[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 15, 2006

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this bill that seeks to 
make much needed changes to the House approved PATRIOT Act Conference 
Report. What we are voting on today are ``Additional Reauthorizing 
amendments'' for the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, these proposed changes 
do not go far enough and they fail to strike the proper balance between 
freedom and security.
  When the PATRIOT Act came before the House last year, I made clear 
that, as written, it failed to protect the civil liberties of the 
American people from the overzealous police powers of the state. That 
is why some United States Senators who shared my concern worked for 
months to draft new safeguards to prevent the abridgment of our 
constitutionally granted civil rights. While good-intentioned, the 
small concessions they were able to win do not address the vast 
majority of objectionable provisions in the bill and some even make it 
worse.
  The sponsors of this legislation will say that it makes needed 
improvements to the PATRIOT Act. However, when read closely some of 
these so-called ``improvements'' actually make the PATRIOT Act worse. 
For example, one of these amendments actually creates a previously non-
existent one year gag order on recipients of national security letters. 
Under this change, the records of library patrons are still subject to 
secret searches and investigators do not have to promptly inform the 
patron of the searches. And these changes make the PATRIOT Act worse by 
actually preventing librarians from challenging these searches in court 
for at least a full year. Currently, no period of time exists to delay 
judicial review of national security letters.
  Robert Kennedy speaking in Georgia, a state at the center of the 
civil rights movement, said, ``we know that if one man's rights are 
denied, the rights of all are endangered.'' What Bobby Kennedy 
understood, but what too many of my colleagues forget, is that we are 
all bound together in our collective human existence. This means that 
the denial of our neighbor's rights puts our own rights in jeopardy. 
Yet, this bill does not sufficiently change the PATRIOT Act to ensure 
that the liberties and freedoms of all American's are protected.
  For example, even with these amendments, it would still be legal 
under the PATRIOT Act for police or investigators to conduct so called 
``sneak and peak'' searches of our homes or property without being 
notified until long after they are gone. One might expect to hear about 
this type of practice in state controlled or oppressive regimes around 
the globe. Yet, America was founded on the principle of individual 
liberty and freedom.
  The PATRIOT Act legalizes what previously has been considered the 
violation of Americans civil rights. It is flawed and we can do better.
  I urge my colleague to heed the words of one of our nation's founding 
fathers James Madison whom I quoted the first time this bill came to 
the House floor. Speaking in 1788 before the Virginia Convention (not 
all that far from where we are today) he explained what I believe is 
the unanswered problem with the Patriot Act. He said, ``I believe there 
are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by 
gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and 
sudden usurpations.'' As Madison said over 200 years ago, the liberty 
and freedoms we as Americans cherish are being eroded today not at the 
barricade, but in our library and at our local doctor's office. Sadly, 
these so-called ``improvements'' are not enough, and the PATRIOT Act 
remains fatally flawed. It is for this reason that I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this bill.

                          ____________________