Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 08, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII-ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to make an application under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, book sales records, or book customer lists.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 ½ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I have a bipartisan amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
This amendment, which addresses section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, is supported by citizens across the ideological spectrum, from conservative to progressive. This amendment is a narrower version of H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act, a bill I introduced last year and which now has 145 bipartisan cosponsors.
To date, 181 national and regional library, publishing, civil liberty and privacy groups have endorsed this legislation, including the American Library Association, the American Book Sellers Association and the NIA. In fact, book sellers are way on their way to securing 1 million signatures on a petition drive on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, as the Members of this House are well aware, in October 2001, Congress hastily passed the USA Patriot Act. This Patriot Act significantly broadened the government's investigational powers. Unfortunately, given the speed with which the Congress passed the Patriot Act, it should come as little surprise that this new law has created consequences that many Members did not intend.
Every Member of this body was appalled by the terrorist attack of 9/11, and I know that we all are going to work together to do everything we can to protect the American people from future attacks, but I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of the Members of this body when I say that while we fight terrorism vigorously, we must do it in a way that does not undermine the basic constitutional rights of the American people, what makes us a free country.
[Time: 12:30]
That is what this amendment is all about.
Mr. Chairman, this concern about protecting constitutional rights while we fight terrorism is not an ideological issue. Again, on this point I agree with people who I often disagree with. Let me quote Republican majority leader, former leader Dick Armey, when he said, "Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order to deny the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?"
I agree with Dick Armey. I agree with Newt Gingrich, who also voiced concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act. But also what we have are four State legislatures, including my own State of Vermont, 332 municipalities all across the country, conservative, progressive, going on record in passing resolutions expressing their concerns about this or that aspect of the PATRIOT Act.
Now, one of the areas of the PATRIOT Act that has received the most attention is section 215 as it relates to the government's ability to gain access to the files of America's libraries and bookstores. Mr. Chairman, under 215, government agents can go into a secret FISA court and get an order requiring that a library or bookstore turn over records that would tell them what innocent Americans are reading. They do this by informing the judge that they are doing an investigation on international terrorism, and having said that, a judge in the FISA court is obliged to give them a warrant to go into a library or into a bookstore so that they can determine the books that innocent Americans are reading. They do not need to have probable cause or specific information on an individual who is alleged to be a terrorist.
Mr. Chairman, just so the Members of this House understand how broad this authority is, let me quote from an October 29, 2003, declassified memo from the FBI's general counsel to all field offices. The memo expressly states that a request under section 215 "is not limited to the records of the target of a full investigation. The request must simply be sought for a full investigation. Thus, if the records relating to one person are relevant to the full investigation of another person, those records can be obtained, despite the fact that there is no open investigation of the person to whom the subject of the records pertain."
To make matters even worse, Mr. Chairman, all the proceedings are secret, so the innocent persons whose records are sought will not even know that his or her records have been seized.
Mr. Chairman, there are opponents of this amendment who are suggesting that if we pass this, the FBI and law enforcement officials will be unable to go into libraries and bookstores to track terrorists and that exempting libraries would "create a terrorist safety zone." This is absolutely not the case, not the case. This amendment does not except libraries and book sellers from searches.
The FBI will still have many legal tools at its disposal as it always has, including search warrants and criminal grand jury subpoenas to attain library and bookstore records.
Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to show the American people, yes, we are going to fight terrorism vigorously; but we are going to do it while we protect the constitutional rights of our people. Conservatives, progressive, moderates agree, let us pass this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds before I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to tell my friends that it is not accurate that under this amendment that the FBI cannot go into libraries and book stores. They sure can. They can get subpoenas. They can go to the grand jury. They can do it in the conventional way. We have no objection to that. But they cannot have a carte blanche, no probable cause to check on the reading records of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, a hero of many.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. I am distressed by anybody in this body who suggests that any Member of this body is not going to do everything that he or she can to fight terrorism. We are all in that together. But in the process of fighting terrorism, it is imperative that this body maintain the basic constitutional rights which have made us a free country.
There is nothing in this amendment which prohibits the FBI or the government from going into libraries or bookstores as quickly as they can when they have to. This legislation that we are supporting is supported by conservatives, by moderates, by progressives, by people who are fighting hard, not only against terrorism, but fighting hard to maintain the basic freedoms which make our country the envy of the world and a free Nation. And in the fight against terrorism, we have got to keep our eyes on two prizes, the terrorists and the United States Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) will be postponed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
RECORDED VOTE
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 210, noes 210, answered "present" 1, not voting 13
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. SANDERS (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is allowed for a vote to be cast? My understanding is 17 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The minimum time for electroic voting on this question is 15 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Will the gentleman tell me how much time has expired on this vote at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. Longer than the minimum time.
Mr. SANDERS. My understanding is over 24 minutes have expired.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. NADLER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. NADLER. My parliamentary inquiry is twofold. How much time has elapsed on this vote, and how much time will be allowed on this vote beyond what the rules provide for? How much time has elapsed on this vote? The time has expired.
How much time has elapsed on this vote? Are we going to hold this vote open until enough arms are twisted?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would attempt to respond to the parliamentary inquiry. The minimum time for this electronic vote, as stated earlier, is 15 minutes. And, as always, if there are Members in the well attempting to vote, the vote will remain open.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. NADLER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. NADLER. I have two parliamentary inquiries. One you did not answer I asked before. How much time has elapsed on this vote so far? Not the minimum. How much time so far has elapsed?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat that the minimum requirement is 15 minutes. That has elapsed.
Mr. NADLER. That was not my question.
The CHAIRMAN. The time elapsed thus far is 29 minutes. As long as there are Members wishing to vote in the well, the vote will remain open.
Mr. NADLER. My second question, sir, is I do not see anyone in the well waiting to vote. Is there anyone in the well waiting to vote?
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in a previous response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated the vote would remain open as long as there were Members in the well wishing to vote. That case does not exist at this time, so when will the Chair be gaveling this vote down?
Mr. Chairman, apparently the basis for the Chair's response before is no longer true. Members are not in the well wishing to vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the rules state that the vote shall be open for a minimum of 15 minutes, and as long as there are Members in the well to vote, the vote will remain open.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how long has the vote been open?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is about to ask if any Member wishes to change his or her vote, so that changes may be reported.
[Time: 16:22]
Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. CUBIN, Messrs. GILCHREST, BEREUTER, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, BILIRAKIS, KINGSTON, SMITH of Michigan, BISHOP of Utah, WAMP, TANCREDO and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their vote from "aye" to "no."
Messrs. ACKERMAN, LANGEVIN, ALEXANDER, CRAMER, and SHERMAN changed their vote from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the 191 Democrats and 18 Republicans who voted for that important amendment, but I am not going to discuss the substance of that amendment, because that debate took place, and I respect the people on both sides of that debate.
But what I do not respect is that when we are having a debate about basic American democratic rights and what our Constitution is supposed to be, I resent bitterly, on behalf of the American people, that the Republican leadership rigged the game. That is wrong. At the end of nine innings of a baseball game, at the end of nine innings of a baseball game, the team that has the most runs wins. At the end of the 17 minutes tonight, our side won, and it was not even close.
Now, what kind of lesson, what kind of lesson are we showing the children of America when we tell them, get involved in the political process, that we are a free country, that we are fighting abroad for democracy, when we rig a vote on this floor? Shame, shame, shame.
END