Congressional Record: April 20, 2004 (Senate)
Page S4147-S4150
Patriot Act
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the PATRIOT Act, a
subject which has been much misunderstood. I think some of the
misunderstanding has been perhaps just from lack of information or has
been misinformation that has been spun in an effort to confuse people
and perhaps even to scare people about what is in this important
legislation. Indeed, we are all committed to making sure not only that
our Nation is secure, and I believe the PATRIOT Act has contributed
tremendously to improving the security of the United States of America,
but at the same time we have a fundamental commitment in this country
to civil liberties. I believe, and I think the American people believe,
the Founders of this country believed firmly that we can have both our
national security and our civil liberties. Particularly, in a time of
war such as we are in now, while there will be some tension, we need
not sacrifice our civil liberties.
Nevertheless, there are those who would play politics with this issue
in an effort to score political points, or I think others who perhaps
for more benign reasons might just be not very well informed and kind
of go along, not really knowing the truth. So I want to talk just a few
minutes about the PATRIOT Act and what it has done.
Of course the PATRIOT Act has passed overwhelmingly, just a short
time after the terrible events of September 11. Indeed, the purpose of
the PATRIOT Act was to give law enforcement the tools and our
counterterrorism experts and agents the tools they needed in order to
prevent future 9/11s.
Indeed, the evidence is clear that the PATRIOT Act has served that
important purpose. The Department of Justice has broken up four
terrorist cells in the United States since September 11, in Buffalo,
Portland, Detroit, and Seattle. It has filed criminal charges related
to terrorism against more than 300 individuals. So far it has secured
176 convictions or guilty pleas. Perhaps the best evidence of the
success of the PATRIOT Act has been the fact that, thank goodness,
America has not suffered another horrific event like 9/11 since that
terrible day some 2\1/2\ years ago.
I might add we have also been successful in freezing some of the
funding that has been essential to financing terrorism around the
world. In fact, the PATRIOT Act has allowed us to freeze more than $200
million in funds from organizations that have been sponsoring and
funding international terrorism.
Particularly, last week, I guess it was, when we heard the testimony
of the former FBI Director Louis Freeh, the former Attorney General
Janet Reno, and the current Attorney General John Ashcroft, the
American people became introduced more or less the same way that law
students are to fundamental principles of law enforcement and due
process. Even more than that, the American people were introduced to
something that was referred to as ``the wall.''
The wall was the subject of a 1995 memo by Jamie Gorelick, then
Deputy Attorney General, now on the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, as she has
pointed out, the wall between our antiterrorism and intelligence-
gathering efforts and our law enforcement efforts has been
longstanding. But it is not a matter that is constitutionally required;
it is something the American Government had done to itself. It is a
limitation that Congress had placed on information sharing between law
enforcement officials. Some only investigate crimes after they have
occurred, trying to root out the guilty and then to convict the guilty
of the crimes they have committed. The wall is between those law
enforcement officials and those intelligence agencies, counterterrorism
officials whose job it is to prevent a terrorist attack from even
occurring and to preempt that terrible event from occurring. So it was
through the PATRIOT Act that we saw this wall come down that has been
so important to information sharing.
Indeed, this is not a partisan issue. Attorney General Janet Reno
said just a few short days ago, on April 13, with respect to the
problems of information sharing within the FBI and other Federal
officials, that:
[[Page S4148]]
Many of these issues will be or have been resolved by the
passage of the PATRIOT Act or other statements.
Indeed, to my recollection, that is not the same words but
essentially the same testimony that was presented by former FBI
Director Louis Freeh. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who served
during the previous administration, in talking about this wall that had
been brought down as a result of the PATRIOT Act said:
. . . the wall is not an appropriate one with respect to
counterterrorism, and that's been repaired both by the
PATRIOT Act and the court of review.
I believe the court of review he is referring to is the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which creates a court of seven Federal
judges who review requests for various intelligence mechanisms that try
to make sure or, in fact, do make sure as much as is humanly possible
that the rights of people who are accused of crimes are not unfairly
jeopardized in this process.
The point is that the wall that had been erected separating our law
enforcement personnel and preventing them from sharing information with
our counterterrorism officials has now been torn down and we now allow
information sharing which, indeed, has made America safer.
