The House voted to approve the bill on October 24:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=398
October 23, 2001
UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS
REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT) ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3162) to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United
States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory
tools, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3162
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[Text of bill snipped. --Declan]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate
on this motion be extended by an additional 20 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3162, the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the duty and privilege to pass this
historic legislation, the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001, which was born of
adversity and violent attack. This landmark legislation will provide
law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional tools that are
needed to address the threat of terrorism and to find and prosecute
terrorist criminals.
This legislation authorizes the sharing of information between
criminal investigators and those engaged in foreign intelligence-
gathering. It provides for enhanced wiretap and surveillance authority.
It brings the basic building blocks of a criminal investigation, pen
registers and trap and trace provisions, into the 21st century to deal
with e-mails and Internet communications.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the result of bipartisan
consultation and review. A version of this legislation was passed by
the House Committee on the Judiciary 36 to nothing. The House then
passed H.R. 2975 by a vote of 337 to 79. The House and Senate Judiciary
Committees and the bipartisan leadership began a process last week to
reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills. This bill
is the result of that process and was completed despite the closure of
House and Senate offices due to the anthrax attack on the Capitol.
The changes to the bill are few, but significant. First, the sunset
provision in the House bill was modified to sunset in 4 years.
Provisions of the original version expired in 5 years, and the Senate
did not have a sunset provision at all. Also, the Senate bill contained
revisions to the so-called McDade law. This compromise version does not
contain those changes, and I agreed to review this subject in a
different context.
This bill also contains comprehensive money laundering provisions
that will be discussed by my colleagues from the Committee on Financial
Services. The House bill did not contain such provisions, although the
House subsequently passed a separate bill.
Regarding the information-sharing provisions, the Senate bill
permitted law enforcement to share grand jury material with
intelligence agencies without notice to a court. The House bill
permitted such sharing only after prior authorization to the court.
This bill allows the sharing of grand jury material, but the Department
of Justice must give notice to the court after the disclosure.
The legislation also contains a provision found in neither the House
nor the Senate version, but directs the Department of Justice to file
an ex parte and in camera notice with the court when the Government
installs on an Internet Service Provider a device pursuant to a lawful
pen register or trap and trace order. This provision's author is the
esteemed majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
This legislation also contains a number of provisions, including
three authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and one by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), which were in the House Committee
on the Judiciary version of the bill, but not in the version passed on
the floor. This bill also contains a number of provisions that have
been worked out on both sides of the aisle in the other body.
Regarding the bill's immigration provisions, the compromise
legislation allows the Attorney General to delegate only to the Deputy
Attorney General the ability to certify an alien as a terrorist. The
House Committee on the Judiciary version of this bill contained this
provision, but the Senate-passed bill did not, but allows such
delegation to the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. In addition, the compromise requires the Attorney General to
revisit every 6 months the detention of an alien who has been certified
as an alien terrorist. The compromise also adds a provision authorizing
the appropriation of over $36 million to implement as quickly as
possible the foreign student tracking system that was created in 1996.
Finally, this legislation contains important humanitarian relief
originally contained in the House bill, but not the Senate version, for
the families of immigrants killed in the terrorist attacks of September
11.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not perfect, and the process is not
one that all will embrace. However, these are difficult times that
require steadfast leadership and an expeditious response. The
legislation is desperately needed, and the President has called on
Congress to pass it now. I urge all Members to support this important
antiterrorism legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to begin by pointing out that this is perhaps
one of the most important measures that we will determine from the
Committee on the Judiciary's point of view, because it is antiterrorist
legislation that expands the law in many directions; and from our point
of view, we have been trying to put safeguards around these expansions.
We have dropped the two worst provisions from the administration
proposal, the illegal use of foreign evidence and the pretrial
restraint provision. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), my chairman, who has worked night and day on this
matter; and I think that in the overall, we have had good cooperation.
The measure before us corrects unconstitutional immigration
provisions. We have corrected the immigration provision that allows
indefinite detention without evidence. We have modified or narrowed any
number of other controversial provisions, more than a couple dozen. We
have added a 4-year sunset provision for most of the surveillance
operations. We have added a
[[Page H7197]]
new Inspector General for Civil Liberties and Civil Rights inside the
Department of Justice. We have new Federal tort relief for improper
government release of wiretap information. We have added new resources
to ease the delays in patrolling and protecting the northern border,
and we have immigration relief for persons being sponsored by the
victims of those in the September 11 attack.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this point a section-
by-section analysis of the bill.
[Section-by-section analysis snipped. --DBM]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked
ceaselessly on this matter.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, I think it is appropriate to comment on the process by
which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported
and deliberated on in the Committee on the Judiciary. It came to us
late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the
bill to see what is in it since we have been out of our offices. The
report has just come to us. It would be helpful if we would wait for
some period of time so that we can at least review what we are voting
on, but I guess that is not going to stop us, so here we are.
First of all, this has limited to do with terrorism. This bill is
general search warrant and wiretap law. It is not just limited to
terrorism. Had it been limited to terrorism, this bill could have
passed 3 or 4 weeks ago without much discussion, but we are talking
about wiretapping law.
Now, the present law under wiretap provides that you cannot wiretap
until you have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Then you
can get a wiretap order from a judge. There is an exception for Federal
intelligence. It is a much lower standard, but you can only use the
wiretap information, what you gain, in foreign intelligence. So law
enforcement officials have no incentive to try to push the envelope
using the foreign intelligence idea as a pretext excuse for getting
wiretap orders, because if they find anything, under criminal law, they
cannot use it anyway.
This bill makes three significant changes. One, it reduces standards
for getting a foreign intelligence wiretap from one where it is a
primary, the reason you are getting it, to: it is a significant reason
for getting the wiretap.
[[Page H7201]]
Much less. Well, we wonder, if it is not the primary reason, why are
you getting the wiretap?
Second, it allows the roving wiretap, so once you find a target, if
he is using cell phones, for example, you can go and find him wherever
he is. Third, you can use the information in a criminal investigation.
The combination gives us the situation where there is very little
standard and one can essentially conduct a criminal investigation
without probable cause.
{time} 1930
If one has, for example, a target who is using cell phones and we get
the wiretap, if he uses a pay phone, we can listen to anybody using a
pay phone. If he is in a club or an organization, a business, one can
go and tap the phones there. If he is visiting the Democratic National
Headquarters, maybe one could tap all the phones there.
I had an amendment that was not accepted that would have required the
police, when they are listening in on these conversations, to stop
listening when the target is not using the phone. When the target
leaves the organization or leaves the building, stop listening.
This amendment was not accepted, so we have a situation where we now
have an incentive to plant these bugs all over the place, and one can
use that information.
If that bothers Members, if they mind the Federal Government
listening in on private conversations, if one thinks there is something
inherently wrong with the government listening in to innocent
conversations, and now remember, for foreign intelligence one does not
even need a crime to start the thing, it can be foreign intelligence, a
trade deal or anything else, and one is listening to everybody's
private conversations.
There are other problems with the bill. There are provisions that
allow detention under certain circumstances that may be indefinite.
We expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches,
so-called sneak and peak, where we do not tell people we even
investigated. One could start targeting domestic organizations,
designate domestic groups as terrorist groups, and one could start
getting the CIA into designating these groups as targets for criminal
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this bill that we have not
appropriately considered. That is why we need more time to think of it,
because it goes way past terrorism. This is the way we are going to be
conducting criminal investigations, and therefore, the bill ought to be
defeated under suspension of the rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, particularly the
provisions in title III which would represent the most comprehensive
anti-money laundering legislation which the House has considered in
more than a decade. The legislation gives the administration important
new tools with which to wage a global financial war on terrorism, and
to starve Osama bin Laden and others like him of the funding needed to
commit their acts of evil.
The bill that passed the House last week by a 412 to 1 vote has in my
view been improved in conference with the other body. The legislation
targets the specific channels used by terrorists to finance their
operations in this country and globally, including bulk cash smuggling,
international wire transfers to and from foreign banks, and using
informal black market banking systems, such as the ancient network
known as hawala.
The bill also establishes a framework for an unprecedented public-
private partnership that will have as its primary objective the
identification, reporting, and disruption of financial transactions
related to money laundering generally and terrorist activity
specifically.
Finally, the legislation gives the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with other government agencies, the power to impose
countermeasures aimed at combatting overseas money laundering threats,
particularly those emanating from so-called offshore secrecy havens.
It has often been said that an effective international regime for
thwarting money laundering and disrupting terrorist financing is only
as strong as its weakest link. As long as there are jurisdictions that
offer no-questions-asked banking and exert little or no regulatory
oversight of their financial services sectors, international efforts to
impede the flow of dirty money will never fully succeed.
With this legislation, we take a critical step toward smoking
terrorists and other criminal organizations out of the offshore
financial bunkers that for too long have offered them safe haven.
The money laundering portion of this legislation was introduced in
the House on October 3, marked up by the Committee on Financial
Services on October 11, and passed by the House on October 17.
Obviously, to move such complex and far-reaching legislation through
the process so quickly requires an extraordinary level of bipartisan
cooperation. In that regard, I want to pay special tribute to the
committee's ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce),
and commend him for his tireless work in committee and in our dealings
with the other body to get the strongest possible bill.
I also want to thank Chairman Sarbanes, my counterpart in the Senate,
and his staff, both for their good faith efforts to reconcile the House
and Senate bills in negotiation late last week, and for their
hospitality in hosting the House delegation in Senator Sarbanes'
hideaway in the Capitol at a time when most of the Capitol complex was
closed. While both the House and Senate were shut out of our office
buildings, both bodies continued to work under less-than-ideal
circumstances to get this critical piece of legislation to the
President's desk this week.
I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on the Judiciary for their fine work
on the antiterrorism legislation.
Finally, let me also thank the administration for working closely
with the committee to ensure that the new legal authorities that the
executive branch will receive under this legislation are carefully
tailored to meet the nature of the threat that our Nation now
confronts.
The bill that Members will have an opportunity to vote on later
tomorrow is balanced, comprehensive, and bipartisan. It sends the
strongest signal we can send to the terrorists and to those countries
that offer them aid and comfort that the war against terrorism will be
fought in the financial theater as aggressively as the war now being
waged by our brave men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LaFalce. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the war against terrorism will not be won
unless we cut off al-Qaeda and all terrorist groups from the funds that
sustain their attacks against civilized humanity. We can do that.
Title III of the PATRIOT Act provides the United States absolutely
essential weapons in our fight to disrupt terrorist funding. Title III
provides a comprehensive set of tough new anti-money laundering laws
and strengthens existing anti-money laundering laws.
The bill incorporates the legislation that I introduced in the last
Congress and early in this Congress giving the Secretary of the
Treasury increased authority to block transfers of funds into the
United States financial system from foreign banking systems that are
easily exploited by terrorists and criminal organizations because those
foreign jurisdictions have weak or nonexistent anti-money laundering
regimes.
We have evidence indicating that bin Laden took advantage of weak
regulatory systems overseas to funnel money through U.S. banks to his
associates in the United States, money that was used to finance the
September 11 attacks. We cannot allow the world's bank secrecy havens
to become the
[[Page H7202]]
port of entry into the United States banking system for terrorist
funds.
But, so long as some foreign banks are allowed to hide the identity
of terrorists and narco lords, the legitimate global banking system
will be vulnerable to exploitation by these groups. Our legislation,
incorporated now in the PATRIOT Act, increases the power of the
government to track terrorist and criminal money kept in offshore
secrecy havens.
We cannot succeed alone. All nations must have strong antiterrorist
and anti-money laundering laws. The provisions of our bill give the
United States new tools and leverage in our efforts to raise global
anti-money laundering standards.
The PATRIOT Act also takes aim at hawalas, the underground banking
system that is used by international terrorists like al-Qaeda. Informal
global money transmitting systems allow terrorists to send money around
the world with little or no paper trail. Our PATRIOT Act reins in the
operation of hawalas by requiring hawalas to register with our
government or face criminal prosecution. Hence, we make unlicensed
hawalas de facto illegal and de facto criminal.
The bill also stiffens the penalty for smuggling cash in and out of
the United States, which is something that a hawala operator will
ultimately engage in at some point.
Mr. Speaker, bin Laden has bragged that he knows how to exploit the
gaps in the Western financial system. The PATRIOT Act is strong
legislation that will enable us to close those gaps and enhance our
fight against terrorists and criminals. It deserves everyone's support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is a member of both the Committee on the
Judiciary and Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, we learned something 6 weeks ago. It was a very painful
lesson. We learned that legislation was needed to provide law
enforcement and intelligence additional tools that they needed to
address the threat of terrorism and terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, we may not have understood and appreciated the word
``terrorism'' and what terrorists were before September 11, but we
certainly do today. We know who they are, we know what they are capable
of. We may not have appreciated the need for this legislation before
September 11, but surely today we appreciate the need for this
legislation and the urgency of such legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we may not have thought too much about giving law
enforcement stronger tools for combatting international terrorism
before September 11, but today we think a lot about that. We realize
that that needs to be done. We did not investigate terrorists and
identify them on a real-time basis before September 11. We sometimes
overlooked the urgency. We know that urgency today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we now know that we need to cooperate not only
between agencies, law enforcement agencies, but between countries and
between the private sector and government to track terrorists, to track
their assets, to monitor their activities. If we did not realize that
before September 11, surely we know now the price we pay when they
exploit our vulnerabilities. They exploited our vulnerabilities, our
free society, and the losses were great. It is time to close those
vulnerabilities.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I think Americans know very well that character is
judged not so much on how a man or woman acts in the good times, but
how we act in the face of adversity. This country certainly has faced
adversity over these last couple of weeks, and I am proud of what
America has stood for.
That is why I rise today with caution and concern regarding the new
proposed Uniting and Strengthening America, the U.S.A. Act, not because
I do not believe there should not be additional tools to help us fight
against the horrific acts of terrorism, but because I believe in the
face of adversity America should lift up its virtues of equality,
justice, freedom, and the Bill of Rights.
I am certainly glad to realize that some of the work of the Committee
on the Judiciary, which I supported and which we voted out early on a
legislative initiative that was voted 36 to 0, that in this new
initiative we can see some of that work.
I do believe that in making our country safe against terrorism, that
we do not necessarily need to do away with due process, and that we
should not target innocent people unfairly because of their race,
color, sexual orientation, creed, gender, or religion.
I support some of the provisions in this legislation and I hope to
consider them overnight, because unfortunately, the process that
brought this bill to the floor disturbs me.
I offered an amendment that would allow detention cases to be brought
in local courts, rather than just the District of Columbia. I am very
gratified to know that it is in this bill. It means that people who
have and need resources of their lawyers and need to have family
members and witnesses do not have to travel to the District of
Columbia.
I am relieved that there is an immigration relief for persons being
sponsored by victims who died on September 11, so those who were being
sponsored, if their sponsor died, they can still access legalization.
The bill also clarifies that the AG's new detention authority is
limited to cases of terrorism, and detention cases must be reviewed
every 6 months. That is a positive side.
It is also good to know that the sunset provision has now been
established not as an extended, unending 5-year period with the
authority resting in the administration, but it is cut off at 4 years,
so America knows that we are using these tools to help us fight
terrorists but not fight Americans.
But I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned that the legislation
still permits the Attorney General indefinitely to incarcerate or
detain noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny readmission to
the United States of such noncitizens.
I am also concerned that the AG and the Secretary of State has the
power to incarcerate members of domestic organizations as terrorists.
One might simply be paying dues and be declared part of a terrorist
organization.
It allows widespread investigation of Americans just on the basis of
intelligence purposes. It allows searches of highly personal financial
records. It allows student records to be searched.
I would say this, Mr. Speaker: Let us show America's character and
bring forth a bill that all of us will find a good balance on. We will
review this bill, but I hope we will find an opportunity to vote on a
good bill and provide the leadership that we need to lead.
{time} 1945
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the vice chair of the committee.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) for yielding the time. I rise in strong support of this
legislation today.
Many of us in this Chamber have worked for a number of years to
provide the law enforcement tools that we need to fight the drug trade,
money launderers, and terrorists; and in the wake of September 11, the
terrorist attacks, this has never been more important. And indeed, we
may soon learn that the anthrax attacks are financed by the same money
sources. We do not know that yet.
The point is that, as has already been outlined, particularly by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), I want to commend him for
stating some of the specifics of this legislation. He has been a
leader, and we have
[[Page H7203]]
worked together on this, and whether we are talking about the bill
prohibiting correspondent banking privileges for offshore shell banks
and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to take special measures
if a foreign country or bank is deemed to present a money laundering
threat, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) went into great
detail on that, and I want to associate myself with his remarks.
The bill is not perfect. I am sorry that, for example, we excluded
making it a crime to smuggle over $10,000 interstate. We included it
for overseas, but it was not included for interstate. Nevertheless,
this is an excellent bill.
I would like to say to some of the nay sayers that complain about the
provisions, as to whether or not they deny due process or whatever, the
question has been asked are we endangering the rights and privacy of
innocent Americans. The answer is no, but it does give our law
enforcement officials the requirements that they need for their careful
investigation. It gives our regulators and law enforcement officials
what they need to get the job done.
May I say that in this brave new world of terrorists, we must cripple
this demonic network. Let me just have a couple of additional seconds
to say that unless we have this strong provision in the bill, it would
make a mockery of the legislation; and it is an absolutely essential
core of anti-terrorist legislation.
Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to discuss the anti-money laundering
provisions.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both committees, who has sat
through both markups, I get to make two different sets of remarks, and
I will have comments about the procedures later. But I want to
congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), as well as Members of the other body,
for their persistence in bringing this bill before us.
We have talked a lot about the changes in perception people have
undergone since the terrible mass murders of September 11. This is one
of the most profound. This needs to crack down on those Nations which
allow their banking systems to be used as cover for a variety of
illegal activities, whether it is drugs or tax evasion or terrorism.
That was long overdue, and it was opposed by the administration and
some others. And I welcome the recognition now that cracking down on
this misuse of money is very important.
There was a great disconnect between people denouncing the terrorism
and not wanting to end its financing, and I must say I was struck and I
am pleased that the administration has come around now to be supportive
of the bill. When the Secretary of the Treasury testified and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), who was a main sponsor and
author of this bill, asked if he was for money laundering a couple of
weeks after the terrorism, he said only if it gets added some good due
process provisions.
My initial reaction was to hope he would run into the Attorney
General that day and tell him about the value of due process
provisions, because we had a period there where it seemed to me that
the administration thought that due process existed for bank accounts
but not necessarily for people. What we are getting is a kind of
convergence, and I think that is very important.
This is why I wanted to stress this bill in particular, this money
laundering section, which is so important that has been so sought by
law enforcement officials at all levels. I was with the district
attorney of New York County yesterday, Mr. Moore, who said, again, that
is all on this subject, it has to be enforced well.
This is not self-executing, and the bill will become law and the
Secretary of the Treasury and his aides will have a great weapon that
can be used. It should be used sensitively and sensibly, but it can and
must be used. And I hope that the initial reluctance to get this passed
will not get in the way of its effective enforcement.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation
and want to congratulate the leadership of both the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Financial Services for bringing this
forward. I support the provisions that have come from both committees.
I think they have done a fine job.
Obviously, everyone has said it, September 11 changed our lives. And
in past wars when we have talked about men and women in uniform, we
have talked about men and women who are in the military; and today, we
have to refer to men and women in uniform right here in the United
States who are in law enforcement, who are in the midst of this war.
That is why I believe that the steps taken in this legislation will
go a long way towards empowering them to deal with the very tragic
situation that we face. We all know one of the provisions, I think,
that is very, very important to note is that the technological changes
that we have observed over the past couple of decades have clearly
provided an impetus for the changes that are being made in this
measure. And in the past, our own surveillance structure has been used
against us whereby people could continue to move with the new
technology, with cellular telephones, et al, and they could not be
traced.
Under this bill, an individual will be able to be targeted; and
regardless of what mode of communication will be utilized by this
individual, the ability to follow them will be there. It is important
to note that the content of conversations will not be taken, but in
fact, the numbers will.
I think this is a very, very helpful and positive step forward. I
also happen to be a proponent of the sunset provisions. I am concerned
about civil liberties for everyone, and I believe that it is important
to note that some of these provisions may, may be unnecessary at
another time in our Nation's history. So I believe that the agreement
for the 4-year sunset provision is an appropriate one, and I
congratulate my colleagues for coming to this compromise on it.
I believe that this measure should, as is evidenced here, enjoy
strong bipartisan support; and I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes and 40
seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, having had a chance to review the bill
before us, I find that I must support the measure. I will say this is
not a perfect bill. It is not as thoughtful as the Committee on the
Judiciary product, although there is much that we did work on in the
bill; but it is better than what the House passed last week.
I have been an admirer of the committee chairman's insistence on
regular order in the House, and I think that had he been successful in
his quest for regular order on this bill, we would have an even better
product than we do.
I would also like to note, however, that there has been a lot of
loose language among people who oppose this bill. And people are
perfectly free to disagree with it, but it is important that we not be
incorrect about what is actually in the bill.
I actually heard someone say that the bill would provide for
indefinite incarceration on a mere suspicion by the Attorney General.
That is simply not the case. The Attorney General may detain persons,
but he has to certify, and he has to have reasonable grounds to believe
that the individual is involved in terrorism, and that decision is
reviewable by a court. So that is real. To say it is mere suspicion and
indefinite is certainly not the case; and of course, there is a 7-day
limit where a court would take a look at the case.
There are a couple of other issues I wanted to raise. Section 403 and
405 do wonderful things in terms of upgrading technology and
integrating law enforcement information with the INS and with the
consular officers. However, I think it is important for us to
understand that the problem in this arena is not primarily a
legislative
[[Page H7204]]
one. It is a managerial one, and the immigration service has not been
successful in implementing the computer efforts that the Congress has
already directed them to do. So I am hopeful that the committee can
really assert ourselves in our oversight jurisdiction to make sure that
the agency actually performs these necessary tasks.
Section 814 reiterates a flawed approach to computer hacking; but it
is no worse, I think, than current law. And I would point out that the
burden of proof on deportation has been shifted in a way that conflicts
with the most recent Supreme Court case on that point. Thank goodness
we have a severability clause because that provision is likely
unconstitutional. These matters could have been corrected had we
engaged in regular order.
Nevertheless, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is fond of saying
let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; and I think that
is good advice.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report for the PATRIOT Act, in particular, title III of the Anti-Money
Laundering Act.
This legislation takes substantive steps to halt the transfer of
illegal funds which are used to perpetrate cowardly acts of terrorism
against Americans and support the illegal drug trade. We have a duty
and a responsibility to do all in our power to stop these illegal
activities. The legislation takes this fight to a new level by creating
new public-private partnerships that will enable government and
businesses to work together to stop these illicit funds.
In addition, the legislation will make progress to stop hawalas, an
ancient system of trading value from one place to another in an attempt
to avoid taxes, tariffs, and detection. The bill will combat hawalas by
ensuring that the law which requires money transfer businesses to be
licensed can be used to prosecute these illusive operations.
This legislation will also ensure that financial institutions of all
sizes implement programs to combat their vulnerabilities to those who
would seek to use them to transfer or launder illegal funds. The
Treasury is required to review the new law and publish rules to ensure
that the size, location, and activities of these businesses are taken
into account.
I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
I understand this legislation is intended to impart greater authority
and flexibility to the Secretary of the Treasury, particularly
regarding the due diligence provisions in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in
section 312(b) of the bill. Is this the understanding of the gentleman
from Ohio?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. Speaker, that is not the language we agreed upon that is in the
bill. The Secretary does not have discretion.
Mrs. KELLY. Reclaiming my time, the Congress has come together to
strengthen our financial laws to combat those who seek to harm our
Nation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
Act. Let us make America financially safe and strong.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think this was an attempt that we just witnessed to try to give
improper, incorrect legislative intent to the language that we did
craft. The language that we crafted said specifically that there is a
finding by an international organization, in which the United States
concurs, that if there is an inappropriate regulatory regime in a
country, then the Secretary must enforce heightened due diligence.
There is no discretion at that point. Those three provisions were
debated, an amendment was offered, it was defeated; and we ought not to
attempt to rewrite it now by legislative intent.
{time} 2000
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me
this time, because I participated in this and he is absolutely right.
There were two points at which there could have been this issue. As
originally presented, the bill did say that a decision by an
international organization that made that finding was binding on the
United States and due diligence resulted. The gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Baker) offered an amendment to say no because he did not want the
American Government to be precluded by a decision with which it might
have disagreed.
We then worked out an amendment and the amendment split the
difference, and it said the decision would not be binding on the U.S.
unless the U.S. was a member of the organization that made it and
concurred in the decision. But as the gentleman from New York pointed
out, once the United States has concurred in the decision that a
particular country is that sort of a haven, then the due diligence is
automatic. In other words, the time to reject is when you say, okay,
they are not really that kind of a haven.
But the amendment clearly said and the debate clearly said that once
the United States concurs in the finding of the international
organization that this is a money laundering haven, then all of the due
diligence must be applied.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. KELLY. With all due respect to the ranking member, I believe
that he may be referring to a different part of the bill. The part I
was referring to was paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of section 312(b) of the
bill.
I think if the gentleman will refer to that, he will see that there
has been no change other than what we have agreed to.
Mr. LaFALCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, there would then be no
need for interpretation or additional legislative intent.
What I was concerned about is there were three specific provisions
that were attempted to be deleted by amendment, which we defeated. In
fact, the amendment was withdrawn. Subsequent to that, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) offered an amendment which would have given
discretion to the Secretary of the Treasury as to whether or not
heightened due diligence would be called for. We defeated that.
Heightened due diligence is called for automatically upon the finding.
So long as the gentlewoman is not dealing with those sections, fine.
But my fear was that the gentlewoman was dealing with those particular
sections that we had considerable debate about.
Mrs. KELLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I was dealing
with section 312, not section 311.
Mr. LaFALCE. The gentlewoman mentioned three specific points in
there, and I was concerned they were the three that had been attempted
to be deleted during committee debate.
Mrs. KELLY. As a member of the committee, I was there for those votes
and there for that discussion, and I believe that that was section 311,
not 312. I was referring in my discussion with the chairman of the
committee to section 312.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today to explain that I will be voting in favor of the
Patriot Act of 2001.
Previously, I was one of three Republicans to cast a ``no'' vote on
the bill, but I believe that the addition of the money laundering
provisions of this bill are a great addition to the bill and certainly
enhance the ability of law enforcement to do what they need to do.
Also, the provision of sunset for 4 years, which the Senate includes no
sunset, but the 4-year provision is a good provision.
[[Page H7205]]
I intend to vote for the bill and I appreciate the kind of provisions
that have been added to make this a much better bill. I thank the
chairman for the opportunity to express my support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who is on both committees, and I
understand the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) will yield the
balance of his time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much
time I have been yielded in total?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 3\3/4\ minutes, with the 30 seconds yielded by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, what is the time remaining for all sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has 10 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, before yielding, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt)
is recognized for 4\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking
member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to make
it clear, Members of the House, that I am very proud of the results
that have come out with reference to money laundering because we
dropped the administration proposal that would have eliminated due
process safeguards that would have prevented RICO liability for tobacco
companies, and I am very proud of that. My reservations that continue
as we end tonight's debate is on the bill and the issues that came out
of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
And I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank
both gentlemen for yielding me this time.
I voted for the Committee on the Judiciary's version of the anti-
terrorism bill. I voted against the bill that came to the floor because
it was a far cry from the Committee on the Judiciary's bill. I voted in
the Committee on Financial Services for the money laundering provisions
of the bill. And I feel like I am in a really, really difficult
position with these bills, now having been put together, because the
money laundering provisions which were reported out of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, I think, are worthwhile and needed
provisions and strike a good balance in terms of protecting the rights
of individuals in our country.
I would have thought that if any committee would have been
overstepping due process bounds, it might have been the Committee on
Financial Services, not the Committee on the Judiciary. So I find
myself in the same position that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) has expressed. Were the money laundering provisions a
freestanding bill, I would certainly support them. But I think the
Committee on the Judiciary part of this bill goes too far.
And let me be blunt. Some of us, who have a different history in
America, with delegation of authority to the Government and the abuse
of that authority, proceed a lot differently than others when we talk
about giving authority to the Government that can be abused. And I
think that is why we are having so much trouble in this debate. We
cannot just come in in the middle of a terrorism episode and forget all
of the history that has occurred in our country.
Some groups in our country have had their rights violated, trampled
on by the law enforcement authorities in this country; and so we do not
have the luxury of being able to just sit back and give more authority
than is warranted, the authority possibly to abuse due process through
law enforcement, even in the context of what we are going through now.
This is a very difficult time. I acknowledge that it is. But I think we
are giving the Government and law enforcement too much authority in
this bill.
We drew a very, very delicate, fine balance in the Committee on the
Judiciary. Unfortunately, we took several giant steps backwards when we
passed the House version of the bill; and now we have taken a couple of
steps forward, more toward the Judiciary bill. But I cannot justify
voting for this bill only because it is better than what the House
previously passed. It still does not measure up, and I encourage my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; is that
correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a legislative process at its best, the
Congress coming together, recognizing a very, very serious problem: the
fact that our law enforcement people, the Secretary of the Treasury,
currently do not have the powers and the tools necessary to deal with
this horrible threat known as terrorism, this new kind of war. The
Congress came together, both Republicans and Democrats from both sides
of the Capitol, to craft this legislation.
This is going to pass by an overwhelming margin. I think we all
understand that. Because the Members recognize, a, that the committees
have done their work, have made the compromises, have made the
necessary changes to get a piece of legislation that can pass, be sent
to the President, and can indeed solve this very, very difficult
problem. Nothing could be more important in our careers here in the
Congress, no matter how long we stay, than to protect the American
people and to make certain that the people who seek to terrorize us and
to kill our citizens are brought to justice, and, indeed, even more
importantly stop these individuals before they commit these heinous
acts.
So from my perspective, this is one of the proudest moments of my 20
years here in the Congress, to participate in this wonderful exercise
of democracy and positive legislation. For that, I think all of us
deserve a great deal of credit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and let me respond for a moment to the gentleman from North
Carolina. There is no one for whom I have such profound respect as I do
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and I listen carefully to
what he says, because what he says always rings true.
In this particular case, however, I do have a disagreement, because
we hear much about roving wiretaps, we hear much about expanded powers;
but I think it is absolutely essential to note that the expansion of
powers do not go to the criminal side of the bill that is before us. In
other words, the safeguards that are inculcated in our jurisprudence
through the fourth amendment of the Constitution are still there. All
those checks and balances are still there.
Clearly, there is an unease; and I share some of these concerns. I do
not think that there was any doubt in the aftermath of September 11
that it was clear that the administration was going to come to the
Congress to seek additional authorities to deal with the terrorist
attacks on our Nation. And while all of us were ready to and willing to
grant them, what was appropriate, many, including myself, also braced
for a frontal assault on civil liberties. In that regard, even the
administration proposal was most notable, in my opinion, for what it
did not contain: no new death penalty provisions, no new mandatory
sentences.
On the other hand, the proposal did contain a number of profoundly
disturbing features, including provisions that would have authorized
the indefinite detention of nonresident aliens,
[[Page H7206]]
the use in evidence in a criminal prosecution of information illegally
obtained by foreign intelligence services operating abroad in criminal
prosecutions in the United States, and the use of wiretap authority
under the so-called FISA Act, even when the real purpose of the wiretap
had little or nothing to do with intelligence gathering.
Now, we all know what happened here on the floor of the House when
the committee bill came before the body.
{time} 2015
Much was accomplished in that committee. It has been mentioned time
and time again that it was a unanimous vote, and both the chairman and
the staffs on both side and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
really do deserve our gratitude.
However, in the aftermath of what happened here, many of us could not
support the bill. I was one of those who voted against it. But the good
news is that there were subsequent negotiations with the Senate, and it
has resulted in a better bill. Among other things, and it has been
mentioned again and again, that there is a sunset provision.
The sunset provision obviously will give us a second look and correct
the problems that we hope will not arise, but many of us fear. At this
point in time I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) because he participated in those negotiations and really did
improve the bill that left the floor of this House.
Having said that, I still harbor reservations about some aspects of
the bill. For example, it allows disclosure of secret grand jury
information to intelligence and national security officials without a
court order. This is a serious departure from our criminal
jurisprudence, and I cannot understand why it is included because
securing a court order is a simple procedure. It would not hinder an
investigation. However, notwithstanding such reservations, I have to
acknowledge we have come a long way and I will support the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I supported the bipartisan bill
that came out of the Committee on the Judiciary; and sadly, that is not
before us today and it is not the bill that we would have been able to
support and that I could have supported with enthusiasm.
The bill that passed the House was improved upon by the conference.
Court supervision was added to the grand jury provisions. Money
laundering provisions are now in the bill; and as we know, the first
shot that was fired by this administration was one using the freezing
of assets and monetary measures. Probably the saving grace here is that
the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues
again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I am going to vote on this
bill yet because I have a notion that a bill of this weight, I ought to
read it.
What I want to talk about now is my deep disappointment in the
procedure. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the committee, has fought hard for a fair chance for the
Members to look at things; but on the whole, his efforts have not been
honored.
We now, for the second time, are debating on the floor a bill of very
profound significance for the constitutional structure and security of
our country. In neither case has any Member been allowed to offer a
single amendment. At no point in the debate in this very profound set
of issues have we had a procedure whereby the most democratic
institution in our government, the House of Representatives, engages in
democracy.
Who decided that to defend democracy we had to degrade it? Who
decided that the very openness and participation and debate and
weighing of issues, who decided that was a defect at a time of crisis?
This is a chance for us to show the world that democracy is a source of
strength; that with our military strength and our determination and our
unity of purpose goes a continued respect for the profound way in which
a democracy functions.
This bill, ironically, which has been given all of these high-flying
acronyms, it is the PATRIOT bill, it is the U.S.A. bill, it is the
stand up and sing the Star Spangled Banner bill, has been debated in
the most undemocratic way possible, and it is not worthy of this
institution.
There is no reason why we could not have had this open to amendment
tonight. This bill should not be debated now. Was it really necessary
to debate one of the most profound pieces of legislation and its impact
on our society that we have had, was it really necessary to debate it
at night after all of the Members who have been working all day were
told to go home? Why could this not have been a full-fledged debate
with some amendments? I think because leadership of the House thought
Members might have voted for a 3-year sunset. They might have voted not
to have the burden of proof be on someone to prove his innocence in a
criminal trial.
Mr. Speaker, the House has not been well served by a procedure which
degrades democracy in the name of defending it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, no one has appreciated the attempts at fairness more
than the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The members
of the Committee on the Judiciary had a free and open debate; and we
came to a bill that even though imperfect, was unanimously agreed on.
That was removed from us, and we are now debating at this hour of
night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote
on available to Members on this side of the aisle. I am hoping on the
other side of the aisle they at least have two copies.
Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that process. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) first put his finger on it in the
debate in which 79 Members were not able to go along with the bill, is
that a legislative body that does not debate is being railroaded
whether they know it or not, whether they want to accede to it or not.
Although I like the money laundering provisions in the bill, I detest
the work product that bears the name of my committee on it that has now
been joined with this bill. For those reasons as we close this debate,
my inclination is not to support the bill. I hate to say that to
Members because a number have asked me what I was going to do, and I
have said up to now I was not sure.
Mr. Speaker, why should I put my name down in history for all time
that I went for this ridiculous procedure which has been outlined? I do
not feel inclined to support it tonight or tomorrow morning either.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the latest step in a long process to attempt to
pass a bill and send to the President a bill that is vitally needed. It
is vitally needed by our law enforcement officials who are fighting the
battle at home. We do not know how this battle will be fought. We do
not know what tactics the enemy will take. We do not know what agents
the enemy will use.
What we need is we need to get the intelligence necessary to protect
the people of the United States of America from whatever the enemy has
up its sleeve.
The Committee on the Judiciary did marvelous work. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was a joy to work with, as were all of the other
members of the committee when we reported the bill out 36 to nothing.
The other body did not have committee consideration. They took their
bill directly to the floor and passed it 96 to one.
What we have before us here today is the result of a preconference
that had bipartisan and bicameral participation. Wednesday of last week
there was a meeting presided over by our distinguish Speaker, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). In attendance were the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the
gentleman from
[[Page H7207]]
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) representing the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), myself on the House side, and Senators Daschle, Lott,
Leahy, and Hatch representing the Senate leadership and the chairman
and ranking minority membership of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The issues and disagreement between the House and the Senate were
thrashed out thoroughly. I can tell the membership tonight that the
bill that is before us tonight is better than the bill which was passed
on October 12 by a vote of 337 to 79. We were able to get a shorter
sunset. We were able to include money laundering provisions which were
not in our bill because of jurisdictional problems, but which were in
the bill passed by the other body and language was passed by us last
week as a result of the efforts of the chairman and ranking member of
the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. I do not think we can get a
perfect bill given the conflicting issues that are before us; but none
of the changes are new in the legislation that is before us compared to
either the Committee on Financial Services bill of last week and the
Committee on the Judiciary bill of October 12. There is no surprise in
any of these issues. This is a bill that is vitally needed. The
President has called for it. The Attorney General has called for it,
and we should not delay in passing it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Wisconsin in any
position to assure Members of the House that there will be a conference
on this measure?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that because this
is the result of a preconference, the body would pass this bill
unamended and send it to the Senate. The issues that would have been
debated in the conference were debated in the preconference with the
participants that I just mentioned. There was compromise that took
place between what the Senate passed and what the House passed.
I think that this bill again is better than the bill that we passed
on October 12, and I believe that it is deserving of the support of all
Members of the House of Representatives.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
we had a preconference before we had a bill and before there was a
conference; and now we are not going to have a conference.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the
urgency of getting this job done is very, very great. If there were
issues that were not discussed between this body and the other body, I
think the gentleman's representation would be correct. But all of these
issues were discussed.
I think a conference would merely delay passing powers that law
enforcement vitally needs. We have done a good job in balancing the
need for stronger law enforcement powers and civil liberties. I would
urge support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3162.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed until tomorrow.
____________________