HOUSE JUDICIARY EXPANDS PATRIOT ACT WHILE QUESTIONING IT
House Judiciary Committee Thurs. passed bill expanding USA Patriot Act by establishing procedures for sharing federal intelligence, including that gathered by wiretaps and electronic surveillance, with state and local authorities. At same time, however, Chmn. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and ranking Democrat Conyers (Mich.) sent letter to Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft demanding he and FBI Dir. Robert Mueller answer 50 questions on Patriot Act’s use by July 9. Sensenbrenner announced letter at markup involving questions raised by many committee members about reach of Patriot Act, adding sarcastically that letter was one that “I'm sure the Attorney General is going to be pleased to receive.” Committee on voice vote passed amended version of HR-4598 by Rep. Chambliss (R-Ga.) that had been negotiated with House Intelligence Committee and was considered on fast track to House floor consideration and passage.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Sensenbrenner and Conyers, in their 16-page letter to Ashcroft, said that on April 19 Mueller said in speech that Act had “helped prevent more terrorist attacks.” They asked for information on that and other uses of act, including: (1) How many times electronic, wire or oral interceptions had been disclosed to other federal agencies. (2) How many times Justice Dept. had received information from ISPs when immediate threat was perceived, and in how many of those cases “did the government, not a private person, submit the information suggesting immediate danger of death or physical injury?” (3) How many Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance applications had been made under Act’s expanded provisions, and how many of those were “roving,” which could involve cellphones and other devices. (4) How many search warrants for electronic evidence had been served under Act. “In light of the broad scope of the Act,” Sensenbrenner and Conyers wrote, the committee was seeking those answers and “we plan to schedule a hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion.” At Thurs. markup Rep. Delahunt (D-Mass.) praised Sensenbrenner and Conyers “for exercising oversight.”
At same time, committee passed expansion of Patriot Act. “The Patriot Act is good” in that it has facilitated information sharing among federal intelligence agencies, Sensenbrenner said at markup, “but further cooperation is needed” with state and local authorities. Bill was amended to permit federal law enforcement officials to share grand jury information with states, which drew strong objections from some committee members. But amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Weiner (D-N.Y.), said Patriot Act already allowed some sharing of grand jury information and his amendment merely would allow that material to be disseminated further to state and local authorities. It passed on contested voice vote.
Several committee members raised civil liberties concerns with bill, including some who had opposed USA Patriot Act, such as Rep. Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). Rep. Watt (D-N.C.) spearheaded effort to include provisions instructing “the Attorney General and the CIA” to protect personal privacy and not permit unnecessary dissemination of information. Effort was resisted by Rep. Green (R-Wis.), who was filling in for Crime Subcommittee Chmn. Smith (R-Tex.). Green said current law already would protect those issues. In break in markup due to House floor votes, Green and Watt worked out compromise amendment with less strong language on privacy protection, at one point replacing Watt’s choice of word “privacy” before “rights” with “constitutional and statutory.”
Debate on Watt amendment revealed concerns of some committee members on increasing powers of govt. in wake of Sept. 11, and several made references to new debate on creation of Dept. of Homeland Security. Crime Subcommittee ranking Democrat Scott (Va.) said that, along with fighting terrorism, “the challenge we face is protecting the privacy and freedom of our citizens. I'm concerned that we already have gone too far in restricting freedoms and liberties.” He said he was less concerned with HR-4598 than with resulting regulations that could emerge as result. Jackson Lee said “we're going to do this country a great disservice” if committee failed to give “due diligence to civil liberties.”