BREAKING | Senate Blocks Extension of Patriot Act

[Guest guest]

" t r u t h o u t " <messenger

BREAKING | Senate Blocks Extension of Patriot Act

Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:29:00 -0800

 

 

 

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605Y.shtml

 

 

Senate Blocks Extension of Patriot Act

By Jesse J. Holland

The Associated Press

 

Friday 16 December 2005

 

 

Washington - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize

several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on

Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush

administration and Republican leaders.

 

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were

not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened

filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho,

and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

 

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans

congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the

expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and

expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps

and secret warrants for books, records and other items from

businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

 

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and

have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can

continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush,

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert

have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

 

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions

expire on Dec. 31.

 

Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics

would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could

call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer

of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't

approve it and the president won't sign it.

 

" We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot

Act, " Frist warned.

 

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will

place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. " In the

war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a

single moment, " White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. " The

time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come. "

 

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times

report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor

the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -

perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States. Previously,

the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign

embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

 

" I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on

this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the

power we give it with restraint and care, " said Feingold, the only

senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

 

" It is time to have some checks and balances in this country, "

shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary

Committee. " We are more American for doing that. "

 

 

 

Statement of US Senator Russ Feingold

 

Friday 16 December 2005

 

Remarks as the Senate considerd ending debate on reauthorization

of the USA Patriot Act.

 

Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, I laid out in detail my

concerns about the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that we are now

considering on the floor. In its current form, I cannot support the

conference report, and I cannot consent to limit debate on it. The

leaders of this Congress need to figure out a way to change this

report to address the important civil liberties issues that I and

other Senators from both sides of the aisle have discussed over the

past three days.

 

This morning we saw an astounding story in the New York Times.

Since 2002, the government has been reportedly wiretapping the

international phone and email conversations of hundreds, even

thousands of people inside the Untied States, without wiretap orders.

You want to talk about abuses? I can't imagine a more shocking example

of an abuse of power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first

getting a court order based on some evidence that they are possibly

criminals, terrorists or spies. Mr. President, it is truly astonishing

to read that this Administration would go this far beyond the bounds

of the statutes and the Constitution. We as an institution have the

duty, the obligation, to get to the bottom of this.

 

I hope that this morning's revelation drives home to people that

this body must be absolutely vigilant in our oversight of government

power. And I don't want to hear again from the Attorney General or

anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted

to use the power we give it with restraint and care. This shocking

revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every Senator and

every American.

 

With that in mind, let me review my main concerns about this

conference report.

 

First, section 215. Remember, this is the section where Attorney

General Ashcroft once said that librarians concerned about the privacy

rights of their patrons were " hysterical. " But then the current

Attorney General conceded at his nomination hearing in the Senate

Judiciary that some changes would be justified. Unfortunately, the

Administration was not willing to make real changes to the provision

to protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.

 

The other night, I described in detail the evolution of this

provision through the legislative process. The bottom line is this -

the Senate bill had a three prong test requiring some connection

between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist

or spy. The conference report abandoned that connection and instead

relies on a standard of relevance to an intelligence investigation.

That is pretty much an " anything goes " standard that fails to protect

the records of law-abiding Americans. There is no requirement in this

conference report that will prevent government fishing expeditions.

Read the provision and it is as plain as day. The three prong test has

been turned into three examples of relevance. They are not protections

at all against government overreaching.

 

The provisions of the bill relating to National Security Letters

are also seriously deficient. There is no requirement that the records

sought under that authority, which doesn't involve a court at all,

have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The judicial

review that the conference report allows after the fact, of the NSL

itself and the mandatory gag order, is a mirage. After what the Times

reported this morning, no one in this body should be comfortable with

the government having this kind of unreviewable power.

 

Finally, there is the issue of so-called sneak and peek searches,

when the government secretly enters and searches someone's home. The

question here is when the government has to notify someone that a

search has taken place. The Senate bill allowed seven days for the

government to get back to the court and justify continued delay in

providing notice of a sneak and peek search. The conference report,

unfortunately, permits 30-day delays. Some have argued that the

difference between a week and a month is not that big a deal. It is a

big deal, Mr. President. We are talking about an important

constitutional right, the Fourth Amendment protection against

unreasonable searches and seizures. No one in this body should take

that right lightly, and I think most people would agree that having to

wait thirty days to find out your home has been secretly searched is a

very big deal.

 

So this conference report is inadequate and it should not be

passed. I believe it will not pass. So let me talk for a minute about

what happens next if, as I expect, the cloture motion fails. Do those

who oppose the conference report want the Patriot Act to expire? Of

course not. It is false to suggest that we do, and it is shameful to

threaten that that is what will happen if the Senate does not approve

this conference report. The only way that the Patriot Act will expire

at the end of this year is if the proponents of the conference report,

in this body or the other body, block alternative reauthorization

bills that can easily pass with widespread, bipartisan support. Now is

not the time for brinksmanship or threats. Now is the time to do the

right thing for the American people and for the constitutional rights

and freedoms that make our country great.

 

It is becoming more and more clear that this conference report

cannot pass. So it is time to figure out what can pass. I submit that

the Senate bill is the consensus that we seek. We should pass it

again, as we did by unanimous consent before, and send it to the other

body. And we should with one voice call on the House to pass that bill

and send it to the President for signature. That should have happened

months ago and it is what should happen today.

 

Mr. President, I am very proud to be part of a bipartisan

coalition working together to strengthen protections for civil

liberties in the Patriot Act. I think the demonstration of

bipartisanship on this floor over the last few days has been

remarkable. I remember well a hearing on the SAFE Act in the last

Congress when the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, was still on the

Judiciary Committee. He said something that struck me at the time and

has stayed with me since. I don't have his exact words here, but he

basically said that the Patriot Act will not be reauthorized without

addressing the issues we raised in the SAFE Act. He was making a

prediction and a promise then. And soon I believe we will see that he

was right.

 

We have stayed together ever since our bill was first introduced.

We knew the time would come when we would have to take a stand. And

now we have. We are united today, as we were then. This is not a

partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is a constitutional

issue. We can come together to give the government the tools it needs

to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent

citizens. And we can do that before the end of this year. But first,

we must keep this inadequate conference report from becoming law by

voting No on cloture.

 

I yield the floor.

 

-------