USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005
USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism and Prevention Reauthorization Act. I want to emphasize at the outset that I share the concern of my House colleagues that it is essential to protect our Nation and its citizens from terrorists seeking to harm our homeland and its citizens. I agree with my colleagues that no safe harbor should be available to terrorists. There should be no doubt that I wholeheartedly support enabling law enforcement officials with the authority to surveil and prosecute terrorists. But it is critical that we resist the temptation to develop laws that assault the constitutional protections afforded to Americans.
I am alarmed about the scope of a number of provisions in the bill that are likely to lead to the abuse of personal freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Section 215, Seizure of Records, causes me great concern. This provision allows the FBI, based on the premise of conducting a terror investigation, to obtain any record, after receiving approval from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, Court. My concern is that law enforcement agencies can engage in such activity without meeting the standard legal threshold of ``probable cause'', thereby leading to potential cases of abuse.
I am also very concerned about the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct ``Roving John Doe Wiretaps''. Under this scenario, criminal investigators can obtain wire tap authority to employ devices that roam with someone who has been designated as involved in terrorist activity; that device can be attached to an instrument that can be transported through multiple jurisdictions.
Section 213 that allows for ``Sneak and Peek'' authority related to searches and seizures. This is a provision that allows for run-of-the-mill criminal investigations to be employed while conducting the war on terrorism. The problem with this provision is that 90 percent of the searches are used for drug and fraud cases and not for terrorism. I am concerned about the lack of oversight that could apply to these types of investigations.
I recognize that some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act have served a useful purpose and are scheduled to end. The process of reviewing provisions and determining whether to extend them allows the House to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriations of the provisions. Two of the provisions in this bill are now being scheduled to extend for 10 years as opposed to the 4 years in the expiring legislation. In this scenario, a flawed provision could extend 6 years beyond the normal time frame. Fourteen sections of H.R. 3199 bill will become permanent, and will have virtually no oversight.
I continue to have great reservations about the use of National Security Letters, NSLs. National Security Letters are applicable within Section 505. The NSLs deny individuals due process by barring targets of investigations access to court and the right to challenge the NSLs. The NSLs allows institutions, i.e. banks, Internet Service Providers, ISPs, to divulge critical information about individuals under investigation. Private information about an individual can be shared with law enforcement, but the organization would be ``gagged'' from revealing its efforts. This is a terribly flawed and wrong process.
Mr. Chairman, I content that it is essential to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens as we engaged in the ongoing war on terrorism. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the Bill of Rights and resist the temptation to curtail those rights in our collective pursuits to develop legislation to counter the threats posed by terrorists. My review of H.R. 3199 causes my great concern that we are undermining the civil liberties of Americans. I stand as a patriot for America and our Constitution, and in opposition to H.R. 3199. I urge my colleagues to join my in defeating this measure. I support sending this over-reaching legislation back to committee, and ask the Judiciary Committee to come back with a better bill that does not shed our civil liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution. It is vital that we address terrorism specifically, while simultaneously ensuring that these statutory provisions continued to be forced to comply with the legal threshold of probable cause.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov