FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 7, 2006
Contact: Chris Arend
(303) 844-4988
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), released the following statement today on the renewal of the Patriot Act:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006."

I am strongly committed to fighting and winning the war on terror. The most solemn obligation of government is to protect the citizenry, and we need to make sure that law enforcement has the powers it needs to do so.

At the same time, governments throughout history, including our own, have abused their authority in the name of promoting such security. Americans should feel comfortable that while government is protecting them from others, their private lives are protected from unwarranted government intrusion. The right to privacy is one of our most precious rights, a hallmark of the American experiment.

I opposed the initial USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 because it threatened our civil liberties. As I have said before, while the compromise makes some improvements to the original USA PATRIOT Act, it does not go far enough to preserve civil liberties.

It will remain too easy for the government to fish through the private information of innocent Americans. This includes medical, gun, library, and financial records. Institutions that receive requests for information are still prevented from talking about them, and their ability to successfully challenge these "gag orders" is limited or nonexistent. Government’s power to conduct secret searches of one’s personal effects without prior notice, so called "sneak and peak" authority, remains too expansive.

S. 2271 only makes three changes to the prior act. First, it allows recipients of Section 215 orders to challenge accompanying "gag orders." However, it delays any action for at least one year and makes a successful challenge virtually impossible. Second, it clarifies that recipients of Section 215 orders and National Security Letters (NSLs) do not have to disclose to the government the identities of attorneys consulted to assist in responding to these requests. Finally, it seeks to exclude libraries from the reach of NSLs. Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement about whether the language in S. 2271 actually will accomplish its goal of clarifying that libraries are not subject to NSLs.

These changes, taken as a whole, are at best small improvements which, most significantly, do not address the larger concerns I discussed earlier. As such, I cannot endorse S. 2271 and this reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

I am pleased that Senator Specter and others have said they will revisit the USA PATRIOT Act to deal with the many problems that remain. I look forward to a new bill that more properly balances our need to protect civil liberties and provide tools necessary in fighting terrorism.

###