Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 15, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment, and this is after I opposed it last year; but I learned two things since that vote that caused me to change my position.

First of all, as has been emphasized by the opponent of this amendment, section 215 has not yet been used by the Justice Department. We hear that if we eliminate this provision, it will somehow jeopardize our entire country and that we have been able to hold off the terrorists for 4 years because of the PATRIOT Act. Yet they acknowledge at the same time that section 215 has not even been used. So, obviously, it is not critical to that effort.

The second reason is the reason this is very important. There is no clear standard for when it can be used. If a person goes to a judge and gets a subpoena by some standard, probable cause or some other standard, then that makes sense. That is in fitting with the Constitution. The problem with section 215 is that you go to the Foreign Intelligence Services Act court and seek that warrant. It is a secret court.

We do not know what the standard is. There should and must be a clear standard before the Justice Department can seek this kind of information from our citizens. If that clear standard were put in law, that could change things; but there is no standard here, and this law has not been used. So it is not critical, and it can potentially be abused. So let us eliminate that potential and support the Sanders amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov