[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7177-7178]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              PATRIOT ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in October of 2001, the Senate passed 
the PATRIOT Act by a near unanimous vote of 98 to 1. The PATRIOT Act 
has been a vital tool in our ongoing efforts to prevent future attacks 
of terrorism against Americans at home. Terrorist cells across the 
country have been broken up from Buffalo, to Detroit, to Seattle, to 
Portland. Over 300 criminal charges have been brought. Over 515 
individuals linked to the 9/11 investigation have been deported. 
Hundreds more suspected terrorists have been identified and tracked 
throughout our country. It is no wonder, then, that the biggest hero to 
emerge from the hearings before the 9/11 Commission has been the 
PATRIOT Act. Witnesses from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, 
and from both political parties, have praised its efficacy in fighting 
the war on terror.
  Unfortunately, we are in the middle of an election year and some 
Washington politicians would rather demagog the PATRIOT Act and the 
Attorney General for his use of it. For example, the junior Senator 
from Massachusetts voted for the act. But since becoming his party's 
presumptive nominee, he has taken an entirely different tack. For 
example, last month, he said: It is time to end the era of John 
Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the PATRIOT Act with a new law 
that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.
  It is quite puzzling how Senator Kerry and his Democratic colleagues 
who voted for the PATRIOT Act can now do an about-face and raise such 
serious questions about its effects on civil liberties. It is even more 
puzzling to make such charges in light of how instrumental the PATRIOT 
Act has been in safeguarding Americans, and in the absence of evidence 
that the PATRIOT Act is being misused.
  Sixteen key provisions of the act will expire on December 31 of next 
year. It is crucial that law enforcement not be deprived of these 
tools. While I cannot prevent election year politics, I can try to 
disabuse my colleagues of erroneous assumptions about some of these 
provisions.
  Let's take a look at section 201 of the act. That section allows law 
enforcement to use existing electronic surveillance authorities to 
investigate certain crimes that terrorists are likely to commit.
  Now, the myth about section 201 is as follows: Some contend that the 
Government already has the authority to investigate cases of suspected 
terrorism and, therefore, section 201 is completely overkill. But the 
fact is, before section 201 of the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement had the 
authority to conduct some electronic surveillance when investigating 
ordinary nonterrorism crimes. But law enforcement

[[Page 7178]]

could not use wiretaps to investigate all of the crimes that terrorists 
will commit.
  Now, as an illustration of this odd dichotomy, law enforcement could 
use wiretaps to investigate mail fraud but not for chemical weapons 
offenses or cases involving the use of a dirty bomb or cases involving 
killing Americans abroad or cases of terrorism financing. Let's go over 
that one more time. Law enforcement could use wiretaps to investigate 
mail fraud but not for chemical weapons offenses or offenses related to 
dirty bombs, killing Americans overseas, or terrorism financing. That 
is an absurd position for the law to be in.
  So it seems to me that if law enforcement can use a wiretap to bust 
up a failed mail-in sweepstakes ring, it should be able to use wiretaps 
to stop the use of a dirty bomb.
  Let's make one final point about section 201. To obtain a wiretap 
under this section, all the preexisting safeguards for wiretaps must be 
complied with, including establishing probable cause before an 
impartial Federal judge and getting that judge to sign off on the use 
of a wiretap.
  Another section that has been misunderstood is section 206. This 
provision allows roving wiretaps in national security investigations. 
But it only allows them when the FISA court finds that a suspect may 
thwart surveillance. In a roving wiretap, the tap attaches to a suspect 
rather than to a device so that the suspect cannot defeat surveillance 
simply by changing cell phones, for example. The myth is that section 
206 is a broad expansion of power without privacy protections.
  But the facts are that those assertions are incorrect. For over a 
quarter of a century, law enforcement has used roving wiretaps to solve 
ordinary crimes such as drug offenses. How can that be terribly 
expansive, to allow in national security matters what has been 
occurring in ordinary criminal matters for 25 years?
  Second, as I said, a roving wiretap can only be obtained after a 
court finds that a suspect might thwart surveillance. A number of 
courts, including at least three circuit courts, have ruled that roving 
wiretaps are perfectly consistent--perfectly consistent--with the 
fourth amendment. So it is pretty clear that privacy protections are 
not being eviscerated.
  In sum, we should renew the parts of the PATRIOT Act that will 
expire. We should not take away from law enforcement needed weapons in 
the war against terrorism.

                          ____________________