Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - July 26, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase the Violence Against Women Prevention Programs by $5 million intended to fund a specific provision, namely the Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program. To offset this cost the Department of Justice general activities accounts will be reduced by the same amount, $5 million.
The Jessica Gonzalez program places special victim assistants to act as liaisons between local law enforcement agencies and victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders. It develops, in collaboration with prosecutors, courts and victim service providers, standardized response policies for local law enforcement agencies, including triage protocols to ensure that dangerous or potentially lethal cases are identified and prioritized.
Victims of domestic violence need the Jessica Gonzales program because the current system has undermined the effectiveness of restraining orders. In Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that the police did not have a mandatory duty to make an arrest under a court-issued protective order to protect a woman from her violent husband. This case came as a result of an incident in 1999 involving the kidnapping of Ms. Gonzalez's children by her estranged husband. Despite her numerous pleas to the police to arrest her husband for violating a protection order, including providing them with information on his whereabouts, the police failed to do so. Later that night, Mr. Gonzalez murdered their three children.
The Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program restores some of the effectiveness of restraining orders that the Supreme Court took away with its ruling.
This is the first opportunity we have had to grow the Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program since it was first funded last year after its initial authorization in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization of 2005 in order to strengthen the effectiveness of restraining orders.
This program strengthens the efficacy of restraining orders against the prevalent matter of domestic violence. Tragically, as we know, violence against women is a pervasive problem which goes beyond class, culture, age or ethnic background. Every 9 seconds a woman is battered in the United States, and every 2 minutes someone is sexually assaulted.
According to the Department of Justice, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. More than 2 1/2 million women are victims of violence each year, and nearly one in three women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Many more cases go unmentioned as women, fearing to come forward, leave the assaults unreported.
The Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program helps to enforce restraining orders and protect women who are victims of domestic violence, and it is a great step forward from when we authorized it 2 years ago and when we first funded it last year.
Mr. Chairman, we need more funds for this program. I am aware that this bill, because of the good work of the chairman and the committee members, includes approximately $430 million to support grants under the Violence Against Women Act which is $47 million more than the current budget and $59 million above the President's meager request for fiscal year 2008.
I'm also aware that in amendments we passed last night, we increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act by about 40 or $45 million, and I hope that some of that will survive in conference.
And in light of that, I will now withdraw the amendment, but urge my colleagues to support the CJS appropriations amount granted to programs that protect women and their families, especially the Jessica Gonzalez Victim Assistance Program, and hope that in conferences all of these matters are hashed out, that a little more money can be spared for this program, especially in light of the amendments approved last night.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee for including in this act a provision that no funds shall be made available to authorize or issue a National Security Letter, NSL, in contravention of current law. That should go without saying, but as we have seen, apparently not with the current administration.
My amendment asks for an accounting by the Department of Justice of the FBI's collection and use of information on U.S. persons who are not suspected of being terrorists or agents of a foreign power before we provide further funding for the issuance of more National Security Letters.
This amendment prohibits funds from being used to issue a National Security Letter under the provisions amended by section 505 of the PATRIOT Act until the Department of Justice conducts a full review and delivers a report to Congress on the use of NSLs to collect information on U.S. persons who are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power, or terrorists, as that is defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801.
The underlying bill asks for the FBI to conduct a report within 2 months on what has been done to implement the inspector general's recommendations with respect to NSLs. This would simply ask that that report be more specific and more inclusive and include the following information:
How many National Security Letters have been issued; what standards are used to determine when to seek information on a person who is not suspected of being an agent of a foreign power; the current guidance as to what is ``relevant'' to an investigation when the targets are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power; how that information is stored; how the information is used; whether the information is used; whether that information is ever destroyed; whether that information has led to any substantial leads in terrorism cases; whether that information has ever been used in criminal cases; and whether that information has led to any adverse government action against people not suspected of being enemy agents, agents of a foreign power, or terrorists.
