[国会记录：2005年4月7日（扩展）] [Page E588]民权自由恢复法案______ HON。加利福尼亚州霍华德L.伯曼在2005年4月6日星期三贝尔曼先生的众议院。扬声器先生，今天，我加入了我的同事比尔狄拉罕弗（D-MA）在介绍“公民自由恢复法”中。三年前，继9月11日袭击事件后，律师将国会提交了长期以来他所遇到的新权力列表，以保护美国从未来的恐怖主义袭击中保护美国。六周后，国会在美国Patriot法案中批准了这些权力。我在2001年投票给了“爱国者法”，因为我觉得其一些规定为恐怖主义提供了基本工具。我确实期待大会将勤奋监督律师将军使用我们提供的工具。不幸的是，这并不遗憾。“公民自由恢复法”（CLRA）是我们努力向我们的法律制度返回监督，并恢复那种是我们政府基础的支票和平衡。由于我们颁布了爱国者的行为，几乎，关于其广泛的争论和对适当的流程和隐私的影响，有巨大的公开辩论。 I do believe that there are some misperceptions about the law and its effects, but I also believe that many of the concerns raised are legitimate and worthy of review by Congress. The CLRA does not repeal any part of the PATRIOT Act, nor does it in any way impede the ability of agencies to share information. Instead, it inserts safeguards in a number of PATRIOT provisions. The bill addresses two pieces of the PATRIOT Act in particular. First, it ensures that when the Attorney General asks a business or a library for personal records, he must have reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is an agent of a foreign power. Second, the bill would make clear that evidence gained in secret searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal proceeding without providing, at the very least, a summary of that evidence to the defendant's lawyers. One of my biggest concerns when we passed the PATRIOT Act was that the changes we made in FISA would encourage law enforcement to circumvent the protections of the 4th Amendment by conducting searches for criminal investigations through FISA authority rather than establishing probable cause. This provision in the CLRA does not take away any of the powers we provided in the PATRIOT Act. It simply requires that if the government wants to bring the fruits of a secret search into a criminal courtroom it must share the information with the defendant under existing special procedures for classified information. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act deals with more than the PATRIOT Act. It also addresses a number of unilateral policy actions taken by Attorney General Ashcroft both before and after enactment of the PATRIOT Act without consultation with or input from the Congress. For example, the Administration has undertaken the `mining' of data from public and non-public databases. Left unchecked, the use of these mining technologies threatens the privacy of every American. The CLRA requires that any federal agency that initiates a data-mining program must report to Congress within 90 days so that the privacy implications of that program can be monitored. The Attorney General unilaterally instituted a number of policies dealing with detention of noncitizens that we address. For example, the AG ordered blanket closure of immigration court hearings and prolonged detention of individuals without charges. The CLRA would permit those court hearings to be closed to protect national security on a case by- case basis and requires that individuals be charged within 48 hours, unless they are certified as a threat to national security by the AG as mandated under the Patriot Act. The CLRA also addresses the special tracking program (known as NSEERS) created by the Attorney General, which requires men aged 16 and over from certain countries to be fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated for no specific cause. This program creates a culture of fear and suspicion in immigrant communities that discourages cooperation with antiterrorism efforts. The CLRA terminates this program and provides a process by which those individuals unjustly detained could proceed with interrupted immigration petitions. This is the only provision of the CLRA that eliminates a program outright, but this program has already been partially repealed by the Department of Homeland Security and largely replaced by the US VISIT system. When I voted for the PATRIOT Act, I understood that my vote carried with it a duty to undertake active oversight of the powers granted by the bill and carefully monitor their use. When Congress passed this law, Mr. Speaker, we included a sunset provision that would require us to reconsider and evaluate the policies we adopted. This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing to consider these sunset provisions, and we heard testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking that we make the sunsetted provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. In light of the many policies implemented unilaterally by this Administration since passage of the PATRIOT Act, our review of this Congress must go beyond just the sunset provisions in order to fulfill our duty of oversight. The review started today by the House Judiciary Committee must encompass the whole of our anti-terrorism policies. Congress should continue to examine whether the policies pursued by the Attorney General are the most effective methods to protect our nation from terrorists, whether they represent an efficient allocation of our homeland security resources, and whether they are consistent with the foundations of our democracy. Fortunately, the 9/11 Commission laid out a standard by which we can evaluate our current policies. First, Congress should not renew any provision unless the government can show, ``(a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties.'' Second, the Commission advises that ``if the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.'' This is the standard that we ought to apply across the board. It is the standard that Mr. Delahunt and I applied in drafting this legislation. It is my hope Mr. Speaker, that this standard will guide us in our work and that we will enjoy an active debate on these issues and this legislation. ____________________