国会记录：2003年10月1日（参议院）页S12278-S12299报表ON提出的法案和联合决议案通过莱希先生（为他自己，克雷格先生，德宾先生，苏努努先生和Reid先生）：1695 S.。法案提供在美国爱国者法案更大的监督;对司法委员会。莱希先生。主席先生，我今天与参议员克雷格，努努，德宾和里德，介绍我从爱达荷州，新罕布什尔州，伊利诺伊州和内华达州，2003年爱国者监督恢复行动，很短的法案，其单数，但重要的目的是尊敬的各位同事提供国会拍到了在美国爱国者法案，这是我们在焦急周后9月11日的破坏性攻击通过硬盘来看看，2001年这两党议案的范围是适中;它只会扩大爱国者法案已经颁布了日落条款，涵盖了一些附加条款。在随后进行的辩论，然而，应该是相当大的。我的希望是，夕阳为实现需要解决恐怖主义的威胁，并保护我们的宪法自由的需要之间取得适当平衡到期之前在2005年12月，美国国会将有条不紊重温爱国，有眼 - 与教训过去几年来指导我们。我们最近标志着9月11日袭击事件两周年。 As we reflect on that terrible day, and honor those who were lost, I strongly believe we should take stock of where we stand in our fight against terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress and the administration did forge a constructive partnership to write the USA PATRIOT Act, which was meant to help our law enforcement and intelligence communities prevent future attacks from occurring. The PATRIOT Act represented our best efforts, under difficult circumstances, to balance the rights and liberties of the American people with the very urgent need to confront a threat to our Nation. Even in balancing this tension, we granted the executive branch an unprecedented, vast new array of powers. We did so because we believed the administration's claim that it needed these powers to protect us, and because we trusted the administration's promise that it would use these powers appropriately. I noted at the time that PATRIOT was not the bill that I, or any of the sponsors, would have written if compromise were unnecessary. But I believed in the bill's purpose, and I gave it my vote and support. I worked hard to add checks and balances to many of its provisions, and did so. Unfortunately, like many Members who supported the act--and like many Americans nationwide--I have come to feel disappointed. Since we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, it has grown increasingly apparent that the trust and cooperation Congress provided to the executive branch has proved to be a one-way street. In the quarter-century that I have served in the Senate, no administration has been more secretive, more resistant to congressional oversight, and more disposed to acting unilaterally, without the approval of the American people or their democratically elected representatives. Despite the administration's unprecedented public relations campaign to promote the PATRIOT Act-- including a 16-State, 18-city tour by the Attorney General himself--the administration has yet to show that it is using its PATRIOT powers wisely. Instead, it has been secretly drafting a sequel to PATRIOT that would grant it even more far-reaching powers. I would never oppose an open discussion of any legislative tool that would help in the fight against terrorism. But for such a debate to be fruitful, we need to know more about the tools that are already available, including those created by the PATRIOT Act. Which are working, and how well? Which are not working, and why? Which, if any, struck the wrong balance, threatening the civil liberties of our citizens while doing little or nothing to keep our Nation secure? Immediately after the PATRIOT Act passed, the administration draped a cloak of secrecy around its use. When lawmakers and citizens have attempted to start a dialogue on PATRIOT-related issues, the response has been to ignore, insult or derisively dismiss them. Attorney General Ashcroft has repeatedly declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions, and his Department is painfully slow to respond to written requests for information. To quote my friend Senator Grassley, "getting information from the Justice Department under Ashcroft is like pulling teeth." By ignoring oversight requests until answers are moot or outdated, and responding in only vague and conclusory fashion, if at all, the Justice Department frustrates our constitutional system of checks and balances, and sows the sort of public distrust that now accompanies the PATRIOT Act. Just recently, in July, the Department dumped on committee members literally hundreds of pages of answers to questions that had been submitted to Attorney General Ashcroft and other senior Department officials following their testimony before the committee more than a year earlier. To give just one example of what a travesty it is when oversight questions remain unanswered for a year or more, the Department's responses dated July 17, 2003, devoted fully 15 pages to answering questions about Operation TIPS--an ill-conceived program that Congress had already terminated more than 8 months earlier. Is the Department incapable of responding to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion? Is it deliberately stonewalling? Or does it simply believe that oversight is a game that it need not play? Even more troubling, high-level administration officials have rashly suggested that anyone who dares to voice their concerns as unpatriotic, anti-American and pro-terrorist. In one of his rare appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft charged that "fear mongers"--those who were raising concern about the loss of civil liberties--were only aiding the terrorists. More recently, a Justice Department official dismissed the many local government resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act by saying "half are either in cities in Vermont, very small population, or in college towns in California. It's in a lot of the usual enclaves where you might see nuclear free zones, or they [[Page S12284]] probably passed resolutions against the war in Iraq." It is unfortunate that the Justice Department felt it appropriate to ridicule these grass-roots efforts to participate in an important national dialogue. The opportunity to engage in public discourse is one of the hallmark benefits of being an American, and I am proud that Vermont towns are among those dedicated to thinking about and acting on these important issues. But more importantly, the concerns expressed in my home State are being echoed by Americans nationwide. To date, anti- PATRIOT resolutions have been passed by 178 communities in 32 States including Idaho, New Hampshire, and Illinois. These communities represent millions upon millions of Americans, not just a few free- spirited Vermonters, as the Justice Department has insinuated. Concerns about the administration's antiterror tactics are also shared by Members on both sides of aisle, many of whom supported the PATRIOT Act as well as the war in Iraq, but who now know that the administration has been less than forthright about what it has been doing in the name of the American people. In July, the House voted to nullify section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to ask a court to delay notice of a search warrant where it could have certain adverse results. And several bills have been introduced in both Houses to roll back another PATRIOT Act provision, section 215, which gives federal agents new power to obtain records from libraries and bookstores. Remarkably, in response, the Justice Department then declassified information summarily reflecting that it has never used the Section 215 powers--despite expressing urgent "need" during pre- PATRIOT Act debate. And almost simultaneous to this announcement, the President urged support for an alternative record gathering power when Section 215 is still on the books. One has to question the inconsistencies in these two positions and whether Congress should blindly confer data gathering powers on an administration that does not provide a hint of factual support for such requests. There is overall a growing sense in the nation that Congress moved too fast in enacting the PATRIOT Act, and that the Justice Department moved too slowly in explaining its use of this sweeping legislation. When we passed the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I noted that Congress needed to exercise careful oversight of how the Justice Department, the FBI and other executive branch agencies used the newly expanded powers that the act provided. The need for oversight and accountability is the reason that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted on a sunset provision for several key provisions in PATRIOT--provisions that blurred the lines between criminal investigation and intelligence gathering. We succeeded, but only in part; several PATRIOT provisions that should have been subject to the sunset--including a few that were sunset or even cut in the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee--were omitted from the sunset. As enacted, the sunset applies only to certain enhanced surveillance authorities in title II of the act. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would extend PATRIOT's sunset provision to other enhanced surveillance provisions in title II of the act. These include subsections (a) and (c) of section 203, which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; sections 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; section 213, which authorizes so-called "sneak and peak"--delayed notification--search warrants; sections 216 and 222, which significantly expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; and section 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts. In addition to these title II provisions, the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would also extend the sunset to a handful of provisions in titles IV, V, VIII and X of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions include sections 411 and 1006, which expand the Government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; section 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to "certify" that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; section 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called "National Security Letters," even if no criminal investigation is pending and without court review; sections 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys--called "obstacles" to investigating terrorism in the PATRIOT Act; section 802, which defines "domestic terrorism" in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience; section 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of "domestic terrorism" to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and section 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT that is already covered by the sunset. With the PATRIOT Act, Congress provided government investigators with a virtual smorgasbord of new powers from which to choose. Is the Government gorging itself on the secretive powers allowed for "foreign intelligence" gathering, with their less onerous procedural requirements, rather than relying on bedrock criminal investigatory techniques that are subject to more rigorous review by the Federal courts? Have we provided too many choices and too much power to a limited few? These are questions that require answers before the more far-reaching provisions of PATRIOT are etched into stone. The events of September 11, 2001, resound in our hearts and in our memories. We owe it to the American people to be circumspect in the powers and authorities we grant, even in the name of national security. Our country was attacked on September 11 because of the democratic principles that this country stands for and that we love. It would be a cruel twist of irony to abandon those principles in the guise of a law named "PATRIOT" that might prove to be anything but a defender or protector of those cherished rights and freedoms. The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act offers a cautious and sensible solution to evolving fears about the PATRIOT Act. It will allow Congress to re-examine some of the important legal issues that abruptly confronted us in the weeks following September 11, and