party lines either. Certainly, Mr. 
Boucher has voted with the majority on all of the gun issues, 
and he's not here now. But the--this goes beyond the fight on 
gun ownership. And if we can't vote yes on this, I think we got 
some explaining to do, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Watt. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support. I 
move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. I rise in support of this amendment and 
associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from 
California.
    But I hadn't planned to speak on this amendment, but I had 
to correct the record in one respect. I heard someone say that 
no jet aircraft has ever been shot down by a 50-caliber weapon. 
I beg to differ. Anyone who knows anything about the history of 
the Korean War knows that every jet aircraft shot down by 
another jet aircraft in the Korean War was shot down by a 50-
caliber weapon.
    The MIGs and the F-86s and the F-80's were all armed with--
--
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. With 50-caliber machine guns. That's how you 
shot down airplanes before you got the missiles. So don't tell 
people that you can't shoot down a jet aircraft----
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler.--with a 50-caliber weapon. Yes, I'll yield.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman. I'm referencing the 
definition that's in the amendment, which is a sniper rifle 
rather than twin 50-caliber machine guns. Thank you.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, reclaiming my time, as was said before, a 
lucky shot from a even--not a machine gun, but from one--any--a 
50-caliber weapon can, in fact, penetrate armor. It can shoot 
down an aircraft. It's dangerous. I yield back.
    Mr. Weiner. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I yield back.
    Mr. Weiner. And I would also point out that I don't believe 
that an aircraft had been used as a weapon before September 
11th in an act of terrorism against the United States as well.
    If our standard is to simply wait for some things to be 
used before we ban it, I would argue that we wait too long. And 
I yield back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Nadler. And I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. 
There must be people listening to this discussion and debate 
and wondering how we could spend so much time on this issue of 
whether or not we're going to ban a weapon from being given to 
or sold to terrorists, when, in fact, we're here talking about 
the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and how we can secure 
the homeland and make sure that we create public policy that 
will better secure the homeland even at the risk of undermining 
our civil liberties.
    So you have an amendment that's clear. It has been argued 
that it's redundant; that it's already in law, and then I 
cannot help but raise the question so what harm will it do to 
reinforce what is existing law. Why is it a resistance so 
strong from the opposite side of the aisle on something that 
obviously can do no harm, but could better identify the meaning 
of the law as it relates to the transfer of arms to a terrorist 
organization?
    It seems to me something else underlies this. Something 
else is at stake. What is it? What is this protection that is 
being offered from my friends on the opposite side of the 
aisle? Is it the sole argument that if you open the door in any 
way to limit the possession and the use and the ownership of 
guns, that somehow you're going to fly in the face of my 
friends of the gun lobby.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Waters. Yes, the gentlelady will yield.
    Mr. Watt. I heard that you were out meeting with Barney 
Frank before you made this statement. It sounds like he rubbed 
off on you on this redundancy issue. You're giving his speech.
    Ms. Waters. Well, this is my speech, Mr. Watt, and if you 
will sit back and listen to it----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the copyright 
law is suspended for the next 3 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. That's right. So let me just continue with my 
speech and my take on this that says again that I think this is 
better an argument for why those on the opposite side of the 
aisle who would like to protect the gun lobby rather than a 
concern, a genuine concern, about bending over backwards to 
ensure that we secure the homeland and that we do everything 
possible to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
    Now, we've not had that part of the discussion. We have 
this discussion that's camouflaged about redundancy and a whole 
lot of other things. But the fact of the matter is it certainly 
is not going to do any harm.
    So I would suggest that we hurry up again, Mr. Chairman, 
and get to the vote, because I want to see the votes cast on 
this one.
    So move it, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a 
couple of questions or direct a couple of questions to the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren. And let me say at the 
outset that I don't doubt her sincerity or her motive in 
offering this amendment.
    But I have two concerns. The first deals with the language 
where in the amendment it refers to a member of al-Qaeda. 
That's a specific and single organization; whereas, the 
statute, paragraph 2.339 refers to foreign terrorist 
organization, which might include many more terrorist 
organizations than just the ones she referred to.
    Now, I realize that she can really do that under unanimous 
consent and insert that phrase. So let me mention my second 
concern, and it this: that as the gentlewoman knows when you 
interpret legislation, specific language holds greater sway 
than more general language, and I am concerned that by 
specifically mentioning a type of weapon here, the 50-caliber 
sniper gun or weapon, that that might, by implication, mean 
that other types of weapons, other types of arms might not be 
taken as seriously under the usual limitation of legislation.
    So those are my two concerns and the reason that I would 
oppose the amendment, and the gentleman from California is 
welcome to respond to those concerns.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Smith, I drafted this because I felt that 
in a way it was a test to see if there was anything that 
regulating guns and terrorists that would pass your side of the 
aisle.
    If--first of all, if you feel that an amendment to clarify 
the terrorist heading needs to be made, I would move that we 
unanimously----
    Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time, I was aware that you----
    Ms. Lofgren.--we do that by unanimous consent.
    Mr. Smith.--probably ask for UC for that, but my second 
concern was again the specificity that is mentioned in your 
amendment might undermine the intent in regard to other types 
of weapons.
    Ms. Lofgren. If--I don't believe it does, but on that 
point, if I may, I would ask unanimous consent to strike the 
reference to 50 calibers and make it any firearms, if the 
gentleman is suggesting that.
    Mr. Smith. Well, I still think you run into the same 
problem because----
    Ms. Lofgren. Firearms or weapon.
    Mr. Smith.--the statute goes beyond firearms and weapons. 
It talks about all--what' the--if the gentlewoman wants to take 
a look at it, it talks about all material support. Material 
support is a lot broader than just weapons or firearms.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
    Mr. Smith. And so my concern would still hold I'm afraid.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. Be happy to yield.
    Mr. Lungren. I mean specifically by the statute, as the 
gentleman refers to, material support of resources means all 
sorts of things, including weapons, lethal substances, 
explosives, personnel, transportation, other physical assets. 
So it is all inclusive. Obviously, the caliber and every other 
caliber----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren.--is included within the statute already.
    Mr. Smith. It's my time and, yes, I'll yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. It seems to me that your side of the aisle 
can't have it both ways. Either it's already included or else 
it's--the specificity does not cause harm. It can't be both.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, it can. I'll reclaim my time, and I don't 
want to belabor the point. But the point is the statute is 
general. I think it's better to not single out any particular 
type of weapon or firearm. It's better to leave the statute 
general and have the entire section applied to any type of 
material support and not by implication say that some material 
support is more serious or less serious than others, and I'll 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Van Hollen.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike 
the last word, and I hadn't----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Van Hollen.--intended to join in this debate, but since 
we are focused in specifically on the language in the section 
that already exists in the PATRIOT Act regarding providing 
material support; and the argument is this is redundant. It is 
not. If you look at the existing language, one of the elements 
of proving somebody guilty of aiding material support here is 
they have to not just know that they're transferring to a 
member of al-Qaeda, but they have to have knowledge or 
intending that they are to be used in preparation for and 
carrying out in violation of certain acts.
    And the mere transfer of the weapon under this--even if you 
know it's someone under al-Qaeda--is not covered by this 
section, providing material support, which is one of the 
reasons we offered the earlier amendment that related to 
transferring firearms to people who were on the terrorist watch 
list. You can't have it both ways. You can't say this is too 
narrow because it only says al-Qaeda and doesn't cover other 
terrorist organizations. You can't say it's too narrow. It only 
covers 50-caliber and not all firearms, because the earlier 
amendment that you rejected covered people on the Terrorist 
Watch List and it covered all firearms.
    And so what this amendment gets at is a very--it really 
does go just to how far we're willing to go in terms of 
providing terrorists with protections under the law.
    And what this amendment does is says it is a--you are 
offering material support if you transfer a weapon, knowing 
someone is a member of al-Qaeda. The current language does not 
make that a crime. That does not make it part of providing 
material support. Under the current law, you not only have to 
know you're providing to al-Qaeda, but you have to prove that 
the individual knew that al-Qaeda member was going to then use 
that weapon in a criminal action.
    I think we can reasonably conclude that if you know you're 
transferring it to a member of al-Qaeda, that the protection of 
the American people requires that that, by itself, be 
considered requiring material support, and that's what this 
amendment----
    Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman would yield. I thank the 
gentleman for his clarification, and I guess, you know, you 
might know--not know what the al-Qaeda member wanted to do with 
the 50-caliber rifle. Maybe they wanted to use in that 
traditional buffalo gun referenced by our colleague from the 
other side of the aisle. But it's a balance. What's more 
important? The security of the American people or some mythic 
buffalo gun history when you're talking about a member of al-
Qaeda?
    I would just like to say this. I think that it's obvious 
that the members on the other side of the aisle are not going 
to accept this. I think the rationale for avoiding this has 
been tortured at best. I think it's quite transparent and 
unfortunate. And I yield back to Mr. Van Hollen, and thank you 
for yielding me the time.
    Mr. Van Hollen. I thank my colleague, and I just want to 
again emphasize the point that the existing language in this 
section on material support does not cover the contingency that 
the Lofgren Amendment covers. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield back? The 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed 
no?
    Noes appear to have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. May I have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered. Those 
in favor of the Lofgren Amendment will as your names are called 
answer aye. Those opposed, no. And the Clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Weiner. Two one two. Area code for some of New York 
City.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Weiner 
and Ms. Sanchez. At the end of the bill, add the following new 
section. Section----
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman?
    The Clerk. Expansion of grants to first responders----
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved. The 
gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read?
    Mr. Weiner. I thought that had already been done. Yes, I 
do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, subject to the 
reservation by the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Weiner and Ms. Sanchez follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentlelady 
from California and I offer is one that frankly has found favor 
in this Committee on two other occasions. When we considered 
the 9/11 Commission recommendation, the legislation to 
reauthorize the COPS Program and insert it in that vehicle, it 
was passed by this Committee, as it was in the DOJ 
reauthorization bill.
    In both cases, the leadership of this House and the Rules 
Committee stripped that language from the bill. This is another 
thrust at the same attempt. This picks up on the grant making 
that was in the PATRIOT Act that we're reauthorizing today. It 
would provide $1 billion for the next 3 years; 13,000 new cops 
on the beat nationally each year. And it would do what 
Secretary Ridge argued we needed to do, which was to start our 
homeland security fight in our home towns.
    I don't need to argue before this Committee the value of 
the COPS Program. Every member in this body that are in 
districts has been helped by the COPS Program. It provides 
Federal assistance to provide law enforcement that are now 
spending so much of their time doing anti-terrorism work, and 
in the interest of time, I yield to the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. I'd like to thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding some time and for letting me join him in offering 
this very important amendment.
    Just very briefly, the Weiner-Sanchez Amendment achieves 
two very important homeland security objectives.
    First, it provides more funding and authorization for law 
enforcement agents, including those in the community oriented 
policing programs. And second, it helps increase the security 
measures and new technologies that will help prevent us from 
future terrorist attacks.
    As my colleague from New York has said, it's found favor 
with this Committee and I would urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
    And I yield back to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. And before I yield back, I just want to commend 
the Chairman, who has been open minded in support of the idea 
of getting COPS reauthorized, and we've tried to do this on a 
couple of occasions. This is this year's moving vehicle and the 
most appropriate place to insert this language, and with that, 
I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Texas 
insist on his point of order?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his point 
of order.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point of order 
that this amendment is not germane. Under House Rule 16, we are 
prohibited from considering any amendment that is--has a 
subject different from that under consideration.
    And in this case, there is no provision, title, section in 
the PATRIOT Act that deals with the COPS Program and for that 
reason and because it doesn't fall under any other primary 
purpose of the PATRIOT Act, this amendment is non-germane, and 
I would insist on that point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman----
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of 
order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. I would refer the gentleman to the section of 
the PATRIOT Act that he just said is not in the bill that 
refers to, and I quote: ``first responder assistance.'' These 
are grant authorizations, terrorism prevention grants. In fact, 
there is a section in the PATRIOT Act that refers to this.
    As far as there not being in the title, well, we are 
reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act as indicated on the notice from 
the Committee, as indicated on the bill from the Committee, as 
indicated on the discussion draft from the Committee, as 
indicated from the memo to members from the staff and the 
Chairman of the Committee. So clearly, it's within the purview 
of the PATRIOT Act as it has been in the past.
    Mr. Smith. Would the gentleman from New York yield briefly?
    Mr. Weiner. Certainly.
    Mr. Smith. I just want to make the point that the provision 
to which the gentleman refers is actually not being 
reauthorized today, nor is it under the purview of the primary 
purpose of the bill being reauthorized today. And for that 
reason, I still think it's non-germane.
    Mr. Weiner. Well, if it----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is prepared to rule. Now, 
for the reasons articulated by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith, that the amendment proposes a different subject than 
that contained in the bill, the chair sustains the point of 
order.
    Are there further amendments? The gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. It's 34.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Ms. Lofgren 
of California.
    At the end of the bill, add the following: Section, 
Enhanced Review of Detention----
    Ms. Lofgren. I'd ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. And the gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
      
      

  


    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, the material witness law, 
enacted in 1984, allows the government to arrest persons who 
are needed as witnesses in ongoing criminal investigations, but 
who might not comply with the conventional subpoena.
    In essence, this law was designed to get evidence from 
frightened or recalcitrant witnesses. It was not designed as a 
counter-terrorism tool to allow the government to detain anyone 
it had suspicions about.
    Yet, there are real questions about how the Department of 
Justice is utilizing this statute. Specifically, it appears 
that the Department may be bending the material witness statute 
into a tool to detain suspects without charge or due process, 
while it investigates them for possible links to terrorism. As 
the Chairman may recall, during our hearings, I asked the 
Department of Justice for information on this very subject. And 
to date that information has not been forthcoming.
    In June 2005, a report by Human Rights Watch found that 70 
suspects held as material witnesses since 9/11, of the 70, 
almost half were actually never brought before a grand jury or 
a court to testify. The report also found that many were never 
told the reason for their arrest or allowed access to a lawyer.
    Of the 70 suspects, only 28 were ever charged with a crime, 
most of which were unrelated to terrorism.
    This report also states that about one-third were held for 
at least 2 months and that one material witness was imprisoned 
for a year. They claim or the report claims that many of these 
individuals were held in solitary confinement, subjected to 
harsh and degrading high security conditions usually reserved 
for prisoners accused or convicted of the most dangerous 
crimes. The report also says detainees described abuse.
    Now I don't want to take the word of a outside group for 
it. I would like to look at what the Department itself has done 
and we are advised that the Department has apparently 
apologized to 13 people for using the material witness statute 
to detain them.
    Among them, Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Seattle, he was--
the FBI detained Mr. Mayfield as a material witness but in 
reality, he--they did not believe that Mr. Mayfield was a 
witness to anything. They believed he had participated in the 
Madrid terrorists bombings because they mistakenly linked his 
fingerprint to evidence found at the bombing site. Although Mr. 
Mayfield hadn't traveled abroad for more than 10 years and 
although the Spanish authorities doubted the print matched and 
the FBI picked up Mayfield as a material witness and held him 
for 2 weeks without bringing any formal charges against him, 
they ultimately released him and apologized.
    A couple of months ago, the Chairman himself forwarded a 
letter to the Attorney General that reiterated the questions 
that I asked at the hearing, and to date I don't believe we 
have got the statistics that we requested. This amendment----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I certainly will. I hope my statement is 
incorrect; that you're about to tell me so.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No. You've convinced me this is a 
good amendment, and I'm willing to accept it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment only 
asks for reports, and I appreciate your willingness to accept 
it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yield back?
    Ms. Lofgren. I do .
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lofgren. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no? The ayes 
appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to. rollcall is requested.
    Those in favor of the Lofgren Amendment will, as your names 
are called answer aye; those opposed, no, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gallegly is recorded as a no.
    Mr. Gallegly. I'm sorry, aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lofgren? Lungren?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Ms. Waters, aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will call the report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 34 ayes and 0 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. And as an aside, I think rather than a Scott-
Lungren amendment, we need a Lofgren-Lungren amendment. This, 
however, is not that.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The clerk will report the 
correct amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California. At the end of the bill add the following new 
section: Sec. ___. Electronic Surveillance Targets. Section 
105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
U.S.C. 1805(c)) is amended--(1) in paragraph (1)(A)----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I request consent to deem the 
amendment as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman and members, some have claimed 
that the PATRIOT Act authorizes so-called John Doe roving 
wiretaps, that is, orders that identify neither the specific 
target nor the specific location of the interception. My 
colleague, Mr. Issa, offered a good amendment, which was agreed 
to by the Committee, to make sure that there was some level of 
ascertainment of the location of the wiretap. My amendment goes 
to the individuals that are the targets of a roving wiretap.
    The Department of Justice maintains that even if the 
Government is not sure of the actual identify of the target of 
a wiretap, FISA, nonetheless, requires the Government to 
provide a description of the target prior to obtaining the 
order. And it may be in many cases--and I think the Department 
is making a very legitimate argument--that although the 
identity is not known in the sense of knowing the name of the 
specific individual, they have a specific individual in mind 
that they are requesting the wiretap for. I think that's 
appropriate. That's an appropriate use of a John Doe wiretap.
    The concern that has been raised is that if the description 
is general of the individual and the individual who's the 
target changes when more information is learned, it was in the 
beginning thought to be one person, later thought to be another 
person, it should not be sufficient to use the same application 
for a different individual target. And Attorney General 
Ashcroft explained in a letter to Chairman Hatch that the 
Government cannot change the target of its surveillance under a 
wiretap order. It must, instead, apply to the FISA court for a 
new order for the new target. That is, I think, the policy of 
the Justice Department. This would make it a legal requirement, 
and I think it does nothing more than ratify what Attorney 
General Ashcroft said is the practice of the Department, and 
that is, in the case of a roving wiretap where the identity is 
not known by name but the person has been identified, if 
subsequently it's learned that the real target is someone else, 
you should have to go back to the court identifying the other 
individual.
    So this amendment would give some greater protection. It 
would make statutory what the Attorney General has said is 
Department of Justice policy. And I think in combination with 
what Mr. Issa offered, which ensured the protections were there 
for the targets that were not individuals, that were locations, 
this goes to individuals and says, yes, it's all right if you 
don't know the name, as long as you have a particular person in 
mind; if the particular person changes, you need to go back to 
get an application for the subsequent individual.
    I'd be happy to entertain any questions, but I would urge 
your support of the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition, 
and I say that because I only--you know, this is somewhat new 
to me, your question. But looking at it, I believe we mostly 
have taken care of this with the 10-day return if there's a 
change in the communication that's being tracked. And what I'd 
like to suggest, because we do have an ongoing work toward a 
floor amendment on 206, is that I'd be happy to work with the 
gentleman on making sure that we're both comfortable at the 
floor that this would be covered under the authority of the 
judge. And I think the gentleman from California would agree 
with me that what we're trying to do is make sure that there's 
a loop back when there's a change to the judge, because the 
truth is that we're not--we don't want to be handling 
individual cases, but we do want that branch of Government that 
normally handles these to handle them. But I----
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate that, that the majority often gets 
no more notice of amendments than the minority gets of the 
majority amendments. And, you know, we looked at your amendment 
in good faith and supported it. My amendment is really, I 
think, the counterpart that deals with the individuals, whereas 
yours dealt with the locations. It does nothing more that I can 
see than codify what the Attorney General, the last Attorney 
General has said is the Department policy; that if it becomes 
known during the investigation that the tap requested on a 
specific individual turns out not to be the right one, that 
they can't simply apply that wiretap to someone else because 
they don't have a name attached to it. They have to go back to 
the court.
    So this codifies what I understand is the Attorney 
General's policy, and if--you know, I'd be happy to work on 
language later if you find some question about that, but----
    Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time, I do expect that we should 
continue having this discussion through the final passage of 
the bill. But what I want to point out is that you can't go to 
a judge with a description of a white male and that is not 
sufficient, that there is, in fact, already protections to the 
court that you have to have described the individual with a 
considerable--a lot more detail than that. And I believe that 
to be true, and so I believe this is unnecessary----
    Mr. Schiff. May I----
    Mr. Issa.--but I would like to make sure that we both 
understand----
    Mr. Schiff. May I give the gentleman a specific example of 
what I'm talking about?
    Mr. Issa. Certainly.
    Mr. Schiff. Let's say that the target under the FISA 
application says an Arab male between the ages of 22 and 27, 
living at X address. It is later learned that the actual target 
is his roommate who also meets that description. The concern 
has been raised is that you can give a sufficiently general 
application and then apply it to someone else. The Attorney 
General has said, no, we don't operate that way; if we find out 
it's the roommate and not the one that we were seeking the 
warrant on, we'd go back to the court.
    So this, I think, codifies that practice of the Department 
and gives a level of comfort and security to the American 
people to know that with this greater authority we gave with 
roving wiretaps that there is a limit to it, and that if we 
have identified the wrong party, when we identify the right 
party we go back for the application.
    Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time, I again reiterate that my 
present understanding and the reason that I don't support this 
amendment at this time but do want to continue working with the 
gentleman is that I believe that the--that we are already close 
enough as a practical matter because a judge does have to say 
that's good enough, that's not good enough a description. But I 
do expect to be looking at 206 between now and the floor, and I 
absolutely promise the gentleman that I will include in our 
amendment if at that time we feel that we've gleaned something 
new. But as of right now, I don't believe your description is 
accurate. I believe--it may be that they would come and say 
it's one of these two individuals and these two individuals 
cohabitate and, therefore, we're going after them. But it is 
not--the judge's authority is already sufficient even if the 
Justice Department were to be less specific in their policy 
and, therefore, I believe this amendment is unnecessary. And I 
yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on----
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I just have some questions, and I'll yield to 
the gentleman from California, the proponent of the amendment. 
But maybe he could explain to members of the Committee, in a 
John Doe warrant what is the current practice when there is--
there emerges sufficient information to identify by name the 
individual? What occurs then and does your amendment 
accommodate that new information?
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Yes, the amendment does accommodate that situation. What 
Senator Hatch was concerned about, what he raised with the 
Attorney General was we don't want to have a situation where we 
have a roving wiretap not specific to any individual that can 
be moved from individual to individual. That's not the purpose 
of a roving wiretap. The purpose of a roving wiretap is when 
you have a suspect and they use different phone facilities, you 
don't want to have to go back to court for a different 
application every time they change phones.
    It was not designed to say when we think it's one person 
but it turns out to be another person, we want the wiretap to 
follow whoever the latest suspect is. That was never the 
purpose of the roving wiretap. And the Attorney General told 
Senator Hatch that's not what we use it for, that's not how we 
operate. But, nonetheless, there is a concern out there among 
our constituents that there isn't a meaningful statutory 
limitation on when a roving wiretap can rove, if it can rove 
from person to person.
    Now, I'm not hearing anyone on the other side of the aisle 
saying that this amendment is any different from the policy of 
the Justice Department. And if this is consistent, as I think 
it is, with the Attorney General's letter, there shouldn't be 
any opposition to this. And I appreciate the gentleman's offer, 
but I see no more objection to this amendment than we had to 
the gentleman's amendment, and I hope that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle will make the Justice Department 
practice, which is a solid one, the law of the land. And I 
would hope also that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle wouldn't be advocating that we deviate or depart from the 
Justice Department policy and somehow adopt a broader practice 
that says when we've gone to court with a specific person in 
mind, even though we didn't know their name but we sufficiently 
identified them, and we find out it's somebody else, we 
shouldn't have to go back to court. I don't think that would be 
good policy. This amendment gives the country the confidence to 
know there is a limit, and it's a limit consistent with what 
the Attorney General has said.
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman from Massachusetts further 
yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. And I truly respect the gentleman's 
decision that he may feel that this isn't covered. I might 
suggest that, in fact, if you--if you played fast and loose, 
which the Justice Department doesn't as a matter of policy, you 
would also create a defect in the warrant. There is no question 
that the law does not allow you to specify somebody and then 
simply move it from people to people who might loosely fit that 
description. That would be a defect in the existing law that 
would, in fact, make it a defect in the warrant.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman from----
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I yield to----
    Mr. Schiff. I agree with the gentleman, but if that's the 
case, then we are clearly codifying existing practice and 
existing law, so there should be no objection. If you can't 
move from person to person, then this provision that says you 
can't move from person to person should be completely 
unobjectionable. And if it gives the American people greater 
confidence that there are some limits, then there's no reason 
not to provide that confidence. And I think we should. That's 
why we're here. And the gentleman's amendment, frankly, the 
same argument could have been made against that, that, in fact, 
this is the good practice of the Justice Department, it's 
already required by the court so we don't need to do what the 
gentleman did. But the gentleman offered it because we ought to 
make this very clear to the American people what the limits 
are. It's the same purpose behind my amendment, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I would encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment. All I've heard, to be 
perfectly candid, is the fact that it's unnecessary. I would 
suggest it could be critical. Right now it's a matter of 
Justice Department policy. The law needs clarity on this, and I 
think this is a positive amendment. And I would hope that the 
gentleman from California would support the amendment, and if 
there are differences and clarification is needed, to do that 
from Committee to when the floor is managed, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. I have more of a problem than just redundancy 
or duplication. With regard to subsection (E), where it says 
``in the case where the target is an individual, that the order 
shall only apply to the particular individual identified or 
described under subsection (c)(1)(A),'' the problem there is, 
it strikes me, if I'm on the court of appeals, as I once was, 
and I'm reviewing something that comes in, if there is a 
recording of someone other than the target who is specified--
and, let's face it, conversations are normally at least two-
way, two-party situations. So you got someone who is not the 
target individual talking to somebody who is. They're talking 
about a crime. Under this, the way I read it, I think you only 
get to record half of the conversation. And if it violates this 
provision, if this were enacted into law, then some court's 
probably going to throw out half the conversation and keep it 
from making sense because it violates this provision.
    So I see it creating a lot of problems for prosecution by 
complicating the matter. The way it stands now, they can record 
the whole conversation. They can use it in litigation, if 
necessary, in prosecution. And I hate to make--to tie the 
prosecutor's hands and keep him from recording and following up 
on whoever is involved in the conversation.
    I yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I might also, in speaking directly to the example the 
gentleman from California gave for why you thought you should 
have this, I might suggest that since--the reason for a roving 
wiretap being applied to a John Doe is that normally the John 
Doe is deliberately concealing their identity. We're looking 
for, you know, Mohammed XYZ who chose to have an alias. And our 
best belief is that we are--we are going after this person at 
this place. That may, in fact, change, but the John Doe we're 
going after never changes.
    So, in your example, where we think that one of two people 
sitting in a residence is the John Doe we want, and it turns 
out to be the other John Doe, your--you would say you have to 
go back again or you have a defect because you got the wrong 
John Doe between two of them. In fact----
    Mr. Gohmert. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. Just 1 second. Let me finish the thought. In 
fact, as it is now and with the existing policy of the Justice 
Department, they are still going after the description of the 
John Doe that they believe to be the terrorist, and, in fact, 
that's where you would sort through the two at one location or 
ten different cell phones as they keep dropping them to find 
the real alias.
    We are dealing, in the case of these John Does, normally 
with somebody who is trying to disguise who they are. And I 
yield back. The gentleman from Texas can----
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman----
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd defer to Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in response to the two points 
made by my colleague from Texas and my colleague from 
California, again, either my colleagues are arguing that the 
Justice Department should not maintain the policy of the 
Attorney General as expressed by Attorney General Ashcroft that 
the Attorney General has restricted the DOJ from being able to 
shift from one subject of a warrant to a completely different 
subject without having to go back to the court, I think that 
would be a tremendous misstep. And to the degree that you argue 
against this amendment, you argue against the policy of the 
Justice Department.
    Second, the argument that you make that, well, somehow this 
will exclude half the conversations, that argument could be 
made with equal applicability to Mr. Issa's earlier amendment 
regarding the specificity of location. Well, what if the 
location is broader than described? Does that mean you can only 
listen to half the conversation? Frankly, I think it's a 
strained interpretation of both amendments, and I think a fair 
reading of this amendment is precisely what it appears to be, 
that where the target is an individual, the order shall apply 
to that individual. And that is what the Justice Department has 
said they are doing. That is what they say they must do. And 
we're making it clear in this amendment. But if my colleagues 
choose to vote against the policy of the Justice Department as 
reflected in this amendment, then that seems to be the position 
they're in. But I would hope that out of the same kind of 
bipartisan spirit that adopted Mr. Issa's amendment we would 
adopt this amendment as well. And I would hope we would not all 
fall in love with our own language so much that we can't find 
areas for improvement.
    And I'd yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Florida 
yield back?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. Those in 
favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered. Those 
in favor of the Schiff amendment will as your names are called 
answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk. It's offered by myself and Ms. Jackson Lee. That's 
how you can identify it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler 
and Ms. Jackson Lee. At the appropriate place in the bill, 
insert the following: Sec. ___. Limitation on Roving Wiretaps 
under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Section 
105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
U.S.C. 1805(c)) is amended--(1) in paragraph----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this--Mr. Speaker. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment, as the last one, deals with Section 
206, the roving wiretaps. Now, in the PATRIOT Act we provided 
for roving wiretaps, that is, wiretaps that require that--you 
know, where you identify the person and the wiretap applies to 
any site that that person might use. And that makes sense. It 
catches up with technology so that if you get a wiretap for one 
cell phone and he switches cell phones or uses a pay phone, you 
can just keep--you can follow him. You don't need a new 
application.
    But then we did John Doe wiretaps where we say, okay, we 
know that someone is using a certain phone or a certain set of 
phones in a certain neighborhood that we have reason to believe 
that someone is for no good purposes but we don't know this 
fellow's name, so instead of getting a wiretap that follows a 
person, we get a wiretap a--wiretaps at certain places, certain 
phones, certain electronic facilities, without a name on it. 
And that's also fine.
    The problem comes in when you combine those two and you 
have a John Doe roving wiretap, and, in effect, that gives the 
FBI almost limitless power to have a wiretap application that 
doesn't name an individual and doesn't name a place. So it's a 
roving wiretap with no specification of an individual, which 
means you can surveill the entire--an entire neighborhood. That 
is too much power. I am not sure that it was ever contemplated 
that these two separate sections could be combined.
    What this amendment says, in effect, is you can have a 
roving wiretap without John--if you name the person. You can 
have a John Doe wiretap, but it can't be roving. In other 
words, you can wiretap either the person, wherever you think he 
may be speaking, or the place, looking for someone whom you 
don't know. But you can't combine them and say we're going to 
have an application for an unknown person in general places. 
That's almost like the British Writs of Assistance we objected 
to in 1760. It's a general writ. And American law cannot permit 
general writs. There's nothing more--there's nothing more 
offensive to the Fourth Amendment, and, in fact, the only 
reason that the justification for the constitutionality of the 
roving wiretap provision of the PATRIOT Act in Section 206 was 
that it required naming the particular--specificity of the 
particular person. But if you remove the specificity of the 
person and you have no specificity of the place, you have a 
general warrant. I don't see how it's constitutional.
    Now, there may be circumstances where you want a roving 
wiretap, and that's fine. There may be circumstances where you 
want a John Doe wiretap. That's fine. But this amendment says 
you can have one or the other, but you can't combine them 
because then there's no limitation whatsoever.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I'll yield.
    Mr. Conyers. What would happen if they do two separate 
ones, one for each instance?
    Mr. Nadler. Well, that----
    Mr. Conyers. Would it violate----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, if you do it--but then you 
have to--if you're doing two separate ones, in one you have to 
name a person, in the other you have to name a place, a 
specific--or a set of things. And all this amendment says is 
you have to name that. It says--one or the other. It says in 
paragraph (A), if the identity is unknown, in other words, it's 
a John Doe wiretap, you have to specify the facilities and 
places. If it says--if any of the facilities or places are 
unknown, in other words, it's a roving wiretap, you have to 
identify the target. You can't have an unknown target and an 
unknown place because then it's just general. And I can't 
imagine how we can allow general--general all-embracing 
wiretaps.
    So I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do thank the 
gentleman from New York for looking at this, this complicated 
subject, and trying to come up with very worthy amendments.
    In this case, I have to oppose this, and I have to oppose 
it specifically for what we're talking about, which is this--if 
we were to adopt Mr. Nadler and Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment, 
what would happen is we would be able to follow a Member of 
Congress who's using a disposable cellular phone, a new one 
every day, and we'd be able to deal with an al Qaeda operative 
who is clandestine as long as he stayed at the same phone. But 
we wouldn't be able to deal with that--that hidden person that 
is operating that we only know some things about because 
they're trying to remain anonymous if they went from phone to 
phone. Here----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. Just a moment. Here and in Afghanistan and in 
Iraq, we are using the techniques of knowing something about 
the individual we're looking for, and we know something about 
the one or two or three phones they may be using at a given 
time and changing. Specifically when we envisioned this 
legislation, we did envision the idea that you would not--you 
might know who the person was in principle but not by their 
correct name, which is all a John Doe warrant often is, and we 
clearly saw them as using modern technology to go from phone to 
phone.
    With that, I'd yield for the question.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, I think the gentleman--excuse me. I think 
the gentleman is a little incorrect. If you know the identity 
of the person, you know--it doesn't have to be his name. But if 
you know that the person with some identifying characteristics 
is a suspected al Qaeda agent, and you don't know where--you 
know, what facilities he's using, you'd get that as a roving 
wiretap with the identifying characteristics. But you have to 
have some identifying characteristics. If you don't have any 
identifying characteristics but you know where--where you think 
you know, then you--then you get a John Doe wiretap.
    Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time, I wish I could agree with you 
because that understanding needs to be gleaned. A John Doe is 
anytime you don't actually know the guy's correct name. And 
often you have doing--and from my civil days, doing business 
as, it's still a John Doe. You don't know for sure the correct 
legal name, and so you still use John Doe.
    The fact is John Doe is about not having an exact, but you 
can have a pretty darn good description. You can know the guy 
was in Morocco last week and then he was here and he was there, 
and you can do an awful lot of describing and still be a John 
Doe.
    So with all due respect to the gentleman from New York, the 
combination does exist. It exists every day in the pursuit of 
al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in which you know a 
great deal, but you still don't have an exact, correct, 
verifiable name, and, by the way, they're using a new cell 
phone every day.
    With that, I'd yield back.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. If the John Doe warrant--if this is--if the 
roving wiretap with the John Doe warrant is simply a way to get 
someone they have no--to give a blanket authorization for the 
FBI to surveill anyone at any place by having no description 
and no place, then I'm very supportive of the gentleman's 
amendment. But I would like--I hear you say if the identity is 
unknown. What if it is a John Doe warrant because they don't 
know the name, but they have very specific characteristics, 
enough to persuade a judge to issue a John Doe warrant, but 
they don't know where he is? They have a clear sense of who 
they want, but they don't know the person's name. If that is 
called a John Doe warrant, why--why do we want to limit their 
ability to get a roving wiretap on this person whose identity 
they have many descriptions of, and let's assume for a second 
they're operating in good faith, why do we want to restrict 
their ability to surveill that person in part to get that 
person's true identity and other information where they can--
they can make the case that that person with those 
characteristics is an agent of a foreign power? That's the one 
problem I have with the word ``the identity is unknown.'' Does 
the--are you saying if you have particular characteristics but 
don't know the name, then your section doesn't apply?
    Mr. Nadler. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Berman. Sure.
    Mr. Nadler. My intention here is not the simple fact--and I 
hope Mr. Issa will listen, too. We refer to it colloquially as 
a John Doe amendment--as a John Doe wiretap. But what we're 
talking about and what I intended--and I'm perfectly willing to 
entertain suggestions for making this clear--is what the 
gentleman was saying, some identifying characteristics. If you 
have enough to know who it is, you don't know his name--his 
name is not the important thing, but there has to be some 
limitation on the power so that it isn't a general writ. If 
you're doing a roving wiretap and you know generally about the 
person you're looking at and so you can describe it with some 
specificity, even without the name, then that would be okay. 
But that's what I'm trying to do in this amendment.
    Mr. Berman. Reclaiming my time, in other words, if there's 
a practice going on or that could go on under this statute, 
which would essentially allow law enforcement to pocket 
authorizations to surveill without--they could apply at any 
time afterwards to anybody they wanted to based on at that 
point thinking that person might--might be a terrorist, I share 
your concern and think we ought to correct that, but not clear 
for me from your amendment. I'll yield to somebody who's 
actually been in----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Would 
the gentleman yield for a moment? Thank you.
    I am going to, without prejudice, withdraw this amendment 
now and come back to it later or tomorrow with better--with 
language that will go into that because----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I have an amendment at the desk. It's the Watt 
amendment, not the Watt-Waters amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Watt. 
Insert at an appropriate place the following----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will continue to read 
until we can see the----
    The Clerk. Sec.01. Warrants executed in districts other 
than where issued. Whenever a warrant may be executed in a 
district other than the district in which it was issued, a 
person against whom it may be executed may seek to quash that 
warrant in the district in which it is served, or, if the 
person is a corporation, in any district in the State wherein 
the corporation was incorporated.
    [The amendment of Mr. Watt follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I spent a lot of time in courts practicing 
law, 22 years, and I always had this philosophy that the courts 
and our court system should--should try to be as accessible to 
the people who were being brought into contact with it as 
possible.
    Currently, Section 219 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes 
nationwide search warrants in terrorism-related investigations. 
Section 220 allows a single court in a single district to issue 
a search warrant for electronic evidence that is valid 
nationally, essentially expanding Section 219 to standard 
criminal investigation. I'm not sure that this result was 
intended, but that's certainly where we are at this point.
    Receiving an out-of-State search warrant under either 
section may impose an insurmountable burden on the recipient if 
he wishes to challenge the warrant. For example, Section 220 
makes it more difficult for large communication service 
providers to seek modification of burdensome disclosure orders. 
Instead of being able to contest within their home Federal 
district, they must challenge in whatever district throughout 
the country the order originated.
    My amendment injects an element of fairness into the 
process for warrant recipients and their attorneys by allowing 
them to challenge a warrant issued under Sections 219 and 220 
if an individual in the district where the warrant was served, 
and if a corporation in the district where it was incorporated. 
Again, I believe this amendment ensures openness and efficiency 
and more accessibility.
    The deck should not be stacked against those against whom 
the Government has some suspicion, and it certainly shouldn't 
be stacked against some electronic provider against whom they 
have no suspicion, they're just trying to get evidence. I think 
the Government should be bearing this burden. Here this 
amendment nearly makes it possible for innocent targets to 
challenge unfair or erroneous warrants in a venue that is 
convenient to them. It imposes no harm on the Government. It 
does not undermine its investigative capacity, and I ask my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and yield back----
    Ms. Lofgren. Could I ask a question before you yield back?
    Mr. Watt. Yes. I yield to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Lofgren. I thank you. The rationale for the section in 
the Act meant a lot to me, frankly, because it relieved a 
burden on the courts in San Jose, California, that ended up 
issuing almost all of the warrants for--even though the case 
had absolutely nothing to do with anything anywhere near Santa 
Clara County.
    I do not object at all to what you're attempting to do, but 
I do want to clarify that this is at the discretion of those 
seeking to quash, and would not preclude quashing in the court 
where the warrant was issued. This would just be an addition to 
that?
    Mr. Watt. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Then I think this is perfectly sensible, and I 
thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Watt. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. And, Mr. Chairman, let me say in opposing the 
amendment, I don't oppose the gentleman from North Carolina's 
goal, which I think is a worthy one, and what he hopes to 
accomplish with this amendment. However, my problem is, 
frankly, that I don't----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble hearing Mr. 
Smith. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Smith. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, my problem is that I'm 
not sure what problem it is that this amendment seeks to 
address. It has long been the case that grand jury subpoenas 
are issued in the district of the investigation to gather 
relevant information, and must be challenged there. The process 
has worked for grand jury subpoenas for many years with no 
apparent problems that I'm aware of. I'm also not aware of any 
evidence that the warrants issued in the district of the 
investigation cause any significant problems for keepers of 
electronic records or has deterred them from challenging 
warrants.
    On the other hand, the benefits in efficiency and cost 
savings are obvious and have been substantial.
    Finally, this amendment would create dueling district 
courts, which in some cases would operate in even different 
circuits. If a search warrant for electronic surveillance is 
challenged, the legality of the warrant should be determined by 
a judge familiar with the individual investigations.
    In summary, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that we have any 
significant problems that need to be addressed by this 
amendment, and second of all, I think we ought to avoid the 
situation where you have really one district court almost 
becoming an appellate court for another district court, and I 
know the gentleman wouldn't want to see that occur either.
    Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. And I'll be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, 
if he doesn't think there is a problem, then he obviously 
didn't hear what either I or Ms. Lofgren said.
    Mr. Smith. If the gentleman would yield, I did hear what 
the gentlewoman from--reclaiming my time--what the gentlewoman 
from California said. but I was not persuaded that that was a 
problem of such significance that it overrode the advantages of 
having one district court not only issue----
    Mr. Watt. Would my gentleman friend from Texas yield?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, I'm sorry, please.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. Those 
are two separate issues, and the second one I understand more 
than I understand the first. Obviously, there is a problem 
because this is a remote--or the possibility of having to 
travel all the way across the country to deal with something. 
This is not a grand jury situation. I'm not trying to get 
people into dueling----
    Mr. Smith. District courts?
    Mr. Watt.--dueling district courts. I presume that judges 
looking at the same evidence are going to reach the same 
result, but, you know, right now we're making this convenient 
for the Government, but not convenient for the citizen, and the 
citizen in this case is not even the person that's suspect of 
anything. In most cases it's a corporation that happens to be a 
service provider.
    Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time, I'm not sure I share the 
gentleman's confidence that district courts will not differ in 
their findings or differ in their conclusions, but in any case, 
I'll be happy to yield for the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert----
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith.--the balance of my time.
    Mr. Gohmert. I appreciate my gentleman friend from Texas 
hearing my voice way out here in the wilderness.
    Listen, I've dealt with this issue, and I'll tell you what, 
when you have a violent criminal that you issue a warrant on, 
and you set a high bond like a million dollar bond--and I have 
had this happen--he's picked up in some other jurisdiction. He 
comes in, he makes a contrite and lovely appearance before that 
trial judge, and that trial judge says, well, he seems like a 
nice enough guy. He sets a low bond, and a violent criminal 
gets away and does violence on other people. It is not a good 
situation.
    And from what I understand, this was originally argued at 
length in the original PATRIOT Act, and that's why this wasn't 
a part of it. In fact, this is the very kind of thing that will 
allow somebody to go to a judge that doesn't know the history, 
doesn't know what happened, and then issue a warrant in the 
middle of the night to go kidnap a child at gunpoint, all 
because he wasn't privy to all the information the original 
trial judge had.
    I think this is troublesome. I have seen it create problems 
down the road simply because a well-meaning judge just doesn't 
have all the facts. The original trial judge that issued the 
warrant does, or he wouldn't have issued it, so I would urge 
everyone to vote against this amendment.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I thank the former judge from 
Texas for his comments, and I'll yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I think the only thing more 
troublesome than the situations that have been alluded to would 
be what would happen if this amendment is not agreed to. In a 
grand jury you're at least doing one crime and you're looking 
for evidence of that crime, so there's some natural limitation. 
In this you can have--if you get served in California on a 
warrant that is over broad and you have trouble complying with 
it, you got a choice, you can either comply with it at great 
hardship, or you can go to Virginia and argue about it.
    Now, you got to bring yourself and your lawyer and 
everybody else cross-country to argue the case. Why can't you 
argue it right there somewhere in California? I would hope we 
would agree to this. Otherwise, you essentially have no right 
to contest a search warrant if you don't adopt this amendment.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I'll yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. In response to my friend from the wilderness, 
I think he--and I read the amendment on its face, and it just 
simply refers to warrants executed in districts. But this is 
not an arrest warrant. What we're speaking to here is an 
electronic search warrant, and I would ask the gentleman if 
that might somehow influence his concerns that he so eloquently 
expressed about that violent----
    Mr. Gohmert. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt.--criminal down in Texas.
    Mr. Gohmert. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I yield.
    Mr. Gohmert. I take it by your silence, yes. The same 
principles apply. The one that issued the warrants knows the 
facts and knows them well enough to have found probable cause 
to issue a warrant. Otherwise he's the one or she is the one 
that found that it complied with the constitutional 
requirements, and that is the principal court of jurisdiction. 
And again, as I understand it, this was argued at length. The 
same kind of principle would apply, let the judge that has the 
principal jurisdiction rule on it. Thank you.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, the problem you've got 
there----
    Mr. Gohmert. I yield back.
    Mr. Delahunt.--is that somebody's going to be 
inconvenienced, and if you've got an overly broad warrant and 
cannot possibly comply, you're in a fix because either you've 
got to pluck yourself and your lawyer and all your files and 
everything cross-country to schedule something that may get 
unscheduled and rescheduled. You've got to come back another 
time to argue it. If this isn't adopted, you essentially have 
no effective right to contest a search warrant that may be 
overly broad, may bankrupt your company to try to comply with 
it. If you can't get it amended, you can't get it fixed, so 
that maybe you can provide most of the information, they'd be 
satisfied with that, you just got to go bankrupt or something. 
I yield to the----
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. And briefly, I'd like to 
say that although this may be well-intentioned, that there is a 
flaw even in the amendment, and that is that under the current 
law, for example, if you do business on the Internet, we don't 
have to go to your home jurisdiction. In fact, if you do 
business in the Internet and there's a portal that end up in my 
district, I can file in my district.
    So when you start saying it would be overly burdensome, the 
best example is in fact when we're executing a search warrant 
on Internet material, we should not have to go to San Jose 
because the truth is, it's probably a Washington or an Alabama 
or whatever investigation. So this doesn't fix the problem that 
it says it fixes because we do often have corporations who in 
fact do not have the right to go to their home jurisdiction and 
say, ``I'm going to answer it here,'' because they're doing 
business in Timbuktu, and as a result, they get served in 
Timbuktu.
    So I believe that this amendment is so overly broad that 
even if we agreed with the principles--and I think Chairman 
Smith has said why the entire amendment is flawed--I also think 
that we need to look----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Reclaiming my time, and I yield to the gentlelady 
from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. This was discussed at some length. I mean not 
tremendous length when we enacted the PATRIOT Act, and it is 
for electronic evidence only. And really, the rationale 
behind--to allow the Government to seek a warrant either where 
the case was initiated or where the warrant was to be executed 
to relieve the burden, the judicial burden on my district, 
where all of the warrants were sought because they were all 
being executed in Silicon Valley.
    What is being proposed here is just the other side of that 
coin. These are all large companies. These are not, you know, 
Joe the ax murderer.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I ask to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I can recall a handful of situations where the 
ISPs, who are the recipients of these search warrants, have 
taken the step of moving to quash. But the question in my mind 
is why should we inconvenience the ISP on those occasions when 
they move to quash the warrant that's been issued? We should at 
least grant them the same discretion.
    I don't think this is a huge deal, frankly, because I don't 
think it happens that often, but I do think it's basic 
fairness. I appreciate the comments made about, you know, bad 
guys and robbers, but it really has absolutely nothing at all 
to do with this section of the Act, and never did, nor does it 
have anything to do with this amendment.
    And I think this should be something where we could 
actually agree. I mean we've disagreed on many things, but this 
should be something where we could agree to make a modification 
that is modest yet sensible, and I am at a loss other than we 
just vote party line all the time, why we wouldn't agree on 
this very sensible manner.
    I don't know if Mr. Watt would like to make any additions, 
or Mr Delahunt, who was asking to be recognized a minute ago.
    Mr. Watt. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I basically 
have said what I have to say about this. I mean I think it's a 
matter of fairness. It's not about protecting anybody who has 
done anything criminal because the people who are the subjects 
of these electronic warrants, search warrants, are really not 
the terrorists, they just have the information. I just--I 
thought this was going to be a real non-controversial amendment 
myself, and I can't imagine why we are so bent out of shape 
about this unless--I mean it is true that the Government now 
has the right to select the forum in which it gets its 
warrants, but I'm not even trying to give any advantage in the 
limited, very limited number of cases where a service provider 
is going to raise a question about a warrant. I'm not trying to 
give any advantage to them other than the advantage of 
convenience.
    I'm assuming that a judge who looks at a certain set of 
evidence in Virginia, a district court judge, is going to--the 
judge in California is going to look at and decide the same 
thing.
    Ms. Lofgren. If I may reclaim my time.
    Mr. Watt. I yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. I mean this was--you know, I said it was my 
district. It wasn't just my district, but most of these 
warrants are executed either in Northern Virginia or in Silicon 
Valley, and this was proposed, really as my recollection is, by 
the department, really for reasons of judicial economy to 
eliminate the burden on those judicial districts, and this 
doesn't increase the burden on those judicial districts, and I 
think if you take a look at the Act itself, Section 220, as 
well as 219, it becomes very clear what we have done and how 
modest is this amendment.
    Before yielding back I'd ask Mr. Delahunt if he wanted to 
make his final comment?
    Mr. Delahunt. I just, again, I would just echo what the 
gentleman, the proponent of the amendment has said. I just 
don't think it's a big deal. To me it's just a housekeeping 
amendment that really closes the loop of what we did when we 
passed the PATRIOT Act out of this Committee. It's the other 
side of that. And it does come down to convenience as opposed 
to putting the burden on--as opposed to putting the burden on 
the respondent. But if there's some rational argument that can 
be made for opposing it, I haven't heard it yet, and I would 
hope that those who oppose it would reconsider.
    With that I'll yield back.
    Ms. Lofgren. And I'll yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. Those 
in favor will say aye.
    And those opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote will be ordered. 
Those in favor of the Watt amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, pass. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 24 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments at the 
desk which I'd like to offer en bloc.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendments.
    The Clerk. Amendments to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California.
    Add at the end the following:
    Sec. 9. Predicate offenses.
    Section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i) of Title 18, United States Code 
is amended: 1) by inserting 2339d, relating to----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'd request that the amendments 
be deemed as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered, and 
without object, the amendments will be considered en bloc, and 
the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendments of Mr. Schiff follow:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to summarize 
these very quickly. The first amendment amends the definition 
of a Federal crime of terrorism. Section 808 of the PATRIOT Act 
made a number of important changes to the definition of 
terrorism to include sections of the criminal code which were 
involved with terrorist offenses. Since the passage of the 
PATRIOT bill there have been a number of new terrorism offenses 
that should be made reference to and incorporated within the 
definition of ``terrorism.'' This particular amendment would 
add offenses related to military type training from a foreign 
terrorist organization, and also offenses related to nuclear 
and weapons of mass destruction threats. These additional 
terrorism offenses were enacted via the 9/11 Commission bill.
    A second amendment as part of the en bloc deals with civil 
forfeiture and trafficking in WMD technology or material, and 
this amends the PATRIOT bill to include trafficking in nuclear, 
chem, bio or radiological weapons technology or material. 
Section 320 of the PATRIOT bill amended Federal law to specify 
that the proceeds of foreign crimes specifically related to 
drug trafficking are subject to forfeiture in the United 
States, and my amendment would extend this concept to include 
trafficking in nuclear, chem, bio or radiological weapons 
technology or material. It will allow us to go after the 
proceeds of criminal rings like AQ Khan.
    And finally, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the 
omnibus Crime Control Provisions which add a number of 
provisions to the wiretap authority, which add additional 
terrorism and serious offenses to ensure law enforcement has 
the tools necessary to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. First let me say I think the 
gentleman has made three very constructive additions, and I am 
prepared to accept these amendments en bloc. I would ask, 
however, unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make 
a technical correction to the third amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, to put the sections that he had 
cited in the proper numerical order so that they appear at the 
proper place in the statute.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the modification 
is agreed to. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'd be delighted to yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendments--
--
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would like to ask a question of Mr. Schiff.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman strikes the last 
word----
    Ms. Lofgren. I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner.--and is recognized for 5 minutes
    Ms. Lofgren. On your amendment No. 64, I'm seeking to 
understand the impact of lines 6 and 7.
    Mr. Schiff. Yes. Lines 6 and 7 refer to what's existing 
already in the PATRIOT bill. It doesn't add that, but because 
we're adding all the language after that, and the previous 
language in lines 3, 4 and 5, says strike the beginning of that 
section.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right.
    Mr. Schiff. So we're not adding----
    Ms. Lofgren. Not adding anything.
    Mr. Schiff. We're not adding the ``fraud and misuse of 
visas, permits.'' That was already there. We're adding what 
appears thereafter, violence at airports, biological agents and 
toxins, nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats, et 
cetera.
    Ms. Lofgren. So the renumbering argument I understand now, 
and I thank the Chairman for recognizing me and yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff, en bloc. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendments en bloc are agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment actually coming to the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the amendment 
once it is received.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Ms. Lofgren of 
California.
    At the end of the bill add the following:
    Section ___. Clarification of habeas corpus
    No act of Congress passed since the terrorist attacks of 9/
11, including USA PATRIOT Act, shall be construed to limit or 
suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The amendment of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, the writ of habeas corpus in 
Article I, Section 9 says that the privilege of the writ of 
habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of 
rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
    As the Chairman will recall, I'm sure, the very first 
unpublic draft of the United States PATRIOT Act sent over from 
the Department of Justice contained a chapter titled 
``Suspension of habeas corpus,'' and as we all know, the 
Congress declined to--with the Chairman's leadership--to accept 
that provision, Yet many Americans are concerned that what has 
been done since 9/11 has, through back-door methods, in 
essence, accomplished that same result.
    For example, the administration has claimed the power to 
declare suspected terrorists, including American citizens, 
``enemy combatants'' and to hold them indefinitely without 
access to U.S. courts. Last year the Supreme Court disagreed 
and recognized that detainees have the right to file habeas 
writs in Federal courts. Unfortunately, the Court left many 
details unanswered, and so many, including Mr. Jose Padilla, an 
American citizen, are still being held indefinitely without 
charge.
    In addition, it appears that the Department of Justice has 
used the material witness statute as a means to hold suspects 
without charge, which I addressed during the discussion of a 
previous amendment.
    Habeas corpus is one of the foundations of American 
freedom. It was first enshrined in the Magna Carta 700 years 
ago and forms a key foundation for the U.S. Constitution. It 
prevents the Government from arresting a person and holding 
them indefinitely without charge.
    Now, I realize that these issues are not squarely within 
the Act itself, but I'm sure the members of the Committee will 
recall the dialogue that I had with the witness from the 
Justice Department on this very issue. And I hope you'll recall 
that when I asked the Justice Department, the Assistant 
Attorney General, whether or not he agreed that including a 
reaffirmation of the writ of habeas corpus in whatever we did 
in the PATRIOT Act would be a good idea, he did not disagree.
    I hope that we can clarify that nothing the Congress has 
done has suspended the writ of habeas corpus. I think it may 
make--some have guessed otherwise. I think it would clarify 
that point in a way that would be very healthy for our Republic 
and very useful for the Judiciary, and I hope that this is 
something that we can do unanimously, reaffirming the great 
writ that has kept America free for so many years.
    And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. I mean this is so broad, no act of Congress 
passed since the terrorist act of 9/11 should be construed to 
limit or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. We have a bill that 
is being entertained by this Committee right now talking about 
streamlining appellate procedures which affects the writ of 
habeas corpus, and some would suggest it gets rid of some of 
the excesses of habeas corpus that are, I would suggest, being 
observed in certain parts of the country, particularly in the 
Ninth Circuit at the present time. I just think----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Yes, I'll be happy to yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent to remove the 
words ``limit or'' from the amendment.
    Mr. Lungren. I appreciate that. If the Chairman recognizes 
you to----
    Mr. Chairman, she's asking unanimous consent to remove the 
words----
    Ms. Lofgren. ``Limit or.''
    Mr. Lungren. ``Limit or.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the modification 
is agreed to.
    Mr. Lungren. And with that, I would remove my objection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Lungren--Ms. Lofgren. [Laughter.]
    I'm falling into the trap too.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California.
    Page 6, line 7, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
    Page 6, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
    (5)(A) In the case of an order requiring the production of 
tangible things from a library or bookstore or medical records 
that contain personally identifiable information and subject to 
subparagraph (B), at the conclusion of an----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is 
offered by myself and also by Ms. Waters.
    This applies to Section 215 and again applies specifically 
to those records that Americans have the most concern about 
preserving their privacy, that is, library records or book 
store records or medical records. And when this amendment very 
simply does, is it says that--and it's very narrowly drawn--
that the--well, let me back up 1 second.
    The debate on the library records, I think has been a very 
difficult one when you get into the weeds on what's involved. 
When you compare the grand jury process to the FISA process, in 
the grand jury process you can get a grand jury subpoena for 
library records or any other kind of record without prior court 
approval. However, there's no prohibition on telling the 
subject of the grand jury subpoena that their records have been 
subpoenaed. In the FISA context you have prior court approval, 
which is positive, but at the same time you have a statutory 
prohibition on ever disclosing the FISA order to the subject of 
the order, and therefore, there's really no check on the 
issuance of that order.
    What my amendment does is it says that first the existing 
prohibition on disclosure of a FISA order for a medical record 
or a library record would be lifted after the investigation has 
been concluded; second, this would only apply to U.S. citizens. 
So this does not extend to foreign nationals, or as Ms. Lofgren 
pointed out to me earlier, even lawful permanent residents. It 
only applies to U.S. citizens' library records, U.S. citizens' 
book store records, and U.S. citizens' medical records.
    And third, the FBI would have the ability to petition the 
court for good cause shown, the FISA Court, that the non-
disclosure requirement should not be lifted in that particular 
case.
    So this couldn't be drawn more narrowly. It only applies to 
library records, book store records and medical records. It 
only applies after the investigation has concluded, and it has 
the additional safety valve of allowing the FBI to go to the 
FISA Court, and for good cause shown, continue to maintain the 
non-disclosure order. So I can't imagine how it could be drawn 
more narrowly. At the same time I think it protects American 
citizens in their expectation of privacy with their medical 
records and their library records, and I hope that it may be 
the one amendment in this area that the majority will find 
acceptable.
    I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Goodlatte. [Presiding] Who seeks time?
    The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support 
the gentleman from California's amendment, and just wanted to 
make a suggestion, depending on the will of the Committee, not 
necessarily on this amendment, but on the one which he withdrew 
earlier as well, which is the same issue, that the Director of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation may or may not be the 
appropriate person to do the review because if you had the 
Attorney General do that review, as well as in the amendment 
earlier today, you would have both a law enforcement agent 
doing the request for the tangible things like library books or 
medical records, and the review by the Attorney General would 
be done by a prosecutor.
    Simply because there is no judicial review of this whole 
process, it would be, I think, helpful to have both the 
prosecutor and the law enforcement agent be part of that 
process. That's just my thoughts.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Strike the last word. If I could ask the 
gentleman from California, the author of this bill, a couple of 
questions.
    You say at the conclusion of the investigation described in 
Subsection (A) of the individual, if there are a series of 
investigations, this being just one of them, but information 
gained in this go to the other investigation which is not yet 
completed, would they be required to disclose without going to 
the court?
    Mr. Schiff. No. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lungren. Sure.
    Mr. Schiff. No, there's nothing that mandates disclosure 
here. What it says is that we remove the legal prohibition of 
disclosure so that--when you issue a grand jury subpoena now 
for a business record, a library record or whatnot, there's no 
mandate that the library disclose the subpoena request or that 
the business disclose it. In fact, they are heavily discouraged 
from doing it. But they're not legally prohibited from doing 
it, and this would remove the legal prohibition.
    In the circumstance you mentioned, either, (A) the 
investigation would be deemed to be ongoing because there's a 
related investigation ongoing, or (B) if there were any 
question about it and the investigative agency, the FBI, felt 
that by disclosing to the American citizen that their library 
record had been requested, would it somehow impede the related 
investigation, they could go to court and that would be good 
cause for the court to extend the non-disclosure. So in the 
circumstances you described, the Government would still be able 
to protect its investigation.
    Mr. Lungren. So the gentleman would remove the current 
state of the law which obviously promotes non-disclosure. The 
assumption--the presumption that non-disclosure is necessary in 
these foreign intelligence surveillance cases.
    Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman would yield, in very narrow 
circumstances, first of all, vis-a-vis only U.S. citizens; 
second, under the whole range of records under 215, only vis-a-
vis library, book store and medical records; and third, only 
where the Government decides that they can't show good cause--
--
    Mr. Lungren. Right, but the premise is for the very use of 
this section is that it's a case involving international 
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activity, and what you're 
saying is if a U.S. citizen is involved in that, that 
disclosure takes place.
    Mr. Schiff. Not that disclosure takes place, but that the 
prohibition on disclosure----
    Mr. Lungren. Prohibition against non-disclosure----
    Mr. Schiff. Prohibition against non-disclosure is removed, 
that there's an affirmative obligation of the Government to 
tell the Court why it's necessary to continue non-disclosure to 
an American citizen that their library record was requested.
    Mr. Lungren. And so the gentleman's argument is that in an 
international terrorism case or clandestine intelligence 
activity, we do make a distinction under your amendment between 
a U.S. citizen and non U.S. citizen?
    Mr. Schiff. We do. I mean there are foreign nationals in 
the United States who are here very legitimately and may be 
here very illegitimately that we wouldn't want to protect this 
way, but what really is the broader picture I think is that the 
American people are concerned were their library records being 
subject of review. And I think that we can satisfy all of the 
legitimate law enforcement interests and also protect the civil 
liberties interests of Americans to know that their reading 
habits aren't being scrutinized, and that there isn't a 
prohibition on disclosure unless good cause has been shown for 
why that should continue after the investigation is concluded.
    And again, we put in so many safeguards here, American 
citizen, only certain records, only after investigation is 
done, and only when the Government chooses not to go to court 
or can't show good cause to continue the non-disclosure order.
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman. I'm reading here from the 
amendment, and lines 6, 7 and 8, of an individual who is a 
citizen of the United States, the non-disclosure requirements 
of this section shall cease to apply.
    Does your amendment, Mr. Schiff, presume that terrorists 
will not be U.S. citizens in the fashion of the bombers in 
London that were British citizens? How does that play out 
within this--as you envision this language?
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. King. Yes.
    Mr. Schiff. I would assume that the circumstances in which 
a U.S. citizen is the subject of a FISA order are far the 
exception and not the rule because the FISA rules are, No. 1, 
directed at agents of foreign governments. But, no, it doesn't 
assume that it will never be the case that an American might be 
involved in terrorism, but it does say that where there is an 
American who is the subject of an order to produce their 
library record or the medical record or records which it's hard 
to imagine things being more personal and private, that at the 
conclusion of the investigation, when the investigation is done 
and the Government no longer has any good cause to refrain from 
informing the person, presumably because the investigation 
either revealed that they were not properly the suspect or 
they've already been convicted of an offence, then disclosure 
is not legally prohibited.
    The reason why I think this is important is that unlike the 
grand jury process, there is no safeguard of ultimate 
notification in this, and even with this very limited 
amendment, the Director of the FBI and his designee can go and 
ask for a continuing non-disclosure order.
    Mr. King. Would the gentleman yield again?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman. But wouldn't this put a 
non-citizen, someone who has either an unlawful presence or a 
lawful presence in the United States at a disadvantage as 
opposed to a United States citizen with regard to this type of 
investigation, and wouldn't that be a distinction that 
generally one wouldn't support as we approach this level of 
jurisprudence on these cases?
    Mr. Schiff. You know, I think that we can and we do 
distinguish between U.S. residents, citizens and lawful 
residents, and foreign nationals. They have different 
expectations of privacy. I frankly, if the gentleman wants to 
suggest it, would be happy to include lawful residence in 
addition to U.S. citizens. I think that makes sense.
    But I think it also is perfectly appropriate to distinguish 
levels of privacy expectation of foreign nationals in the 
country and of American citizens and lawful residents.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Franks. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, 
controls the time.
    Mr. Lungren. I'm trying to reclaim it, but I will yield to 
whoever is asking for it right now.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Lungren.
    I wanted to ask, in line 2, the library or book store, that 
seems to be potentially a fairly broad possibility. Would that 
include all libraries, book stores? Would it include things 
like 7-11 perhaps? I mean are there any specific definitions 
there? And with the same respect to personally identifiable 
information, what would be included in that and how would you 
specify that?
    Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Franks. I will yield.
    Mr. Schiff. If I were the FISA Court I wouldn't interpret 
7-11 as a book store unless they had an awfully good magazine 
rack, and even then. So I would not interpret it that way, but 
again, when you look at the scope of business records that are 
subject to the FISA Court, which is unlimited, we're talking 
about a very narrow subsection which also is that narrow 
subsection which is of most concern to the American people. 
It's not an arbitrary choice, and it's because these records 
are of such concern to the American people, that I think 
they're deserving of greater protection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. [Presiding] The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I will yield to my friend from California, 
the proponent of the amendment. I think he alluded to it, but I 
think we've got to put some context here. I think we all 
probably sense that among the American people there is a 
profound concern about what Government is doing, what is 
happening. And I think it's understandable that we have 
recalibrated, if you will, the tensions between national 
security on one hand and individual liberties and privacy on 
another. But at the end of the day, in a healthy viable 
democracy, openness and transparency and respect for privacy is 
what it's about in terms of securing the confidence of the 
people that there is a viable functioning democracy.
    I think the gentleman's amendment is a gesture towards 
recalibrating, if you will, those interests, particularly 
privacy interests, and the interest of transparency and 
understanding what the Government is doing. In a larger sense 
it's a gesture towards moving that back in a direction that I 
think is important.
    With that, I'll yield to my friend from California. And I 
applaud him, and I think this is an amendment that is a 
gesture.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think 
what this amendment really ought to speak to the American 
people whose concern is that the Government might be looking or 
interested in their reading habits or their medical history, 
that I hope we're going to say to them, look, if the Government 
has a legitimate reason to request of the FISA Court your 
library record or your medical record, and you're an American 
citizen, when the investigation is done, if there's no good 
cause not to inform you of it, we will inform you of it.
    And I would hope the America people at a minimum have a 
right to expect that, that when the investigation is done, if 
they're exonerate or they're incarcerated, whatever the case 
may be, and there's no further impact on the investigation, 
there can be no good cause shown, that there shouldn't be a 
legal bar of a library to tell their patron that their record 
was requested. I hope we're not going to say to the American 
people that even in these narrow circumstances we're not 
prepared to protect your privacy or provide any check.
    So I haven't heard opposition yet from my colleagues.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I hear the struggle to find a reason to oppose, 
but don't work so hard.
    Mr. Lungren. Well, you keep talking and----
    Mr. Schiff. I'll stop.
    Mr. Delahunt. Reclaiming my time, I would just note that 
the Director of the Information Security Oversight Officer for 
the Executive Branch has suggested that we are on a record pace 
in terms of classification. We are putting a veil over the 
operations of Government in this country, and we've got to 
start to begin to reverse that trend. And again, this is noting 
of great significance, with all due respect, in the larger 
scheme of things. But I think it's a demonstration to the 
American people that we recognize that there is a balance 
between national security and the values that we actually are 
fighting for in terms of dealing with the issues of terrorism.
    With that I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Smith. We would like a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas asked for 
a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered. Those in favor 
will, as your names are called, answer aye, those opposed no, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? Gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 20 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick. I 
just would like to follow up on the amendment that we spoke 
about.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is the gentleman offering an 
amendment or moving to strike the last word?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes, amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Wexler. The same amendment that was offered before.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Wexler of 
Florida.
    At the end of the bill add the following:
    Section ___. Preventing the revelation----
    Mr. Wexler. Move that we consider it as read, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Wexler follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Wexler. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. We concluded the 
previous debate. The gentleman from Iowa had suggested that the 
language that was included in the amendment was either too 
broad or nebulous. There was a discussion as to whether similar 
language was actually contained in the U.S. Code, particularly 
in the criminal sections. In fact, there is precisely the same 
language in the espionage section, and there are several 
sections that contain almost exactly the precise language.
    Mr. Chairman, I thought your remarks at the end of the 
debate were exactly on point. This amendment would not in any 
way affect the investigation of or the conclusion or 
ramifications of the investigation regarding Mr. Rove. The 
issue is really quite simple. The issue is current law, on its 
face, criminalizes the knowing disclosure of classified 
information that identifies a covert agent.
    What this amendment would adopt is to go a step further in 
the protection of our CIA and intelligence agencies, to simply 
provide in addition to that standard, that if a person provides 
information pertaining to the identity of an undercover 
intelligence officer, agent, informant, or source, that the 
person has or should have reason to believe would be sufficient 
to identify that person, then it would be actionable under this 
section of the PATRIOT Act.
    And I will conclude with that, Mr. Chairman, and ask that 
we adopt this language to support the undercover work that our 
agents, our patriotic agents are doing.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Wexler. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman, and as I understand this 
agreement here before this Committee--and I had made the 
statement that the language, ``a person has or should have 
reason to believe,'' didn't exist elsewhere in the code. And my 
information that comes from our staff, that has twice now done 
a word search through the entire U.S. Code, it comes back to--
this is my information. There are multiple uses of ``has reason 
to believe'' but there are no occurrences of ``should have 
reason to believe'' or ``has or should have reason to 
believe.'' So I would ask the gentleman to please produce that 
language. If I am proven incorrect, I am certainly happy to 
make that apology, and I would hope the gentleman would----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Iowa yield?
    Mr. King. I would yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. During the interim since the 
gentleman from Florida offered this amendment previously, we 
had the Office of Law Revision Counsel do a U.S. Code search 
using the words ``should have reason to believe.'' The result 
of the search is zero documents found, zero returned. So the 
language that the gentleman is proposing to insert appears 
nowhere else in the U.S. Code according to the Office of Law 
Revision Counsel. I yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentleman. I rest my case.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. King. I would yield.
    Mr. Berman. Just like an attorney talking off the top of 
his head, I cited a specific statute that I had bee involved 
with back in the mid '80's. Your side actually listened to what 
I said and checked it out and found out that the section I was 
referring to was repealed in 1988. How I let that happen, I 
don't know, but----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Berman. I probably wasn't anticipating this day at the 
time.
    Mr. Wexler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. King. I have a--reclaiming my time, and I will in a 
moment, Mr. Wexler. But I'd like to point out that the 
gentleman, Mr. Berman, has a memory that goes back specifically 
to specific language in 1988, and I suspect he has some current 
knowledge of the code as well that hasn't been divulged yet 
today.
    And I'd yield to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Wexler. Not to belabor the point, there are several 
references in the statutes with respect to ``has reason to 
believe.'' If we're arguing over ``has'' or ``have,'' that's 
fine. It really is not relevant to the issue before the 
Committee. And as a point, Mr. Berman is exactly correct, but 
ironically, the language that was adopted in the amendment, as 
Mr. Berman suggested, I would respectfully suggest is even more 
nebulous than the original language where it talks about if a 
person is aware of a high probability of the existence of such 
circumstance. That's actually current law.
    So all I'm trying to insert is language, as we have 
discussed, ``have reason to believe,'' ``has reason to 
believe,'' all of that doesn't get to the issue. The issue is, 
if a person provides information which that person reasonably 
would believe would disclose the identity of a covert agent, do 
you think it ought to be actionable, or do you think it ought 
to be just okay?
    Mr. King. Reclaiming my time. My statement was that the 
language, ``should have reason to believe'' is vague, it's 
nebulous, and it puts an extra level of responsibility on an 
individual, and it might go so far as to say that they should 
have gone and done research, gotten an education, investigated. 
I think the language is too broad. That was my issue then. And 
the gentleman from Florida, I would expect, given the 
agreement, that he would offer this, if that language wasn't 
correct, finding out that this language exists nowhere in the 
code, I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Wexler. I would request unanimous consent--it does 
exist once. But that's not the argument. I would be happy to 
ask for unanimous consent to conform with the has reasoned to 
believe rather than have reason to believe, which, if I 
understand it correctly, is presented in the statutes on many 
occasions. Be happy to do that.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection to the unanimous 
consent? Objection is heard.
    The question is on agreeing to the Wexler Amendment. Those 
in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    Noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the amendment 
is not agreed to.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler seek recognition.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. 
Hostettler. Nothing in this bill shall be construed as 
repealing or modifying any provision contained in Public Law 
109-72.
    [The amendment of Mr. Hostettler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hostettler. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment would simply clarify and actually remove a 
probability that an amendment offered earlier and accepted by 
the Committee by Ms. Lofgren would not be able to repeal a 
provision that was passed earlier this year in the Real-ID Act 
that was authored by Rules Chairman David Dreier that would 
prevent criminal aliens from delaying their deportations 
through excessive appeals.
    My amendment would make sure that her amendment would not 
be so construed to effectively repeal the Dreier Amendment. 
Criminal aliens should not get two bites of the apple, and the 
Real-ID Act provided their appeals in the U.S. Circuit Courts 
and not in U.S. District Courts with regard to a final order of 
removal and it would not allow them to go initially to the 
District Courts and then to circuit courts, but would rather 
require them to go immediately to the circuit courts. And with 
that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
    Mr. Berman. One, is it too late for me to reserve a point 
of order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes, it is. The gentleman has--from 
Indiana has already been recognized.
    Mr. Berman. Yeah. I didn't--I mean I didn't see the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment was read in full.
    Mr. Berman. But if I will read this amendment, and you tell 
me what it's about. Nothing in this law shall be construed as 
repealing or modifying any provision contained in Public Law 
109-72.
    I may remember something that was in the law in 1980, but I 
don't remember it by the number of the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield. That 
is the Iraq Supplemental Appropriation bill.
    Mr. Berman. Oh, no. Based on the description of the 
gentleman in describing his amendment, I understand the 
amendment. Let me ask for an advisory opinion.
    Do you give advisory opinions?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is not authorized to do 
so.
    Mr. Berman. Would provisions that affect the immigration 
law that were not germane to this bill now become germane to 
this bill if this amendment were to pass?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair is not in the business of 
providing advisory opinions.
    Mr. Berman. How about speculative musings?
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair plays by the rules, and I 
don't see any section of the Rules of the House or of the 
Committee with the heading speculation.
    Mr. Berman. Could, on my time, the gentleman once again 
describe exactly what provision of the law so I can prepare the 
many amendments I think would be good on the issue of 
immigration.
    Mr. Hostettler. If the gentleman will yield?
    Mr. Berman. And exactly know where I'll have germane 
provision?
    Mr. Hostettler. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Berman. Yes. Oh, sure.
    Mr. Hostettler. To the extent that the amendment offered by 
Ms. Lofgren affected and was allowed to be offered to affect 
immigration law, my amendment would likewise potentially affect 
immigration law.
    Mr. Berman. Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment on suspension 
of writ of habeas corpus.
    Mr. Hostettler. And my amendment says that nothing shall be 
construed as repealing or modifying any provision contained in 
Public Law 109-72.
    Mr. Berman. Well, I guess we have to bring a case or 
controversy before the Committee. And thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Not having the Iraq appropriations bill handy, 
I will rely on my memory, but there was concern, at least on my 
part, when that measure was considered that there was an 
impingement on the writ of habeas corpus.
    But I don't think there was a suspension of habeas corpus. 
And I think this goes to the point made by my colleague from 
California, Mr. Lungren, earlier, which relates to the ability 
of the Congress to prescribe procedural limitations on the 
exercise of the writ of habeas corpus that falls short of the 
action that the Congress needs to take in Article I, Section 9, 
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion 
or invasion when the public safety may require it.
    So unless the gentleman from Indiana is suggesting that the 
Congress has suspended habeas corpus in its prior action, I 
would suggest that this amendment should be rejected.
    And I really do think that, you know, although this was 
adopted because no one wants to say that we're suspending 
habeas corpus, there is a very serious issue here, and the--Mr. 
Chairman, the Committee is not in order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is correct. The 
Committee will be in order. Conversations will cease.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do think that when 
we are discussing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, 
we should pay attention. And Mr. Hostettler seems to be 
suggesting, by his amendment, that, in fact, the Congress did 
act, as only the Congress may, as we learned from President 
Lincoln's abortive attempt to suspend the writ through 
executive order, that the Congress has acted in the Iraq 
appropriations bill, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
    I think that is not the case, but if this amendment is 
passed, I think it affirms that, in fact, the Congress did 
suspend the writ of habeas corpus, unknowingly I would assume 
on the part of some.
    So I think that this is not a harmless amendment. It really 
has great import for the actions and of the Congress, and as a 
precedent for the nation. As we know, the Congress has never, 
in the entire history of the United States, acted to suspend 
the writ of habeas corpus. And I would argue that if, in fact, 
Mr. Hostettler is suggesting we did so in Public Law 109-72 
that we have not met the predicate that is outlined in Article 
I, Section 9 because we are not in the situation of rebellion 
or invasion that is required--that the Congress is required to 
find before deciding that public safety requires the suspension 
of the writ.
    So I would--I think this is very serious business. I 
strongly urge the Committee to reject Mr. Hostettler's 
amendment, and I hope that all of us can go home to our 
districts this weekend and let them know that we have not, for 
the first time in the proud history of the nation, acted to 
suspend the great writ in this Congress.
    And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment and I 
move to reconsider the amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is shall the vote by 
which the Lofgren Amendment was agreed to be reconsidered. 
Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    A rollcall will be ordered.
    The question is shall the vote by which the Lofgren 
Amendment was agreed to be reconsidered? Those in favor will as 
your names are called answer aye. Those opposed, no.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair has already put the 
question to the clerk to call the roll.
    Mr. Nadler. Question on the question.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. It went--once the question is put, 
then the rollcall begins.
    Mr. Nadler. Could I ask which amendment we're talking 
about? That's all I want to know.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This the Lofgren Amendment relative 
to habeas corpus; is the one the gentleman made his motion to 
reconsider. Those in favor of reconsidering the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to will as your names are called 
answer aye. Those opposed, no, and the clerk will call the 
role.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No. .
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, no. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No..
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no.. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes and 15 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to reconsider is 
agreed to. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, 
relative to habeas corpus.
    Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Recorded vote please, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recorded vote will be ordered. 
Those in favor of the Lofgren Amendment will as your names are 
called answer aye. Those opposed, no, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No .
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher, aye. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye..
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? Are there further amendments? The 
gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment numbered 82 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment 
number 82.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California. At the end of the bill, add the following new 
section: Section. Obligation of All Amounts in Crime Victims 
Funds. Section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, 42 
U.S.C. 10601, is amended by adding at the end the following----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'd request that the amendment be 
deemed as read.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, a point of order is reserved 
by the gentleman from Texas. Without objection, the amendment 
is considered as read, subject to the point of order reserved, 
and the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Schiff. I thank the Chairman. Section 621 of the 
PATRIOT Act allow the Department of Justice to establish a $50 
million anti-terrorism emergency reserve for supplemental 
grants to compensate and assist victims of terrorism or mass 
violence.
    It also removed the otherwise applicable caps on the 
amounts transferred to the Victims of Crime Act Fund in 
response to the terrorist acts of September 11th.
    The Victims of Crime Act Fund is an important part of the 
effort to aid those affected by terrorism and crime more 
generally. The trust fund is composed of criminal fines, 
forfeited bail bonds, penalty fees and special assessments 
collected by U.S. Attorneys offices, courts, and the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons.
    These dollars come from Federal criminals. They do not come 
from taxpayers.
    Currently, this fund is the only Federal program that 
provides support services to victims of all types of crimes.
    The PATRIOT bill removed some of the caps, but not all of 
the caps. This would remove the final remaining caps so that 
more of this funding could be distributed. This is very similar 
to a measure, bipartisan bill, introduced by Rob Simmons of 
Connecticut that as 23 bipartisan co-sponsors. It is plainly 
germane to the provisions that were amended in the PATRIOT bill 
that lifted some of the caps. This lifts the remaining caps. 
And it assures that more of this money will go out to victims 
more expeditiously.
    In the last couple years, the amount of money available to 
states has been capped at $500 million despite collections of 
over a billion dollars. So this I think is a completion of a 
partial effort made in the PATRIOT bill that will more speedily 
provide support to victims of other terrorist acts other than 
September 11th, as well as the victims of crime generally. And 
I'd be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Texas 
insist on his point of order?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his point 
of order.
    Mr. Smith. Mike is working here. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, the reason I feel that this particular 
amendment is non-germane is simply because the subject, which 
is crime victims fund, while it's in the PATRIOT Act, is not 
under any of the provisions that we are considering here today. 
And under Rule 16 of the House Rules, amendments that differ in 
subject from the provisions under consideration are not 
considered germane. And for that reason, I would insist on my 
point of order.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of 
order? Will the gentleman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. This is a reauthorization of the PATRIOT bill. 
And I know that the subject of the base bill pertains to 
certain of the PATRIOT bill provisions, but this crime victims 
fund was amended by the PATRIOT Act that we are in effect 
reauthorizing today with this legislation.
    This is the PATRIOT and Intelligence Reform Reauthorization 
Act of 2005. And unless the gentleman has any objection to the 
merits, considering it it amends the same section and in the 
same fashion in terms of lifting caps. I think it is both 
germane and good policy supported by 23 members of the House, 
both Democrats and Republicans.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to rule. Line 
3 of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Schiff, expressly states that the Victims of Crime Act of 
1984 is amended by language in his amendment. The Victims of 
Crime Act is not the subject matter of the bill before us that 
relates to the PATRIOT Act, and, as a result, the gentleman 
from Texas' point of order is sustained.
    Are there other amendments? The gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Watt. Watt-Waters.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Watt and 
Ms. Waters. Strike Subsection C of Section 8, and insert the 
following: (C), non-disclosure. Section 501(d) of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. 1861(d) is----
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Watt and Ms. Waters follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment deals 
with Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which the Chairman's mark 
improves, and we're trying to improve it further. Section 215 
expanded the FBI's authority to obtain business records, 
including records from libraries and the bookstores under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    For example, the Washington Post reported that the FBI 
agents--that FBI agents asked libraries for a list of everyone 
who checked out a book on Osama bin-Laden. Any person, any 
child simply trying to educate themselves about the attacks of 
September 11 could become a target of such an inquiry. Not only 
may American citizens become unsuspecting targets of a Section 
215 order, those receiving the order, including bookstores and 
libraries, are required to comply and may not disclose the 
specifics or contents of the order.
    The Chairman's bill makes some improvements. It amends 
Section 215 to allow the recipient of the order to challenge 
the order and clarifies that the recipient may consult with 
counsel or those necessary to comply with the order, and sets 
up a judicial review process and standards for issuing the 
order. And Mr. Flake's amendment earlier dealt with that 
consultation process, and improved on that.
    My amendment would make additional and necessary 
improvements by doing two additional things. First, it would 
require the government to apply for a gag order establishing 
why it is necessary for the recipient of an order and their 
counsel to be prohibited from divulging the existence or 
content of the order.
    In instances where the government believes a gag order is 
needed, the burden is placed where it should be--on the 
government.
    If the government can establish that disclosure of such 
information might tip off possible terrorist suspects that they 
are under investigation or if officers believe disclosure would 
endanger someone, the government could apply for a gag order.
    Second, my amendment places a 180-day time limit on the gag 
order, which is renewable upon a showing that the order remains 
necessary.
    This would allow the government to obtain necessary 
information to combat terrorism while providing transparency to 
the public without jeopardizing national security.
    Mr. Watt. The government should not and will not, if my 
amendment is accepted, be able to completely shield from public 
view its use of this powerful tool. The public must be able to 
speak out when abuses occur and government secrecy all too 
often leads to government abuse.
    This amendment helps protect us from that kind of abuse. I 
ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Pence, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pence. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would 
oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Watt and Ms. Waters.
    While I support clarifying Section 215 to allow for a 
recipient to disclose receipt of a Section 215 order to an 
attorney, this provision inappropriately places an artificial 
time limit on non-disclosure generally and places the burden on 
the government to demonstrate that adverse effects will occur 
upon disclosure when seeking an extension on that period. 
Essentially, it flips the burden of proof in these cases. And 
given the nature of national security investigations, the time 
limit imposed by this amendment, I would argue, Chairman, is 
with respect unrealistically short. Investigations of terrorist 
organizations, for example, can last years, and requiring 
notice of a disclosure under Section 215 would require 
investigators essentially to tip off suspects, which could 
enable them and their associates to go into hiding, to flee to 
change their plans, and even accelerate their plots.
    And I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Watt 
Amendment.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. I have co-authored this amendment because I 
think it's very important. Among the things that have been 
discussed, this amendment allows the recipient of a Section 215 
order at least to consult with their lawyer, allowing the 
recipients to speak to their lawyers, injects a vital due 
process protection that is put in place that helps to ensure 
that Section 215 authority is not abused without any mechanism 
for recourse.
    Mr. Chairman, in its current form, Section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to seize and search any records on 
any person they chose as long as they can show it is relevant 
to a terrorism investigation.
    Moreover, the recipient of Section 215 orders are subject 
to an automatic gag order prohibiting them from telling anyone 
about the search or seizure, including his or her lawyer.
    Mr. Chairman, this automatic gag order prevents the 
recipient of a Section 215 order from being able to question 
the order at all. The recipient would have to risk criminal 
sanctions to simply ask their lawyer whether the order is legal 
or to be advised of their rights under the order.
    This secrecy leaves Section 215 open for government abuse 
and exploitation. For example, under Section 215 orders, the 
government can secretly monitor a public library's computers 
and be able to monitor who looks at what Internet sites, and 
who has checked out specific books. This can all be conducted 
without giving anybody notice that they're under surveillance. 
This gives the government too much secret surveillance power 
and eliminates any recourse for recipients of Section 215 
orders.
    Mr. Chairman, recipients of orders to produce records 
should have a right to be able to consult with their lawyers to 
be advised of their rights. And the government should not be 
allowed to conduct investigations in secret, for secret 
investigations all too often lead to government abuse.
    Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to please support the 
Watt-Waters Amendment, to place some commonsense restrictions 
on Section 215, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I must not be reading the bill 
that you introduced, because I note in the bill that you 
introduced you have provided an opportunity for people to 
disclose to their attorney, and I recall we adopted Mr. Flake's 
amendment, which made it very specific as to what one could do 
with respect to talking to their lawyer, not only to respond to 
this, but also to challenge it. And if that's the proper 
reading of Mr. Flake's amendment, I don't understand the 
comments of the gentlelady from California that we just heard, 
nor the purpose of the amendment that we have here, if the 
purpose of the amendment we have now before us is to allow 
people to disclose to their attorney, which on its face is in 
the bill that's before us.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. I rise to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from North Carolina. And I merely want to point out 
that the objective of this bill is to make discretionary the 
issuing of the gag order rather than it being automatically 
applying under Section 215 to everybody, and so it wouldn't be 
just a matter of whether the attorney could be consulted, but 
it would cover libraries that can't let their patrons know that 
the government has asked for information or a service provider 
cannot let its customer know that his or her records have been 
seized. And all we're saying in this amendment is not to place 
a gag order automatically under 215; and that the government 
would have to prove to then authorizing judge why a gag order 
is necessary.
    And it's in that sense that I think this is an excellent 
amendment and I support it without question. I return my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Let me just reiterate what Mr. Lungren 
mentioned. My amendment sought to correct that, or just to 
clarify within the law that you can consult an attorney not 
just to respond to the case, but also to--with anything with 
respect to the case. So I think it's fairly clear that the 
subject of any action has the ability now to consult a lawyer.
    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Ms. Waters. I have just been handed the amendment by you, 
Mr. Flake, which does refer to Section 501(d), and I suppose as 
it is written, it would take care of my concerns and my 
concerns that would linger with this would have to do simply 
with the gag order.
    Mr. Flake. Thank you.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Flake. I yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, the point has been made that this 
changes the presumption. The presumption is always that you 
notify someone that you're searching their property. It's the 
only way that you're going to have any sunshine on the 
practice, whether or not you're in the right place, whether or 
not you're overly broad. This would allow a gag order to remain 
in effect for 180 days, and you can extend it indefinitely if 
you can show cause. Otherwise, you have a permanent gag order 
operating in secret. I think this is an appropriate balance, 
and I would hope that we would adopt the amendment, and I yield 
to the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr Watt. Let me just make this point. I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding. I think we all are probably getting tired 
here because we're ceasing to listen to each other. The 
amendment is about whether a gag order goes into effect without 
anything or whether the government needs to get a court 
authorization for a gag order. That's the only thing this 
amendment is about.
    The 180 days is there as a presumptive time, but if the 
government needs more time than 180 days, all it has got to do 
is go to the court and say that. The thing that's troubling 
about this discussion is that the very people who are always--
have always expressed so much concern about the size and power 
of the government now seem to be defending the exercise and 
size and power of the government against individual citizens. I 
thought--I really thought you all were really about downsizing 
government and downsizing the power of government. We're not 
trying to encourage terrorism. We're trying to create a balance 
between the government--what the government can do without 
saying anything to anybody, without notifying anybody. All 
we're trying to do set up a counterbalance to something that is 
unprecedented. This is unprecedented stuff that our government 
could go in and look at our library records, and for you all to 
sit here and defend the government against that kind of 
intrusion, against even having to ask a court to evaluate 
whether any kind of disclosure of that clandestine, quiet, 
secretive action by the government should be exposed to the 
light of day seems to me just to be unbelievable.
    I'm beginning to think you all have lost your bearings 
here. I--well, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just to 
remind everybody that the person whose privacy is being invaded 
will never know that their privacy is being invaded, even if 
secrecy is not necessary. All this amendment does is after 180 
days let people know that the records were obtained and if 
secrecy is necessary, let the government say that secrecy is 
necessary.
    I mean there's--I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    Noes appear to have it. The noes----
    Recorded vote will be ordered. Those in favor of the Watt 
Amendment will as your names are called answer aye; those 
opposed, no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No .
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye..
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 aye and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott 34. It's page 9, line 11.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia.
    Page 9, line 11, strike the close quotation mark and the 
second period. Page 9, after line 11, insert the following: 4) 
a person who prevails on a challenge of the legality of an 
order under this subsection is entitled to reasonable attorneys 
fees, if any, incurred by the person in pursuing the challenge.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, page 7, 
line 16, purports to give a person who gets one of these orders 
the right to challenge it. What this amendment would do is if 
he can get through all of the legalities and actually wins, he 
ought to be able to get his attorneys fees.
    Now, let's remember what's going on here. You get a library 
or somebody who gets an order to give up somebody's private 
material, if they're going to contest it, if it is obviously 
overly intrusive and not necessary, are they going to incur 
$10,000, $20,000, $25,000 worth of legal expenses in order to 
contest it for someone else when they can't tell the other 
person that they're actually going to go through this on their 
behalf or are they just going to comply with the order and give 
up individual private information that shouldn't have been 
asked for.
    All this says if you can get through all of the legal mumbo 
jumbo and actually win the case, if you have a slam dunk, that 
you can afford to bring it.
    Otherwise, the fact that you have the paper right to bring 
the case is ridiculous because you can never do it because you 
can't afford it.
    And I would hope that we would at least allow attorneys 
fees for that one in a million case that can actually bring a 
case and win it so that they could--would actually bring the 
case if the warrant was not necessary.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to 
simply offer--it's a little vague, since--it says a person who 
prevails on a challenge. Does that mean you win one challenge 
and you lose a whole bunch. But I would offer this--and I can 
only speak for myself personally--but if the gentleman from 
Virginia and those across the aisle would agree to have a lose 
or pay situation in tort cases, you've got my vote on your 
amendment right here. And I'll yield back my time.
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. I've yielded back my time to the 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
Amendment. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    Noes appear to have it. The noes have----
    Recorded vote will be ordered. Those in favor of the Scott 
Amendment will as your names are called answer aye. Those 
opposed, no. And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No .
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye..
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have 14 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
numbered 75.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff. 
Amend Section 4 to read as follows: Section 4, Extension of 
Sunset Provision relating to Individual Terrorists as Agents of 
Foreign Powers. Subsection B of Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act----
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. And the gentleman from California will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, this provision is fairly 
straightforward. It provides a 3-year sunset for the so-called 
lone wolf provision. And I want to explain why I think this is 
different in kind than the earlier debate we've had on sunsets. 
And that is the authority to go after loan wolves was just 
recently enacted in December of last year, so we haven't had 
the same kind of track record we have had with other sections 
of the PATRIOT bill.
    The loan wolf provision eliminates the requirement in FISA 
that surveillance or searches be carried out only against 
persons suspected of being agents of foreign powers or 
terrorist organizations. It was an attempt to fix a loophole 
potentially that would allow or preclude us from going after 
lone terrorists where we couldn't show an affiliation to an 
international terrorist group.
    But there have been a number of concerns raised on this 
Committee with the application of this provision to individuals 
where you can't show a connection to a foreign government or an 
international terrorist organization. In fact, a compromise 
proposal based on language of Senator Feinstein was offered by 
Mr. Berman in the 9/11 bill, which I believe was adopted with 
bipartisan support in this Committee.
    Rather than take that approach which was one of presuming 
that a lone terrorist was acting in concert with international 
organization or with another government, rather than take that 
approach, it might be simpler and cleaner to provide a sunset 
in a reasonable period of time--3 years--so that we'll have 4 
years of experience in total so that we can evaluate and make 
sure that this is only being applied in the right 
circumstances.
    It's not the intention of FISA to go after people who want 
to commit acts of domestic terrorism, like blowing up a Federal 
building over hostility to the government or to tax policy or 
what not. And want to make sure that this lone wolf provision 
is being appropriately applied.
    So this would basically give the lone wolf provision the 
same sunset that the rest of the PATRIOT bill had, but because 
this is a late edition, we don't have the same track record 
with it. And I would urge my colleagues' support.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I rise in opposition 
to this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The provisions--the lone 
wolf provisions in the original version of H.R. 10 is virtually 
identical to the lone wolf provision contained in Senate 113, 
which was passed in the Senate by a 90 to 4 vote, and was co-
sponsored by Senators Biden and Schumer. I do appreciate the 
gentleman from California's belief that there hasn't been 
enough time or that perhaps this could be abused. But I think 
it's clear that with London bombing just days ago, on 7/7, that 
we're going to continue to have lone wolves. We're going to 
continue to have individuals who cannot either at the time 
before or even immediately following a crime necessarily be 
linked to an international terrorist group, and that, in fact, 
this legislation, as it is, is important to be left as it is. 
There has been no case for sunsetting because there--although 
you mentioned concerns, there have been no examples of abuse or 
anything inappropriate under the current law.
    And I would suggest that if you have a reform of the 
current law, this is an appropriate time to bring it, but not 
simply to sunset something for which we have not yet discovered 
a flaw.
    I'd yield to the gentleman from California for a question.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Did the 
gentleman support the 9/11 bill? The amendment offered by Mr. 
Berman, which would have modified this section to provide 
additional protection? I think it was supported on a bipartisan 
basis. If it was good then, it should be good now.
    And, in fact, this is less----
    Mr. Berman. It was good then.
    Mr. Schiff. --restrictive.
    Mr. Berman. It was good then.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Berman is assuring us, reclaiming my time, 
that it was good then. You know, this is the--we are existing 
with the law today. What you're proposing to do is to sunset 
rather than potentially amend. I mean we're glad--I'm happy to 
talk about amendments. That's what we're here for. But I'm 
going to be--resist and ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to resist simply kicking the can down the road 3 more 
years in case we discover something. I believe that appropriate 
and routine oversight now is what we're going to have on this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Issa. Yeah. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman?
    Mr. Berman. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. I think this is a very good amendment. Mr. 
Schiff has explained it well. But I want to just remind my 
colleagues on the Committee and the lone wolf--it is certainly 
true that there can be this lone operator out there and engaged 
in terrorist acts or planning terrorist attacks so we want to 
have the tools to deal with that person. But remember the 
fundamental structure of all this. It's all base on a FISA 
Court where there is a lower threshold for getting surveillance 
warrants and all these different things, not probable cause 
that a crime has been committed.
    And the only reason it--the real reason why it's been 
considered to be constitutional is because it's geared to 
foreign powers or agents of foreign powers.
    Almost by definition, the lone wolf is not and can't be an 
agent of a foreign power, 'cause he's a lone wolf.
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. You know, I don't want to be the ultimate 
conspiracy theorist, but was Lee Harvey Oswald, in his trips 
back and forth to Cuba, a lone wolf or was he an agent of 
foreign government? We don't always know that. We have a good-
faith belief that somebody may be an agent of a foreign 
government. And I certainly think that on the next amendment 
which I understand you are going to offer, we can have further 
discussion. But when it comes to the sunsetting, I think we are 
dealing with sunsetting here, not with the substance of your 
amendment.
    Mr. Berman. Well, but, I mean, the same logic that we 
debated how long the sunset should be certainly applies to this 
as well. But I wasn't planning to offer the amendment, and you 
haven't said enough to make me think I should rethink my 
position yet.
    Mr. Issa. I will be glad not to have you rethink your 
position.
    Mr. Berman. But look, let me just--the constitutional 
requirement that the lesser standards and privacy protections 
authorized for FISA surveillance pass constitutional is that 
they are limited to use against foreign powers and their 
agents. There is a constitutional question here. I had offered 
an amendment before that created a presumption that the FISA 
court could apply, a presumption that the lone wolf was an 
agent of a foreign power. That was adopted, and then somehow 
disappeared.
    But, so particularly where you have something that is 
constitutionally at least arguably questionable here, the logic 
of a sunset is even greater because it imposes a kind of review 
and helps--becomes a forcing mechanism for us to look at a way 
to salvage a provision which, in the context of what we want to 
do on terrorism, makes sense.
    And so I think you ought to give Mr. Schiff the sunset 
clause here, and then let's create a process that sort of 
empowers us to--or that forces us to figure out the right way. 
Maybe it is not the presumption. Maybe there is something else 
we can do to deal with the constitutional questions involved in 
letting this kind of surveillance take place against someone 
who might not have any connection to a foreign power or be an 
agent of a foreign power.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. Sure.
    Mr. Delahunt. I wonder if the gentleman from California and 
the Chairman would consider, if Mr. Schiff was willing to, by 
unanimous consent, amend his amendment and bring it in line in 
terms of the sunset with the other two provisions that Mr. 
Lungren's amendment made part of the bill today, that would 
give us three provisions. And particularly, given the arguments 
that both Mr. Berman made and I think Mr. Schiff accurately 
made, it would give us a period of time to test the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Schiff. Those in favor will say aye? 
Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote will be ordered. 
Those in favor of the Schiff amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye; those opposed, no. And the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their vote? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 22 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have an amendment at the desk. It is labeled Nadler-
Jackson Lee-Waters.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, and Ms. Waters. Add at the end the following: 
Sec. ___. Limitation on Time to Delay Notice of Search 
Warrants. Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``a reasonable period'' and inserting 
``30 calendar days, which period, upon application of the 
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Associate 
Attorney General, may thereafter be extended by the court for 
additional periods of up to 60 calendar days.''
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A point of order has been reserved 
by the gentleman from Texas.
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 
5 minutes, subject to the point of order reserved.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a very simple amendment. Section 213 of the PATRIOT 
Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches--it is the so-
called sneak-and-peek section. It allows the FBI to conduct 
secret searches in any investigation, including run-of-the-mill 
criminal investigations, and indefinitely delay notice to the 
target of the search.
    Right now, they can delay notice for a reasonable period, 
which can be anything. And what this amendment says is it 
should be 30 calendar days. However, upon application to the 
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or an Associate 
Attorney General, it can thereafter be extended by the court--I 
am sorry, an application ``by'' the Attorney General or his 
deputies--can be extended by the court for additional periods 
of up to 60 calendar days.
    Now, those can be any number of additional 60 calendar 
days. And it is very simple. If you are going to conduct a 
search of a person's home or business, there may be a good 
reason not to tell them afterwards. There may be a good reason 
that, if you told them, it would result in destruction of 
evidence or in flight from the jurisdiction or in death or 
something, and therefore you don't want to tell them. But it is 
an invasion of liberty to be able to--it is an invasion of our 
traditions to be able to conduct a search without telling them 
afterward. So this simply says after a certain period of time, 
30 days, if you think that you still can't tell them, you tell 
the court why. And then 60 days and 60 days and 60 days. It is 
simply giving the court the authority to limit how long the 
lack of notification after a search of someone's premises can 
be.
    Now, the PATRIOT Act extended sneak-and-peeks from where 
they were to cases where the Fourth Amendment is applicable 
and, frankly, to somewhat questionable constitutionality, this 
probably ameliorates any challenge to its constitutionality. 
But it is the right thing to do from a liberty aspect. Where 
you really need to keep that secret for any length of time, 
that is fine; you can do that. And where you shouldn't, you 
have to review it every 60 days.
    So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, he does.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Reservation is withdrawn.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. This is with regard to the 30 calendar days you 
are asking for.
    Mr. Nadler. Thirty calendar days, and after--would the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. No, let me explain first and then I will yield.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, I think you just asked a question. Just 
to answer your question.
    Mr. Flake. Okay, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thirty calendar days and 60-day extension by 
the court.
    Mr. Flake. I do have an amendment that will come up on the 
floor, if it is made in order, which would have--instead of 30 
days, it would be 180 days. It would be the maximum time 
allowed now, and additional periods up to 90 days.
    Mr. Nadler. It would be 180 days for the first?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. And then additional period of 90?
    Mr. Flake. Ninety days, yes. And I would be happy to work 
with the gentleman on an amendment.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, first of all, I am glad to hear it was 
made in order. I didn't know the rules----
    Mr. Flake. No, no, I said if it is made in order.
    Mr. Nadler. Oh, if it is made in order. Well, I would 
certainly support that amendment. I think 30 and 60 is better--
what did you say, 180 and 90?
    Mr. Flake. One hundred eighty and 90.
    Mr. Nadler. Well, I think 30 and 60 is better, because you 
ought to--I could support 180, but I think 30 is better. I 
think 60 is better to go back to courts. I would hope the 
gentleman would support this in Committee. I don't know why we 
wait for the floor to do this if it is a good idea.
    Mr. Flake. I will support it anywhere. But----
    Mr. Nadler. Well, I hope you support this amendment.
    Mr. Flake. No, no. No, I would like to support my 
amendment. And my understanding is we would like to do it on 
the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Flake. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting process 
where everybody is going to have their amendments on the floor 
rather than in--subject to a hearing, subject to Subcommittee 
markup and a Committee markup. We got the bill just a few days 
ago. We haven't had a hearing on the bill. And here we are with 
the rules people taking--I don't know whether the Rules 
Committee will allow these amendments or not, but it is just an 
unusual circumstance.
    The purpose of the notice and the presumption of notice, 
usually there is an extraordinary situation that you would 
sneak and peek for a search warrant anyway. If there is a 
mistake, the fact that you have notified someone right there on 
the spot, they can tell you that you are searching the wrong 
house. This is a tremendous invasion. It is a constitutional 
right to be secure in your person and property.
    The amendment is reasonable. And we ought to have a debate 
on the amendment rather than just hide the ball and spring it 
on us. We don't know what these amendments are going to look 
like on the floor, and we ought to debate it here in a fair 
debate. It is just an unusual circumstance and procedure that 
people--I don't know what happened in the cloak room back 
there. But I will yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I would ask the gentleman from 
Arizona if you think it is a good idea to do--I mean, I am 
realistic. I have seen the fate of most amendments today. If 
you think you could support 180 days and 90 days, I will be 
happy to change this amendment to 180 and 90 and maybe we could 
get support for that right here.
    Mr. Flake. I will agree to work with the gentleman on it. 
This deserves more time, but----
    Mr. Nadler. Would you support it in this Committee?
    Mr. Flake. No, I would prefer to go with my own amendment 
on that.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time. Will the gentleman offer his 
amendment now so we can see it?
    Mr. Flake. I am still working on it, but--on the precise 
language of it. All I have looked at, and I would have to 
compare it to the language I am working on, but I see the 30 
and 60, I know that I have gone 180 and 90. I haven't looked at 
the precise language other than that. I would need more time to 
do that.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time. Would the gentleman want to 
join in my complaint that we haven't had time to consider this 
in Committee? I mean, you haven't had time to prepare your 
amendment. I assume you notice that this is a rushed process. 
You have amendments you are still working on. We haven't had 
Subcommittee, and here we are in Committee on a short notice. 
Does the gentleman acknowledge that this is a rushed process; 
you have not had adequate time to prepare your amendments?
    Mr. Flake. I would not acknowledge any such thing. We have 
had 12 hearings. You mention there has not been a hearing on 
the amendment. To my knowledge, we don't typically call 
hearings on amendments. But on the bill, the underlying bill, 
we have held 12 hearings on. This has been quite a deliberative 
process.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time. I would remind the gentleman 
that we have had no hearings on the bill.
    Mr. Flake. Well, we actually did have a hearing on delayed 
notice.
    Mr. Scott. Well, we have had no hearings on the bill. We 
have had hearings on the act, we have had hearings on the 
subjects, but we have not seen the bill. And that is why the 
gentleman is having trouble with his amendments. Can't get them 
ready because we haven't had a hearing. Now, had we had a 
hearing on the bill, the gentleman would have possibly had time 
to prepare an amendment where it could be considered in the 
normal process.
    I yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. And I think, to find a common 
agreement, I think it is wonderful we have a member on this 
side of the aisle who talked to you in principle, what he is 
looking at. It is different than what you are looking at by a 
significant amount of days. But----
    Mr. Nadler. But we are willing to change it to those days.
    Mr. Issa. What I would suggest is either withdraw--and I 
would suggest withdraw without prejudice--and work on it behind 
the scenes. Because at this point, I think what we agree on is 
we disagree on the number of days, so why have a vote? Why not 
get a----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I think I said a few moments ago, I 
am willing to change the number of days to the same number of 
days that the gentleman mentioned a moment ago, 180 and 90. So 
there is no difference on that. I am not aware of what language 
there is here. It is simply a question of listing the number of 
days.
    There seems to be a determination not to do an amendment on 
this subject in Committee, but only on the floor. Now, maybe 
there is a reason for that, but it is not the----
    Mr. Flake. Will the gentleman yield? I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to include in the record the chronology of 
the hearings that we have held on this subject.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The chronology of hearings follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming--reclaiming somebody's time. I 
don't----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. Could I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
2 minutes to the gentleman's----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. And I assume he yields to me, since he is 
talking.
    I don't have any quarrel or complaint about the fact that 
we had only 12 hearings and maybe we should have held 13. That 
is not what anybody is saying here. What we have been saying is 
that there has been no--my complaint is that we have had no 
time, really, since we saw the Chairman's bill, which was only 
Friday night, or late Friday. And as I said at the beginning of 
this hearing back at--you know, a few hours ago, we should have 
had time to send this bill out for comment to everybody across 
the country, to the law schools, the Civil Liberties Union, the 
Conservative Union, and the libertarian groups, and get their 
comments and fashion amendments with that. That would have also 
given us time so that the gentleman from Arizona could have had 
his amendment ready for this Committee.
    But the fact is, we are willing to go with an amendment--
Let me put it this way. If you don't--we are willing to go with 
an amendment now that says 180 and 90 days. And if the 
gentleman thinks, upon further reflection before the floor, 
that for some reason, if we were to pass that amendment with 
the gentleman's support, that the language--the only language 
here is the time. If the language needs changing, you can 
certainly try to do that on the floor. But it would certainly 
be helpful I would think to the process if we agree on 180 days 
and 90 days, to get that concept at least in the bill at this 
point.
    At this point, let me ask unanimous consent to change my 
amendment to 180 days and 90 days.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there objection?
    Hearing none, the modification is agreed to.
    Mr. Coble. Objection.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Objection is heard.
    Mr. Nadler. Objection is heard to--?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    The question is on the option----
    Mr. Nadler. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the 
amendment and submit another amendment with the appropriate 
number of days in about 20 minutes. If you want to waste the 
time, I am perfectly willing to do that.
    I withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It should be--I don't want to mislabel it. 
I have it as 052, amendment to--I am sorry, excuse me. Let's 
see. Excuse me, I am sorry. The amendment is 001 XML Section 
218.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee. At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
new section.
    Sec. 218. Notice of Search or Surveillance If Subject of 
Such Search Or Surveillance Is A United States Person That Is 
Not An Agent Of A Foreign Power.
    (a) Electronic Surveillance. --Section 106 of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(1) Where an electronic surveillance authorized and 
conducted pursuant to section 105 involves a United States 
person--''
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I note 
throughout the day the vigorous----
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. It is too late to reserve a point 
of order. The gentlewoman has already been recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I note throughout the day that there has been a vigorous 
discussion, and I would hope that that discussion might have 
lent itself to a number of opportunities to work together. As I 
started this morning, I indicated my departure was on the basis 
of a historic day today, and that is the return to human space 
flight.
    We have an historic opportunity, which is to recognize that 
we are a Nation of laws and, of course, a Nation of liberty. 
This amendment tries to focus on that particular point and it 
addresses part of the number of abuses that have occurred under 
the USA PATRIOT Act. In particular, I would like to bring 
attention to an abuse in the Brandon Mayfield case. The FBI 
used Section 218 to secretly break into his house, download the 
contents of four computer drives, take DNA evidence, and take 
355 digital photographs. Though the FBI admits Mr. Mayfield is 
innocent, they still will not divulge a secret court order to 
him or allow him to defend himself in court. It is unclear how 
the search was for any reason but to find evidence 
incriminating Mr. Mayfield.
    In Virginia, we are told of a physician of Pakistani 
origin. In fact, I believe his discipline is as a neurologist. 
Well-respected in his community, arrested. We understand that 
his property may have been searched. Ultimately, after a period 
of time, he was released. To his friends and family, they 
welcomed him back. But at the same time, suspicion still 
presides over him among his peers and neighbors.
    And so I speak strongly in support of an amendment that I 
believe speaks to the question of liberty. In general, this 
amendment would amend the FISA to protect the Fourth Amendment 
rights of individuals whose homes are secretly searched, or 
conversations overheard, but who turn out not to be spies and 
terrorists, by requiring that they may be notified of the 
search or surveillance, of the fact.
    More specifically, the amendment states that where 
electronic surveillance is authorized for use on a United 
States person, if at any time it is determined by the Attorney 
General that the person is not an agent of a foreign power, the 
Attorney General must give notice to the person no later than 
180 days after the date it is determined that the person is not 
an agent of a foreign power.
    Under the amendment, the same principle is applied to 
physical searches, pen registers, taps, and trace devices.
    Before moving forward, it is important to mention why this 
amendment is needed. Section 218 broadens the circumstances 
when secret surveillance and secret searches targeted against 
Americans may be used. In fact, the number of FISA 
surveillances and searches have substantially increased since 
the PATRIOT Act. Having eliminated a key safeguard against 
abuse of these extraordinary powers, Congress should now act to 
protect constitutional rights at issue in FISA surveillance.
    Today we cannot ignore the Constitution in reauthorizing 
this legislation. Congress can do so without erecting a new 
wall against information sharing, one of the rationales for 
adopting Section 218. The suggested protections will not 
interfere with information sharing; in all events, Section 504 
of the PATRIOT Act explicitly states that FISA information may 
be shared with law enforcement personnel. FISA, unlike sneak-
and-peek searches under Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, 
authorizes searches and wiretaps that are kept permanently from 
the Americans whose homes and conversations are targeted, where 
secrecy raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. As a result 
of Section 218, the use of these extraordinary powers has 
increased.
    The ability or the inability to give notice to someone 
proven innocent also lends itself to one of our ugliest 
accusations in America, and that is racial profiling and 
religious profiling, leaning more toward individuals of a 
particular religion or race in the course of our efforts to 
secure the homeland. FISA procedures also raise due process 
concerns when individuals are charged based on FISA evidence. 
The only time the Government is required to inform an 
individual that he has been subject to FISA surveillance is 
when it brings charges against him.
    This amendment is transparent when necessary. It is 
transparent when the individual has been proven innocent, no 
charges have been brought against him. It seems absolutely no 
reason that the individual cannot, if you will, be given notice 
no later than 180 days after the date it is determined that the 
person is not an agent of a foreign power. It seems that this 
comports with our----
    Mr. Smith. (presiding) The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It seems that this comports, Mr. Chairman, 
with our effort at adhering to laws and to liberty. I would ask 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Feeney. I move to strike the last word, and I 
appreciate the gentlelady's----
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feeney. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. In the 
first place, we are very mindful of the constitutional 
requirements of the Bill of Rights and elsewhere. There is no 
part of the PATRIOT Act that has been determined to be infirm 
by any Federal court as unconstitutional.
    Secondly, while the gentlelady talks about the rights of 
citizens--and they are very important on this side of the 
aisle, I can assure her--we are not talking about criminal 
investigations of citizens. We are talking about terrorist 
investigations or spy investigations.
    And thirdly, while the gentlelady's amendment goes to 
notification by third parties of individuals if they are 
determined by the Justice Department not to actually be an 
agent of a foreign power, her amendment doesn't say anything 
about the case where this individual that was originally a 
target turns out to be connected to a spy, perhaps the husband 
or the wife of a spy, perhaps a partner of a spy. And what the 
gentlelady is forcing the Justice Department to do with her 
amendment is to have our folks in the middle of an 
international terrorist or spy investigation show our cards to 
the whole world, including the bad guys. And I suggest that it 
is a bad idea.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Are there any other members who wish to be heard on the 
amendment?
    If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in 
favor----
    Mr. Schiff. I would move to strike the last word and I 
would yield my time----
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. And I yield to the gentlewoman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, let me beg to differ with my 
good friend. A number of sections have been found 
unconstitutional. Let me share with the gentleman. Section 805 
has been found unconstitutional by three separate courts. That 
is the question of material support for terrorism. The 9th 
Circuit found the provision prohibiting personnel in training 
was overly vague. The Central California District Court found 
the provision prohibiting expert advice and assistance was 
overly vague. A New York District Court found the provision 
prohibiting personnel and acting as a quasi-employee overly 
vague.
    A number of these provisions have been found to be abusive 
and, of course, an over-reach. I join my distinguished friend 
to argue for security. We have had a number of incidences of 
which we even recognize the importance of intelligence, such as 
the tragedy of the rail explosions in London, England. My point 
is that there comes a point, when the individual is found not 
to be part of a foreign agent, when you tell that individual.
    Now, if you have information against, if you will, the 
wife, the cousin, the neighbor of this individual, then that is 
who the FBI should be reaching out to, not the particular 
person who has been cleared of being a foreign agent. And 
cleared. If the FBI wants to start this process again, they can 
start the process again. This simply provides them with the 
appropriate notice after they have been cleared and determined 
that they are not an agent of a foreign power, which is the 
basis of this particular section.
    Mr. Feeney. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield for a moment.
    Mr. Feeney. The point is, it is too late after you tell 
Mrs. Benedict Arnold that she was the subject of an 
investigation, if you find out that it is her husband that 
wants to throw the war to the bad guys.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Reclaiming my time. I think that it is not 
too late, frankly. And I think that when the FBI or when law 
enforcement makes a determination that this individual is not 
an agent of a foreign power, you can be assured that in the 
course of doing so they have investigated all of their extended 
family members, friends, neighbors, and otherwise. And they 
have the ability to, if you will, to secure those persons in 
the appropriate way so that if they have information that is 
relevant, they can have those individuals incarcerated.
    This provides--contributes to the list of abuses that has 
been generated by the PATRIOT Act, and in actuality it offers 
more of an undermining of our attempt to be secure than it does 
in enhancing our attempt to be secure. It casts a wide net on 
people that are already established as not being an agent of a 
foreign power.
    I frankly believe that this is not working, that this is an 
amendment that is clearly not over-broad. It simply makes a 
statement of giving notice. It simply allows someone to proceed 
to further clear themselves and to be made aware that they have 
been determined not to be an agent of a foreign power.
    Again, it does not stop the authorities from investigating 
all other people associated with them.
    And I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
    Mr. Smith. The question occurs on the amendment. All those 
in favor, say aye. All those opposed say nay.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. rollcall.
    Mr. Smith. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any members who wish to 
cast or change their votes? The gentleman from North Carolina 
is recognized.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly, is recognized.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from within, Mr. 
Green, is recognized.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any other members who 
wish to vote or change their vote? If not--Excuse me, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, is recognized for an 
amendment.
    Mr. Flake. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered the Flake-Nadler 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will read the amendment. 
And without objection, it will be so named.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of the 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. It will be forthcoming, I 
think. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, is recognized for 
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Flake. I thank the Chairman. I thank Mr. Nadler for 
bringing this up. I have worked with Mr. Nadler and others on 
PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus and many of the amendments that we 
have talked about were discussed within that group.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Have copies been 
distributed?
    Mr. Flake. I am in the process.
    Mr. Smith. If the gentleman from Arizona will suspend just 
for a minute while the amendment is distributed.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question while 
we are----
    Mr. Smith. Which gentleman?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. I yield for a question.
    Mr. Smith. Before we proceed, I would like to make sure 
that the amendment has been passed out. Without objection, the 
amendment will be considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Flake and Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes. And if he wants to yield for a question----
    Mr. Flake. I yield for a question.
    Mr. Nadler. My question is, just looking at this amendment 
right now, it says--the second part--by inserting ``for not 
more than 90 days'' after ``may be extended.''
    Is that one 90-day extension, or is that a succession of--
--
    Mr. Flake. It has to be in increments of 90 days.
    Mr. Nadler. In increments. But it is not limited to one?
    Mr. Flake. It is not limited to one.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Flake. I will go ahead and explain the amendment. This 
is--we have had concern about the delayed notification. I have 
always felt that we needed some better structure there. This, 
as I mentioned, has been an item that the PATRIOT Act Reform 
Caucus has been concerned about. We took 180 days; that is the 
outside edge right now that can be held. And we have codified 
that. And then not-more-than-90-day extensions beyond that 
time, in increments.
    And with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman yields back his time. The 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred, as my amendment a few 
minutes ago made clear, a shorter time periods, although, since 
in any event they are increments, they could amount to the same 
thing in the end, but more frequent judicial review. But 
putting 180 days, and 90-day increments after that, is a 
constructive step forward. I commend Mr. Flake for it. And I 
will certainly support the amendment.
    I notice that in the haste, it doesn't have the name of the 
sponsor on it. I assume the names of the sponsors will be Mr. 
Flake and a few others----
    Mr. Flake. I just asked unanimous consent to have it be 
considered the Flake-Nadler amendment.
    Mr. Nadler. And perhaps some others who wanted to, if they 
also want to.
    Mr. Flake. That would be okay with me.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman, and I urge everyone to 
support this very worthy amendment.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman yields back his time. Are there 
any other members who wish to be heard on the amendment?
    If not, all in favor say aye? All opposed, nay?
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments? The gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
and I ask that it be brought up at this time.
    Mr. Smith. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have two Conyers amendments.
    Mr. Conyers. This deals with the--the longer one, the three 
provisions that comprise the bill.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by MR. Conyers. 
At the end of the bill, add the following:
    Section ------. Reinstating the----
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Conyers follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. In 
2001, everyone on this Committee agreed to the three provisions 
which I have now brought together under one proposal, which 
provided necessary and reasonable checks on the Government.
    Problem: These provisions were removed when the bill went 
to the Rules Committee somewhere in the middle of the night 
before it came to the floor the next day.
    And here is what I propose in this bill, is that we restore 
these three provisions, which I think are pretty 
straightforward and are based on a rationale that we had 
originally agreed to. The first is that the Government 
shouldn't be able to use electronic communications as evidence 
when they are illegally intercepted. The second is that the 
Government should have to report to Congress about disclosures 
of stored wire and electronic communications. And the third is 
that we increase the amount of civil damages a person can 
recover against those who willfully disclose stored 
communications.
    With reference to the first, we agreed to provide necessary 
and reasonable checks on the Government that they shouldn't be 
able to use electronic communications as evidence when they are 
illegally intercepted. Under current law, you recall, illegally 
obtained oral and wire intercepts can't be used by someone in 
court. However, illegally obtained electronic communications 
can be, and what we do with this amendment is simply correct 
that problem.
    For the second point, we want disclosures of stored wire 
and electronic communications reported to Congress, and I have 
provided for that. Criminal wiretap and pen trap and trace 
statutes already require similar reporting. This provision of 
my amendment merely asks the Government to report on 
disclosures of stored wire and electronic communications as 
well.
    And finally, we increase the civil damages a person can 
recover against those who willfully disclose stored 
communications. And this raises it from a pittance of $1,000--
--
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. Without 
objection, he will be recognized for an additional minute.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you. We merely increased the damages to 
$10,000 in the order rather than $1,000, to ensure that the 
disclosures don't occur.
    These are common-sense, reasonable protections originally 
agreed to by the Committee. I hope that that will occur again.
    Thank you for the time.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, is recognized.
    Mr. Lungren. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lungren. Obviously, I was not here during the 
Committee's consideration of the original PATRIOT Act. But in 
looking at the gentleman's amendment, with respect to the 
suppression provisions, it is my understanding that under 
current law as passed there is a good faith exception, which is 
not part of the gentleman's amendment. And I just wonder if 
that is the intention of the gentleman.
    Mr. Smith. Is the gentleman here?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes. We add the stored--there is that 
provision that you suggest, but it doesn't----
    Mr. Lungren. By court rule rather than statute, as I 
understand it, and yours would change it. Correct?
    Mr. Conyers. Exactly right. And we are just adding stored 
wire and electronic communications to be reported to the 
Congress, that the electronic communications as evidence that 
are illegally intercepted be excluded as court law, and that we 
raise the fine from $1,000 to $10,000.
    Mr. Lungren. All right, based on what the gentleman has 
said, I would have to oppose this amendment, because it seems 
to me that the good faith exception is one that is appropriate, 
particularly in these cases. And again, as I understand what 
the gentleman does is remove a good faith exception with 
respect to the suppression part of his amendment--I don't speak 
to the other parts of his amendment because, frankly, I don't 
have those before us.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman has yielded back the remaining of 
his time.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Lofgren. I won't use the 5 minutes. But I do think 
that, certainly, my colleague from California, Mr. Lungren, was 
not a member of the Committee when the PATRIOT Act was drafted. 
But for those who were on the Committee at that time, I would 
hope and expect that they would vote once again for this 
language. This was unanimously passed by the entire Committee, 
and I think we will be looking closely at members who voted for 
it once, expecting that they would be consistent in their vote 
this time.
    And I would yield back.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman yields back the balance of her 
time. Are there any other members who wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    Ms. Lofgren. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and 
yield it to Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman yields the balance of her time 
to Mr. Conyers, then.
    Mr. Conyers. I just wanted the gentleman from California to 
know that we are happy to include the good faith exception part 
that he raised, because we have no--we are in agreement with 
it. We just want to make it clear, because that is not a point 
of contention between us.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman yields back the balance of her 
time.
    The vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye?
    Does the gentleman wish to continue to be recognized?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just ask unanimous 
consent that, under 215(a)(2)(B), that we add ``or when done in 
good faith.'' So it would read, (B) when done in good faith 
whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been 
intercepted.
    The point is to emphasize the good faith exception for 
purposes of clarification for anyone that might think that it 
is not involved.
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
    Now the vote----
    Mr. Scott. Reserving the right to object, I would like to 
ask a question.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Is that in good faith pursuant to a warrant?
    Mr. Conyers. I don't know if the statute, Mr. Scott, speaks 
to whether there is a warrant involved or not. I think that 
good faith would likely include it, but I can't tell you right 
now that it would require a warrant or not. Not clear.
    Mr. Smith. We will now go to a vote on the amendment. All 
in favor----
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Smith. Who wishes to be recognized?
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Chairman, I understood that there was a 
unanimous consent request, and if it is timely, I would like to 
object to that.
    Mr. Smith. There was a unanimous consent request and no one 
was recognized in an objection.
    Mr. Feeney. I thought we were still on questions and 
discussion about the unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Chairman, I will, given the confusion, withdraw the 
objection.
    Mr. Smith. Okay, without objection the gentleman can 
withdraw his objection. We will now proceed to a vote on the 
amendment.
    All in favor, say aye? All opposed, say nay?
    The nays appear to have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Conyers. Could I get a record vote?
    Mr. Smith. And a record vote has been requested. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. King, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Mr. Smith. Are there any other members who wish to vote or 
change their vote? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Mr. Smith. Any other member who wishes to vote or change 
their vote? If not, the clerk will----
    The gentleman from Massachusetts?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye.
    Mr. Smith. Any other members? If not, the clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 23 noes.
    Mr. Smith. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk. This is labeled ``Gag Order.''
    Mr. Smith. Does the clerk have the amendment?
    Mr. Nadler. It says, ``Sec. ___. Gag Order.''
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I don't have that amendment at the 
desk.
    Mr. Smith. While we are getting that amendment----
    Mr. Nadler. Well, there it comes.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Nadler of 
New York. Insert at the appropriate place----
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of 
order. The clerk will proceed.
    The Clerk. --insert at the appropriate place in the bill 
the following:
    Sec. ___. Gag Order.
    (a) In General. Section 2709(c) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure.''
    ``(1) In General. No wire or electronic communications 
service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall 
disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
has sought or obtained access to information or records under 
this section for 90 days--''
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes 
field office--now, we have been talking at some length at 
different times today and on the floor of the House about 
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which enables a FISA court to 
grant orders for certain collections of personal information. 
Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes FBI field office 
directors to collect in secret, without any court 
consideration, almost limitless sensitive personal information 
from entities that are not themselves under investigation--that 
is, bookstores, travel agents, Internet service providers, and 
so forth--but have customers whose records the Government 
wants, by simply issuing a National Security Letter carrying 
the weight of law and the FBI's own assertion that the request 
is relevant to a national security investigation.
    These National Security Letters, or NSLs, empower the FBI 
to amass personal documents without a judge signing off on a 
search warrant, without any other external check, such as a 
grand jury or even a FISA court. The target of the NSL will 
never know of its existence, partly because the recipient of 
the NSL is gagged from disclosing the demand, again as in 
Section 215.
    This secret search power has been the subject of a court 
challenge in Federal court in New York. In Doe v. Ashcroft, the 
Federal court judge in the Southern District of New York ruled 
that this provision, that the National Security Letters 
provision of the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. The court 
held that the absence of judicial review--and when I say 
``judicial review'' here, I don't mean review of the order, the 
fact that you can give this out without any judge ever seeing 
it--violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free from 
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the statutory 
prohibition against disclosing the FBI request to any person 
violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. And 
that means--``any person'' means any person, including your 
counsel. So you can't even tell your lawyer so you can move to 
quash.
    The current language continues the unconstitutional 
permanent secrecy order contained in the existing FISA business 
records provision. To be constitutional, case law establishes 
that a secrecy order amounting to a prior restraint on speech, 
as this is, must be imposed by a court, not unilaterally by a 
Government, must be imposed on the basis of a meaningful 
standard that amounts to a compelling Government interest, must 
be temporary, and must allow for objectors to explain why the 
prior restraint is unjustified.
    What this amendment does is seek to make the gag order 
provision of the Section 505 National Security Letters comply 
with the Constitution. And it does that by saying, in essence, 
two things. It says that to get the gag order, you have to ask 
a court for it, and that the court can grant it upon a showing 
of various standards, that failure to keep it secret would 
endanger the life or physical safety of someone, would raise 
the danger of a flight from prosecution, would result or could 
result in the destruction or tampering with evidence, 
intimidation of potential witnesses, or otherwise seriously 
endanger the national security of the U.S., et cetera, et 
cetera--the catchall clause that some of us objected to in 
Section 215. The court could order this for 90 days and could 
order 180-day renewals indefinitely.
    So what this does, essentially, is make the gag order 
provision constitutional by saying you have to ask a court for 
it, the court can grant it for 90 days, and you can get 180-day 
extensions upon these showings. Let me just say that these 
showings are the same showings that are in Section 215. 
Although we wanted to take out the catchall provision, in this 
amendment we haven't taken out the catchall provision. So it is 
the same showings that we have in Section 215, which everybody 
here has agreed to, except some of us who think it is too 
broad.
    So I would urge adoption of this amendment so that the gag 
order provision of Section 505 will be constitutional and so 
that it is a better thing to do, even if the Constitution 
didn't require it.
    Mr. Smith. And the gentleman yields back his time.
    Mr. Nadler. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point 
of order?
    Mr. Chabot. No, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
    Mr. Smith. If not, the point is withdrawn.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, is recognized.
    Mr. Feeney. Move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feeney. I have the same objection to this reversal of 
the burden and putting it back on the Justice Department to 
maintain some secrecy in their investigation as I had on the 
previous amendment that dealt with 215.
    The nature of these investigations is such that 180 days is 
an awfully unreasonably short period of time. These 
investigations typically take not months, but years. In 
addition to that, this type of disclosure would require Federal 
investigators to tip off potential suspects, friends, 
associates of suspects, giving them a chance to go into hiding, 
to flee, to move up their potential terrorist attack--in other 
words, adjust themselves because we are once again putting all 
of our cards on the table in a very dangerous business.
    In The Center for National Security Studies v. The U.S. 
Department of Justice, a D.C. Circuit case in 2003, the court 
said that these types of disclosures would inform terrorists 
about the substantive and geographic focus of the 
investigation, would inform terrorists which of their members 
were compromised by the investigation and which were not, could 
allow terrorists to better evade the ongoing investigation and 
more easily formulate or revise counter-efforts.
    I think for all those reasons, these artificial deadlines 
and changing the burden of proof back to the Government as they 
fight terrorists is a bad idea----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Feeney. I will yield.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Well, first of all, we are not 
changing the burden of proof. The standard in the amendment, as 
you will see, is if the court determines there is reason to 
believe--``reason to believe'' is a very low standard. That is 
not the burden of proof. It is not a preponderance of evidence, 
it is not proof, you know, by anything. There is reason to 
believe. And there is reason to believe what? Reason to believe 
any of the things that the gentleman from Florida said might 
happen.
    Yes, I agree with you, sir. In very many cases disclosure 
would result in unfortunate things such as you mentioned. All 
you have to show to the court is that there is reason to 
believe that the disclosure in this case would result in any of 
those, in any----
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask for unanimous consent to an additional 2 
minutes?
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is 
given an additional minute.
    Mr. Feeney. I request an additional minute, 30 seconds of 
which I will yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. If we don't do this, the courts have 
held that a gag order, especially on something which no court 
has seen, is unconstitutional unless you have given some reason 
to a court to agree to the gag order. You have to do that; 
otherwise, it is going to be flatly unconstitutional.
    All we are saying here, it is not a burden of proof. We are 
not giving the burden of proof to anybody. You have to convince 
the court there is reason to believe that any of these negative 
things would happen--not that definitely would, not even that 
it probably would.
    Mr. Feeney. Well, reclaiming my time. At a minimum, this 
would put the burden back on the Government for every single 
investigation that is ongoing out there, where there is a NSA 
letter out there, with respect to every one of the third-party 
entities, to go back into court every 6 months. It would be an 
enormous paperwork burden, unnecessary. And to the extent that 
there may be some things that we can do probably with a much 
longer time period to ultimately comply with whatever concerns 
the court has, there may be a chance to remedy that in the 
future. But 180 days is clearly too short.
    With that, I yield back to the Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman yields back his time.
    Any other members who wish to be heard?
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. We did receive some information on how often 
this has been used, and it is not an astonishingly large number 
of times. So to think that there would be, assuming that the 
Department of Justice is being truthful to us--and I am not 
suggesting otherwise--this would not create a very substantial 
burden on the Department, number one.
    Number two, the historical record is that this has not been 
used very often. Well, it is not going to be used at all in the 
future because it is unconstitutional. And so, actually, Mr. 
Nadler is--I support the amendment with some reservations 
because this amendment would actually revive this section of 
the act and possibly make it constitutional. And with 
standards.
    And, you know, I guess the Republicans can reject it and 
have nothing, or they can have some standards that meet 
constitutional muster and have something. The choice is really 
yours. I think that, as I say, I support the amendment with 
just some reservations because I think the court ruling of 
unconstitutionality may actually be a preferable result. But 
that is on its way up, and there is some doubt as to what the 
Supreme Court will ultimately do.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlelady's 
remarks.
    And I would again say this has been held unconstitutional 
on two grounds. This amendment would cure one of those grounds. 
I am going to have a different amendment to cure the other 
ground. The other ground says that it is unconstitutional to 
issue--to have this search in the first place without at least 
a--without a court agreeing to it. Even in Section 215, you 
have a FISA court agreeing to it. Here, you have nobody except 
an FBI field office director directing it.
    But what this amendment deals with is the gag order. You 
can't have a prior restraint on speech such as a gag order 
without a court agreeing to it for some good reason. That is 
elementary constitutional law. The court in New York said that. 
It is prior case law. If we don't take this amendment, it is 
just going to be unenforceable.
    Now, when you say the burden of proof, this is a very minor 
burden. Some reason to believe. Some reason to believe; we have 
the catchall provision: otherwise seriously endangering the 
national security of the U.S. by alerting a target, a target's 
associates, or a foreign power of which the target is an agent 
of the Government's interest in the target.
    If the Government can't convince a judge that there is some 
reason to believe that this should be held secret, then it 
probably shouldn't be held secret. And if we value any kind of 
liberty, we will have this burden to go to courts. That is the 
whole point of the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Nadler. I appreciate your yielding.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just note--I mean, having worked on 
the original PATRIOT Act, it is hard not to contrast how this 
process is working here today with how the process worked after 
9/11. After 9/11, members on both sides of the aisle worked in 
good faith together to come up with an act that would, we 
hoped, make us safer. Mr. Nadler has offered this amendment in, 
really, that 9/11 spirit. At that other time, this amendment 
would have been seen for what it is, an amendment that actually 
cures a defect in the bill that has rendered a section 
unenforceable. And because these votes are not on a party-line 
basis, there has been no real meeting of the minds, no 
deliberation, no discussion, the majority is going to reject an 
amendment that actually serves the interest of curing the 
defect that the court has found.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlelady----
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Conyers. I just want to point out that Mr. Nadler's 
proposal here is uncharacteristically cooperative. I mean, he 
is saving a part of the PATRIOT Act and it is almost going 
unnoticed. Thanks to the gentlelady from California for 
pointing out that, without this, the continued 
unconstitutionality is going to likely continue on.
    And there is a sort of attitude that the Department of 
Justice has here that should be noted, that when they finally 
had to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, they blacked 
out the six-page list of National Security Letters so that 
nobody could figure out anything about anything.
    Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, though, we do have access 
on a confidential basis to that information. And without saying 
any numbers, we can assert honestly that it is not an undue 
burden. And I do so assert.
    So I think the majority is being foolish in this case, but 
welcome to it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
    The question is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye? 
All opposed, nay?
    The nays have it.
    A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Mr. Smith. Are there any members who wish to vote or change 
their votes? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from within, Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye.
    Mr. Smith. The other gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye.
    Mr. Smith. And the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 23 noes.
    Mr. Smith. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
number 87.
    Mr. Smith. The clerk will report the amendment. Does the 
clerk have the amendment?
    The Clerk. I do now, sir.
    Mr. Smith. Okay.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California. Add at the appropriate place the following: Section 
___. Naturalization Benefits for Victims of September 11----
    Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Ohio reserves the right to 
object.
    Mr. Chabot. Point of order.
    Mr. Smith. Raises a point of order.
    The Clerk. Subtitle C of Title 4 of the US PATRIOT Act as 
amended by inserting after Section 421----
    Mr. Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would 
grant citizenship to the spouses and children of legal 
immigrants who were killed on September 11th as well as grant 
honorary citizenship to those legal immigrants who were killed 
in the attacks. When American citizens, foreign nationals, and 
immigrants perished on September 11th, the immigration status 
of hundreds of families was thrown into turmoil. Hundreds of 
temporary workers and immigrants died shoulder to shoulder with 
thousands of Americans.
    My amendment is based on legislation by Representative 
Maloney and Senator Corzine, and it would bestow honorary 
citizenship on legal immigrants and non-immigrants who died in 
the disaster. Perhaps more important, the bill would offer 
citizenship to surviving spouses and children subject to a 
background investigation by the FBI.
    This is germane because the PATRIOT bill provided for 
exactly this relief, but there was a deadline in the PATRIOT 
bill that a number of people missed for filing for status. In 
the spirit of fairness and unity, it's appropriate as we 
reauthorize the PATRIOT bill to extend this deadline, a short 
extension, to provide the privilege of citizenship to the 
families who lost so much because of this attack on the United 
States.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Smith. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist on his point 
of order?
    Mr. Chabot. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman is recognized to explain his point 
of order.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of 
order that the amendment is not germane under House Rules. H.R. 
3199 reauthorizes certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. House Rule 
XVI-7 precludes amendments on a subject different from that 
under consideration. This amendment is outside the subject 
matter of the legislation we are considering at today's markup.
    In addition, the fundamental purpose of this amendment is 
inconsistent with the primary purpose of the bill under 
consideration and, thus, non-germane under House Rule XVI-7.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Smith. Does the gentleman from California wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
    Mr. Schiff. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. And I understand that the concept of 
germaneness in this hearing has been somewhat malleable, but 
whereas the PATRIOT bill provided this grant of citizenship to 
the families of those who were lost on 9/11, and this merely 
extends the date in which you can apply for that citizenship, 
it's pretty directly related to the PATRIOT bill and changes 
that were made specifically in the PATRIOT bill. It's hard to 
imagine if it's not germane to the reauthorization of the 
PATRIOT bill what it would be germane to. So I would urge the 
Chair to reject the point of order.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Schiff. And I'd yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. I'd just like to be heard on the point of 
order. Previously, Mr. Hostettler offered an amendment dealing 
with immigration matters that were not within the purview of 
the bill. Since he was recognized before it could be deemed to 
be out of order, although he withdrew the amendment, it was 
considered by this Committee. I would deem that the door has 
now been open for similar amendments that deal with immigration 
matters, which is something that I think whether we open it or 
not, we certainly have an opportunity here to rectify an 
inequity and perhaps, you know, move the--further kick the can 
down the field on whether or not this is germane. But certainly 
the Hostettler amendment considered an immigration matter that 
was not in the Sensenbrenner bill.
    And I would just reiterate something else. You know, the 
notice on this hearing said we were reauthorizing the PATRIOT 
Act. The bill that we're considering is called the PATRIOT Act 
Reauthorization Act. The memo that accompanied this debate is 
called the reauthorization of the PATRIOT--refers to it as the 
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. So I would argue that it is 
germane because the PATRIOT Act spoke to this.
    Mr. Smith. The Chair is prepared to rule. First of all----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to the 
point of order.
    Mr. Smith. Does the gentleman from California wish to yield 
to the gentlewoman from Texas?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I can strike the last word.
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California, and I rise to support his amendment and to make a 
point to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. In particular, might 
I say forthrightly that a point of order, that the--it can be 
waived, and I would argue that Mr. Schiff's point that this is 
not so much an immigration amendment as it is a procedural, 
that it asks for an extension, the good will that can generate 
from providing for children who suffered the tragic loss on 9/
11 and, therefore, were given citizenship or were to be given 
citizenship, as were citizenship given to adult spouses, and 
now that they have not been able to fall under that time frame 
it is merely procedural. And I think that this Committee could 
yield to the procedural point and not consider this an 
immigration point. It is necessary, I think, if we are to be, 
one, a country of laws and immigrants or immigration, a country 
of laws and liberty, that we make good on our promise. And this 
amendment makes good on our promise, and I would argue that Mr. 
Schiff's amendment be made in order because it is a procedural 
amendment, it is not an immigration amendment.
    And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Smith. The Chair is prepared to rule. For two reasons, 
this particular amendment is not germane. First of all, when an 
amendment is offered and withdrawn, that does not open the door 
to similar amendments. Second of all, when an amendment deals 
with a subject that is not under consideration, it's in 
violation of House Rule XVI, and that is how I see it. The 
amendment is not germane, and are there any other amendments?
    Are there any other amendments? The gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
Scott 029, additional requirements for multi-point electronic 
surveillance under FISA.
    Mr. Smith. The clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Add at the end the following: Section 9. Additional 
requirement for multi-point electronic surveillance under FISA. 
Section 105(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978, 50 U.S.C. 1805(c), is amended, before the semicolon at 
the end of paragraph (1)(e) the following: :, and, in 
circumstances where the nature and location of each of the 
facilities or places at which the surveillance will be directed 
is unknown when the order is issued, that surveillance may be 
directed at a place or a facility only for such time as the 
applicant believes that such facility or place is being used or 
is about to be used by the target of the surveillance.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      

  


    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, this is the ascertainment requirement for a 
roving wiretap. When you get a roving wiretap, you get a 
wiretap against the person, and you can place the bug wherever 
that person may be using the phone. This amendment requires 
that in a FISA wiretap--and remember, under FISA you don't need 
probable cause of a crime. You just need probable cause that 
the person is an agent of a foreign government and you might 
get some--any kind of foreign intelligence which could be a 
trade deal or anything else. No crime involved.
    This amendment requires that in a FISA wiretap, the 
Government has to have good faith that the target of the 
wiretap is actually using the phone or computer during the time 
it's being surveyed. When the target leaves the building, you 
got to stop listening.
    Now, this is similar to the ascertainment requirement of 
roving wiretaps in criminal cases because when the phone or 
computer surveilled could be that of an innocent person, next-
door neighbor, acquaintance, or anybody else, it could be the 
pay phone on the corner, it could be the phone at the country 
club. All this amendment requires is that it be ascertained 
that the target is actually there before you start listening. 
And if the target leaves, you stop listening.
    This requirement would not only protect the privacy of 
innocent, non-involved third parties who may be U.S. citizens, 
but would also discourage the misuse of the authority to bypass 
traditional law enforcement procedures by using the FISA 
wiretap to place a bug somewhere where you actually want to 
listen to somebody else. This says if you're going to listen to 
somebody on a roving wiretap that the person you listen to is 
actually the target of the--of the wiretap. And I would hope 
that we would adopt the amendment.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess this is a 
little bit of deja vu all over again. One of the reasons that 
it is so important to remain as it is is that this roving 
wiretap was envisioned more than any other single area to deal 
with the disposable cellular phone wiretap situation. Now, just 
because you stop using one of 5, 10, 15, 20 cellular phones 
doesn't mean you won't use it again the next minute. So every 
single time a cellular phone in which the agents have no idea 
where that cellular phone is until it turns on and they have no 
idea who's on it until they hear that it's being talked on, 
they're not in a position to say we're not going to.
    Now, as a practical matter, we are, in fact, looking after 
just 10 days of a movement to another phone. So when they go 
from phone A to phone B, even if they may go back to phone A, 
they're still in front of a judge within 10 days. So there is a 
review process envisioned here. There's no question that I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern. But I think that his 
amendment would clearly undo exactly what we need to maintain.
    Now, having said that, our review of the actual use has 
found no abuses, but I think that it's very clear here that the 
intent of the legislation 4 years ago, the intent of the 
reauthorization today requires that you be able to figure out 
who's on cell phone number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Even though 
that person may not have been on them in 30 days, there is no 
reason to believe, particularly if you don't know where it is 
until it turns on, that it's not your suspect again.
    With that, I would yield back.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Issa. I would certainly yield.
    Mr. Scott. Should the FBI listen if they actually do not 
believe that the phone is going to be used by the target?
    Mr. Issa. You know, I think, reclaiming my time, as the 
gentleman knows, that when a tap detects something and they're 
out--you know, just like on the television, when they're out 
there in the truck and they're digitally recording this, and 
they discover it's not their suspect, they tune out, they're 
done. That is pretty standard. And there has--there is review 
of any material that would be captured in which it was clear 
that for some period of time they listened beyond knowing that 
it wasn't their suspect. So that's well protected within the 
law, certainly well protected by the 10-day judicial review of 
moving on wiretaps.
    But, yes, as a practical matter, if you've got cell phone 
number 6 and it hasn't been used in 4 days and it gets turned 
back on, you do have to find out who's speaking on it, and you 
can't do that by saying, well, I can't do it until I know that 
it's our suspect. It's just the opposite. You can't stop 
listening until you know it's not your suspect.
    And with that I'd yield back.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Smith. Any other members who wish to be heard? The 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California's 
point is in no way in conflict with the amendment of the 
gentleman from Virginia. If you have a good faith--if a phone 
goes off for a while, it doesn't mean that you can't continue 
to tap it when it goes back on. You know it either is or isn't. 
And that is part of a good-faith belief that the target is 
actually using the phone during the time it's being surveilled.
    So the dramatic example pointed out by my friend from 
California in no way contradicts the requirement of having a 
good-faith belief, which is provided in the amendment of the 
gentleman from California.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. This is the same thing they do in Title 3 wiretaps. 
They have to ascertain that the person is actually using the 
phone. Otherwise, they have to stop listening.
    These phones--this is particularly egregious because you 
start this thing out without any probable cause of a crime. You 
can place these roving wiretaps wherever.
    Mr. Issa. If the gentleman would yield, I would 
respectfully disagree. These are similar but not the same as 
Title 3. In fact, the PATRIOT Act did not modify these. What 
you're seeking to do here is to modify language that was not 
created by the PATRIOT Act. The truth is that what we're 
relying on is a standard that existed prior to the PATRIOT Act 
when it came to how you would monitor. We did go to multiple 
and roving, but we didn't change the underlying requirement for 
minimization.
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Michigan has the time.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman from Michigan yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Certainly.
    Mr. Scott. Was there--my understanding was that there was 
no minimization requirement in the PATRIOT Act. We created a 
roving wiretap, and all this is is a minimization requirement 
to ascertain that the person that you're trying to surveill is 
the only actually using the phone. Otherwise, without this 
amendment, when the person leaves the premises, you keep 
listening in. And, you know, if that's your point, then just 
say so. You're using it to listen in to anybody that may use 
the pay phone on the corner.
    Mr. Issa. If the gentleman from Michigan would yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Just a moment. Mr. Scott said that if you 
didn't have a good-faith belief, you couldn't do it. But if you 
do have a good-faith belief, which is all he's asking, that's 
about as low a threshold as you can get that it's appropriate. 
If the phone's been cut off for a while and it goes back on and 
you're listening, and it turns out that it's the same person 
that was being surveilled, then you're home free. But good 
faith--I don't know--I don't know how we could be talking about 
something other than good faith.
    I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Again, I'd just say if you do not believe that 
the person is--the target is using the phone, you ought to stop 
listening. This says if the applicant believes that the 
facility or place is being used or about to be used by the 
target of surveillance, that you believe that you're listening 
to the target.
    Mr. Issa. If the gentleman from Michigan would yield.
    Mr. Scott. If you don't believe----
    Ms. Lofgren. Could the gentleman yield----
    Mr. Scott. If you're listening to everybody, just say so.
    Mr. Conyers. The gentlelady from California first, sir, 
and----
    Ms. Lofgren. I think my colleague from California has 
indicated that magically the minimization rules in criminal law 
have been transported without language to that effect, as far 
as I can recall, into the PATRIOT Act. And I think, you know, 
it's possible--I don't know--that the Justice Department has, 
in fact, applied the minimization rules to these FISA taps. But 
if that's true--that would be good--we ought to put that into 
statute and not allow regulatory schemes that could change 
depending on who is running the Justice Department to govern 
it. And it seems to me that, you know, this--that's what this 
amendment would do. We could probably change the words to some 
extent if we wanted to, but I think basically that's the intent 
of this, and it's an important thing to do.
    Mr. Issa. If the gentleman would yield briefly.
    Ms. Lofgren. And I would yield back to----
    Mr. Conyers. Of course, I yield to my friend from 
California.
    Mr. Issa. I would say that I'd be happy to readdress this 
after the gentleman views the classified minimization that 
already exists under FISA so that you can have the comfort 
that, prior to the PATRIOT Act, under the existing statute for 
FISA we already have its own minimization language and that we 
should rely on that, and I would ask us to vote against this. 
But I certainly, after you've reviewed that, would be happy 
to----
    Mr. Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. The question 
occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye? All opposed, 
nay?
    The nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are 
there----
    Mr. Scott. A recorded vote.
    Mr. Smith. A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren? Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. [Presiding.] Members in the chamber 
who wish to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. America to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Schiff of 
California. At the end add the following: Section. Oversight of 
National Security Letters. (a) Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 2709(e) of Title 18, United States Code is amended by 
striking----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I request that the amendment be 
deemed as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Mr. Schiff follows:]
      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I view this amendment as a 
counterpart of the 10-year sunset, and that is, because we have 
approved such a long sunset, this would impose more substantial 
reporting from the Department of Justice to the Committee and 
to the public about the frequency in which certain of these 
PATRIOT Act provisions are being utilized, like the national 
security letters, like the delayed notification of search 
warrants, the 215 section items. And most of what is requested 
in this additional reporting are things akin to what the Chair 
requested of the Department, but this would routinize the 
supplying of this information to the Committee and, where 
possible, to the public. In most places what we ask for are 
simply the aggregate number of the requests, which doesn't 
reveal much about the Department of Justice's investigations. 
But it does give the public a sense of how often these tools 
are being used. And I think that's important.
    I think when the Attorney General, for example, decided to 
let the public know that the library provision had never been 
used, he did so for good reason: to assuage concerns that 
willy-nilly the government was looking for library records.
    Similarly, I think this amendment gives us greater 
accountability in provisions that will not sunset for 10 years, 
or not sunset at all, about how often they're being used should 
pose no concern in terms of the nature of the investigation, 
doesn't require any revelation of any of the details of an 
investigation, but should institutionalize more frequent 
reporting. As the Chairman observed in the early part of the 
last Attorney General's reign, it was difficult to get 
information from the Department of Justice. I found in my 
dealings with the current Attorney General a much improved 
situation. But given that Attorney Generals change and our 
current one may be elevated to the Supreme Court, it would be 
wise, I think to institutionalize this kind of reporting 
requirement, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Feeney. Mr. Chairman, once again I raise the same 
objections. What we are doing is basically a blanket 
requirement in this case that the Federal counterintelligence 
agencies during intelligence and spy investigations be forced 
to release to Congress as a whole and at times to the public 
information about very sensitive investigations.
    Now, by the way, Congress has an oversight role here to 
play. Every 6 months the Justice Department has got to release 
a comprehensive report of every one of these national security 
letters. They're available to the oversight Committee with 
charge of this, which is the Intelligence Committee.
    I can guarantee you that every one of our enemies, both 
foreign countries and foreign organizations that would like to 
do us harm, will be very sophisticated in reviewing any 
information that we're forced to provide. Yes, Attorney General 
Gonzales believed that it was appropriate and safe to release 
information about the use of library searches. But there may be 
times when it simply is not safe. This blanket requirement I 
think would endanger the need to protect the level and the 
amount and the details of national security investigations, and 
for the same reasons as I opposed the former disclosure 
requirements, I would suggest that we vote down this amendment 
as well.
    I yield back my time.
    Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield to my 
colleague from California, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
    I was with the Justice Department for 6 years, and that 
doesn't make me an authority on the Justice Department, but I 
guess we have a lot of non-authorities on this Committee and I 
fit right in.
    Yes, there is some conceivable interest in quarters around 
the world about how our Justice Department operates. But, you 
know, there's a lot of interest in it right here at home among 
ordinary, law-abiding Americans, who would like to know how 
often our Government is using these extraordinary tools and be 
assured that they're not being overutilized.
    Much of the information we're requesting is, frankly, far 
less detail than the Chairman has requested upon occasion from 
the Department. And I don't know what my colleague's experience 
has been far on the other side of this particular aisle, but 
over the last 4 years, particularly in the early couple years, 
when I tried to get information from DOD or DOJ, it was often 
excruciatingly difficult. And I think there is a strong 
national interest in knowing how often these sections are 
utilized. And, again, we're talking about in most cases the 
aggregate number of requests, not who they're being made of or 
the nature of the investigation, but this is information that I 
think we in Congress ought to have and that we generally don't 
have. It's information, I think, that the American people ought 
to have to assure them that these authorities are not being 
overutilized. And I would certainly like to see us not put our 
head in the sand and not say, you know, Justice Department, 
take these authorities, do with them what you will, we don't 
really want to know. We don't want to know.
    And that I think is effectively what we're saying here 
right now. I'd like to know, I think a lot of us would like to 
know, and I think we can know and the American people can know 
without any sacrifice to the nature of these investigations. 
Frankly, if I were still in the Department, I would err on the 
side of letting the public know when it poses no obstacle to 
investigations. I think there's a valuable public purpose in 
letting the American people know we're safeguarding the very 
purpose for which we're fighting this war on terrorism, which 
is to preserve our way of life and our freedoms.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back to my 
colleague.
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Sanchez. I will.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
    I truly appreciate the gentleman's concern. It should be 
noted, though, that the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the House of Representatives gets every bit of 
the information that you're now seeking. So with all due 
respect, what we're really dealing with is whether we're going 
to downgrade it from the Select Intelligence Committee to the 
House as a whole, to the people and the enemy at large. And in 
fairness, the release from the Attorney General that they had 
never used the library provision I hope is the last time that's 
ever released to the public. I do not want and I think we all 
do not want to have a confident built up by the bad guys that 
we, in fact, will allow them to do exactly what they did in 
preparation for 9/11 and use libraries without any risk of 
being observed.
    Ms. Sanchez. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to yield back to 
the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I guess I 
disagree with my colleague who thinks it was poor judgment of 
the prior Attorney General to let the American people know this 
section had not been used and, in fact, would be very rarely 
used. The fact of the matter is, if you're a bad guy, you ought 
to know that there are grand jury subpoenas that can be used to 
get these records, and you can't be assured that they won't be 
sought.
    But in terms of whether the Congress should know, we didn't 
know how often that provision had been used. I would have liked 
to have known that before the Attorney General made the 
decision to notify the public. And, indeed, much of the time 
when we seek in classified form--this has been my experience. 
When I've sought classified hearings on the way certain 
authorities have been used, I've gotten less information than 
was later disclosed publicly by the Justice Department. And 
that's excruciatingly frustrating.
    So this would give simply a little greater detail to some 
of the reporting requirements that are already in the PATRIOT 
bill. We're simply expanding some of the notice provisions 
about how often the authorities are being used, and really not 
going beyond that, and I thank the gentlewoman for yield and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Ms. Sanchez. And I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York seek recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take 5 minutes. 
I just want to say I certainly agree and commend the 
gentleman--the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California, and I commend him for offering it, and it's very 
simple. The United States is a free country. Every action of 
Government is taken in the name of the people of the United 
States. We ought to know various things that are being done. 
The amendment the gentleman offers is simple: Report to 
Congress and to the American people.
    The idea that terrorists could profit from this information 
is quite far-fetched. To simply say the number of--the number 
of national security letters, the number of 215 orders, no 
terrorists are going to benefit from that. But this Congress 
may benefit from it, the American people may benefit from it. 
We ought to know about this increasingly secret Government of 
ours. And I urge the adoption of the amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Sure.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to resort to the most 
powerful argument I can now make in favor of this amendment, 
indeed the most powerful argument I've made in favor of any 
amendment today, and that is, if adopted, this will be my last 
amendment. [Laughter.]
    I can't be more persuasive than that, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from New York 
yield back?
    Mr. Nadler. I will yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you for yielding. I will give you most of 
it right here because, as I read further through the actual 
criminal procedure, after it says that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, it then says 
and the Select Intelligence Committee of the Senate and the 
Committee of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and 
its counterpart in the Senate.
    So, believe it or not, we haven't gotten to the public, but 
it is, in fact, a requirement to come to this Committee, and we 
do have that information, so hopefully that will give you an 
opportunity to look at it in a fully--full compliance that you 
may not have been aware you had.
    Mr. Schiff. Will the gentleman yield further?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Schiff. There's no rebuttal to my most persuasive 
point. If you accede, this is the last request.
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, the unstated sentence, of 
course--and I do not attribute this to the gentleman; I just 
assume he means it--is that if this amendment doesn't pass, he 
may have six more amendments.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. 
Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered. Those 
in favor of the Schiff amendment will as your names are called 
answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 21 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk, 132.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas. At the end of Section 8, page 9, line 11, add the 
following new subsection: (e) Exclusion of Medical Records. 
Section 501(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
reserves a point of order, and subject to his reservation, 
without objection, the further reading is dispense with.
    [The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know 
a few moments ago, maybe minutes or hours ago, one of my 
colleagues wanted to ask the question whether or not any 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act could be considered 
unconstitutional. We've had a number of debates on the floor of 
the House that seemingly have drawn the support of Republicans 
and Democrats, and I would hope that this amendment would 
reflect the same kind of concern for the privacy of Americans.
    We certainly know that one provision allows the seizure of 
records or any tangible thing, and we have seen America's 
libraries and librarians raise their voices in opposition. 
We've also seen the work of a collective group of individuals 
who respect the privacy of Americans alongside of our 
obligation of homeland security.
    Our friend and colleague, Congressman Sanders, has taken 
this issue of library invasion of privacy and has received the 
recognition that it is a problem that should be fixed. In fact, 
as it relates to libraries, there have been over 200 formal and 
informal requests for materials, including 49 requests from 
Federal offices.
    This amendment deals specifically with an aspect of 
America's privacy that most Americans hold very dear, and that 
is medical records. And the definition of this section makes it 
clear that these records or any tangible thing can be, if you 
will, seized. It provides that the FBI intelligence 
investigators with a virtual blank check to seize medical 
records with effectively no public accountability.
    Section 215 has been known, as I've said, as dealing with 
library records. Part of Section 215 gives the FBI the ability 
to obtain a court order for any tangible things, including 
medical records, in an intelligence or terrorism investigation. 
Physicians and other medical professionals who receive 215 
court orders are barred from telling patients or anyone else 
anything about the court order. What an absurdity. Your own 
personal private medical records, and the physician cannot tell 
you that your records are being seized.
    Furthermore, Section 215 court orders are not limited to a 
particular suspect. These requests for records need only be 
relevant to an investigation, meaning that patients who are not 
even the targets of an investigation will also have their 
information vacuumed up by the FBI.
    Mr. Chairman, so many of us have had to deal with our elder 
relatives in hospitals and nursing homes. You're not even 
allowed to call on behalf of your relative because of the new 
laws that are governing hospitals governed or receiving Federal 
funds all over America unless you are so designated. Even these 
institutions cannot give you the status of your relative's 
health condition, your child's health condition, unless you 
have been so identified. But yet we're allowing innocent 
persons to have their records seized.
    Let me give you an example and let me cite for you--the 
American Medical Association Board of Trustees in May 2005 
shows us the impact. Even without hard data, it can be assumed 
the PATRIOT Act will cause some patients to avoid seeking care 
or to be less than forthcoming in a physician's office. Quality 
of care may suffer. Unable to protest or even publicly 
acknowledge a disclosure, medical professionals stand to lose 
the trust and confidence of their patients and undermine the 
patient-physician relationship.
    What I am speaking about is the broad breadth of seizure, 
not a court-ordered seizure, not a probable cause seizure. I'm 
talking about random calling up saying I think I want to get 
this doctor's records.
    For example, two physicians in Houston--this is an example, 
hypothetical--in Houston are competing for the same pool of 
patients. One calls the FBI and falsely tells the Bureau that 
his rival helped treat one of the 9/11 hijackers that had a 
throat infection. The FBI, which is still investigating 9/11 
attacks, obtains a secret court order under 215 and gets the 
innocent doctor's patients' records. Has nothing to do with 
anything. But because of the reach of Section 215 isn't limited 
to a particular suspect, the order applies to all of the 
doctor's records. They come in, they cull all the records, they 
get every single patient's record, launching separate 
investigations against every single patient who happens to be a 
patient of this doctor who may, for example, be from one of the 
so-called communities. Dozens of agents work the case. They go 
after many foolish leads, and it comes up with nothing.
    Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is a very narrow 
amendment that protects the privacy. It does not eliminate the 
opportunity under a more detailed, a more explanatory----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It does not stop that. I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from North 
Carolina insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons already cited 
when we had another amendment that went to medical records and 
other things to be excluded from the reach of Section 215, I 
rise in opposition to this amendment. Once again we've talked 
about medical records, how they might be applicable in a 
particular situation. We've talked about anthrax. We've talked 
about other things. I don't know if we need to belabor the 
point here. I think everybody knows what we're talking about.
    Once again, remember the reach of 215. It's a FISA court. 
You have to be investigating something that deals with foreign 
intelligence. That's what we're talking about. If anybody 
thinks that the Government is interested in rummaging through 
your medical records for no reason at all, I've never seen one 
example of it. We're talking about something where people are 
trying to find something that is relevant to the investigation 
in a terrorism case.
    And, once again, we're here because of terrorism. We're 
here because of 9/11. We're here because we need those 
investigative tools before the fact, not after the fact. Can we 
remember that as we look at these amendments? The difference 
between going in and doing a criminal investigation after the 
fact so that you can go and prosecute people versus trying to 
deter terrorist attacks, that's what we're talking about. 
London was a tremendous example of what we're facing. And to 
somehow believe that we have the foresight to understand all 
circumstances where medical records would be irrelevant to 
these investigations is assuming an amount of hubris that I 
just don't think we ought to.
    Once again, I will repeat, the 9/11 Commission criticized 
the Congress and the executive branch for a lack of foresight. 
They said a lack of creativity, not thinking outside the box. 
And here what we're trying to do is get us back in the box 
saying the way that things were before 9/11 are the way that 
will allow us to be able to fight terrorism. It didn't happen. 
It ain't going to happen. And, frankly, there has been no proof 
whatsoever of abuse. Why we would take this potential 
investigative technique to be used to fight terrorism is beyond 
me.
    And with that, I would ask for a no vote and yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California 
is using the same arguments he used earlier. They don't sound 
any better now than they did then, and I'd yield the balance of 
my time to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentlelady, and 
I appreciate her amendment offered in the same spirit as this 
amendment. It seems that clarity still is not apparent even at 
this late hour. But I would just say to my distinguished 
colleague, it just overwhelms me to make such a broad 
statement. I love my country. I really do. I believe dearly in 
the Bill of Rights, and I believe dearly in our responsibility 
now in security and intelligence and homeland security.
    I might commend to him the 9/11 Commission in its broadness 
that clearly asked as we proceed to be precise in working 
towards laws that we also understand our commitment to liberty 
and justice and to limit the broadness of our reach that would 
undermine--undermine--our very efforts of securing 
intelligence. They talked about not intimidating different 
segments of the population, not stigmatizing religion.
    Obviously this is an effort to suggest that we narrow the 
efforts that we need to make in order to get the kind of right 
intelligence. And for my good friend to suggest that he's never 
seen an abuse by this Government gives me a great deal of 
confusion. I'm completely baffled. I certainly read about it in 
the history books when Senator McCarthy held these kinds of 
hearings where everybody in America was claimed to be a 
communist. So I----
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentlelady yield on that point?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I really don't understand--we do overreach 
in many instances, and it does not generate into anything. I 
will join my colleague at any moment to ensure that our law 
enforcement has the right tools. I only offer this amendment to 
my colleagues as my colleague has done--colleagues have done 
earlier in the day to simply say to narrow it. This provision 
in law is overbroad, this particular section. It has the 
potential to cause major violations of private rights 
guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. It gives the Government 
far more authority to gather information about innocent 
Americans while reducing the ability of Americans to learn what 
their Government is doing.
    The Congress provided these sunsets in order to allow this 
body to give a fresh look at the contentious portions thereof 
so that adequate fixes can be made. My hypothetical is a 
possibility. It is a possibility. False statements can be made 
about patients. FBI can seize patient records and broadly seize 
all of a doctor's records, every single patient. And it can 
lead to dead ends and, of course, no results. And why not have 
medical records excluded under this particular provision? It 
does not bar the agent or the investigation from securing 
records. If they prove themselves in an open court setting or 
some other setting, it does not bar them. These are a secret 
process. It violates the privacy and overtakes, if you will, 
existing law that has been written to protect the rights of 
Americans.
    Mr. Lungren. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would argue that--I don't have the time 
to yield. I'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment in 
its narrow, narrow exclusion of medical records and the 
allowance of these records to be excluded, but yet the 
investigation to go forward.
    Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, and I will yield to the 
gentleman from California.
    Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. The 
mischaracterization of my statement I'd like to respond to. I 
never said that the United States Government has never abused 
its powers. I said with the investigations of this Committee 
during the course of our many hearings, we have yet to find any 
evidence of abuse of the act that is before us that we are 
acting on right now, and that was the point that I solely made. 
And the gentlelady from Texas talked about the generalization, 
and I would just suggest that in our arguments we might bring 
them a little more focused into what we have said and the 
provisions that are before us. But I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. May I just have 1 minute, if there is 
any----
    Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the gentleman for clarifying. 
My example was as it was to just generally highlight episodes 
in our Government's life and that we should try at this time to 
be able to narrow our overreach in the PATRIOT Act. But I will 
say this to you: I've heard from many librarians who have 
indicated their intimidation by this process and the overreach 
of that intimidation.
    So I think that we have to look closely, we have to 
scrutinize this particular legislation, and the Ranking Member 
made it very clear as he started out this morning. We had a 
bipartisan bill 2 years or so ago, but it turned out not to be 
a bipartisan bill. I hope that now that we can do so. I look 
forward to working with the distinguished gentleman from 
California, but reaching for medical records without narrowing 
it I think is----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Those in favor will 
say aye? Opposed, no?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it--
rollcall will be ordered. Those in favor of the Jackson Lee 
amendment will as your names are called answer aye, those 
opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, pass. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further members in the 
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote? The gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. 
Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 24 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Van Hollen.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is 
later, and I'll try and be brief.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman have an 
amendment at the desk?
    Mr. Van Hollen. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Van 
Hollen of Maryland. Add at the end of the following: Sec. ___. 
Terrorist Lists. Section 1001 of the US PATRIOT Act, P.L. 107-
56, is amended----
    Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
    Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Gallegly. Raise a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman reserves a point of 
order. Subject to the reservation, the further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman from Maryland, 
Mr. Van Hollen, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Van Hollen follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Mr. Van Hollen.
    Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an 
amendment to the existing statute, PATRIOT Act statute, Section 
1001, regarding certain requirements placed on the Inspector 
General of the Department of Justice. And what this does simply 
is deal with the terrorist watchlist.
    Earlier I offered an amendment that would impose 
responsibilities on those individuals who knowingly sold 
firearms to individuals on the watchlist, and Mr. Lungren and 
others raised the issue about the reliability of those 
watchlists and whether or not everyone who was listed on those 
lists was properly there. And when we had the Attorney General 
testifying on this bill before this Committee, I asked him 
about what mechanism was in place for a citizen who had been 
mistakenly placed on the watchlist to get him or herself off 
that watchlist, and the Attorney General said he's like to work 
with us to make sure we did that.
    Well, they've been working on that, but the work has been 
going rather slowly. Just last month, the Inspector General at 
the Department of Justice issued a report regarding the 
Terrorist Screening Center. It's a report entitled ``Review of 
the Terrorist Screening Center.'' One of the recommendations 
they make in that report is to strengthen the procedures for 
handling misidentifications and articulate in a formal written 
document the protocol supporting such procedures. And they make 
other recommendations.
    What this amendment does very simply is say within 90 days 
of the enactment of this act, let's ask the Inspector General 
to report to this Committee on what progress has been made by 
the Department in implementing the recommendations by the 
Inspector General with respect to having a protocol and having 
some set procedure for people who are misplaced, whose names 
should not be placed on that list, how they get off the list. I 
think we've all heard stories about people who find themselves 
on the list, and there's no clear mechanism for how they get 
off. And this simply asks for a report on what follow-through 
has been made on recommendations by the Inspector General at 
the Justice Department.
    I would urge members on both sides of the aisle to adopt 
the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from California 
insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Gallegly. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his point 
of order.
    Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that 
the amendment is not germane under House Rules. H.R. 3199 
reauthorizes certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. House Rule 
XVI-7 precludes amendments on a subject different from that 
under consideration. This amendment is outside the subject 
matter of the legislation we're considering at today's markup.
    In addition, the fundamental purpose of this amendment is 
inconsistent with the primary purpose of the bill under 
consideration and, thus, non-germane under rule--House Rule 
XVI-7.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Maryland 
wish to speak on the point of order?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Maryland.
    Mr. Van Hollen. I would just remind my colleague that 
earlier today there was an amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren of 
California to exactly this same section, which was adopted, I 
believe unanimously, on a recorded vote by this Committee. And 
my understanding is--and I would press this issue, which is 
that the Committee having taken that action with respect to 
amending this section in the regard that we did, and I think 
you'll find it was on an issue of similar nature, not the exact 
same point, that that issue has already been addressed by this 
Committee.
    So I would ask that we consider this amendment, having, you 
know, looked at what the Committee already done--did today and 
address it on its merits and make a decision.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to rule. 
Because this is an amendment to the material witness part of 
the PATRIOT Act, the Chair feels that it is germane and 
overrules the point of order, and the question is on adoption 
of the Van Hollen amendment.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Van Hollen amendment 
is brought before us, and we need to recognize that we have 
procedures now for removal of the names from the list. And we 
could name some of the fairly high-profile people who have been 
in the news here recently who have had their name removed from 
the list. But if we go forward with this amendment, then we'll 
end up with a public report, and the public report will be a 
scorecard to the world as to how we're doing with this 
particular list, and it might very well add to a lot of 
speculation and cause us greater problems than any of us on 
either side of the aisle would like to see on this issue.
    So I would point out to the gentleman from Maryland that 
there is a GAO study. It's ongoing now, and it was requested 
approximately last March. It should be concluded sometime in 
November or December, at which time it would come back to us, 
classified. We'd have access to that report to review it in a 
classified setting. I'd be happy to go and review that--in 
fact, I think it would be an obligation on my part--and invite 
the gentleman from Maryland to do so. If you'd like another 
kind of a report to come, a member letter could be submitted to 
Justice, and one could achieve this information without being 
so public with it.
    So that would be the list of my objections to this 
amendment, and I'd urge a no vote and yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Van Hollen 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Are there further----
    Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a rollcall on 
that.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall will be ordered. Those 
in favor of the Van Hollen amendment will as your names are 
called answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lungren.
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cash or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my next to 
last amendment that's designated A at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.r. 3199 offered by Mr. Nadler of 
New York.
    Insert in the appropriate place in the bill the following:
    Section ___. Right to Counsel
    (1) In General--Section 2709 of Title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting----
    (a) Authority to Disclose to Qualified Persons
    (1) Any person to whom an order is directed----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. 
This amendment amends Section 505 dealing with national 
security letters, and essentially puts into that section the 
same language the Chairman put into the Section 215 in the main 
bill.
    It does two things. It says that when you have Section 505, 
a national security letter with respect to the non-disclosure 
of the gag order, you can disclose it to your attorney and you 
can disclose it to someone else in your company to whom 
disclosure is necessary in order to comply with the order.
    The language is essentially taken from the language that is 
in the bill in Section 215, and the thought is the same reason 
the bill puts this into Section 215, it ought to put it into 
Section 505. You should be able to disclose the contents of the 
national security letter to whoever it's necessary to disclose 
it to in order to get the letter complied with if it's someone 
else in your company; and two, to your attorney so that they 
can give you legal advice. And anyone you disclose it to is 
bound by the same gag order.
    So it's the same reasoning and the same language as in 
Section 215, the same purpose, and I would hope it would be 
accepted, and I yield back.
    Mr. Flake. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Nadler. Did you want me to yield before I yield back?
    Mr. Flake. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. I'll yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Flake. This won't take long. I don't have the language 
drafted. We have some of the same concerns. We worked on some 
of the same concerns, so it's not surprising. But I am working 
on a floor amendment that would address the same concerns that 
you're looking at here. I can't give you specific on it. I 
won't offer it here, but I'd be glad to work with you on one 
for the floor.
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, assuming this amendment--
well, whether or not this amendment doesn't pass, I'll be happy 
to work with you as we go to the floor.
    But I would hope this amendment would be accepted. The 
language is taken verbatim, just about verbatim from Section 
215 in the bill. And obviously, it is necessary, and 215 is 
necessary here.
    Mr. Flake. If the gentleman will yield, I'm still working 
on language. I'm not prepared to support this, but I would be 
glad to work with the gentleman on the amendment I'm working on 
for the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Nadler. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Question is on the Nadler 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask for the yeas and nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall will be ordered. Those in 
favor of the Nadler amendment will, as your names are called, 
answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? Gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Wisconsin, mr. 
Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish--gentleman 
from Utah, Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. How is the gentlewoman from Texas 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as an 
aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 ayes and 23 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
Humanitarian Assistance.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia.
    Add at the end the following:
    Section ___. Humanitarian assistance under the material 
support statute.
    Section 18 USC Subsection 2339A is amended by striking ``or 
religious materials'' in section (b) and inserting----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. By unanimous consent, the amendment 
will be considered as read, and the gentleman from Virginia 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is 
under the material support prohibition, that you can't give 
material support to terrorist organizations. This would allow 
normal humanitarian assistance during times of a natural 
disaster or other humanitarian situations to people in 
countries or territories that may be controlled by individuals 
or groups on watch lists or other designations which would 
constitute or at least raise the possibility of a violation of 
material support prohibition.
    There's no logical reason that you could provide medicines 
but not medical services or drinking water or food to people 
when those services or materials could not be diverted to 
military ends.
    I would hope it would be the pleasure of the Committee to 
adopt the amendment.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. I thank the Chairman.
    The gentleman from Virginia's amendment goes--does a number 
of things here that I don't know that this Committee can 
support, and one of them is it simply gives legitimacy to the 
terrorist organizations, and by opening up the door to send 
more money and more relief and funnel it through the terrorist 
organizations--and we're talking about terrorist organizations 
like Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the 
Armed Islamic Group, the--it gets worse--Hamas, Hezbollah, 
Islamic Jihad, al-Jihad, al Qaeda, and the al Qaeda 
organization in Iraq, all part of the 41 terrorist 
organizations. And to give them this form of legitimacy and 
open this door up, where it's fairly closed right now, I mean 
to add to this, to add to the religious materials and medical 
supplies, services, drinking water, food, children's clothing.
    But the problem with this is the catch-all, the services 
and other humanitarian materials and services that could not be 
diverted to military ends. That's everything but guns and 
bullets by that definition.
    And if you recall, our President, shortly after September 
11th, made the statement that if you harbor terrorists you are 
a terrorist, if you fund terrorists you are a terrorist. And 
these are terrorist organizations. This is funding that goes to 
terrorist organizations. We would be funding terrorist 
organizations with this amendment. It's not just the Republican 
side of the aisle that makes those kind of statements, but the 
President's is--I would just simply quote. ``International 
terrorist networks make frequent use of charitable or 
humanitarian organizations to obtain clandestine financial and 
other support for their activities.'' This could be a loophole 
through which support could be provided to individuals or 
groups involved with terrorism.
    Concurring with the President's view would be Senator 
Dianne Feinstein, who said, in part, ``I simply do not accept 
that so-called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be 
kept separate from their other operations. I think the money 
will ultimately go to bombs and bullets, rather than babies, or 
because money is fungible, it will free up other funds to be 
used on terrorist activities.''
    For that reason and many others, I urge the defeat of this 
amendment, and I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment--
--
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a very 
interesting amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that what 
we're doing is amending an existing statute which allows 
religious materials and medicines to be given to all of those 
groups that have been indicated. That's present law. What we're 
doing is just extending what you can give in disaster 
situations or otherwise, medical services, drinking water, 
children's clothing and other humanitarian services.
    I mean if you can give religious materials and medicines, 
you ought to be able to give water to the same groups that 
you've listed. That's the present law. And in a disaster, you 
know, some people may not want to give water or other 
humanitarian assistance because they may be committing a crime, 
and I can't believe that that's our intent. I'd hope we'd adopt 
the amendment so we can provide some humanitarian aid in 
disasters to people in need.
    Mr. Lungren. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, I'll yield to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Lungren. I would just ask the gentleman from Virginia 
whether or not he accepts the argument of fungibility of funds? 
That is, being able to use----
    Mr. Nadler. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield, I would say that 
you've got medicines, religious materials and other things 
already under the law. And yeah, I guess, instead of--if people 
are dying of thirst and you provided some water, maybe that 
would be fungible, but I think under the circumstances, just 
humanitarian circumstances, you ought to be able to provide 
humanitarian aid without being charged with a crime.
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to ask the 
gentleman, to whom are you supplying this under this amendment? 
I'll yield.
    Mr. Scott. I'd say to the gentleman, the same people you 
are under Section 18 USC 2339A, whoever you're--with the 
exceptions there of religious materials, medicines and things 
like that. We're just adding to the things that you can give 
under that same section. We're just having a few more 
exceptions like water and children's clothing and humanitarian 
aid.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Green. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to 
this amendment as well, and for many of the same reasons that 
my friend and colleague from Iowa has laid out.
    First off, it's far too broadly drafted. It is a catch-all. 
For example, the use of educational supplies, well, we were 
particularly trying to get at with the material support 
statutes the provision of intellectual support and educational 
material that could in fact be of assistance to terrorists. 
Also, when you make reference to other humanitarian materials 
and services, that is a large catch-all. All of these materials 
are fungible. But there's another important point here. We 
don't want to add legitimacy or credibility to these 
organizations, and I think we do that if we start broadening 
what it is that can be supplied to them under the statute.
    I think it's a tremendous mistake. I think we should keep 
it narrow as it is. I'm not aware of there being any problems 
have been identified. If the gentleman can name circumstances 
where these organizations or individuals were in need and we 
were not able to help them under the previous statute, I'd 
certainly be willing to listen. Beyond that, I just think this 
amendment is opening up a dangerous door. It's far too broad, 
and I think it would be a step in the wrong direction.
    With that I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes----
    Mr. Scott. Recorded vote, please?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recorded vote will be ordered. All 
those in favor of the Scott amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How am I recorded? Are they in the middle 
of the vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is not recorded.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye, please.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to 
cast or change their vote? Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 7 ayes and 31 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me say that I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments from Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Enhanced review.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    At the end of the bill, add the following section:
    Section ___. Enhanced Review of Profiling and Data 
Collection.
    Section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act is amended by:
    (1) adding after ``(1)'' the following: ``(a)''; and
    (2) adding after ``Department of Justice'' the following:
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask the amendment to be considered as 
read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Colleagues, I'll be very brief. I just 
want----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --refer you to an informational piece that 
this amendment would allow us to operate under the guidelines, 
under the Attorney General's guidelines on general crimes, 
racketeering enterprise and domestic security terrorism, dated 
March 21, 1989.
    I would think under the 9/11 Commission Report, one of the 
things that it included in its report was to sensitize 
Americans and sensitize our need to understand diverse 
cultures. We cannot understand diverse cultures as they believe 
that our attempt to be secure racially profiles their 
communities.
    In 1989 Attorney General Dick Thornburgh approved new 
guidelines for how the FBI would pursue domestic security and 
terrorism. Those guidelines recognized investigations into 
domestic activities as something necessary----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman will suspend. The 
Committee is not in order. If we can quiet things down and 
listen to the eloquence of the gentlewoman from Texas, maybe we 
can get done quicker.
    The gentlewoman will proceed.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman.
    But it said that limits--but that limits and protections 
were needed to ensure the constitutional rights of average 
Americans. However, in 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft extended 
these guidelines in a way that clearly intruded on Americans' 
First Amendment Right to speak and peacefully assemble and 
other constitutional protections.
    Most importantly, the 2002 guidelines now allow the FBI to 
monitor even peaceful rallies, protests and meetings of 
religious, political and social without any suspicion of 
wrongdoing.
    My amendment is simple. It would like to ensure that we 
follow the guidelines, that even as we seek to provide homeland 
security or security and intelligence by securing information, 
that we not recklessly invade the concept, or overlook the 
concept of racial profiling. It asks for a review of the use of 
any investigative authority on the Attorney General's 
guidelines, and in so doing, it helps us to protect innocent 
individuals who happen to be of a particular faith or racial 
background.
    Since 2002 these new powers have been used by the FBI to 
spy on mosques, and to try to infiltrate Muslim and Arab groups 
in ways that clearly implicate the First Amendment.
    I believe that as 9/11 Commission Report indicated, we can 
be safe but also protect civil liberties.
    Mr. Chairman, I was also going to offer an amendment that 
would investigate the results of FISA authorizations as to the 
number of convictions or deportations that occurred. I will not 
offer that amendment. I will hope to work with Committee staff 
to try and refine that. It's an investigatory tool that 
classified information can come back to the Congress to see how 
effective FISA has been in terms of criminal proceedings or 
removal proceedings. But I go back to this amendment, and 
simply ask my colleagues to support it.
    And I commend to them an article in the Washington Times, 
knowing that our British friends have gone through a very 
serious tragedy over the last couple of days, but out of that 
tragedy the article says, Britons favor tracking Muslim 
activities. We know that danger and terrorist activities 
generate a focus on particular religious groups and particular 
ethnic groups. This amendment gives us the investigatory tool 
to ensure that if there is racial profiling, we are finding a 
way to thwart it. And so I hope my colleagues would support 
this amendment.
    Mr. King. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Consistent with the 
sentiment of the gentlelady from Texas's amendment, and also 
consistent with the due diligence oversight that's being led by 
this Committee, by the Chairman and the Ranking Member, the 
Inspector General is doing a larger investigation which 
includes this amendment. It's a larger investigation, but 
inclusive of the gentlelady from Texas's amendment, which is 
before us.
    They've testified here in this Committee, and that report 
is due here in about a month. So it would be my opinion that 
we're better off to wait a month and get the report that's on 
the way, than pass an amendment that would simply confuse the 
issue, and so I'd urge a no vote on the gentlelady's 
amendment----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. King. I would yield. I would yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
    Chairman, the room is not in order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. The 
gentlewoman is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the tone of the distinguished 
gentleman's remarks, and I was made aware that there was a 
Inspector General's Report on its way to Congress. My interest 
is that by including it in this legislation, this language, it 
allows us to have a continuing report and a continuing 
monitoring in a classified manner.
    Respect the gentleman's acknowledgement that a report may 
be forthcoming, but I would suggest to him that as we pass the 
PATRIOT Act, it is going to be part of the fabric of our 
society. There will be ongoing opportunities for individuals to 
be targeted, and/or for racial profiling or religious profiling 
to go on.
    We can be secure without such profiling. I think it's 
appropriate to remind the Attorney General and others engaged 
in this process to follow those guidelines ongoing. So I'd ask 
my colleagues----
    Mr. King. Reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
    Mr. King. I thank the gentlelady from Texas.
    You know, we have a report that's coming before us that we 
have without the requirement of legislation to get that report, 
and I suggest we receive the report in about a month, review 
the report, make a decision at that time as to whether we need 
some permanent fixture in statute, and I'd urge a no vote on 
the amendment.
    Yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewomen from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Those 
in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.
    Noes appear to have it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall will be ordered. Those in 
favor of the Jackson Lee amendment will, as your names are 
called, answer aye; those opposed no; and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, aye. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, pass. Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, pass. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change 
their votes? Gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California, Ms. 
Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
    Gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I don't have Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If I could be recorded as aye, 
please.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 25 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to. Are 
there further amendments?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
out of order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman strikes the last 
word, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, we've been here nearly 12 hours. 
I am going to announce my intention after the next amendment to 
call for the previous question, because most of the members 
here who have additional amendments have agreed to hold them in 
abeyance so that we can move on tomorrow, having disposed of 
this measure. And I propose further that all of us who do have 
amendments, including myself, will be able to put them in the 
record collectively, indicating how--why they're important and 
how we would have voted on them. And I ask that cooperation of 
my colleagues, so that we may complete another very full round 
of hearings in the morning.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 
Mr. Scott has an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent 
they be considered together.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendments first.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have two Nadler amendments, 
and----
    Mr. Nadler. The one he's going to hand you.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199----
    Mr. Nadler. 19--99, I'm sorry. You're right. You're right.
    The Clerk. Offered by Mr. Nadler of New York. Insert at the 
appropriate place in the bill the following: Section ___. 
Judicial Review. (a) In general. Section 2709 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by--(1) redesignating subsection 
(e) as subsection (g); and (2) inserting after subsection (d) 
the following: (e) Judicial Review. (1) Request. Not later than 
20 days after any person receives a request pursuant to 
subsection (b), or at any time before the return date specified 
in the request, whichever period is shorter, such person may 
file, in the district court of the United States----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to waive 
the reading of this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina 
reserves a point of order. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there a second amendment that 
the gentleman wishes to consider en bloc?
    Mr. Nadler. The second amendment is by Mr. Scott.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the second 
amendment. Without objection--well, the clerk will report the 
second amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3199, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia. Add at the end the following: Section 9. Factual 
basis for pen register and trap and trade authority under 
Section 214 of the USA PATRIOT Act. (a) Application. 
Subsection----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
      
      

  


    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendments 
are considered en bloc. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take 5 
minutes. I will talk about the first amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, I mentioned on an earlier amendment that 
under a Federal court decision under applicable Federal case 
law, Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional on two 
grounds: one, which the earlier amendment attempted to deal 
with, was that the gag order had to be approved by a judge; 
otherwise, it was a violation of the First Amendment; second of 
all, that an order for a national security letter has to be 
subject to judicial review, or else it would be 
unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure 
provision.
    What this amendment does is say that the recipient of a 
national security letter from the FBI can go to Federal 
district court and move to quash it and the court has to rule 
on that. In other words, it provides for judicial--for the 
possibility of judicial review of a national security letter. 
That's all it does, and without this amendment, frankly, I 
think the courts will, in fact, hold this half of Section 505 
unconstitutional. So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr.--
does the gentleman from North Carolina insist on his point of 
order.
    Mr. Coble. I'll withdraw my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Mr. Chairman, I have the same issue that I had 
with the last amendment. I'm working on a more comprehensive 
amendment here on the national security letter, and I share the 
gentleman's concerns, but I object for the same reasons. I'm 
working on something more comprehensive.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. The question is on the amendment----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, on the second half of this en bloc 
amendment, I'd like to make a comment. Move to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, in fact, this section deals with 
pen register and trap and trace authority. The present law 
requires a judge to issue the order upon the certification of 
the applicant that the information is relevant to an 
investigation. This would require the applicant to make a 
statement of facts relied upon by the applicant to justify his 
belief that it's relevant and requires the judge to find 
sufficient facts to justify that belief that information likely 
to be obtained as foreign intelligence information not 
concerning a United States person and is relevant to the 
ongoing investigation of international terrorism or clandestine 
intelligence activities.
    Mr. Chairman, when you talk about trap and trace authority 
and pen register authority, you're talking about a situation 
without probable cause, but you do require articulable 
suspicion. In 2000, this Committee voted overwhelmingly to 
raise the standard for pen register and trap and trace devices 
from a mere claim of relevance to a showing of specific and 
articulable facts. This amendment does that. And when we're 
talking about the information you get with the traditional pen 
registers, you get just phone numbers. When you expand this to 
electronic and e-mail type situations, you get a lot more 
information.
    For example, if you get the header from an e-mail, you can 
get an entire organization's electronic mailing list. You can 
get the Web page that someone reads. You can find out what they 
searched for. You can find out what pages they read or what 
information was on that Web page. All of that without probable 
cause of a crime being committed.
    I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would require at least 
the articulable facts on which you are relying so that this 
information, which could be information of an innocent party 
relevant to somebody else's investigation, your personal 
information is being discovered, I would hope you'd do that at 
least on some articulable facts, not just on a representation. 
And so, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we'd adopt the amendment and 
do what we did in 2000 to require those articulable facts to be 
articulated.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In response, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. 
First of all, the judge always has discretion when it comes to 
credibility of the witness before him, so the certification in 
this situation should be adequate, especially since we're 
talking about a pen register and trap and trace, and as the 
fine gentleman pointed out, we're talking about phone numbers, 
numbers that have emanated--calls that have emanated from those 
numbers and are going to those numbers. There's no conversation 
involved. The Supreme Court, the very Supreme Court that has 
been able to read in privacy rights to the Constitution that I 
can turn it every which way and have trouble finding, 
nonetheless has found there is no privacy right or interest in 
and to the content of the pen register or the trap and trace 
information. Accordingly, there is a lesser standard there.
    And I appreciate the gentleman's wishing to insert that the 
judge must find sufficient facts to justify the belief. The 
rest of the language after that is redundant. But, nonetheless, 
since there is no privacy right and interest in and to that 
information, we believe that it's adequate.
    What can be done once they find those numbers, if calls are 
coming to or from known terrorists, then that may give rise to 
probable cause, and then certainly we need probable cause to go 
forward and get warrants and things of that nature. But that is 
why I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment?
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gohmert. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back. The 
question is on--the question is on the amendment----
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Schiff. I won't take 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman, and 
actually I know we're going to call the question, so I want to 
speak very briefly on final passage. We've made some very 
modest changes to the bill today. I'd like to see more done. It 
strikes a stronger balance in both giving law enforcement the 
capability of investigating and prosecuting terrorism, but also 
provides greater civil liberties protections which do not in 
any way inhibit the Government's ability to go after 
terrorists. I'm hoping the bill will be improved on the floor 
and in subsequent legislation. I intend to pass on final 
passage out of the Committee in the hopes that we have 
additional improvements on the floor as this bill moves 
forward, and I thank the----
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I'd be happy to yield to my colleague from 
California.
    Mr. Berman. Yeah, I want to--I have very much the same 
thoughts about this as the gentleman from California. Maybe 
that's why we're both from California, except there are others 
who have different thoughts. But there are just two--one 
specific--there are a couple of specific things I just wanted 
to mention for taking the same view as Mr. Schiff. One is one 
part of this bill that makes an improvement over existing law 
is the incorporation of a relevance standard in 215, as well as 
some of the procedural things, although they could be in my 
view better.
    But I do hope between now and the floor, I believe there is 
something between the relevance standard and--but far more 
expansive than linking these--the subpoena for business records 
with just specific facts dealing with an agent of a foreign 
power; that is, there are people associated with these agents 
of a foreign power and people we believe--we have reason to 
believe are agents of a foreign power that should be included, 
but is less broad and all-encompassing than a relevance 
standard. And I am hoping that between now and the floor there 
can be effort, a real effort, a bipartisan effort to find an 
appropriate standard that lets law enforcement do what they 
need to do in conducting an investigation, gathering the 
records to prevent and deter terrorist acts, and at the same 
time not allow an open-ended, perhaps relevant but very 
unrelated to the purposes of a legitimate investigation, sweep-
up of those records. And I must prefer changing that standard 
than carving out exemptions for libraries or exemptions for 
bookstores or exemptions for medical records, which in some 
cases may have information very directly related to an agent 
for a foreign power.
    So I'm hoping that between now and the floor there are some 
more things that can be done, as well as tomorrow in the other 
legislation we're marking up, and I agree with the gentleman 
from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I'd be happy to yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to encourage the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Berman, in his efforts to change the 
relevance standard. I think it's extremely important. I'm not, 
certainly, prepared to support this measure until that is 
addressed, and hopefully you will succeed in your effort. And 
if there's anything I can do to assist, I would be happy to do 
so.
    However, I also believe that there are some carve-outs in 
addition to the change of the relevance statute that we should 
look at, especially since the--there is a chilling effect on 
First Amendment exercise today, whether or not the--and the 
Justice Department says they have never used it for a library. 
I have no reason to disbelieve that. But Americans believe that 
they have, and it chills the exercise of First Amendment. And I 
think that is ample reason to pay attention since there is 
another way to get information. And I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and look forward to working with you between now and 
the floor.
    Mr. Schiff. I yield quickly to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I just 
wanted to comment on the gentleman from Texas, who pointed out 
the phone numbers. But this is more than just phone numbers. 
This is e-mail addresses where you can get--if you get the e-
mail, you can get all the addresses on it. You can really get 
somebody's entire mailing list. And if you get the Web page 
somebody's looking at, you can find out what they were 
searching for, what they read, what page they read. I mean, 
you're getting some mighty good content when you get the Web 
page, the total address of the Web page.
    You need more than just a little certification of 
relevance, and it's not just the terrorist information. 
Anything relevant to the investigation. That could be some 
innocent people's information. You ought to need more than 
just----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
California has expired.
    The question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler. Those in 
favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and the 
amendments are not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further amendments, 
the question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 3199 
favorably as amended. A reporting quorum is present. All in 
favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it. A 
recorded vote is ordered. Those in favor of the motion to 
report the bill favorably as amended will as your names are 
called answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren?
    Mr. Lungren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake?
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence?
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes?
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
    Mr. Franks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman, pass. Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, no. Mr. Delahunt?
    Mr. Delahunt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt, no. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. Wexler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler, no. Mr. Weiner?
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, pass. Ms. Sanchez?
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Van Hollen?
    Mr. Van Hollen. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further members who wish 
to cast or change their vote? The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members--the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further members who wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes, 14 noes, and 
two pass.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to report favorably 
is agreed to.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to 
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute----
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and 
I'd ask under the reservation whether or not we can put 
information into the record at this point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will allow me to 
request permission for members to include additional, 
dissenting, or minority views, that's the way you do it.
    Mr. Scott. Unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
document.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. There is a unanimous consent 
presently pending. Does the gentleman withdraw his reservation?
    Mr. Scott. I withdraw.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
reported favorably to the House in the form of a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the 
amendments adopted here today.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 
technical and conforming changes, and all members will be give 
2 days as provided by the House Rules in which to submit 
additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a 
document outlining some problems with the PATRIOT Act prepared 
by the Democratic Staff.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the document 
will be included in the record at this point.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to the authority granted 
the Chair earlier today, the Committee stands in recess until 
9:30 tomorrow.
    [Whereupon, at 9:45 p.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, July 14, 2005.]

   DISSENTING VIEWS TO H.R. 3199, THE ``USA PATRIOT AND INTELLIGENCE 
                  REFORM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005''

    We dissent from the passage of H.R. 3199 in its present 
form.
    We oppose this legislation for several reasons. First, we 
never have been given the facts necessary to fully evaluate the 
operation of the PATRIOT Act. Second, there are numerous 
provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the 
PATRIOT Act that have little to do with combating terrorism, 
intrude on our privacy and civil liberties, and have been 
subject to repeated abuse and misuse by the Justice Department. 
Third, the legislation does nothing to address the many 
unilateral civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the 
Administration since the September 11 attacks. Finally, the 
bill does not provide law enforcement with any additional real 
and meaningful tools necessary to help our nation prevail in 
the war against terrorism. Since 2002, 389 communities and 
seven states have passed resolutions opposing parts of the 
PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 million people.\1\ 
Additionally, numerous groups ranging the political spectrum 
have come forward to oppose certain sections of the PATRIOT Act 
and to demand that Congress conduct more oversight on its use, 
including the American Civil Liberties Union, American 
Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, 
American Library Association, Center for Constitutional Rights, 
Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free 
Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers' Committee 
for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Criminal 
Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous 
groups concerned about immigrants' rights.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A Complete List of Communities That Have Passed Resolutions, is 
available at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/
SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11294&c;=207 (last checked July 18, 2005). Colorado, 
Montana, Idaho, Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii have all passed 
statewide resolutions. Resolutions have also been passed in such 
communities as Lincoln, Nebraska; Des Moines, Iowa; Savannah, GA; 
Pittsburgh, PA; Dallas, TX; New York, New York; Atlanta, GA; Portland, 
Oregon; Philadelphia, PA; Dillion, Montana; and Detroit, Michigan.
    \2\ Other groups opposing the PATRIOT Act include the American-Arab 
Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of Law Libraries, 
American Baptist Churches USA, American Humanist Association, American 
Policy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, Arab American Institute, Asian 
Americans for Equality, Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, 
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Association of 
Research Libraries, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Human 
Rights and Constitutional Law, Center for Justice and Accountability, 
Center for National Security Studies, Chicago Committee to Defend the 
Bill of Rights, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Consumer 
Action, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Electronic Privacy 
Information Center, First Amendment Foundation, F.I.R.S.T. Project, 
Inc., Friends Committee on National Legislation, Hate Free Zone 
Campaign of Washington, Immigrant Defense Project of the New York State 
Defenders Association, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, International 
Institute of Boston, Japanese American Citizens League, Korean Resource 
Center, Latin American Integration Center, Lawyers Committee for Human 
Rights, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mennonite Central 
Committee U.S., Washington Office, Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund (MALDEF), Multiracial Activist, National Asian Pacific 
American Legal Consortium, National Coalition Against Repressive 
Legislation, National Council of La Raza, National Employment Law 
Project, National Immigration Law Center, National Lawyers Guild, New 
York Immigration Coalition, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, OMB 
Watch, Organization of Chinese Americans, Police Accountability 
Project, Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office, Special Libraries 
Association, Square One Media Network, Unitarian Universalist 
Association of Congregations, United Electrical, Radio and Machine 
Workers of America, Washington Defenders Immigration Project, Women 
Against War Young Korean-American Service & Education Center (YKASEC). 
In addition, a new coalition of conservative and liberal groups have 
come together to urge increasing checks and balances on the powers the 
government already has: Association of American Physicians and 
Surgeons, American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, 
Americans for Tax Reform, American Policy Center, Citizens Committee 
for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Eagle Forum, Free Congress 
Foundation, Libertarian Party, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment 
Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule 
that is heaped against it, there is little doubt that the 
legislation has been repeatedly and seriously misused by the 
Justice Department. Consider the following:
           It has been used more than 150 times to 
        secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90% 
        of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism.
           It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an 
        innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his 
        property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, 
        and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.
           It has been used to deny, on account of his 
        political beliefs, the admission to the United States 
        of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim Scholar to 
        teach at Notre Dame University.
           It has been used to unconstitutionally 
        coerce an Internet Service Provider to divulge 
        information about e-mail activity and web surfing on 
        its system, and then to gag that Provider from even 
        disclosing the abuse to the public.
           Because of gag restrictions, we will never 
        know how many times it has been used to obtain reading 
        records from library and bookstores, but we do know 
        that libraries have been solicited by the Department of 
        Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT 
        Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions 
        since September 11.
           It has been used to charge, detain and 
        prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting 
        Internet website links to objectionable materials, even 
        though the same links were available on the U.S. 
        Government's web site.
    Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the abuse of 
unilateral powers by the Administration. Since September 11, 
our government has detained and verbally and physically abused 
thousands of immigrants without time limit, for unknown and 
unspecified reasons, and targeted tens of thousands of Arab-
Americans for intensive interrogations and immigration 
screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate Muslim 
and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our 
own county--who see a Justice Department that has 
institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling, without the 
benefit of a single terrorism conviction.
    Nor is it helpful when our government condones the torture 
of prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of 
mosques and religious sites without any indication of criminal 
activity, and detains scores of individuals as material 
witnesses because it does not have evidence to indict them. 
This makes our citizens less safe not more safe, and undermines 
our role as a beacon of democracy and freedom.
    While the Majority asserts it is not the duty of this 
Committee to respond to these abuses, we believe that ignoring 
these and other cases of abuse by our own government 
constitutes an abdication of our responsibility as legislators, 
and should be addressed by this legislation.
    The following is a brief background and description of the 
PATRIOT Act and the proposed reauthorization legislation, 
followed by a listing of our various concerns with the 
legislation.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

  I. Background and Description of Legislation.........................
 II. We Have Never Been Given the Necessary Facts to Properly Evaluate 
     the PATRIOT Act...................................................
III. There are Numerous Provisions in Both the Expiring and Other Parts 
     of the PATRIOT Act that are Largely Unrelated to Terrorism and 
     Unnecessarily Intrude on Privacy Rights and Other Civil Liberties.
          A. Specific Concerns with Expiring Provisions
              1. Sec. 206--Roving Surveillance Authority under 
                the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
              2. Sec. 209--Seizure of Voicemail Messages Pursuant 
                to Warrants
              3. Sec. 212--Emergency Disclosures of 
                Communications Held by Phone Companies and 
                Internet Service Providers
              4. Sec. 214--Pen Register and Trap and Trace 
                Authority Under FISA
              5. Sec. 215--Access to Records and Other Items 
                under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
                (Library Provision)
              6. Sec. 218--Foreign Intelligence Information
              7. Sec. 220--Nationwide Service of Search Warrants 
                for Electronic Evidence
              8. ``Lone Wolves'' as Agents of a Foreign Power
          B. Specific Concerns with Other Provisions of the 
            Patriot Act
              1. Sec. 213--Authority for Delaying Notice of the 
                Execution of a Warrant (Sneak and Peek Provision)
              2. Sec. 216--Extension of Trap and Trace/Pen Orders
              3. Sec. 411--Revocation of Visas
              4. Sec. 412--Detention of Immigrants
              5. Sec. 505--Miscellaneous National Security 
                Authorities ``National Security Letters''
              6. Sec. 802--Definition of Domestic Terrorism
              7. Sec. 805--Material Support for Terrorism
          C. General Concerns with Patriot Act Reauthorization
              1. Lack of a General Sunset
              2. Lack of General Oversight
 IV. The Legislation Does Nothing to Address the Many Unilateral Abuses 
     of The Administration in the War Against Terror...................
          A. Material Witness Statute
          B. Torture
          C. Rendition
          D. Enemy Combatants
          E. Selective Enforcement of Immigration Provision/
            Racial Profiling
          F. Excessive Collection of Personal Data
          G. Unauthorized Detention of Aliens
          H. Closed Immigration Trials
          I. Attorney General's Guidelines on Domestic 
            Surveillance
          J. Mis-Classification of Terrorism Investigations
          K. Safe Havens for Terrorist Assets
  V. The Legislation Does Not Provide Law Enforcement with the 
     Resources and Tools It Needs to Meaningfully Combat Terrorism.....
          A. Preventing Terrorists from Buying Guns
          B. Preventing the Sale and Manufacture of .50-caliber 
            Guns
          C. Regulating the Sale of Smokeless and Black Powder
          D. Increasing Grants to First Responders
          E. Securing our Nation's Ports
          F. Eliminating Trade with Terrorist Countries
          G. Penalizing those who Leak Classified Information
          H. Improving the Terrorist Watch List
 VI. Description of Amendments Offered by Democratic Members...........
VII. Conclusion........................................................
Appendix A: Section-by-Section Summary of the USA PATRIOT Act of 
  2001, H.R. 3162................................................
Appendix B: Summary of 16 Expiring Provisions....................

              I. Background and Description of Legislation

    The PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001. A 
major concern with this legislation is the process by which it 
was enacted into law. Within days of the September 11 attacks, 
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly announced that the 
Justice Department was drafting a new bill that Congress should 
pass within one week because the new powers were needed to 
fight terrorism. An initial draft of the legislation was leaked 
to the media soon after; it is believed that Republican Members 
and staff of the Committee were provided actual copies of the 
bill. A few days after the draft was leaked, the Department 
sent a new, official draft to Congress that consisted of its 
wish list of new law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence 
authorities. The hearing was so rushed that then-Attorney 
General Ashcroft would not even submit himself to a full round 
of questions by the members.
    The U.S. House Judiciary Committee worked out a bipartisan 
compromise with the Administration. The Committee passed the 
compromise legislation in the form of H.R. 2975 on an 
unprecedented 36-0 vote.\3\ While H.R. 2975 was being prepared 
for floor consideration, however, the Administration reneged on 
the deal and Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced a new and more 
aggressive terrorism bill, H.R. 3108, on the morning of October 
12, 2001. That same day, the Rules Committee issued the rule 
for H.R. 2975 and provided that H.R. 3108 would be the adopted 
substitute amendment to H.R. 2975. The very same day, the House 
passed the new legislation by a vote of 337-79 under a closed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 236, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the House was moving forward on new legislation, the 
Attorney General turned his attention to the Senate, which had 
yet to pass a new terrorism bill. The Attorney General publicly 
indicated that Senate Democrats questioning the scope of the 
Department's new bill would be responsible for future terrorist 
attacks if a new terrorism law was not passed in time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See David G. Savage & Eric Lichtblau, Ashcorft Deals with 
Daunting Responsibilities, L.A. Times, Oct. 28, 2001, at A10 (``When 
the Attorney General's imposed deadline [for passage of new terrorism 
legislation] passed, Ashcroft suggested that if a second terrorist 
attack occurred, the recalcitrant lawmakers would deserve the 
blame.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Compromise discussions proceeded and eventually broke down. 
Based in part on these discussions, Chairman Sensenbrenner 
introduced the new legislation as H.R. 3162 on October 23, 
2001. H.R. 3162 was brought straight to the floor under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House the next day by a 
vote of 357-66. The Senate passed the bill on October 25, 2001, 
by a vote of 98-1.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted ``No'' and Senator Mary 
Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although it was originally hoped that the legislation would 
simply give the Justice Department a set of specific tools to 
help it fight terrorism, the legislation ended up being a broad 
expansion of law enforcement powers that the Department had 
been seeking for years, but had been unable to convince 
Congress to enact.
    As enacted into law, the PATRIOT Act included more than 160 
separate sections (Appendix A provides a section by section 
description of those provisions). In addition, due in part to 
the concern by many Members with the rushed nature and broad 
scope of the PATRIOT Act, it was determined that 16 of the 
sections authorizing new surveillance powers should sunset on 
December 31, 2005 (Appendix B contains a more detailed section 
by section description of those 16 expiring provisions).
    H.R. 3199 would make permanent all of the sunset provisions 
of the PATRIOT Act, save Section 206, concerning John Doe 
Roving Wiretaps, and Section 215, concerning foreign 
intelligence orders for any tangible thing, which are renewed 
for 10 years each. It also makes permanent the material support 
and lone wolf authorities created in the intelligence reform 
bill last fall.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. 
L. No. 108-458, Sections 6603 and 6001, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill makes several changes to current law. First, H.R. 
3199 allows a Section 215 recipient to challenge his order in 
writing before a three-judge panel of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court (FISC) in Washington, DC, and assert that 
FISA, as written was wrongly applied to his order. Arguably, it 
also provides that a person may discuss his 215 order with his 
attorney.
    Second, H.R. 3199 creates a ``return'' on Section 206 John 
Doe Roving Wiretap orders. It simply provides that after a 
roving wiretap is issued, the Justice Department return to the 
FISA court and certify what facilities were ultimately tapped 
within 10 days.
    Third, the legislation amends Section 203(b) of the PATRIOT 
Act. Section 203(b) allows federal agencies to share 
information it gathers from electronic, oral and wire 
intercepts with other departments and agencies. This bill would 
require the government to notify the court that approved the 
original surveillance of the sharing.
    Fourth, H.R. 3199 alters Section 207 of the PATRIOT Act 
pertaining to the length of FISA orders. It limits the new 
extended durations to non-U.S. persons, and extended pen 
register and trap and trace orders to one year.
    Fifth, during the markup, a Lungren amendment was accepted 
that created an annual reporting requirement on Section 212, 
which immunizes private companies for their voluntary 
disclosures of electronic information to law enforcement in 
emergency situations.
    Sixth, during markup, a Schiff amendment was accepted which 
would add to the list of activities which, if done willfully, 
will result in violating the statute which prohibits the 
planning of terrorist attacks on mass transportation (18 USC 
1993(a)(3)).
    Seventh, during markup, a Lofgren amendment was accepted 
which amends Section 1001 of the PATRIOT Act to require the 
Inspector General of the Department of Justice to also report 
on the detentions of persons by the United States, including 
information about the length of detention, the offense, and the 
conditions and frequency of their access to counsel.
    Eighth, during markup, a Schiff amendment was accepted 
which (a) adds to the list of predicate offenses which are 
considered ``federal crimes of terrorism''; (b) allows for the 
forfeiture of property involved in the trafficking of weapons 
of mass destruction; and (c) adds numerous crimes related to 
terrorism to the list of offenses for which oral and wire 
communications may be intercepted under 18 U.S.C. 2516.
    Finally, during the markup, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Flake 
offered a bipartisan amendment to address the notification 
delay period relating to the Section 213 ``sneak and peek'' 
provision. Under their amendment, the initial period of delayed 
notification of secret searches may not be for more than 180 
days, and extensions may be given for not more than 90 days at 
a time.
    It is important to note that the 9/11 Commission 
recommended that to retain any new authorities, ``The burden of 
proof for retaining a particular government power should be on 
the executive to explain (a) that the power materially enhances 
security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the 
executive's use of those powers to ensure protection of civil 
liberties.'' \7\ We have never been given the facts necessary 
to properly evaluate its operation; however, based upon the 
information we have been able to glean our review indicates 
that this burden has not been met. For these and the reasons 
set forth herein, we oppose H.R. 3199
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The 9/11 Commission Report, National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States, at 395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 II. We Have Never Been Given the Necessary Facts To Properly Evaluate 
                            the PATRIOT Act

    Neither the original USA PATRIOT Act nor this 
reauthorization legislation were subject to proper oversight. 
Since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the Department has 
failed to account for its use. In addition, the pending 
legislation was deprived of any deliberative consideration 
prior to the full Committee markup.
    First, the Department has thwarted efforts on the part of 
Democratic Members to learn how the PATRIOT Act has been 
enforced. While the Department has responded to Committee 
inquiries pertaining to the Act, in many instances it states 
that it does not keep track of how certain authorities are used 
or qualifies the answers it does give. For instance, in its 
most recent submission to the Committee, the Department states 
it does not know how many times Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act authorities have been used to investigate 
terrorism crimes versus other offenses.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Letter from the Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of 
the United States, to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., 
Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary 3-4 (July 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 1, 2003, the Committee sent the Department an 
exhaustive series of questions on the Act. In response to a 
question about how many mosques have been contacted for 
membership lists, the Department merely states that it has 
conducted demographic surveys of mosques; it simply ignores the 
question.\9\ It further states it does not keep racial or 
ethnic characteristic information on material witness detainees 
and, as such, is unable to answer a question about that 
matter.\10\ When it chooses to answer a question, the 
Department often includes a qualifier, making the answer 
meaningless. For example, when replying to a question about 
material witness detainees since September 11, 2001, having 
access to legal counsel, the Department says that ``every 
single person detained as a material witness as part of the 
September 11 investigation has been represented by counsel.'' 
\11\ The answer left open the possibility that a material 
witness as part of a non-September 11 terrorism investigation 
was denied access to counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Letter from the Honorable Jamie E. Brown, Acting Ass't Attorney 
General, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to the Honorable F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary 56 (May 
13, 2003).
    \10\ Id. at 50.
    \11\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Department prohibits public review of its 
activities by sending some information about the PATRIOT Act 
under classified cover. Interestingly, in at least two 
instances, the Department has declassified relevant information 
only when it was politically expedient. In the summer of 2003, 
there was significant criticism of section 215 of the Act from 
the media, civil liberties groups, and libraries and bookstores 
based on the belief that the provision gave unconstitutionally 
broad power to seize documents and things about anybody, 
including patrons' library and bookstore records in violation 
of the First Amendment.\12\ Attempting to quell such rising 
criticism, on September 18, 2003, the Attorney General 
declassified a memorandum he had written to FBI Director Robert 
Mueller showing that section 215 had never been used as of that 
date.\13\ In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft 
declassified a memo written by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick 
concerning the ``wall'' between criminal and intelligence 
investigations as a way to turn attention away from his failure 
to appropriately focus on counterterrorism.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Warren Richey & Linda Feldmann, Has Post-9/11 Dragnet Gone too 
Far?, Christian Science Monitor, Sept, 12, 2003, at 1; Howard Troxler, 
New Powers? Not Unless the Feds Get Old Ones Right, St. Petersburg 
Times, Sept. 10, 2003, at 1B; Jack Torry, Opinions Clash on Terrorism-
Fighting Patriot Act, Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 7, 2003, at 1C; Peter 
Schworm, Librarians Fight Search Law, Boston Globe, Aug. 21, 2003 at 1; 
Nat Hentoff, Ashcroft Moves to Encroach further on our Liberties, 
Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 24, 2003, at 30 (op-ed); James Bovard, America 
Fights for Freedom to Read, Balt. Sun, Aug. 18, 2003, at 15A; Congress 
Should Reform Dangerous Patriot Act, Det. News, Aug. 1, 2003 at 10A 
(editorial); Ellen Goodman, It's Time for Congress to Take Away 
Ashcroft's Fishing License, Balt. Sun, at July 24, 2003, at 17A 
(editorial); Lillian Thomas, Rights Groups Rally Opposition to National 
Anti-Terrorism Law, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 17, 2003, at B5; Don 
Behm, Bookstores Balk at Record-Seizure Law, Milwaukee Journal-
Sentinel, June 23, 2003, at 2A; Wayne Woodlief, Ashcroft's Act Borders 
on Unpatriotic, Boston Herald, June 8, 2003, at 25 (op-ed).
    \13\ Memorandum from the Honorable John D. Ashcroft, Attorney 
General of the United States, to the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, 
Director, FBI (Sept. 18, 2003).
    \14\ Jason Zengerle, ``Critiquing Ashcroft's 9/11 Show,'' The New 
Republic, April 15, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department's lack of accountability is even more 
troubling considering that it was derelict in its duties to 
Congress just prior to the markup. On May 19, 2005, over one 
month after the Committee's April 6, 2005 hearing with the 
Attorney General, Chairman Sensenbrenner transmitted to the 
Department a series of questions about the Act for himself,\15\ 
Ranking Member John Conyers, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, and Rep. Martin 
Meehan (D-MA).\16\ While the Department answered the Chairman's 
questions on June 10, 2005,\17\ the answers to the questions 
submitted by the three Democratic Members were answered only on 
the morning of the full Committee markup over one month later, 
and most of the answers were incomplete and unresponsiive.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., 
Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Honorable Alberto 
Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (May 19, 2005) 
(transmitting questions on behalf of himself).
    \16\ Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., 
Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary, to the Honorable Alberto 
Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (May 19, 2005) 
(transmitting questions on behalf of Democratic Members).
    \17\ Letter from the Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General 
of the United States, to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., 
Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary (June 10, 2005) (sent under 
classified cover).
    \18\ Letter from the Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General 
of the United States, to the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., 
Chairman, U.S. House Comm. on the Judiciary (July 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, Rep. Zoe Lofgren attempted to exercise her 
oversight authority and requested to see applications for 
search and seizure orders obtained under Section 214 (pen 
register and trap-and-trace orders) and Section 215 (business 
records) of the USA PATRIOT Act. A letter was sent on behalf of 
Ms. Lofgren and the other Members of the Committee who wished 
to review these order applications on July 7, 2005.\19\ The 
letter asked that they be allowed to review these orders on 
either Monday or Tuesday, July 11 or July 12, as the Committee 
was set to markup H.R. 3199 on Wednesday. On Monday, July 11, 
two days before the Committee was set to meet, DOJ responded 
that usually only redacted copies are provided to the 
Intelligence Committees; DOJ was asked to determine if our 
members could also review these orders. Finally, at 5:50 on 
Tuesday, July 12, 2005, approximately 16 hours before the 
Committee markup was to begin, the DOJ responded that Committee 
members could review a sample of FISA applications at the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and could not review 
FISA applications at main Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Letter from Perry Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel, House 
Judiciary Committee, to Assistant Attorney General William E. 
Moschella, July 7, 2005. Letter on file with Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This entire process illuminates the steps DOJ has taken to 
prevent the Democratic members from performing effective 
oversight. Second, Ms. Lofgren and the other Committee members 
have the authority and necessary clearance to review these 
orders and there was no clear reason why the Judiciary 
Committee members should be blocked from reviewing orders that 
the Intelligence Committees can review. Finally, this 
interchange undermines one of the main reasons the Majority 
uses to justify making the PATRIOT Act permanent the Majority 
argues that the Members can exercise oversight if they so 
choose, and that they have not chosen to exert this oversight. 
Here, the Members attempted to review the authority granted to 
law enforcement by the PATRIOT Act under FISA and they were 
deliberately delayed and thwarted in their attempt to perform 
their constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch. 
Thus, it is not that the Members do not wish to perform 
oversight of the use of these authorities; rather, it is that 
the Administration has conducted a deliberate attempt to deny 
and block certain Members ability to do so.
    The concerted effort to thwart any meaningful oversight and 
review of the Patriot Act is also evident by the manner in 
which the Majority chose to respond to the Minority's request 
for additional day of oversight hearings on the legislation. 
During the course of the Committee's oversight hearing with 
Deputy Attorney General Comey, and pursuant to House Rule XI, 
clause 2(j)(1), the Minority requested an additional day of 
oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. 
The purpose of the additional day of hearings was to provide 
Members with a last chance opportunity to explore important 
issues within the scope of the Patriot Act which up until that 
point had not been adequately covered.
    Unfortunately in responding of the Minority's request, the 
Majority decided to engage in a series of actions which 
frustrated the Minority's party efforts to conduct such a 
hearing. Namely, the Majority chose to schedule the requested 
day of hearings with less than forty-eight hours notice; 
required the Minority to provide the Majority with a list of 
witnesses and witness testimony in less than twenty-four hours; 
decided to schedule the hearing at 8:30 am on a Friday, a date 
in which there where no votes on the House floor; and chose to 
unilaterally adjourn the hearing without first obtaining or 
seeking either a unanimous consent request or a vote of the 
Committee members present. As pointed out in the resolution 
offered by Mr. Nadler raising a question of privilege regarding 
these actions, many of these aforementioned deeds were in clear 
violation of numerous House rules and certainly contrary to the 
Committee's usual custom and practices.
    Finally, Members of the Committee were deprived of any 
meaningful review of H.R. 3199 after its introduction. The 
Majority distributed the legislation only on the late afternoon 
of Friday, July 8, 2005, just five days before it was scheduled 
to be considered by the Committee. In addition, this 
legislation was not subject to any hearing, either at the full 
Committee or subcommittee level, or to a subcommittee markup. 
Hearings and subcommittee markups are preliminary stages of 
review that are customary in the House for any legislation; 
they permit the Members and other interested parties to 
consider and debate specific legislation prior to final 
consideration before either the full Committee or the full 
House.\20\ The Majority, unfortunately, bypassed these 
important steps and immediately scheduled H.R. 3199 for a full 
Committee vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ We would note that even in the immediate aftermath of the 
September 11 attacks, a preliminary draft of the PATRIOT Act was 
subject to a legislative hearing in the Committee. Administration's 
Draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: Hearing Before the House Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (Sept. 24, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. There are Numerous Provisions in Both the Expiring and Other Parts 
    of the PATRIOT Act That Are Largely Unrelated to Terrorism and 
   Unnecessarily Intrude on Privacy Rights and Other Civil Liberties

    There are numerous provisions in the PATRIOT Act, that have 
raised concerns. The following is a description of some of the 
concerns and issues.

             A. SPECIFIC CONCERNS WITH EXPIRING PROVISIONS

1. Sec. 206--Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign 
        Intelligence Surveillance Act

    This section allows the FBI to use roving wiretaps under 
FISA. This means that the FBI can obtain a single court order 
to tap any phone they believe a foreign agent would use, 
instead of getting separate court orders for each phone. 
Additionally, the government does not need to name the target, 
thus allowing so-called ``John Doe'' wiretaps. The impact of 
allowing ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps is that the government 
can legally tap almost any phone of almost any person without 
having to show that the person is in any way connected to 
espionage or terrorism, or even suspected of criminal 
wrongdoing. Thus, the Fourth Amendment rights of ordinary 
citizens against such search and seizures can be completely 
circumvented.
    Few disagree that roving wiretaps are important. Indeed, 
they have been useful in criminal investigations since 1986. 
However, FISA roving wiretaps go far beyond criminal wiretaps. 
First, FISA allows for blanket tapping, such as tapping all the 
payphones in the target's neighborhood or all of his relatives, 
without showing that the target will actually use the 
device.\21\ Second, agents seeking a roving wiretap need not 
even identify a specific suspect and may instead get ``John 
Doe'' warrants.\22\ These add up to roving ``John Doe'' 
warrants that require so little specificity that they can be 
easily abused. The number of times this authority has been used 
and in what manner was classified \23\ until April 6 2005, when 
the Attorney General admitted to using it 49 times since the 
PATRIOT Act passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ John Podesta, ``USA PATRIOT Act: The Good