The PATRIOT Act specifically makes it easier to track terrorists in
the digital age. When journalist Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street
Journal was kidnapped in Pakistan, the terrorists made the mistake, as
it turned out, of sending the ransom demands by e-mail. The PATRIOT
Act, having brought our laws into the information age, allowed
investigators to quickly obtain essential information from the Internet
service provider that the terrorists were using. This in turn led them
to cybercafes in Pakistan and then to some of Daniel Pearl's killers,
who are now in prison thanks to the expanded tools provided by the
PATRIOT Act.
Some have worried aloud that we are jeopardizing our civil liberties
by creating a law which allows expanded authority to law enforcement
and counterterrorism authorities. But what many people don't
understand, or don't know--there is no reason they should know other
than the fact that they have now learned more about it--is the PATRIOT
Act actually applies tools that have already been in use in other
contexts. For example, before September 11, investigators had better
tools to fight organized crime than they did to fight terrorism. For
example, for years law enforcement officials used roving wiretaps to
investigate organized crime. I think it was Senator Joe Biden who said
if roving wiretaps are good enough for the mob, then they are good
enough for terrorists. He, of course, advocated, as many on this floor
did, for that. Here is a copy of his remarks. I paraphrased it. Let's
go to the exact quote. He said:
. . . the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia,
but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put
it bluntly, that was crazy. What's good for the Mob should be
good for terrorists.
Those are statements with which I agreed, made by Senator Joe Biden
on October 25, 2001, which I submit were true then and remain true
today.
I already mentioned that aspect of the PATRIOT Act which has made it
easier for us to cut off the financial support that has been used to
support terrorist acts. Osama bin Laden, when he first left Saudi
Arabia and went to Afghanistan as part of the anti-Communist Jihad,
after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, he and other Jihadists declared
holy war against the Soviets at the time. The way he got started in his
terrorist activities was financially supporting the acts of other
Jihadists, other Muslim extremists. At that time, he directed their
fire at the Soviet Union until, of course, the Soviet Union left
Afghanistan. Then they turned their fire on America and other freedom-
loving countries.
My point is, getting at the financial support for terror was very
important. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act has made it much easier to get to
that and was responsible for capturing some $200 million in terrorist
financing, which has been very important.
One of the things that has concerned me, and no doubt others, about
the PATRIOT Act has been the way people have used the PATRIOT Act as
almost a dirty word. It has been used to scare people. It has been used
to mislead people about what the act does. It is important to
understand what the act does and what it does not do.
It has also been used to raise money. This is part of the scare
campaign the American people deserve to know about and we as Members of
this body need to remind ourselves of and make ourselves aware of. I
happened to get a solicitation from the American Civil Liberties Union
at my home. This is an excerpt. It caught my eye because I thought, now
I understand why there are so many people who are misled and frightened
by the PATRIOT Act because there are organizations such as the ACLU
that are misleading people about what it does. They are using that fear
to raise money. We know one of the strongest motivations there is for
human beings is to scare them. Indeed, that is exactly what is
happening by misleading the American people about what the PATRIOT Act
does, by organizations such as the ACLU.
This solicitation letter I received at my residence said in part:
We need your immediate help to stop radical anti-liberty
proposals from becoming radical anti-liberty laws of the land
with Congress' and the White House' seal of approval.
Indeed, that sort of statement is not alone. We have another chart
that talks specifically about the PATRIOT Act, and another excerpt from
the same solicitation by the ACLU:
The USA PATRIOT Act expands terrorism laws to include
``domestic terrorism'' which could subject political
organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and
criminal action for political advocacy.
If that were true, I would be standing and saying we need to look at
this twice. We need to do something about it. We need to look further
to see whether perhaps we have done something wrong or it needs
correction or review.
I was at a hearing of a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and Senator Feinstein put her finger on this and pointed out
the kind of hysterical scare tactics the ACLU and others have used in
mischaracterizing what the PATRIOT Act does are flatly unfounded. I was
there at this hearing, but I had the statement made into a chart so the
quote is clear. Senator Feinstein, to her credit, is always a Senator
who does her homework. She does her homework in every case, sometimes
to my aggravation when she is on the other side of an issue, but
sometimes I am glad she does. This is a case where I am glad she did
her homework as she always does.
I have never had a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act reported
to me.
She was not just sitting passively back waiting for people to write
or call as they do to our offices to complain or to register some
concern about legislation or some Federal activity.
She went on to say:
My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of
actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none.
