```

[House Report 109-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-174
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

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

 
    USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

 July 18, 2005.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hoekstra, from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3199]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, 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.
    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. REPEAL OF USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET PROVISION.

  Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT ACT is repealed.

SEC. 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 of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3742) 
is amended to read as follows:
  ``(b) Sunset.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2010.
  ``(2) With respect to any particular foreign intelligence 
investigation that began before the date on which the amendment made by 
subsection (a) ceases to have effect, such amendment shall continue in 
effect.''

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 108-458; 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 501 OF FISA 
                    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 in response 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 in response 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. MODIFICATION OF SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN 
                    INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

  Subsection (c)(2) of section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) and 
        inserting ``;and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
  ``(E) that, in cases where the facility or place at which 
surveillance will be directed is not known at the time the order is 
issued, the applicant shall notifiy a judge having jurisdiction under 
section 103 within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the 
court, after surveillance begins to be directed at a new facility or 
place, and that 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 was directed 
is being used, or is about to be used, by the target of the electronic 
surveillance.''.

                                Purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 3199 is to extend and modify 
authorities needed to combat terrorism and espionage provided 
in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
(``USA PATRIOT'') Act of 2001 and the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

                     Committee Statement and Views

A. Background and need for legislation

    Immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, Congress and the Administration quickly determined that 
the legal tools available to investigators to fight terrorists 
and spies were inadequate. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 provided 
critical additional tools to intelligence and law enforcement 
officials in counterterrorism and counterespionage 
investigations, and implemented reforms to facilitate better 
information sharing between the intelligence and law 
enforcement communities.
    The authorities of the USA PATRIOT Act have been used 
continuously since its enactment to enhance the federal 
government's capacity to gather and share intelligence. Many of 
the results have been clear and demonstrable. For example, the 
National Counterterorism Center receives and shares information 
on a daily basis with law enforcement agencies, and has 
estimated that the number of known or appropriately suspected 
terrorists intercepted at borders of the United States, based 
on FBI reporting alone, has increased due to the information 
sharing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. In another example, 
the Department of Justice has applied Section 214 of the Act to 
international terrorism and counterintelligence investigations, 
including a case where the subject was believed to be 
attempting to procure nuclear arms.
    Other successes of the USA PATRIOT Act have not been as 
publicly apparent but are equally, if not more, significant. 
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence receives regular 
and detailed classified reporting with respect to the exercise 
of authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
(``FISA''), including the enhancements provided under the USA 
PATRIOT Act. Although it cannot be discussed in an unclassified 
format, this reporting clearly has established the vital role 
that these enhanced authorities play on a daily basis in a wide 
variety of critical counterintelligence and counterterrorism 
investigations.
    In considering reauthorization of the Act, the Committee 
has endeavored to emphasize that many of the core enhanced 
authorities of the USA PATRIOT Act are fundamentally 
intelligence authorities intended to gather information to 
counter threats to national security from terrorists and spies. 
The Act provides enhanced but carefully tailored authorities, 
usually targeted against ``foreign powers'' and ``agents of 
foreign powers.'' The PATRIOT Act also has definitively broken 
down the ``wall'' between intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies to allow them to share information, free of artificial 
stovepipes.
    What the PATRIOT Act is not, either in intent or practice, 
is a license for the government to invade the privacy of 
ordinary citizens or to violate civil liberties. The Department 
of Justice Inspector General reported earlier this year that it 
had received 1,943 allegations of abuse of the PATRIOT Act. 
None of those complaints were found to have even alleged 
misconduct by Justice Department employees relating to use of a 
provision in the PATRIOT Act, and only 12 warranted further 
investigation for civil liberties issues unrelated to the 
PATRIOT Act.
