[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13629-S13630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PATRIOT ACT
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 4 years ago, following the most devastating
attack in our history, this Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order
to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track
down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over
the world; terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses
in our laws and our security to carry out attacks that may be even
deadlier than those that took place on September 11.
We all agree we need legislation to make it harder for suspected
terrorists to go undetected in this country. And we all agree that we
needed to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get
flight licenses and sneak across our borders. Americans everywhere
wanted to do that.
Soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I even arrived
in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background
and political leaning that this law, the very purpose of which was to
protect us, was also threatening to violate some of the rights and
freedoms we hold most dear; that it does not just provide law
enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe but powers it did not
need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, in Washington, this issue has tended to generate into the
typical either/or debate: Either we protect our people from terror or
we protect our most cherished principles. I suggest this is a false
choice. It asks too little of us and it assumes too little about
America.
That is why, as it has come to time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT
Act, we have been working in a bipartisan way to do both, to show the
American people we can track down terrorists without trampling on our
civil liberties, to show the American people that the Federal
Government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it
needs to do so, not because it can do so.
What we have been trying to achieve under the leadership of a
bipartisan group of Senators is some accountability in this process to
get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion.
Several weeks ago, these efforts bore fruit. The Judiciary Committee
and the Senate managed to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that,
while I cannot say is perfect, was able to address some of the most
serious problems in the existing law. Unfortunately, that strong
bipartisan legislation has been tossed aside in conference. Instead, we
have been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails
to address the concerns of Members of both parties as well as the
American people.
This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the
law. When national security letters are issued, they allow Federal
agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive,
how wide ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove the search
is necessary. All that is needed is a signoff from a local FBI agent.
That is it.
Once a business or a person receives notification they will be
searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it and they are
even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag
[[Page S13630]]
order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar
restrictions violate the first amendment, this conference report
disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice, hold on;
you will have to tell the FBI you have done so. Think about that: You
want to talk to a lawyer about whether your actions are going to be
causing you to get into trouble, you have to tell the FBI that you are
consulting a lawyer. This is unheard of. There is no such requirement
in any other area of the law. I see no reason why it is justified here.
If someone wants to know why their own Government has decided to go
on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private
document, through the library books you read, the phone calls you have
made, the e-mails you have sent, this legislation gives people no
rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge
will hear your plea; no jury will hear your case. This is plain wrong.
There are Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators who
recognize it is plain wrong.
Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious
activities is one thing and it is the right thing. But doing it without
any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans
and the ideals America stands for.
Supporters of this conference report have argued we should hold our
noses and support this legislation because it is not going to get any
better. That is not a good argument. We can do better. We have time to
do better. It does not convince me I should support this report. We owe
it to the Nation, we owe it to those who fought for our civil
liberties, we owe it to the future and our children to make sure we
craft the kind of legislation that would make us proud, not legislation
we would settle for because we are in a rush. We do not have to settle
for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can
have one that secures both.
There have been proposals on both sides of the aisle and in both
Houses of Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months so we can
reach an agreement on this bill that is well thought through. I support
these efforts and will oppose cloture on what I consider to be this
unacceptable conference report.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________