Providing for Consideration of H.R. 514, Extending Counterterrorism Authorities
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the argument that has been advanced by my colleague from Colorado just doesn't mesh with the facts, and maybe I can give him a little bit of historical background.
First of all, I was the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee on September 11. When the Patriot Act was introduced, we had two hearings and a full committee markup. The Senate didn't have that, even though it was controlled by the Democrats, and there were long negotiations to come up with the original Patriot Act that the President signed.
At that time, I insisted that there be a sunset provision on all of the 16 additional provisions of the Patriot Act that expanded law enforcement powers, and I gave the commitment as chairman of the committee I would hold hearings on each of these 16 provisions, subsequently increased to 17, before the sunset expired, and I did.
At that time, the testimony was very clear that there was no controversy over making permanent 14 of the 16 provisions, and the Patriot Act extension did that. The three provisions that were not made permanent were the ones that were in controversy, and most of the complaints advanced by my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) were on the 14 provisions, that there were no abuses that were brought out during the 2005 hearings.
Now, let me talk about the three provisions that do expire that are the subject of the underlying bill.
First of all, section 206, the roving wiretap authority. Law enforcement has had this authority on organized crime and drug pushing since 1986. The Patriot Act expanded it to include terrorism. There has been no constitutional challenge that has been filed against section 206.
Section 6001, which was the 17th provision and the lone wolf provision, says that someone who can be investigated under the Patriot Act doesn't have to be a member of an identifiable group like al Qaeda in order for the Patriot Act's provisions to come into play. Constitutionality of that is unchallenged.
Now section 215, which is the business records provision, there was a constitutional challenge and it was withdrawn. The challenge was in the case of Muslim Community Association v. Ashcroft which was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff in that case alleged that section 215 violated the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act amended section 215, and as a result of the amendment, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint. We had solved those problems.
So, much of what we hear today are about issues that were made permanent because there really wasn't an issue, or something that involves other types of law enforcement activity other than the Patriot Act.
This Congress, I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, and we will have those hearings before this extension expires on December 8, and we will give everybody a chance to thoroughly air their complaints just like I promised and just like I delivered in 2005. And when the record is brought up to date, I hope that the Members will confine their debate to what is actually in the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act rather than talking about a lot of other things, some of which don't even involve the Patriot Act whatsoever.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I plan on doing, with this reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the same thing I did with the 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Examine every one of the expiring provisions, let everybody speak their piece, and let the House of Representatives work its will.
There have been no civil liberties violations on these three expiring provisions. They have all been upheld as constitutional or not challenged. And we did have a problem with business records, and we solved that in 2005. So all of the fears that the gentleman from Colorado is making I think are a red herring. We did it when we were in the majority in the Judiciary Committee; and unfortunately, when the other side was in the majority, they didn't do it. That's why we are here today.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend that I think it's very important to note that, as those hearings proceed, issues that relate to civil liberties will clearly be part of the hearing process and part of the debate.
Am I correct in concluding that?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You are absolutely right. I did it 5 1/2 years ago, and you have my commitment I will do it again.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Patriot Act has been the law for over 9 years, and not one of those 17 sections has been declared unconstitutional by any court in the United States. The argument that has been advanced by the gentleman from Ohio is just plain wrong. There has been plenty of opportunity to sue and to get parts of the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional. Most of these provisions haven't been challenged. So let's stick to the facts, rather than making up arguments that simply do not exist with the Patriot Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source