    Under Section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the authorities 
contained in sixteen of its provisions are scheduled to expire 
on December 31, 2005. Ten of those provisions concern 
intelligence and intelligence-related matters within the 
jurisdiction of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
          Section 203(b). Authority to Share Electronic, Oral, 
        and Wire Interception Information
          Section 203(d). Foreign Intelligence Information
          Section 204. Clarification of Intelligence Exceptions 
        From Limitations on Interception and Disclosure of 
        Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications
          Section 206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA
          Section 207. Duration of FISA Surveillance of Non-
        United States Persons Who Are Agents of a Foreign Power
          Section 214. Pen Register and Trap and Trace 
        Authority Under FISA
          Section 215. Access to Records and Other Items Under 
        FISA
          Section 218. Foreign Intelligence Information
          Section 223. Civil Liability for Certain Unauthorized 
        Disclosures (with respect to duties imposed on 
        intelligence agencies)
          Section 225. Immunity for Compliance with FISA 
        Wiretap
    In addition, the Committee has considered renewal of 
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004, relating to individual terrorists as 
agents of foreign powers, which is also scheduled to expire on 
December 31, 2005.
    The record in support of reauthorizing these provisions is 
clear and convincing. The expiring provisions have been the 
subject of intense public scrutiny and oversight, through 
regular reporting by the Executive Branch, review by the 
Department of Justice Inspector General, and regular oversight 
hearings and activities of the Committee. The Committee has 
determined that the expiring authorities have generally been 
demonstrated to be critical and effective authorities in 
counterterrorism and counterespionage investigations, or 
authorities necessary to ensure that investigators are fully 
equipped to swiftly and efficiently prevent or respond to acts 
of terrorism or espionage. Conversely, the oversight process 
has not discovered any substantial claim that the provisions of 
the USA PATRIOT Act had been abused.

B. Legislation

    Accordingly, H.R. 3199 as reported from the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence permanently reauthorizes the 
expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. As amended, the 
bill also reauthorizes Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 through December 31, 2010. 
The bill also includes provisions requested by the 
Administration to extend to up to a year the maximum duration 
of certain FISA orders targeted against ``agents of foreign 
powers'' who are not U.S. persons and reforms to clarify 
concerns that have been raised with respect to the original 
authorities.
    The Committee's hearings suggested that some fair concerns 
had been raised with respect to unintended ambiguities in the 
original law. Accordingly, the bill also contains sensible 
changes to clear up those ambiguities once and for all without 
compromising investigators. These provisions include four key 
reforms to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows 
investigators to obtain permission to access to certain 
business records from judges:
           Establishes a relevance standard to 
        textually clarify that Section 215 orders must be 
        relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against 
        international terrorism or clandestine intelligence 
        activities. This provision is intended to clarify the 
        original intention of the specification requirement and 
        is not intended to ``raise'' the standard for the 
        specification required under Section 215;
           Clarifies that judges have the discretion to 
        modify requested orders;
           Clarifies that the recipient of a Section 
        215 order may discuss the order with an attorney to 
        obtain legal advice and may challenge the order;
           Provides for a panel of judges from the FISA 
        court to review challenges to the legality of a Section 
        215 order.
    The bill also includes a provision to require that federal 
judges responsible for wiretaps in criminal cases be notified 
(under seal) when information from those wiretaps is shared 
with the intelligence community.

                   Committee Consideration and Votes

    On July 13, 2005, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 3199 favorably reported, as amended.
    Ms. Harman offered and, after debate, subsequently received 
unanimous consent to withdraw an en bloc amendment to modify 
certain standards relating to the exercise of authorities 
provided by Sections 206, 214 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
to modify authorities on review of motions to discover 
materials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and 
to provide subsequent notice in specified circumstances to the 
subjects of certain FISA search and surveillance who are United 
States persons.
    Ms. Harman offered a modified version of an en bloc 
amendment to modify certain standards relating to the exercise 
of authorities provided by Sections 206, 214 and 215 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, to modify authorities on review of motions to 
discover materials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, and to provide subsequent notice in specified 
circumstances to the subjects of certain FISA search and 
surveillance who are United States persons. After debate, the 
amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
    Mr. Ruppersberger offered an amendment to extend certain 
USA PATRIOT Act sunset requirements. After debate, the 
amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
    Ms. Eshoo offered an amendment relating to library and 
bookseller records. After debate, the amendment was not agreed 
to by voice vote.
