Conference Report on H.R. 3199, USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - December 14, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3199. While this conference report makes some improvement to the current PATRIOT Act, it fails to address some major deficiencies, and in many ways, it makes the current situation worse.

The original intent of the PATRIOT Act was to provide our law enforcement officials with the necessary tools to make our country more secure. While maintaining national security is absolutely a necessary responsibility of Congress, it can and must be achieved without compromising our civil liberties.

Unlike the proponents of H.R. 3199, the American people do not believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive goals. A delicate balance between enhancing security and protecting liberty needs to be present. But unfortunately, this bill before us today falls far short to achieving this appropriate balance.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2001, when the PATRIOT Act was enacted, 16 provisions were sunsetted or authorized for a certain period of time because of their controversial nature and also due to the hurried manner in which they were drafted; 14 of these 16 provisions are made permanent by this conference report. And while three of the most contentious provisions have been sunsetted for 4 years, even that is too long.

Section 215, commonly referred to as the Library Records Provision, grossly expands the Federal government's ability to seize records and investigate citizens' reading habits without any notification.

Section 206, dubbed the Roving Wiretaps Provision, grants the government the power to perform so-called John Doe wiretaps in which they do not have to disclose the phones that will be tapped or even the names of the suspected person.

Section 6001, known as the Lone Wolf Provision, broadly redefines the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's, FISA, standard for the agent of foreign power. The new definition is so expansive that the Government can now define any individual non-U.S. person as a terrorist suspect, even if the individual has no clear ties to a foreign government.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than apparent that these three provisions pose a threat to American citizens' civil liberties. And while I would rather see these provisions removed from the legislation, I am encouraged that a shorter sunset has been placed upon them.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, shorter sunsets do not do the trick. Sunsets alone do not fix the severe substantive flaws of these sections, and they do nothing to address the deficiencies of the 14 other provisions that are being made permanent by this report. Instead of opting to apply shorter sunset dates to these misguided provisions, Congress should be exploring appropriate ways to fix them. After all, giving the government the power to violate civil liberties is wrong regardless of whether we give the government that power for 1 year or 4 years or for 100 years.

Most notable of the deficient provisions, which was made permanent by the original PATRIOT Act, is section 505, known as the National Security Letters provision, NSLs. These NSLs are administrative subpoenas, issued by high-ranking Department of Justice officials, which force a person to turn over a wide range of personal records. Essentially, NSLs allow the FBI to conduct secret, warrantless searches of any records they deem relevant to national security.

What is most concerning about NSLs are the rate in which they are being issued and the eventual relevancy of the retrieved records. More than 30,000 NSLs are being issued a year, a hundred-fold increase since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Meanwhile, only a handful of NSL investigations have ever gone through the judicial process. Moreover, the FBI has surreptitiously gathered information on tens of thousands of Americans. They are maintaining databases on these citizens. And instead of deleting information on NSL recipients once an investigation is completed, the FBI is abusing this power and holding onto personal information of Americans who have never been accused of any crime.

Mr. Speaker, while this conference report does require the Department of Justice to report the number of national security letters they issue, it fails to address the abuse of power and the unconstitutionality of the provision. As determined by a Federal court judge on October 4, 2005, the NSL provision was ruled to be unconstitutional. So instead of reevaluating this provision or at the very least sunsetting it, the NSL provision remains permanent and continues to infringe upon the civil liberties of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we all must be reminded that privacy is a right guaranteed by our Constitution, not a luxury that we can simply discard when it becomes inconvenient to the government. Shorter sunsets and minimal regulations imposed on the Department of Justice do not cure the serious problems with these provisions. Congress needs to go back to the negotiating table, reevaluate these provisions, and come up with a report that strikes the appropriate balance between advancing security and defending our civil rights.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4506. This legislation, introduced by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, extends by 3 months the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire at the end of this year. Extending the PATRIOT Act in its current form for 3 months would give lawmakers the opportunity to reevaluate these contentious provisions, fix them, and then issue a conference report that actually protects the civil liberties of the people of this country and not hinders them.

I would like to share a quote from an article entitled ``Going Down in History with USA PATRIOT Act,'' which appeared in the November 27 edition of the Massachusetts Republican: ``Unless lawmakers are prepared to revise the USA PATRIOT Act to include modest protections to safeguard civil liberties, they will go down in history as the authors of remarkably bad legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, when we in Congress authorize Federal agencies, it is our responsibility to grant them with an appropriate level of power so that abuse will not occur. It is also our responsibility to demand accountability and conduct appropriate oversight. Sadly, under this Republican leadership, neither responsibility has been fulfilled.

One final observation. We are all, every single Member of this House is committed to protecting our country from terrorism. We must adjust our laws accordingly to deal with any potential threat. But we must not undercut or undermine the protection of our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, democracy requires courage, and we can protect our citizens from terrorism and at the same time protect their civil liberties. They are not mutually exclusive. I am not convinced that the bill as written will enhance our national security, nor am I convinced that these broad, sweeping powers that we are now giving to our government will not be abused.

In our recent history, we have seen abuse of power. We have seen civil rights leaders in this country, people who have advocated equal treatment under the law for all of our citizens, we have seen these people put under surveillance. They have been wiretapped. We have seen others who have raised their voices in dissent or who have advocated issues that are now viewed as the mainstream, we have seen that they have been spied upon by our own government. So let us not give government more power than is needed.

That is my fear today, that we are going too far, that we are paving the way for abuse, and that if we enact this bill as written, a little bit of the Liberty Tree will die.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.

Madam Speaker, this bill overreaches. It paves the way for abuse and is a potential threat to innocent, law-abiding citizens. We are not a police state, and what makes us different from so many others is our freedom and our respect for basic civil liberties and our respect for privacy.

I understand the urge of some to embrace this legislation; but let me remind you that every time you chip away at our civil liberties, you give the terrorists a victory. You take away something that is essential to who we are as Americans.

Let us adjust and enhance our laws accordingly, to give law enforcement officials what they need; but let us not give them more than what they need.

This bill puts us on a dangerous path. There are over 150 provisions in this bill that are noncontroversial, that everybody agrees on, that will help track down terrorists and criminals; but there are a few provisions that so cross the line that they threaten our privacy and our civil liberties and do not make us safer.

We can defend our country; we can protect our people without trashing the Constitution.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov