[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E316]]
    USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 7, 2006

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 2271, 
the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments. I am deeply 
concerned that such an important piece of legislation has been placed 
on the suspension calendar. We should take a deliberate and considered 
look at the Senate changes and not just be a rubber stamp.
  Considering this bill was originally conceived with little to no 
debate in the House and Senate, we should take a second look at what 
these changes will mean for our Nation. Unfortunately, it appears these 
changes do little to address the serious concerns that I and many of my 
colleagues have had with the law since its inception. I will mention 
two such issues.
  First, under this bill, the library record issue remains. While there 
have been some small cosmetic changes regarding the library provision, 
the government can still gain access to library, medical, financial, 
firearms sales, and other private records under Section 215. More 
importantly, the government can do so without any evidence that a 
person is a terrorist, conspiring with a terrorist organization, knows 
a terrorist, or has been seen in the vicinity of a terrorist. In fact, 
a person does not have to do anything illegal at all. We must ensure 
that proper civil liberties protections are in place.
  Next, the gag order that was in the original PATRIOT Act remains in 
place. As we all know, the PATRIOT Act prohibits someone from talking 
about or challenging an order under Section 215. This legislation would 
supposedly allow the recipient to challenge a gag order after 1 year. 
Yet, this same bill would conclusively presume any government 
expression of national security concerns is valid, therefore letting 
the gag order stand. A conclusive presumption by one's accuser in a 
court of law offers no protection to the accused. As a former 
prosecutor, I understand this type of legal presumption can and will be 
used to the benefit of the government's case. The deck is stacked in 
the government's favor.
  Madam Speaker, we must work to protect civil liberties and ensure 
that we protect our Nation from terrorism. This bill does not strike 
the right tone and may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this legislation.

                          ____________________