It is very disturbing that the same organization that mails
solicitations to houses of not just Members of Congress but to people
all across America, trying to frighten them, mislead them, and scare
them into believing Congress has acted without concern for civil
liberties or perhaps some law we passed has been abused by Attorney
General John Ashcroft and others, when, in fact, it is just not true.
Everyone should be concerned about that. It ought to be exposed for
what it is.
Notwithstanding the comments of people like Senator Biden, who
supports the PATRIOT Act, Senator Feinstein, who has done this
investigation to find out whether, in fact, there has been abuse--and
there has been none reported, even when asked for examples to support
their scare tactics--there are some now who say it is time to eliminate
the PATRIOT Act or to replace it, using other similar scare tactics.
I might point out this is not limited to the Congress. I had my staff
refresh my recollection because I had remembered--indeed, the Presiding
Officer may remember, too--there are press reports about city councils
around the United States that passed resolutions condemning the PATRIOT
Act based on the disinformation and scare tactics the ACLU and others
have used to mislead them about whether there was, indeed, a threat to
the civil liberties of their constituents. In fact, 287 local
governments across the United States
[[Page S4149]]
of America have passed such resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act. I
am sad to say, three of those were in Texas: If my recollection is
correct, the Dallas City Council, Austin City Council, and one from a
smaller municipality.
So we know at least there is some evidence that the kind of scare
tactics and misinformation people have been spreading, people at the
ACLU have been spreading, is, unfortunately, working, because not
enough people like me and others in this body are standing up and
correcting the record and providing the truth.
Unfortunately--it is not unfortunate; it is our system. We have
elections for President every 4 years. We have elections for the House
every 2 years and every 6 years for the Senate, but it should not be
too surprising some of this disinformation and misinformation and scare
tactics have gotten into the Presidential campaign.
Indeed, I listened with some concern during the race for the
Democratic nomination for President where various candidates for that
Democratic nomination for President continued along this line of
disinformation, misinformation, and scare tactics specifically
regarding the PATRIOT Act. The current nominee for President of the
Democratic Party participated in that, what I call ``piling on.'' He
said in a speech at Iowa State University:
So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.
Unfortunately, this is an instance, I will interject in the quote, in
which Attorney General Ashcroft has been reviled, he has been called
all sorts of names, held up as a boogeyman in part of the scare tactic
for doing his job, for enforcing the laws Congress has passed and the
President has signed. If the Attorney General of the United States of
America will not enforce the laws Congress passes and the President
signs in order to make America more secure, who will? Thank goodness,
we have a courageous individual who is willing to stand up against
unwarranted criticism and this sort of misinformation or disinformation
campaign and enforce the law Congress passes because he believes, as
Congress believed when it passed the law, as the President believed
when he signed the law, the PATRIOT Act makes America more secure.
Going back to the quote by Senator Kerry at the Iowa State
University:
So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.
He goes on to say:
That starts with replacing the PATRIOT Act with a new law
that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.
He later had an interview on ``Morning Edition'' on National Public
Radio on August 18, 2003. He said:
If you are sensitive to and care about civil liberties, you
can make provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind
spot in the American justice system that there is today under
the Patriot Act.
Unfortunately, this disinformation campaign, which stands in stark
contrast to the lack of any evidence that Senator Feinstein found in
her investigation about abuses, continues now into the Presidential
campaign, now that the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has
been chosen.
Indeed, this is on Senator Kerry's Web site, John Kerry for President
Web site. He said:
John Ashcroft has used new authority under the Patriot Act
to perform ``sneak and peek'' searches without ever notifying
anyone and without any judicial oversight.
Well, besides this campaign of disinformation and misinformation and
scare tactics, I can assure you neither the Attorney General nor any
other United States attorney or Federal law enforcement official can
legally perform any kind of search without judicial oversight. That is
wrong. It is a false statement.
Even if we pulled this out of all the other contexts I have talked
about--the disinformation, the misinformation, and the scare tactics--
this is a flat misstatement. I hope Senator Kerry will correct that on
his Web site because no search under any kind of warrant can be
conducted without the approval of a judge or an impartial magistrate.
That is a basic part of our criminal law. But, here again, I am worried
that unless people stand up and correct the record, this kind of
disinformation will continue.
But the worst part of it is this: Notwithstanding the kind of
statements I covered by Senator Kerry and others, these are some of the
same people who voted for the PATRIOT Act when it passed. Indeed, on
October 25, 2001, Senator Kerry said:
I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the
antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the
sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic
surveillance component.
