Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions - S. 1709

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. BINGAMAN):

S. 1709. A bill to amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to place reasonable limitations on the use of surveillance and the issuance of search warrants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators DURBIN, CRAPO, FEINGOLD, SUNUNU, and BINGAMAN, to introduce the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003, which we call the SAFE Act.

This bill is aimed at addressing some specific concerns that have been raised about the USA PATRIOT Act. We believe this is a measured, reasonable, and appropriate response that would ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our Nation's fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight.

Let me say at the outset that I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. I believed then, and still do, that it was the right thing to do in the wake of the terrible and unprecedented attacks on our Nation on September 11, 2001. I would also like to express my gratitude to those brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect the American people from further attacks by would-be terrorists and criminals. The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security should be commended for the dramatic progress they are making in detecting, pursuing, and stopping those who pose a threat to our Nation and our people.

Even so, the USA PATRIOT Act is not a perfect law, and it is no criticism of those who are so ably waging the war against terrorism to suggest that it may be in order to amend some aspects of that law.

The SAFE Act is intended to do just that: make some commonsense changes that help to safeguard our freedoms, without sacrificing our security. It focuses on areas of activity that have been particularly controversial: delayed notice warrants, which are also referred to as "sneak and peek" warrants; wiretaps that do not require specificity as to either person or place; the impact of the new law on libraries; and nationwide search warrants. Our bill would amend, not eliminate these tools or repeal the USA PATRIOT Act in these areas.

I spend a lot of time on the ground in my home State of Idaho, and regardless of the pride Idahoans have in the success of the war on terrorism, many of them continue to raise concerns about the tools being used in that war. Admittedly, a lot of misinformation has been spread about the USA PATRIOT Act, and I applaud the Administration for working to correct that misinformation. However, not all of the concerns about the law are unfounded or misguided, and I strongly believe they deserve a proper airing in Congress. Furthermore, one has only to look at the cosponsors of the SAFE Act to see that these concerns are not unique to Idahoans—they are shared by a wide regional and political spectrum.

This morning, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced a series of hearings on how our anti-terrorism laws are working. As a member of that committee, I look forward to the opportunity of exploring these issues in detail and finding solutions for any problems we discover, possibly including the SAFE Act. The changes this bill makes are not numerous or sweeping, but they are significant. I hope my colleagues will agree and will support the legislation we are introducing today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.