[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1145-E1146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   IN SUPPORT OF H.R.__, THE CIVIL LIBERTIES RESTORATION ACT OF 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 16, 2004

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague Howard Berman (D-
CA), I am proud to introduce legislation that will amend certain 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), 
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-
WI) are introducing companion legislation in the Senate.
  In the aftermath of the terrible events of September 11th, our Nation 
needed to meet the challenge of finding additional ways to prevent 
terrorist attacks. Yet even in a time of crisis, the Federal Government 
must not sacrifice essential liberties in response to claims of 
national security.
  During the original debate on the PATRIOT Act, my House Judiciary 
Committee colleagues and I insisted that the PATRIOT Act include a 
provision to ``sunset'' many of the new intelligence and law 
enforcement powers granted to the Federal Government. Even at that 
time, we believed that as a country we should review our legislative 
response when the grief of the tragic events had somewhat subsided.
  In hindsight, we are not the only ones to believe this approach was 
sensible. A recent survey revealed that 95 percent of top criminal 
justice scholars believe that the Act was passed too quickly--without 
sufficient deliberation and analysis.
  In addition, across the country, cities and towns are increasingly 
uneasy about some of the PATRIOT Act's measures. Four states and 325 
cities and towns--including more than 50 communities in the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts--have passed resolutions to protect the 
civil liberties of over 51 million residents. Hundreds of more 
resolutions are still in progress and libraries and bookstores have 
launched a campaign to overturn the Act's ``sneak and peek'' 
provisions.
  The House Judiciary Committee should proceed with a series of public 
hearings to review the broad powers granted to the Executive Branch 
under the PATRIOT Act given that certain provisions are scheduled to 
expire in December 2005. Like any law, support for the PATRIOT Act 
should not be perpetual or unconditional, especially when courts have 
held that certain provisions of the original Act are unconstitutional.
  At the same time, the Department of Justice continues without pause 
in its enforcement of the PATRIOT Act--and is now pursuing a nationwide 
advocacy campaign in support of its expansion. This administration 
continues to resist cooperation with Congress in its oversight role and 
further refuses to answer questions from ordinary citizens about 
whether the PATRIOT Act undermines basic civil liberties.
  Some have observed that the Government is intent on prying into every 
nook and cranny of people's private lives--while, paradoxically, doing 
all it can to block access to Government information that would inform 
the American people as to what is being done in their name--by simply 
invoking the phrase ``national security.'' These actions reflect the 
unrelenting desire of this White House to conduct business behind 
closed doors--even if it risks undermining public confidence and trust.
  Many have commented that one of the unintended consequences of the 
PATRIOT Act is the loss of transparency in government. Government 
secrecy obstructs accountability and oversight. And Congress intended 
for the ``sunset'' provisions to ensure that a rational process would 
exist so that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act would not be 
unlimited and unchecked.
  The Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 (CLRA) seeks to balance 
the restoration of essential protections and basic freedoms without 
compromising our national security. Our bill would also reverse 
policies that weaken our constitutional commitment to due process 
before the law.
  Specifically, our bill would restore fundamental fairness to our 
Nation's immigration laws by ending secret deportation hearings and by 
ensuring that penalties associated with technical violations of 
immigration law are reasonable and fair.
  In addition, this legislation ensures that people charged with crimes 
under the PATRIOT Act are treated with the same due process rights as 
other individuals facing charges in our criminal justice system. Our 
bill further establishes that defendants should have access to the 
evidence used against them.
  To circumscribe overreaching prosecutorial powers, the CLRA would 
amend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to limit the seizure of private 
databases and individual records to cases where the Government has 
shown there is a reasonable connection to a suspected terrorist or 
terrorist group. At the same time, the CLRA would improve the accuracy 
of information available to state and local law enforcement by 
establishing new standards for the National Crime Information Center 
database.
  As a former prosecutor, I know that mistakes can happen during 
criminal investigations. For this reason, the Federal Government must 
maintain minimum safeguards while investigating the most serious 
crimes.
  The CLRA is an important step to restore public confidence in 
government while setting forth legislative goals that reflect the need 
to repair our relations with other nations whose assistance we need in 
the fight against terrorism. I hope that my colleagues in the House and 
Senate will join us in this bicameral proposal to achieve the 
appropriate balance between protecting our national security and 
preserving fundamental civil liberties.

[[Page E1146]]



                          ____________________