Then later, more specifically to the subject at hand, this quote is
talking generically about the laws that changed included in the PATRIOT
Act and others. But he was interviewed on Fox News on October 25, 2001.
John Gibson of Fox News said:
Senator Kerry, today, Attorney General Ashcroft said that
terrorists have reason to be afraid, very afraid of this new
terror legislation. Why? What's in it that has so much
sharper teeth?
Senator Kerry said:
It streamlines the ability of law enforcement to do its
job. It modernizes our ability to fight crime.
Well, I agree with the comments of Senator Kerry in October of 2001
about the benefits of the PATRIOT Act. And I disagree with the comments
Senator Kerry--the same person--made when he decided to run for
President, and now that he is a Presidential nominee, where he is using
the misinformation, this disinformation, these scare tactics,
unfortunately, in contrast to the lack of evidence Senator Feinstein
was able to glean from even the ACLU about any evidence of abuses.
The fact is, the PATRIOT Act has made America a safer place. And no
political campaign, no fundraising goal justifies misleading the
American people about what is good about the PATRIOT Act and how it has
contributed to bringing down this wall separating law enforcement and
counterterrorism officials from sharing information. Indeed, as I said,
the best evidence about why the PATRIOT Act is good law, good public
policy, is the fact we have not been hit like we were on 9/11. Thank
God for that. I know, of course, we hope and pray we never will again
be hit in that way. But we are not going to be safer if we play
politics with our national security, even in a Presidential year when
the attraction is so irresistible, it appears, to some.
The PATRIOT Act has made America safer. Janet Reno, John Ashcroft,
Louis Freeh, people on both sides of the aisle, people who have put
their hand on a Bible and sworn to uphold the laws of the United States
of America, to protect the Constitution--these are people who have
testified under oath the PATRIOT Act has made America safer.
So I say, let's not play politics with this important law. Let's not
play politics and risk American lives by continuing the disinformation
and misinformation and the scare tactics to the point where we would go
back and eliminate or revise or neuter this important protection which
has made our country so much safer.
So, Mr. President, with that, I would like to turn to some additional
matters on behalf of the majority leader.
I see Senator Reid on the floor. At this time, on behalf of the
majority leader, I would ask----
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The assistant Democratic
leader.
Mr. REID. If the Senator would yield for a comment?
Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. The staffs are not quite ready to do the close yet. They
should be ready in a matter of a few minutes. So if the Senator would
allow us a few more minutes?
Mr. CORNYN. Under the circumstances, Mr. President, I ask----
Mr. REID. I will make a statement that will take a couple minutes.
Senator Daschle is going to make a statement. We can go ahead and do
the close, and he can speak after the close, but we are not quite ready
on this side to close. It will take another few minutes.
Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for me to make a very brief
statement?
Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Patriot Act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would agree with my friend, the former
attorney general of Texas, the PATRIOT
[[Page S4150]]
Act has made America a safer place. I think that is a fair statement.
But I would also say the PATRIOT Act is something we have to watch very
closely. We realized when we passed this legislation there may be
provisions in it that went too far, not far enough. As a result of
that, we have put a provision in this very important bill, the PATRIOT
Act, that it would sunset; that if we did not renew that legislation,
it would fail; therefore, next year we have to renew this act.
I am confident, based on what is going on around the country, in
spite of the statement from the American Civil Liberties Union--we can
look to Las Vegas, my home, on one criminal prosecution, what the
authorities did there. It is my understanding they used the PATRIOT
Act. A person bought a car with global positioning in it. The reason
they bought that, of course, is in case something went wrong you could
press a button and come and find out where the car is, or, if it was an
emergency, someone trying to hijack the car, emergency authorities
would be notified. The person never realized law enforcement
authorities could focus on that vehicle and listen to everything that
went on in that car. That is what they did.
I would have to think without getting a judge's order, without doing
some things in addition to what I have described, that was probably
going a little too far. The point being, the PATRIOT Act is something
we need to take a look at. That is why we have this legislation that
will sunset.
I hope the Judiciary Committee and other committees that believe they
have jurisdiction will begin as soon as possible taking a look at this
legislation to see if there are provisions that should be revised,
eliminated, added to. I don't think we need to criticize Senator Kerry
because he thinks we need to take a look at the PATRIOT Act. I believe
we do, and that is certainly appropriate. The Senate agreed. That is
why we included a sunset provision in this most important legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[...]
Congressional Record: April 20, 2004 (Senate)
Page S4165-S4166
PATRIOT ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to
address the pending issue of asbestos reform legislation. It is a very
serious and complicated issue. I look forward to speaking for a few
moments about what I consider to be the history of this issue and the
way we should respond to it.
Before doing so, I am compelled to address the previous speaker, my
colleague and friend from the State of Texas, Senator Cornyn, who,
within the last hour or so, spoke on this floor about the PATRIOT Act.
The reason why this is an issue of great importance to many of us is
that it is a law which all but one Senator voted for, and it is a law
which many of us, on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican,
believe has some serious weaknesses and flaws that need to be remedied.
In response, I have introduced a bill called the SAFE Act with
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho. Senator Craig and I are about as far
apart on the political spectrum as humanly possible. Yet we have come
together with the understanding that whether you are conservative or
progressive liberal--whatever your label may be--we all value our
constitutional rights in America.
Senator Craig and I looked closely at the PATRIOT Act and think that
there are three or four specific areas that need to be addressed.
However, President Bush wants to keep the PATRIOT Act as it is,
making it permanent law, and change some provisions to give the
Government even more power and further reduce judicial oversight. He
has chosen to make this one of the bedrocks of his campaign for
reelection. My friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and the President
have made an issue over differences that they have with Senator John
Kerry on this issue.
I call the attention of the President and his supporters to the fact
that the SAFE Act, which we brought to the floor, enjoys bipartisan
sponsorship. In fact, when we had the press conference announcing the
changes we proposed for the PATRIOT Act, we were joined by some of the
most liberal and the most conservative organizations in Washington.
Rarely do they come together. But on the issue of civil rights and
constitutional rights, we finally find common ground. Yet the President
sees it differently, and Senator Cornyn as well.
A little history is worth noting at this moment. We all remember
September 11, 2001, and what happened, the fear we had that another
attack might be imminent, and because of the belief that the Government
needed additional tools and weapons to fight terrorism, there was a
bipartisan effort between Congress and the White House to write a bill
giving our Government more authority and more power to deal with
terrorism, changes in the law which were long overdue to deal with
modern technology and the scope of the terrorist threat.
The bill was debated on a bipartisan basis and passed the Senate and
the House with overwhelming numbers of support. We understood as well
that September 11, 2001, was a unique moment in American history and
that our response was not only to the terrible tragedy of September 11
but also to many of the fears which were welling in the breasts of
every American family. Because of our concern that this fear and
emotion may have taken us too far in the PATRIOT Act, we put in an
insurance policy. We said, after a period of time, after a few years,
we are going to come back and look at many elements of this law. We are
not going to make it permanent forever. We will come back after a few
years and decide whether we went too far.
In the heat of the moment with the fear of September 11, did we give
the Government more power than was necessary to protect us? Did we
endanger or in any way lessen our constitutional protections more than
necessary? So this review provision, this sunset clause, was just
basically common sense.
The President has chosen this as one of his areas of attack, and his
argument yesterday was, why do we need to review this law? Is the
threat of terrorism gone now?
I think the President does not understand why this sunset provision
was put in the law. I am certain we will decide that the majority of
the elements of the PATRIOT Act are still necessary, but that does not
mean that every word in that act should be treated like the Ten
Commandments. We need to take that act and honestly ask whether it was
done in the heat of the moment, whether too much authority was given to
the Government, and whether we have infringed basic liberties and
rights which we are here to protect.
The President and Senator Cornyn seem to argue that it is the burden
of the citizens of America to come forward and explain why their rights
should not be taken away by the Government. I think they are both
totally wrong. It is the burden of the Government to announce and
rationalize why any individual rights of American citizens should ever
be taken away. These God-given rights, as we refer to them in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are basically ours by
virtue of our human existence. For any government to take them away,
there must be a compelling reason.
The PATRIOT Act gets to the issue of privacy and freedom versus
security and government control. We recognized in the PATRIOT Act the
need for the government to monitor the new powers carefully. The 4-year
sunset provision will force Congress and the administration to honestly
look at the PATRIOT Act and see if we have gone too far.
Some provisions expire at the end of 2005. None of them expire at the
end of this year. So there is no need to reconsider the PATRIOT Act
this year. This has a lot more to do with an election in November than
the act itself. If nothing is done by Congress, the Government will
continue to have all of its authority under the PATRIOT Act through
this year and into next year.
We wanted to keep the review of the PATRIOT Act out of election year
politics, and that is why the sunset was 2005. Sadly, the Bush
administration and their supporters in Congress want to put the PATRIOT
Act on the 50-yard line, right in the middle of this titanic gridiron
battle between the two political parties for the Presidency. That is
unfortunate. The issues of security for America--stopping terrorism--
should not be politicized this year. I hope they will not be, but sadly
that is what is happening.
Think of this for a moment: The President and the White House
threatened to veto the reform bill which Senator Craig and I have
introduced, the bipartisan SAFE Act, even before it was heard in
committee, even before there was an attempt to amend it, even before
there was a vote in either the Senate or the House. It is rare, if not
unprecedented, for the President and White House to threaten a veto on
a bill so soon after it has been introduced. It shows me that the
President is raising this bill to such a high profile in an effort to
make it a central part of a political campaign, rather than focusing on
protecting America.
During the course of his campaign, Senator Kerry said that in his
first 100 days as President he wants to end the era of John Ashcroft.
John Kerry has promised to strengthen terrorism laws that work,
strengthen money laundering laws to end funds for terrorists, improve
information gathering and protect the basic rights and liberties of all
of our citizens.
Senator Kerry and I support the SAFE Act, this bipartisan effort to
reform the PATRIOT Act. Here are several of the most important
provisions: It will protect innocent people from Government snooping by
eliminating John Doe roving wiretaps, which do not identify the person
or place being tapped. It requires warrants for roving wiretaps to
identify either the target
[[Page S4166]]
of the wiretap or the places to be tapped. So we say to the Government,
if they are going to intercept my conversations at unspecified
locations, they must say to the court that they are going after this
particular person. They cannot have a wiretap that might sweep up the
conversations of my family, my business, my church, whatever it happens
to be, without specifically saying to the court, this is the person
that we want to wiretap, or this is the phone, this is the place that
we want to wiretap. That specificity has always been part of the law.
To get away from John Doe roving wiretaps, which allow the Government
to just swoop in and collect information and then take a look at it to
see if there is anything there of concern, goes way beyond the
authority needed to protect America.
This SAFE Act will also impose limits on the Government's ability to
carry out what are called sneak-and-peek searches by requiring that
immediate notice of a search be given unless the notice would endanger
a person's life or physical safety, or result in flight from
prosecution or the destruction of evidence.
We have seen on television and in the movies and perhaps in real life
the knock on the door and someone has a warrant in their hand, issued
by a judge, which says, we have a warrant to search the premises and we
are coming in. This is very common. But when it comes to these sneak-
and-peek warrants, the search can be undertaken on anyone's premises
without immediate notification if that notice would jeopardize an
investigation or delay a trial. This could apply in almost every case.
We say that immediate notification has to be given of a search unless
there is a compelling reason not to--a person's life or physical safety
is in danger or there is a risk of flight from prosecution or evidence
being destroyed.
Third, it protects libraries and bookstores from Government fishing
expeditions, but still allows the FBI to follow up on legitimate leads.
This is an issue that really touched a lot of people. To think that
because I use the Springfield public library or the library in the City
of Chicago that somehow the books that I check out are going to be
examined by the FBI to see if I am a suspicious person even though
there is no specific reason to look at me goes way too far.
None of the changes we suggest will interfere with law enforcement
and intelligence officials preventing terrorism. We retain all of the
powers of the PATRIOT Act, but we restore safeguards that are
indispensable to democracy and civil liberties. These safeguards are a
continuing source of our country's strength. They are not luxuries or
inconveniences to be dumped in time of crisis.
I am afraid the administration wants just the opposite. The President
wants even broader powers than the PATRIOT Act now allows. Yesterday he
called for a new law to let Federal agents obtain private records and
conduct secret interrogations without the approval of a judge or even a
Federal prosecutor. This goes way beyond anything that we have ever
seen in terms of trying to make America safe. It really infringes on
our basic rights. We all agree that law enforcement needs the tools to
protect us, but President Bush cannot point to a single terrorism
investigation in which officials had any problem obtaining the court
orders they needed. Yet he is asking for expanded authority that would
undermine civil liberties and judicial review. Frankly, our current
laws are adequate to the task. We need to bring terrorism under control
but not at the expense of our basic rights as citizens.
____________________
