Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a major development in the war on terror in the last few weeks with the successful defeat of Osama bin Laden, striking a major blow to al Qaeda. At a time like this, we should reexamine the restoration of our constitutional protections. There's no reason to continually extend these Patriot Act provisions without taking a close look at them.

My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) put forward an excellent proposal that's an example of the many thoughtful bipartisan proposals that would improve the Patriot Act, keep the American people safe, and protect our constitutional rights. Unfortunately, discussion of that proposal and debate, and a vote on that proposal, is not allowed under this rule. Therefore, I'm opposed to the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would specifically reauthorize three provisions: sections 215, 206, and 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

Section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing that might be relevant to a terrorist investigation. That could include medical records, your diary, even what books you've checked out at a library. Now, in the past, these orders were limited to narrow classes of businesses and records, but the Patriot Act has stripped away these basic requirements and continues to violate a basic American principle of privacy.

Section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps. This allows the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't specify the person or the object to be tapped. It could be an entire neighborhood. So much for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that warrants must specify the person and place to be seized and searched with ``particularity.'' This is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have the unfettered powers that this version of the Patriot Act would continue to give them for 4 years.

The final section that would be reauthorized under this bill, section 6001, deals with the ``lone wolf'' provision. This allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S. even if they're not connected to any terrorist group or foreign power. This authority is only granted in secret courts and threatens our understanding of the limits of our own government's investigatory powers within our own country's borders.

Now, we're told that government has never used this power, so I ask my colleagues, why should we reauthorize? If it hasn't even been used, shouldn't it be allowed to expire, particularly in light of our recent successes in the war on terror and the defeat of Osama bin Laden?

My friends on the other side of the aisle say they're worried about the growth of the government. Yet in spite of the rhetoric, this bill grows government and takes away privacy and respect for our private lives. This is the type of government intrusion which the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.

The provisions in the Patriot Act continue to be an affront to our most basic liberties as American citizens. I urge anyone who's worried about the unchecked growth of the State to think twice about this bill, perhaps look at a short-term extension, and have a real discussion of restoring the balance between individual rights and security. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source