[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 20840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS 
 REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT) ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 24, 2001

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, recently the House considered its 
version of the Counter Terrorism bill H.R. 2975. I voted against that 
measure. I voted against that bill for many of the very same provisions 
in H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism measure before us today. As such, I 
must also vote against H.R. 3162. I would, first, like to commend the 
work of Mr. Conyers. He has stood steadfast and vigilant in attempt to 
protect the civil liberties of our nation's citizens. I, like many in 
this body, fear that our nation's tradition of civil liberties will be 
sacrificed at the alter of our war on terrorism. Do not be mistaken, 
for I realize that terrorism is a clear and present evil that our 
country faces--worthy of vigorous combat to defeat it. However, if, in 
our effort to stamp out terrorism, we stamp out the very freedoms that 
make us Americans, we will have made a grave mistake.
  I will vote against this bill and express my opinion that vigilance 
must abide to ensure that our nation does not succumb to terrorism from 
beyond, but also to ensure that we do not succumb to tyranny from 
within as well. I raise my voice to state forthrightly that I will be 
vigilante of all of those who seek to take advantage of the predicament 
that our new war on terrorism presents. This measure grants our 
nation's legal apparatus new and unprecedented powers. Power that, if 
unchecked, could easily be used to trample over our hard won liberties.
  It is true that many objectionable measures have been eliminated from 
the bill. No longer does the bill allow the indefinite detention of 
aliens prior to trial. I am particularly pleased that the measure 
provides for a new Inspector General in the Civil Rights Division of 
the Department of Justice to ensure that these laws are not used to 
trample our freedoms. It is also good to know that a person cannot be 
convicted of evidence from a foreign country that would not be 
admissible in U.S. courts.
  Although these important changes have been made, the measure still 
raises significant concerns. The bill contains language sunsetting its 
provisions in a 4-year period. While this is better than nothing I have 
no doubt that we should revisit these laws in two years time to assess 
the government's administration of them. This bill allows the use of 
roving wiretaps. This means one judge can issue an order that allows 
the authorities to listen to any phone that a suspect may potentially 
use. Here, I fear any shaky justification given by authorities can be 
used to order wiretaps on a broad and sweeping level, possibly leading 
to tapping the lines of many who are not at all related to the neither 
a terrorist, nor criminal plot.
  The bill also expands the authority of the government to conduct so-
called sneak and peak searches. Imagine your house was wiretapped based 
inadequate suspicion giving rise to the authorization of a roving 
wiretap of a third-party suspected terrorist. Imagine further that 
based on evidence from this roving wiretap, the police are authorized 
to come in and search your home and personal belongings without 
notifying you. Surely these powers should be reviewed at least within a 
two-year period.
  These scenarios could play out in infinite ways. There are unforeseen 
variables that we just cannot quantify that may allow authorities to 
abuse the rights of our citizens. If we had truly been given the 
opportunity to debate these issues in their entirety on the floor of 
the House, we probably could have resolved them in a way that 
sufficiently balanced our security needs against our civil rights. 
After all, following vigorous debate, the measure presented by the 
House Committee on the Judiciary passed with unanimous support. It was 
my desire to see vigorous debate on the floor of the House so that at 
Conference a measure could be crafted that would have received the 
unanimous vote of both the House and Senate and the support of the 
White House. Unfortunately, the Republican Majority and the White House 
had alternative plans.
  It is unfortunate that my only hope is that the new Inspector General 
will be vigorous in its assessment of the government's activity. The 
Inspector General will need to act decisively and with authority given 
the unprecedented authority we bestow on the government today.
  In light of this, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.

                          ____________________