[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6434-H6435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PATRIOT ACT PROTECTS RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that 
last week, before we left here, we did a very important thing on 
Thursday night, and that is that we reauthorized the PATRIOT Act. I 
think it is important to remember that in 2001, when this act was first 
put into place, that there were no ``no'' votes. But now, 4 years 
later, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern among the American 
people that our freedoms be protected, and we often hear the expression 
that if we

[[Page H6435]]

give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security, that we 
would have neither.
  As Americans, we value our freedoms. We value the freedom of speech, 
we value our freedom of privacy, we value the protections that we have 
against unnecessary search and seizure. But as Americans we also know 
that things have changed.
  I do not think there is a parent or grandparent in America today that 
would tell you that their lives today are what they were when they were 
children. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, when I have my grandchildren 
with me, they have very little freedom, and that I never take my eye 
off of them because we do live in a different day and a different time, 
and the securities that we felt as children just do not exist today.
  As I drove home last week and I was stuck in traffic, which we all 
know is certainly a reoccurring thing in our society, but I was 
listening to a radio program about the PATRIOT Act. What really 
concerned me about what Americans are being told is that Americans are 
being told that somehow this is onerous, that we have done the PATRIOT 
Act, and that our freedoms are being impacted in this act.
  What Americans are not being told is that the same provisions that 
exist in this act have been in place for many years in regards to 
criminal cases, in regards to child pornography, in regards to drug 
offenses, in regards to mob bosses.
  What the PATRIOT Act did is added foreign terrorism into the same 
types of provisions that already exist. The PATRIOT Act also broke down 
walls to allow law enforcement officials to interact together and to 
make sure that information is being shared and that we as Americans are 
as safe as we can possibly be. I think that is an important element of 
the PATRIOT Act, is that it is not new. It is existing law enforcement 
that has been extended over.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to remind people that there are 
additional requirements that are placed in the PATRIOT Act on the 
provision of foreign terrorism. What some of those provisions are is 
that under the criminal code, law enforcement gets grand jury 
permission in order to do what they are doing. Under the PATRIOT Act, 
that required the permission of a Federal judge. With the amendments 
that we did Thursday night in regards to the one the American people 
talked about the most called the ``library provision,'' or what we 
referred to as section 215, which would allow them to check books and 
records, now it will require that the Director of the FBI make that 
request to a Federal judge. So to imply to the American people that 
someone is checking what books we check out is just unfair, and it is 
unfair to all of us who do expect to put some safety and some security 
back into our lives and to the lives of our children.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing else we can do except to really explain 
what is the PATRIOT Act, how does it keep us safer and how does it 
interact with our other criminal codes.
  I would like to also point out that the ``library act,'' as it is 
called, has been used many times in regards to the criminal code, but 
it has not once been used in regards to foreign terrorism. Is it 
something we should take away? No, absolutely not, because why should 
we tie the hands of our law enforcement professionals on one area that 
is so critical to us when this exists in other provisions of the law?
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the House of Representatives for reauthorizing 
the PATRIOT Act. I was a little distressed that we put additional 
requirements in place, but if that is what it takes for people to feel 
safe and secure, all right. But the most important thing is I think the 
public should know the truth. They should know how the PATRIOT Act is 
protecting them and defending them and not impacting their freedoms.

                          ____________________