    Mr. Boswell offered an amendment relating to notification 
to judges in specified circumstances under authorities provided 
by Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act (codified at Section 105 
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). After debate, 
the amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Hastings offered an amendment to extend the sunset 
provision relating to authorities regarding individual 
terrorists as agents of foreign powers (Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004). 
After debate, the amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    By voice vote, the Committee adopted a motion by the 
Chairman to favorably report the bill H.R. 3199 to the House, 
as amended, and to recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

       Section-by-Section Analysis and Explanation of Amendments

    The provisions of the bill are as follows:
    Section 1. Short Title.--provides that the short title of 
the bill is the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act of 2005.''
    Section 2. References to PATRIOT Act.--Provides that, 
within the bill, 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 
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.
    Section 4. Repeal of Sunset of Individual Terrorists as 
Agents of Foreign Powers.--This section repeals section 6001(b) 
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 
(IRTPA) which applied the USA PATRIOT Act sunset to the new 
definition for ``Agent of a Foreign Power'' under section 6001. 
Section 6001 provides that ``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''. The new definition reaches ``lone wolf'' 
terrorists engaged in international terrorism.
    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 have sunset section 6603. The sunset would 
allow a criminal offense, and not a law enforcement tool, to 
expire. Furthermore, this sunset effectively makes the 
underlying provision unconstitutional. Section 6603 of the 
IRTPA addressed the prohibition against providing material 
support to terrorists and amended the law to address court 
concerns on the constitutionality of the material support 
prohibition.
    Section 6. Sharing of Electronic, Wire, and Oral 
Interception Information.--This section 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 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.
    The Committee emphasizes that such notices shall be made 
under seal, as well as its intention that the provision should 
be implemented to insure the protection of the notices as well 
as intelligence sources and methods.
    Section 7. Duration of FISA of Non-United States Persons.--
This section would (1) Further extend the maximum duration of 
orders for electronic surveillance and physical search targeted 
against all agents of foreign powers who are not U.S. persons. 
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; and (2) extend the 
maximum duration of both initial and renewal orders for pen 
register/trap and trace surveillance, in cases where the 
Government certified that the information likely to be obtained 
is foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. 
person, for a period of one year.
    Section 8. Access to Certain Business Records Under Section 
501 of FISA.--This section would amend section 215 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act to (1) 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; (2) clarify 
that a FISA 215 order may be challenged; (3) clarify that a 
recipient of a 215 order may consult with a lawyer and the 
appropriate people necessary to comply with the order; (4) 
clarify that the order will only be issued ``if the judge finds 
that the requirements have been met;'' and (5) to set up a 
judicial review process that authorizes the judge to set aside 
or affirm a 215 order that has been challenged.
    The committee adopted two amendments. An amendment by Mr. 
Boswell provides that, within a reasonable period of time after 
surveillance begins, the applicant shall notify a judge 
whenever surveillance begins to be directed at a new facility 
or place under authorities provided by Section 206 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act (as codified in Section 105 of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act). An amendment by Mr. Hastings 
provides that Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 shall expire on December 31, 
2010.

                 Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee held 2 hearings on 
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, receiving testimony 
from Deputy Attorney General James Comey as well as outside 
experts and citizens' groups.

                General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with Clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee's performance goals and objectives are reflected in 
the descriptive portions of this report.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
United States government are carried out to support the 
national security interests of the United States.
    Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States provides, in pertinent part, that ``Congress shall have 
power * * * to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 
and general welfare of the United States; * * * ''; and ``to 
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution * * * all other powers vested by this 
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any 
Department or Officer thereof.''

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of 
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement, the Committee 
has received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office 
included herein.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to 
requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for H.R. 3199 from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 18, 2005.
Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
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 Jason 
Wheelock.
            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 Committee on the 
Judiciary on July 13, 2005. The two versions of H.R. 3199 are 
similar and the cost estimates are identical.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jason Wheelock.
    This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made 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 change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                   SECTION 224 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT

[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.]
                              ----------                              

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) * * *
  [(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.]
  (b) Sunset.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
amendment made by subsection (a) shall cease to have effect on 
December 31, 2010.
  (2) With respect to any particular foreign intelligence 
investigation that began before the date on which the amendment 
made by subsection (a) ceases to have effect, such amendment 
shall continue in effect.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

              SECTION 2517 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (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 cases where the facility or 
                place at which surveillance will be directed is 
                not known at the time the order is issued, the 
                applicant shall notify a judge having 
                jurisdiction under section 103 within a 
                reasonable period of time, as determined by the 
                court, after surveillance begins to be directed 
                at a new facility or place, and that 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 was 
                directed is being used, or is about to be used, 
                by the target of the 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 
in response 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 in response 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

Preliminary note
    We commend Chairman Hoekstra for taking the unprecedented 
step of allowing a member of the press to attend the mark-up of 
H.R. 3199 and for making the transcript of the session 
available to the public. This action demonstrates that the 
Committee can have candid debate about intelligence policy in 
an unclassified setting. Unfortunately, the public was not 
permitted to attend this mark-up because it occurred in the 
Committee's secure facility. We hope that future mark-ups will 
take place in a venue accessible to all--so that the American 
people can have confidence in our work.
Introduction
    The U.S. government needs effective tools to combat 
terrorism. The terrorist threat is real--and if we are going to 
demand that the FBI uncover terror cells here in the U.S., we 
need to give them the tools to do that.
    The last time Congress considered the PATRIOT Act, it was 
also in the shadow of terrorism. It was just 45 days after 9/
11; we were bracing for more terror; the invasion of 
Afghanistan had begun; and Capitol Hill was hit with anthrax 
attacks. Given these intense pressures, Congress did a fairly 
decent job with the PATRIOT Act, which modernized a number of 
legal authorities and gave the FBI new tools to track 
terrorists here at home. But we can do better.
Improving the PATRIOT Act
    The mark-up of H.R. 3199 was our Committee's opportunity to 
improve the PATRIOT Act. As Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey 
told our Committee when he briefed us, any expansion of 
government power must be carefully justified and tailored so 
that it does not facilitate abuse or unwarranted intrusions 
into our privacy.
    Improving the PATRIOT Act is not a partisan issue. The SAFE 
Act, which makes improvements to PATRIOT Act authorities, is 
bipartisan legislation that had 71 cosponsors in the last 
Congress. The Sanders Amendment to the Science, State, Justice, 
Commerce FY 2006 Appropriations bill--which prohibited spending 
funds to obtain library or bookstore documentary records under 
Seciton 215 of the Act, but properly excluded internet 
records--passed 238-187, with a large number of Republican 
votes, including one House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence (HPSCI) majority Member.
    H.R. 3199 is a good start. For example, it would allow the 
recipients of Section 215 orders to consult with an attorney 
and challenge the order before a federal judge. The bill also 
excludes some expansive provisions that our counterparts in the 
Senate adopted, including administrative subpoenas, mail 
covers, and a broader definition of foreign intelligence.
    Our package of common-sense amendments (described below), 
were shared with the Majority and were developed with input 
from a range of Members and outside groups. The Ranking Member 
also personally shared our proposals with Attorney General 
Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller. Our staffs have discussed 
them on a bipartisan basis.
    The Committee received letters from the American Civil 
Liberties Union, as well as the Patriots to Restore Checks and 
Balances, a coalition led by former Rep. Bob Barr. Those 
letters, which are part of the official record of the mark-up, 
indicate support for efforts to improve the PATRIOT Act, along 
the lines of our amendments.
    Of the five Democratic amendments offered at the mark-up, 
two passed on a voice vote by the Committee. Representative 
Boswell offered an amendment to impose a ``return'' requirement 
on roving ``John Doe'' wiretaps under Section 206. 
Representative Hastings offered an amendment to sunset the 
``Lone Wolf'' provision in 2010.
