USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005

USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - July 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to the unanimous consent request pending, I will make a brief statement regarding the PATRIOT Act, which is now being considered.

I rise in support of the compromise legislation. It is an amazing legislative achievement. This revision of the PATRIOT Act was enacted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, by a vote of 18 to 0--a bipartisan vote-which indicated that both sides of the table came together in an effort to make meaningful revisions to the PATRIOT Act which will protect our freedom but not compromise our security.

We all remember the PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after 9/11, when we were the most engaged in the emotions of the moment. We worried that we might have another attack, and we needed to give our Government powers to protect us. But we worried as well that we might go too far in our emotion in the moment, so we included sunset provisions in the PATRIOT Act which forced us to revisit it. Those sunset provisions turned out to be exceedingly wise. They brought us back in the last few weeks to take another close look at that PATRIOT Act.

In the meantime, many people stepped forward with criticism of the original PATRIOT Act. One of those was my colleague, Senator LARRY CRAIG of Idaho. He and I probably have the most different voting records of any Senators you might find on the Senate floor-he being on the Republican side and my being on the Democratic side-yet we sat down and looked at the PATRIOT Act and found we had many concerns. We put together a bipartisan revision of the act, called the SAFE Act, which suggested some changes in the bill. We attracted support from across the political spectrum-from the American Conservative Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, from a wide range of different groups, right and left and center, who raised serious and important questions about whether the PATRIOT Act should be changed.

We brought that conversation to the Judiciary Committee while they were deliberating on this version of the PATRIOT Act. I am happy to report that many of the principles that Senator Craig and I were urging were included in this final revision of the act which now comes before us on the floor of the Senate.

There were some who worried that we might not reach that point because an early version of the SAFE Act had been threatened with a veto by the Bush White House. Nevertheless, we found that when we could come together and reason together, we could produce a work product that we believe will be acceptable not only to the Senate but we hope to the House and to the President.

Like the SAFE Act, the Senate bill retains all of the new powers created by the PATRIOT Act. That is an important thing to say and underline. Like the SAFE Act, it enhances judicial oversight and requires the Government to report to the Congress and the American people on the use of the PATRIOT Act.

Like the SAFE Act, it protects the privacy and free speech rights of innocent Americans. Here is one example: The bill would require the Government to convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records, financial data, or other sensitive personal information. That is the right thing to do. The bill isn't perfect, but it moves us in the right direction.

Let me say a word as I close. One of the most unlikely groups became so important in this debate-the American Library Association. I cannot recall a time in recent memory when this organization showed such leadership. Time and again, they came forward to tell us that they wanted to protect the privacy of their patrons at libraries across America who might come in and take out a magazine or book, and they certainly didn't want to do that with the knowledge that the Government could sweep up all of the library records and sift through them to see if anybody had checked out a suspicious book. They sent us petitions gathered from libraries across the Nation, and I think they really did good work on behalf of our Constitution and our rights and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

I wish to dedicate any success we have with this revision of the PATRIOT Act to the American Library Association and all those who stood with them in asking that we make meaningful changes to the act without eliminating the important provisions that continue to make America safe.

This bill today is not perfect. That's the nature of a compromise. But it does significantly improve the Patriot Act, and it extends the sunset for several controversial provisions so Congress will have another opportunity to review them in four years.

In contrast, the House of Representatives last week passed a flawed bill that would extend the Patriot Act's expiring provisions, but not fix its fundamental problems. Many Republicans and Democrats voted against the bill because it doesn't protect our constitutional rights.

The Senate bill should serve as a model for how Republicans and Democrats can come together to protect our fundamental constitutional rights and give the government the powers it needs. This legislation shows that we can fight terrorism without changing the nature of our free and open society. It shows that we can be safe and free.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to maintain this approach and balance in the Conference Committee.

I withdraw any reservation and accept the unanimous consent pending before the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov