[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22278-22279]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PATTERN OF DISTURBING ACTIONS IN MIDST OF BATTLE 
                           AGAINST TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the pattern that appears to 
be emerging within the U.S. Justice Department under the leadership of 
the Attorney General of deviating from what ought to be the course of 
action

[[Page 22279]]

appropriate right now. We were victimized on September 11 by a 
fiendish, unfortunately skillful group of mass murderers who wreaked 
terrible destruction on innocent people. And clearly a tough, effective 
law enforcement response is one of the things that is called for. We 
worked hard in the Congress to enhance the law enforcement powers of 
the Federal authorities. There was virtual unanimity that they should 
be given increased surveillance powers.
  In the end, some of us were disappointed that some safeguards we had 
devised were not in the final bill and some of us opposed it, but we 
did not oppose it because we opposed the enhanced surveillance powers. 
We agreed on those. We should be going further. Congress is partly 
guilty of having insufficiently funded the Immigration Service and 
others who are our first line of defense. There is broad support in the 
Congress and in the country for this kind of increased law enforcement, 
but I fear that the Attorney General's actions may be jeopardizing that 
consensus and he is introducing into a subject that ought to be one of 
virtual unanimity a degree of conflict.
  First, we have a couple of issues that ought not to have been pursued 
at this time. In my judgment, they should not have been pursued at all. 
But recently the Attorney General, in the midst of telling us that he 
is going to reorient the FBI and reorient the Justice Department to 
focus on terrorism, at a time when we know we have done a poor job of 
keeping track of people admitted into this country for limited periods 
and limited purposes, we have done a poor job of enforcing those 
limits, the Attorney General is engaged in a couple of ideological 
crusades, in both cases ignoring referenda passed by two States. 
States' rights is sometimes respected by my conservative colleagues; 
but it is sometimes, I guess when it gets in the way of their ideology, 
ignored.
  The people of Oregon twice voted in a referendum to allow doctors to 
help with suicides. People outside of Oregon may not like it, that is 
their right; but that was the vote of the people of Oregon. There was 
an effort by the Congress to overturn that. While the House passed the 
bill, the Senate rejected it so the law was not changed. The Attorney 
General has nonetheless found time in this fight to divert energies 
into trying to overrule, in effect, the vote of the people of Oregon.
  Similarly, the people of California and many other States voted to 
allow the medical prescription of marijuana. The Attorney General 
simply again diverted law enforcement efforts to go after people who 
were guilty only of trying to use marijuana to alleviate their pain.
  And even more troubling is what is going on in law enforcement 
itself. Yes, all the powers available to law enforcement should be used 
to protect us against terrorists. But a refusal by the Justice 
Department to tell us exactly what numbers of people are being 
detained, how many are being released, what are the conditions of the 
detention, those serve no law enforcement purpose.

                              {time}  1245

  What they do is raise questions in people's minds about whether or 
not powers are abused. If people fear powers are abused, we will resist 
granting those powers. In fact, there are powers that ought to be 
there.
  The Attorney General disservices our effort by allowing controversy 
to exist where it should not. The most recent announcement that 
monitoring of conversations will now take place between people who have 
been confined and their lawyers is very disturbing. Remember, we are 
not talking here about terrorists having their conversations overheard. 
We are talking about people who have been detained; who have been 
convicted of no crime; who are guilty, as far as we know, maybe of 
something, maybe of nothing, but who have not had any adjudication; and 
we are talking about monitoring their lawyers' conversations.
  Now, the Justice Department acknowledges that to do that in a way 
that was relevant to a trial would not be permissible, so we are told 
that we will monitor those conversations, but information gained in 
that monitoring would not be admissible at trial.
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that invites judicial intervention, so that 
if they do proceed in some cases with a trial and a conviction, that 
could be jeopardized.
  We have past experience. We have the case of Wen Ho Lee, an American 
citizen who was accused of espionage, and the FBI abused his rights. A 
Federal judge criticized the FBI for that.
  That is the point we want to make. We are not talking here about 
defending terrorists; we are not talking about defending people who are 
guilty. We are talking about the rights of people who have been accused 
of crimes to prepare their defense.
  I hope the Attorney General reconsiders this pattern of disturbing 
actions.

                          ____________________