    The Committee rejected three other amendments that we 
believe were meritorious. Representative Harman's en bloc 
amendment would have made several critical changes to Sections 
206, 214 and 215. Representative Ruppersberger offered an 
amendment to sunset all 10 expiring provisions under the 
Committee's jurisdiction in 2009. Representative Eshoo offered 
an amendment to prevent Section 215 orders from being used to 
obtain library or bookstore documentary records. All three of 
these amendments failed on voice vote.
    We are committed to offering these amendments on the floor, 
and we urge the Rules Committee to allow their consideration by 
the full House.
    Our proposals are moderate. And they would not compromise 
that ability to catch terrorists or spies. They will merely 
adjust the authorities of the PATRIOT Act to preserve our 
liberties.
    As Benjamin Franklin said more than 200 years ago: ``Those 
who would sacrifice liberty to purchase a bit of security 
deserve neither liberty nor security.''
Detailed discussion of amendments
    Five amendments were offered by Committee Democrats.
    Representative Harman offered an en bloc amendment related 
to several sections of the PATRIOT Act.
    With respect to Sections 214 and 215, the Harman amendment 
would require government Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
(FISA) applications for tangible items as well as pen register 
and trap and trace orders to assert there are ``specific and 
articulable facts'' giving reason to believe that the records 
sought relate to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
power, and to include an explanation that supports the 
assertion such facts exist.
    These provisions would retain the ability of the government 
to seek court approval to obtain items and information under 
Sections 214 and 215. But, they would also align this sweeping 
power with the traditional FISA standard by requiring 
individualized suspicion. Nothing in the amendment would hamper 
the government's ability to go after suspected terrorists or 
their associates, such as 9-11 hijacker Mohammad Atta or his 
roommate.
    The Harman amendment would also prohibit Section 215 from 
being used for the production of library circulation records, 
library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer 
lists. This mirrors the limitation included in an amendment 
offered by Representative Sanders to the Science, State 
Justice, Commerce FY 2006 Appropriations. That amendment passed 
the full House 238-187 on June 15, 2005.
    With respect to Section 206, the amendment would modify the 
expansive authority for ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps in three 
ways. First, it would require the description of a target to be 
``sufficiently specific'' for the court to find probable cause 
to believe the target is a foreign power or an agent of a 
foreign power--something Department of Justice officials say 
they already do. Second, it would also limit the time of 
surveillance to the period reasonable to assume the target is 
near the phone or computer to be tapped. Third, it would 
require the government to notify the FISA Court within a 
reasonable period of time after surveillance begins at a new 
facility or place, and to provide an explanation of the facts 
and circumstances surrounding the decision to target a 
particular facility or place. This requirement would allow the 
FISA Court to better assess whether ``John Doe'' roving 
wiretaps authorized under Section 206 were carried out 
properly.
    Finally, the Harman amendment would modify FISA in 
additional ways to protect due process rights of FISA targets. 
It would require the court to disclose to criminal defendants 
or other aggrieved persons, and/or their counsels, under 
procedures and standards established in the Classified 
Information Procedures Act (CIPA) (18 U.S.C. App. 3), 
information and materials gathered pursuant to FISA orders. 
These procedures are used commonly in national security cases 
where individuals are prosecuted on the basis of secret 
evidence.
    It would also ensure that U.S. citizen FISA targets who are 
determined not to be an agent of a foreign power are notified 
they were the target of FISA searches, surveillance, or pen 
registers and traps and traces. Such notification would only 
occur after the Attorney General determines that disclosure 
would not compromise an ongoing investigation. This would help 
ensure that individuals--such as Brandon Mayfield who was 
wrongly jailed in connection with the Madrid bombings and later 
exonerated--are notified of surveillance and secret searches of 
their homes.
    The Harman en bloc amendment was not agreed to.
    Representative Ruppersberger offered an amendment to extend 
to December 31, 2009 the sunsets for intelligence-related 
sections of the PATRIOT Act and Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) 
(the so-called ``Lone Wolf'' provision). This provision would 
have allowed law enforcement to continue to conduct 
investigations using these authorities. But, it would also 
force Congress and the Executive Branch to reevaluate in four 
years whether they are truly effective in fighting terrorism 
and their impact on civil liberties and privacy.
    The Ruppersberger amendment was not agreed to.
    An amendment offered by Representative Eshoo would have 
exempted library circulation records, library patron lists, 
book sales records, or book customer lists from the list of 
tangible things authorized to be obtained under Section 215 of 
the PATRIOT Act. This mirrors the limitation included in an 
amendment offered by Representative Sanders to the Science, 
State, Justice, Commerce FY 2006 Appropriations bill which 
passed the House 238-187 on June 15, 2005.
    During Committee hearings, Department of Justice officials 
stated that it has not sought library or bookstore documentary 
records, and the Committee has received no testimony indicating 
that this power under Section 215 is necessary to stop 
terrorism. These records may always be obtained by law 
enforcement through other methods, such as warrants or 
subpoenas.
    The Eshoo amendment was not agreed to.
    Representative Boswell offered an amendment to Section 206 
of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206, which has been the center of 
much debate, gives the government broad authority to conduct 
court-approved roving wiretaps under FISA when neither the 
identify nor the location of the target is known.
    The Boswell amendment would require the government to 
notify the FISA Court within a reasonable period of time after 
surveillance begins at a new facility or place, and to provide 
an explanation of the facts and circumstancessurrounding the 
decision to target a particular facility or place. This requirement 
would allow the FISA Court to better assess whether ``John Doe'' roving 
wiretaps authorized under Section 206 were carried out properly. Such 
enhanced transparency is essential for ensuring proper judicial 
oversight of this significant authority.
     The Boswell amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    An amendment offered by Representative Alcee Hastings would 
extend until 2010 the sunset of Section 6001 of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-
458), the so-called ``Lone Wolf'' provision. The Lone Wolf 
provision, which sunsets in December 2005, broke from the 
tradition of FISA by abandoning the requirement that a non-U.S. 
person, suspected terrorist target have a nexus to a foreign 
power. Although only seven months have passed since the Lone 
Wolf provision became law, H.R. 3199 would have made it 
permanent. This short period is inadequate for the government 
and public to assess the effectiveness and impact of this 
significant expansion of government authorities.
    The Hastings amendment would allow the government to retain 
the authority to target Lone Wolf terrorists and ensure 
investigations initiated before the sunset date are allowed to 
continue. Moreover, it would ensure this significant expansion 
of power is subject to a meaningful trial period before it is 
made permanent.
    The Hastings amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

Motion to report the bill favorably

    The motion to report favorably H.R. 3199, as amended, to 
the House of Representatives was adopted by voice vote. 
Representatives Hastings, Eshoo, Holt and Tierney asked that 
the record reflect that they voted ``no'' on the motion.

                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Silvestre Reyes.
                                   Leonard L. Boswell.
                                   Bud Cramer.
                                   Anna G. Eshoo.
                                   C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    I accept the Minority's Additional Views, above, but find 
that the last paragraph of the introduction in some respects 
seems to omit procedural faults in the 2001 consideration and 
action on the so-called Patriot Act. A fuller account would 
record: that the Judiciary Committee of the House considered 
and passed by a large majority--if not unanimously--a version 
that most members believed acceptably struck a balance between 
the need to arm intelligence and law enforcement authorities 
with proper tools and the maintenance of constitutional civil 
rights. Those provisions where disagreement existed were 
``sunsetted.''
    In the dark of night during October 2001, the Majority 
Party's Rules Committee affected a Rule, passage of which 
struck the Judiciary Committee's product and substituted the 
final version now before Congress. That final version, in the 
view of a number of Members, and in the view of scores of local 
communities, experts and others--intruded needlessly upon civil 
liberties as it departed from the Judiciary Committee's work.
    Numerous reasonable recommendations for correcting such 
excesses have been suggested. They would continue to provide 
needed tools to officials as they confront terrorist 
activities, while upholding the Constitution's hard fought and 
hard won rights for individuals. Congress has the chance during 
this review of the law to correct the problems contained in the 
earlier legislation through questionable procedural conduct.

                                   John F. Tierney.

                                  

```