"Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act. In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world.
I believe that when the President signs this anti-terrorism legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals
as best we now can. The act is a far-reaching bill. I will mention just a few key aspects of that bill.
First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st century. Here are two of many examples.
Under current law, the FBI can use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another example:
Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that ISP.
This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue valid warrants nationwide.Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information with each other in defined contexts. For example, the act says that under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury information related to foreign- and counter-intelligence.
I appreciate concerns that this information-sharing authority could be abused. Like Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in North Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can focus on investigations, not duplicative court applications.
A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering.
The administration initially proposed changing the ``primary purpose'' requirement to a requirement of ``a purpose,'' any foreign intelligence purpose. At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance requires not just ``a purpose,'' but ``a significant purpose,'' of foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial improvement that I support. In applying this ``significant purpose'' requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its letter regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has ``an obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, ``to reject FISA applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional.
I anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this area. A forth step taken by this legislation is
to triple the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our 4,000-mile northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol agents to guard those 4,000 miles.
Orange cones are too often our only defenses against illegal entries. This bill will change that.
Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state of affairs.
Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists.
We make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of limitations guarantee what lawyers call ``repose." Terrorists deserve no repose.
As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation is not perfect, and the House-Senate Conference may yet make improvements. For example,
the Conference might clarify that, as to aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the due process protections and judicial review required by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and INS v. St. Cyr.
The Conference might also sensibly include a sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will
reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished liberties, in light of further experience and reflection. The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.
Source: http://www.cdt.org/security/011011senate.txt
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