to re-assess our efforts with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003 Extends the current sunset provision in section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56) to the following additional sections of that law.: 203(a) and (c), which authorize the disclosure of grand jury information to foreign enforcement, intelligence and immigration officials; 210 and 211, which broaden the types of information that law enforcement may obtain, upon request, from electronic communication service providers and cable service operators; 213, which authorizes so-called "sneak and peak" (delayed notification) search warrants; 216 and 222, which expand when, where, and how law enforcement can obtain a pen register or trap and trace order; 219, which authorizes judges to sign search warrants for properties located outside their districts; 358, which establishes greater reporting requirements by financial institutions for bank records and removes privacy protections under the law for the same records; 411 and 1006, which expand the government's authority to declare certain persons inadmissible to the United States; 412, which grants the Attorney General authority to "certify" that an alien is engaged in activity that endangers the national security, and to take such an alien into custody; 505, which gives law enforcement greater authority to access telephone, bank, and credit records through the issuance of so-called "National Security Letters"; 507 and 508, which remove certain privacy protections for educational records and surveys; 802, which defines "domestic terrorism" in a way that could be read to include political protesters engaged in civil disobedience. 806, which uses the aforementioned definition of "domestic terrorism" to expand the government's civil forfeiture authority; and [[Page S12285]] 1003, which references another section of PATRIOT (section 217, "Interception of computer trespasser communications") that is already covered by the sunset. Clarifies that after these provisions sunset on December 31, 2005, the law shall revert to what it was before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. S. 1695 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003". SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND CLARIFICATION OF PATRIOT SUNSET PROVISION. The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) is amended by-- (1) striking section 224; (2) adding at the end of title X the following: "SEC. 1017. SUNSET. "(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the following sections of this Act and any amendments made by such sections shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005, and any provision of law amended or modified by such sections shall take effect January 1, 2006, as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act: "(1) In title II, all sections other than sections 201, 202, 204, 205, 208, and 221, and the first sentence of section 222. "(2) In title III, section 358. "(3) In title IV, sections 411 and 412. "(4) In title V, sections 505, 507, and 508. "(5) In title VIII, sections 802 and 806. "(6) In this title, sections 1003 and 1006. "(b) Exception.--With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect."; and (3) in the table of contents for such Act, by-- (A) striking the item for section 224 and inserting the following: "Sec. 224. [Stricken see section 1017]."; and (B) inserting after the item for section 1016 the following: "Sec. 1017. Sunset.". Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and our other colleagues in introducing the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act of 2003. I am one of those who voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act to respond to the unprecedented, tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. However, even at the time of that vote, I raised my reservations about the new authorities being granted under the act, and pledged that there would be aggressive oversight by the legislative branch to make sure PATRIOTS implementation did not compromise civil liberties. Since that time, this lengthy and complex law has been subjected to considerable dissection and discussion both inside and outside of Congress, and concerns have been raised about many of its provisions. The low boil of discontent around the Nation exploded in the other Chamber some weeks ago with a strong vote to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for requesting delayed notice of a search warrant under the act. To its credit, the Bush administration has lately worked to address criticism of the law and demonstrate there have been no abuses by Federal law enforcement. I greatly appreciate those efforts and believe it is vitally important to continue that dialog with the Congress and the American people. At the same time, in light of the serious concerns that have been raised, I think it is appropriate for us to add some triggers to the law that will force Congress to review and affirmatively renew these authorities. That is what the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act would accomplish, by sunsetting additional provisions that are not currently set to expire. I do not think this will create a burden for law enforcement; on the contrary, if these authorities are indeed critical to the protection of our Nation, it should not be difficult to convince Congress to renew them. Furthermore, the knowledge that such a case must be made at a time certain in the future will serve as an additional immediate check against potential abuses. The security of our Nation is the first responsibility of the Federal Government. Our bill will ensure that responsibility is carried out thoughtfully and in our country's great tradition of balance and restraint in the enforcement of our laws. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act. ______