USA Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006

USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the USA PATRIOT Act. As you know, the Senate has recently agreed to another temporary extension of this act. We have twice since December been in a position of having to offer, instead of permanent reauthorization, a temporary fix. Yet at a time when so many in this body are continuing to talk about security, this one piece of legislation, in my humble opinion, has been more important in terms of protecting the security of the United States than anything else we have done since September 11.

This critical law, which, of course, provides law enforcement agencies with the vital tools necessary to fight and win the war on terror, should not be allowed to expire. I, frankly, am at a loss to explain why we are spending so much time trying to get to final closure on this legislation when the merits of the legislation seem to be so obvious--primarily by providing tools to law enforcement and intelligence agencies of this country, tools that are already in broad use in other aspects of law enforcement investigations.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that there has been a certain amount of hysteria whipped up over this to cause people to have unreasonable fear and concern about civil liberties, when, in fact, the balance between security and civil liberties has been struck in an entirely appropriate way in this legislation.

We must make it a top priority of the Senate to reauthorize this legislation as soon as possible, as it would be unconscionable to compromise the safety of the American people and undermine the progress we have made since 9/11 and delay critical investigations.

An agreement reached in December between the House and Senate conferees preserved the provisions of this act which have made America safer since 9/11 while increasing congressional and judicial oversight, which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the law enforcement tools somehow endanger civil liberties. And even recently, the White House and leaders of the House and Senate have made additional concessions in an attempt to reach a final agreement to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are a few who are continuing in their effort to stop reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, insisting on imposing their will on a bipartisan majority of the Senate, the House, and the President of the United States. The handful of diehards who continue to oppose this legislation are simply unwilling to accept the compromise that has been agreed to by both Houses of Congress, despite efforts from all quarters to try to accommodate reasonable concerns. Most reasonable people would agree that it is a practical impossibility for each legislator to get every single thing they want out of any particular piece of legislation, but that doesn't mean the American people should be left with nothing and be stripped bare of the protections the PATRIOT Act has been so effective at delivering.

The art of compromise is, at times, a bitter pill, particularly when matters of such profound consequence as our national security and waging the war on terror hang in the balance. I personally supported leaving sections 215, 213, and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act alone. I also wanted to add administrative subpoenas to the PATRIOT Act and to add judicial review for national security letters.

I also feel very strongly about ensuring that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations with regard to risk-based funding for homeland security grant moneys are implemented and personally pushed for such a provision during these negotiations. Senator Specter made it clear to me that he would try to seek consensus but that my demands would not be met in all regards.

While I did not get everything I wanted and while I believe what I wanted was in the best interests of my country, I support this bill. I am simply unwilling to return the American people to the pre-9/11 law enforcement tools which so poorly served our national interests at that time. And while this legislation is not perfect in every regard, it represents what I believe are the best efforts of the Congress to arrive at an acceptable compromise.

The national security has been well served by the PATRIOT Act since its original passage in a way that is both consistent with our national values and the protection of civil liberties. The war on terror must be waged in a manner consistent with American values and American principles.

The hysteria over this legislation is simply hard for me to understand. The fact that people in too many instances have not focused on the hard-fought attempts to balance our security and civil liberty concerns is, I believe, a disservice to the American people. This debate does not concern a typical policy disagreement about taxes or other issues; in fact, the stakes are much higher.

The PATRIOT Act was enacted in 2001 by an overwhelming bipartisan margin--98 to 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House. At that time, Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that this legislation struck a wise and careful balance between national security and civil liberties.

The law, to date, has had a successful track record. In addition to helping prevent any terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11 and playing such a critical role in dismantling several terrorist cells within the United States, the Department of Justice inspector general has consistently found no systemic abuses of any of the act's provisions.

