[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10233-10234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NO HURRY ON EXTENDING PATRIOT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 29, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, some of the most far-reaching 
provisions of the ``USA PATRIOT'' Act will expire at the end of 2005 
unless Congress acts to extend them. That is nearly three years from 
now. But reports persist that some think the time has already come for 
an indefinite extension of those temporary provisions.
  I disagree. I think the Denver Post got it just right in a recent 
editorial: ``Not so fast.''
  For the information of our colleagues, here is the full text of that 
editorial:

                       Keep Patriot Act Temporary

       When Congress passed the Patriot Act in October 2001, it 
     wisely included a ``sunset'' provision that would cause the 
     sweeping legislation to expire on Dec. 31, 2005, unless 
     lawmakers vote to extend it.
       Now, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is leading Republicans in a 
     push to make the legislation permanent.
       Not so fast.
       The legislation, passed in the emotional aftermath of the 
     Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center 
     and Pentagon, gives the government unprecedented (civil 
     libertarians would say excessive) powers to snoop on 
     Americans, including eavesdropping on communications, 
     surveillance, access to financial and computer records, and 
     other constitutionally deleterious practices.
       The U.S. Department of Justice claims the Patriot Act has 
     given the FBI the ability to respond more quickly to stop 
     terrorists before they can act, and given the still-potent 
     threat posed by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations 
     bent on doing harm to the United States, that might be a good 
     thing. According to The New York Times, though, Justice wants 
     the expiration date on the Patriot Act excised. And that may 
     not be a good thing, especially considering that the Patriot 
     Act was passed only because Democrats and moderate 
     Republicans insisted on a sunset date.

[[Page 10234]]

       From our perspective, the Patriot Act is an extreme measure 
     meant to deal with a crisis--much in the same way that 
     martial law can be proclaimed by a state's governor in time 
     of emergency. Once the danger has passed, martial law is 
     revoked. No one wants troops and tanks in their streets 
     forever.
       Another argument against extending the Patriot Act 
     indefinitely is that we still don't know how its application 
     ultimately will shake out. Will it be used to harass and 
     intimidate unpopular groups expressing unpopular opinions? 
     Will it be used against political enemies of this or future 
     administrations?
       Fact is, the feds have been playing their cards very close 
     to the vest on how they've used the Patriot Act. And Congress 
     still doesn't have a handle on how the FBI and other 
     government agencies have used this extreme legislation that 
     treads so heavily on the Bill of Rights.
       Even if, in the final analysis, it's shown that the 
     government hasn't abused the act, it should never become 
     permanent. We repeat: Never.
       American liberty is too precious a commodity bought at a 
     too high price in blood and treasure to be tossed aside in a 
     panic. What does it profit us to bring freedom to Iraq while 
     throwing our own away?

                          ____________________