[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15999-16000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT IMPLEMEMTATION OF THE PATRIOT ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 24, 2003

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in the immediate aftermath of the September 
11th attacks, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the 
Patriot Act of 2001. As we all know, the country was in a state of 
shock over the events of September 11th, and the bill was an immediate 
reaction to that--being drafted, briefly debated, approved, and signed 
into law by October 26, 2001, a mere six weeks after the attacks.
  The Patriot Act is a wide-ranging statute designed, as its stated 
purpose, to ``unite and strengthen America by providing appropriate 
tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.'' These tools 
include increased authority to intercept telephone and electronic 
communications, to conduct surveillance of private citizens, to seize 
electronic and voice mail messages, to execute and delay notice of the 
execution of warrants, and to access the business and private records 
of American citizens and others living in our country. It includes some 
provisions that most people would not question, such as making 
wiretapping court orders apply to all of a suspect's phone lines.
  The Patriot Act also expands the authority of U.S. government 
intelligence agencies to invoke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act (FISA), which was originally enacted to track and capture 
international spies as distinct from domestic citizens and residents. 
It is worth noting that FISA surveillance requests in 2002 outnumbered 
all of those under domestic law for the first time since FISA was 
enacted.
  Although the recognition of terrorist cells (like the hijackers) 
within our country led Americans to demand stronger action to identify 
and bring to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks on our 
country on September 11th and to prevent any other such tragedy, the 
balance between liberty and security is notoriously difficult to 
strike. I voted in favor of the Patriot Act recognizing that, in that 
period of national anxiety, we would probably get the balance wrong and 
so I insisted that it incorporate sunset provisions for its most 
onerous provisions. Accordingly, some of this law's most troubling 
provisions granting increased police powers to our Federal government 
will expire at the end of 2005.
  Now, nearly 22 months after the September 11th attacks, we should 
question whether we are more united and strengthened as a Nation in 
fact? The answer is yes in some ways, but probably not by operation of 
the Patriot Act. Although 1,200 men were immediately detained following 
the September 11th attacks on America and more subsequently, only one 
suspect--Zacarias Moussaoui--is actually being tried for his alleged 
involvement in those terrorist attacks.
  At the same time, substantial numbers of suspects are being held in 
detention without counsel, without charges having been filed and 
without trials taking place. Moreover, countless numbers of citizens 
and legal residents have had assets seized and business transactions 
interrupted and have suffered many other disruptions in their personal 
and professional lives. These actions have caused much more widespread 
public unease and dissention than any feelings of national unity or 
strength that might result should a suspect actually be tried, 
convicted and brought to justice through operation of the Patriot Act.
  In fact, soon after the initial round-up of detainees, the principal 
focus of the Bush Administration and many resources were diverted away 
from using the Patriot Act to find and rout al-Qaeda terrorism cells 
operating in the United States and around the world to waging and 
winning the war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. This was 
done even though U.S. intelligence agencies and the Bush White House 
could not demonstrate any clear and convincing connection between the 
Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda or the events of September 
11th or other terrorist connections to the U.S. that prompted the 
passage of the Patriot Act in the first place.
  So what has the Patriot Act accomplished in terms of increasing the 
unity and strength of our Nation? 112 cities, counties, and towns 
across the country have passed resolutions urging federal authorities 
to show great respect for the rights of our citizens, when carrying out 
activities designed to fight terrorism and improve homeland security. 
Just last week, Alaska became the second state after Hawaii to approve 
a resolution in opposition to key elements of the Patriot Act. The 
Alaska State legislature is firmly controlled by Republicans, 
nevertheless they overwhelmingly supported a resolution that ``implores 
the United States Congress to correct provisions in the USA Patriot Act 
and other measures that infringe on civil liberties, and opposes any 
pending and future Federal legislation to the extent that it infringes 
on Americans' civil rights and liberties.'' In the words of one Alaskan 
state legislator: ``Guys are dying on the battlefield to protect our 
freedoms. It is up to us to protect those freedoms here at home.''
  It is altogether fitting that you are gathered in the Princeton 
Public Library for this forum. I highly commend the sponsors and 
organizers of this two-part forum. Many organizations and individuals 
are expressing opposition to the provisions of the Patriot Act that 
prohibit library personnel from informing patrons if Federal agents 
have obtained records about their reading habits. In Washington, I was 
early co-sponsor of legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman Bernie 
Sanders to exempt libraries and booksellers from orders requiring that 
they produce this sort of information about their patrons.
  In a similar spirit, more Americans from all walks of life are 
joining with Muslim Americans and people of Middle Eastern descent to 
protest nationality-based registrations by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Bureau, which U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft began 
ordering last November for all men over 16 years of age in America from 
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, 
Eritrea, Liberia, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, 
the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
  Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Republican Chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, has called for extensive hearings into the uses 
and implementation of the Patriot Act, expressing serious concerns. I 
support him in that, although the Bush Administration appears to be 
stonewalling. I have also personally asked FBI Director Robert Mueller 
for his account of the need, usefulness, and future justification of 
the Patriot Act.
  But it is having another effect unintended by the strongest 
supporters of the Patriot Act and

[[Page 16000]]

who want to see it extended and expanded. It is reminding more 
Americans daily of the importance of our precious civil liberties and 
how much more strongly they must be preserved and protected in times of 
war.
  I voted in favor of the Patriot Act with great reservation at the 
outset, and my reservations have only increased over time. Seeing 
little evidence that it has increased our security, I expect to oppose 
any effort to extend those provisions of the current Patriot Act that 
will expire next year and I will most certainly oppose any effort to 
strengthen and extend the reach of the Patriot Act with new provisions 
that facilitate incursions into and violations of the fundamental civil 
and constitutional rights of our citizens and other legal residents in 
America, including proposals to revoke citizenship of people who are 
thought to give material aid to terrorists. The police and prosecution 
powers of the government are important and necessary to preserving 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they are also the most 
fearsome powers of government.

                          ____________________