I support these recent concessions that have made this bill what it is today--and one in particular. Before these changes, a recipient of a 215 order seemingly could challenge the nondisclosure obligation at any time. The new revisions make clear that a recipient cannot challenge this requirement for 1 year, and it ensures that the conclusive presumption applies to these orders as well--something that was not clear before reaching this compromise agreement.

The remaining changes seemed to me to be quite sensible; that is, recipients of a 215 order or a national security letter do not have to tell the FBI that they have or will consult an attorney or that a library is not an electronic or wire communications provider unless, of course, they happen to be such a provider.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, we know there were barriers that seriously hindered information sharing among law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies, and those barriers imperiled our Nation. This was described by Patrick Fitzgerald in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I quote:

I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in early 1996. The team--prosecutors and FBI agents assigned to the criminal case--had access to a number of sources. We could talk to citizens. We could talk to local police officers. We could talk to foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. We could talk to foreign citizens. And we did all of those things as often as we could. We could even talk to al-Qaida members--and we did. We actually called several members and associates of al-Qaida to testify before a grand jury in New York. And we even debriefed al-Qaida members overseas who agreed to become cooperating witnesses. But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel intelligence investigation of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. We could not learn what information they had gathered. That was the wall.

I am confident I am not the only one who is astounded at that statement. Consider our progress in the war on terror since the PATRIOT Act's enactment: Information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement personnel has been critical in dismantling terrorist operations, including the Portland Seven in Oregon, as well as a terrorist cell in Lackawanna, NY.

It has helped prosecute several people involved in an al-Qaida drugs-for-weapons scheme in San Diego, two of whom have already pleaded guilty.

Furthermore, nine associates of an al-Qaida-associated Northern Virginia violent extremist group were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 years to life.

Two Yemeni citizens have been charged and convicted for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida and Hamas.

An individual has been convicted of perjury and illegally acting as an agent of the former Government of Iraq by a jury in January of 2004.

And the executive director of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation, who has had a longstanding relationship with Osama bin Laden, pleaded guilty to racketeering and furthermore admitted that he diverted thousands of dollars from his charity organization to support Islamic militant groups in Bosnia and Chechnya.

These tools simply must remain available to those on the front lines who continue to wage the war on terror. The very safety of our Nation depends on it.

I would like to share with my colleagues--and perhaps some of them have seen this op-ed piece--a piece written by Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles F. ``Chic'' Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This op-ed was originally published in the Wall Street Journal, and I believe it articulates precisely why this legislation must be reauthorized without delay.

I will read an excerpt, and I ask unanimous consent that the complete op-ed be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SUNUNU). Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Ms. Burlingame writes:

A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about ``killing'' or ``playing chicken'' with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us.

She continues:

The Senate will soon convene hearings on renewal of the Patriot Act--

And indeed we had those hearings--

and the NSA terrorist surveillance program. A minority of Senators want to gamble with American lives and ``fix'' national security laws which they can't show are broken. They seek to eliminate or weaken anti-terrorism measures which take into account that the Cold War in its slow-moving, analog world of landlines and stationary targets is gone. The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high-velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology. After four-and-a-half years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we're safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly FISA wall in the first place. What if they, like those lawyers and judges, are simply wrong?

Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to ``question authority''--even when it is coming to our rescue--then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. .....More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate George Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but rather whole populations.

She concludes:

The public has listened to years of stinging revelations detailing how the government tied its own hands in stopping the devastating attacks of September 11. It is an irresponsible violation of the public trust for members of Congress to weaken the Patriot Act or jeopardize the NSA terrorist surveillance program because of the same illusory theories that cost us so dearly before, or worse, for rank partisan advantage. If they do, and our country sustains yet another catastrophic attack that these antiterrorism tools could have prevented, the phrase ``connect the dots'' will resonate again--but this time it will refer to the trail of innocent American blood which leads directly to the Senate floor.

I urge my colleagues to heed the words of Ms. Burlingame. And today I join my voice with hers and the millions of Americans who are calling for us to do our duty and to do our utmost to protect this country and the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/