Almost limitless sensitive private information from communication providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit agencies can now be collected secretly by simply issuing a National Security Letter on an FBI field director's simple assertion that the request is merely relevant to a national security investigation. These communications and records can be of people who are U.S. citizens who are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power or terrorists. These communications and records can be demanded without any court review or any court approval. Worse yet, the target of the NSL will never know that his communications and records were inspected by government agents because the company, the financial agent, the service provider, the bank is barred by law from telling him or anyone else of the demand. And as we know from the FBI inspector general's audit, this broad discretion has been abused by the FBI, whose agents may have violated either the law or internal rules more than 1,000 times while misusing the authority to issue National Security Letters.
This recent IG report heightens the clear need for more adequate checks on the FBI's investigatory powers with respect to NSLs. The FBI has far-reaching compulsory powers to obtain documents in terrorism investigations without NSLs. In criminal investigations the FBI can obtain a search warrant if there is a judicial finding of probable cause or a grand jury subpoena issued under the supervision of a judge and a U.S. attorney. And in international terrorism cases, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain records under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, all this separate from NSLs.
I intend to introduce this week, with Congressman Flake, the National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 to address more fully the issues presented by section 505 of the National Security Letters.
The bill would restore a pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the FBI make a factual, individualized showing that the records sought pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy. It also gives the recipient of a National Security Letter an opportunity to obtain legal counsel. It thus preserves the constitutional right to their day in court.
Already courts have found part of the NSL authority to be too broad and unconstitutional. The provisions that state that NSL recipients are forbidden from disclosing the demand to the targeted individual and are forbidden even from consulting with an attorney have already been struck down. Another court found the NSL authority to be unconstitutional on its face because it violates the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 would allow the FBI to continue issuing National Security Letters by correcting the constitutional deficiencies in the law. This bill would enable the FBI to obtain documents that it legitimately needs, while protecting the privacy of law-abiding American citizens.
I ask that my colleagues vote for this amendment so that we can protect the privacy of U.S. persons who are not terrorists or agents of terrorists before we provide funding for those broad and sweeping powers provided under the PATRIOT Act.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with the gentleman from New York. I entirely agree with the purpose of this amendment. The problem I have with this amendment is that, as I understand it, it says no funds may be spent to enforce a court decision.
If that is what this amendment says, and I just heard it briefly, then it is the wrong way to do it. We have to put in a bill. I am sure the Judiciary Committee will entertain, I assume would entertain it quickly, to clarify the law and say that that is not what the law is, and that what the gentleman seeks to do we ought to do legislatively.
But the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court.
If we don't agree with the order of the court, and I agree, I certainly don't agree with the order of the court in this case, it is terrible, we ought to change the law. That is why we have a Congress. That is our job. Let's change the law.
If the court interprets the law wrongly, as it has, in my opinion, along with the gentleman, we ought to put in a bill, change the law and clarify it. I think that bill would sail through here pretty quickly in all likelihood. That is the way to do it.
But to make an amendment to say no funds appropriated may be used to enforce the court order, what's next? A different court order that we dislike? That subverts the rule of law. It is the wrong way to go.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment is not agreed to.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to work with the gentleman and anyone else who will try to effectuate this policy. I would hope that the gentleman and others and I can address the administration and urge them for the next few weeks that it may take for the Congress to act, for the administration to withhold action, that they should not engage in deportations.
Now, I hope that comity with the administration would allow them to delay a little on enforcing. After all, the court didn't say, ``You must.'' The court didn't say, ``You must deport these people.'' It said, ``You may deport these people.'' It is up to the administration to determine that.
So I would hope that the administration would delay for the few weeks it may take for Congress to show our will on this matter and that we don't agree with the court. But, again, I hope this amendment doesn't pass because it sets a terrible precedent. It may even be unconstitutional. I am not sure.
But clearly we don't want to start passing bills that say you can't enforce a court order, because once you start down that road, where do you end? But I certainly do anticipate working to make sure that nobody is deported under this. I hope the administration will delay that, and we can move legislation quickly on that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source