Date: 2005-12-14
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise to explain my decision to vote against the Conference Report on the PATRIOT Act. Some of the provisions that are being authorized in this bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities. I support those provisions. Other provisions. however. fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are protected. It is very important that. in our effort to defend the liberties that Americans cherish. we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect. We can ensure that the government has the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy rights of Americans. In the aftermath of September 11. 2001. it is essential that we stregthen our ability to detect. deter. and disrupt terrorist activities. Many provisions in the PATRIOT Act accomplish this objective in a balanced way. Other provisions. however. leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked. unwarranted. and potentially abusive invasions of privacy. Many of these concerns were addressed in the Senate bill � that passed by bipartisan. unanimous support. unfortunately. the Conference abandoned many of the safeguards in the final Conference agreement. The Conference Report falls short in a njumber of areas. Let me focus on 2 of these issuesthe inadequate. checks on the National Security Letters and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court orders. The "National Security Letters" provision: (1.) This authorization has no sunset. (2.) It provides no judicial review of a National Security Letter gag order. This is a departure from current law which allows the recipient of such a Letter to challenge it. in court. The conference agreement requires the court to accept the governments assertion as "conclusive". (3.) Moreover. the conference report allows the government to maintain information gathered from the National Security Letters to be kept forever in government databases. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA) Court Orders for Tangible Things (section 215): (1) Unlike the Senate bill. the Conference Report allows the government to obtain personal information on a mere showing .of "relevance". thereby striking the safeguard contained in the Senate passed bill that required a 3part test. This allows the government to obtain this information without demonstrating that the information that they. are seeking has some connection to a terrorist or a spy. (2) The conference report does not permit the recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic. permanent gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. (3) Finally. the conference report allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to a section 215 order. The court must review any government submission in secret. whether or not it contains classified material. It is important that any policy that is advanced to enhance our nations security always maintains appropriate "sunshine" and checks and balances on those law enforcement and intelligence agencies that are empowered to promote national security. History reminds us that these law enforcement tools can be overzealously used and may also be directed at innocent parties. The conference report on the PATRIOT Act that is before us today fails to strike the proper balance. The Senateversion included many of the necessary safeguards. Unfortunately. many of those provisions were abandoned by the Conference Committee. As a result I voted in favor of Mr. CONYERS Motion to Recommit the Conference Report to the Conference Committee so that the conferees could return to the consideration of the Senate passed bill. Unfortunately. this motion was defeated. Therefore. I must vote against the passage of the Conference Report that is before us today.