I first want to thank the many constituents who have contacted me regarding this important issue. I value your input, and urge you to continue actively engaging with our office. I have enjoyed speaking personally with several of you on this issue, and will always remain accessible to explain my positions on the issues before Congress.
A little background on the vote:
The three provisions set for review, oversight and potential reauthorization are (1) the Lone Wolf Provision, (2) the Roving Wiretap Provision and (3) the Business Records Provision.
The constitutionality of the Lone Wolf and Roving Wiretap Provisions has never been challenged. The Business Records Provision was more controversial, and has been amended to address those concerns. The USA PATRIOT Act actually erects additional safeguards in national security cases that do not exist in other categories of criminal conduct. These additional layers of constitutional protection require more oversight and scrutiny than the garden-variety drug cases I investigated as a federal prosecutor.
1) Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act (Lone Wolf Provision) – This provision allows law enforcement to conduct surveillance on non-U.S. citizens who act as “lone wolves” without ties to an organized terror group or foreign power. The United States faces varying threats to our safety, and national security agents must have the tools to prevent attacks planned by non-U.S. citizens acting outside the structure of an organized enemy.
2) Section 206 of the Patriot Act (Roving Wiretap Provision) – The roving wiretap tool has been available to law enforcement since 1986. It allows for law enforcement agents, after proving probable cause on an initial warrant, to extend that warrant to other communications devices used by a suspect. Instead of having to procure individual warrants on each device, which in the age of disposable phones can number in the thousands, this provision prevents suspects from evading surveillance by using multiple devices. The provision also requires continuous monitoring by the FISA court and detailed reporting by law enforcement officers.
3) Section 215 of the Patriot Act (Business Records Provision) – Business records are routinely sought and obtained in domestic investigations through the use of subpoenas, a practice I participated in countless times during my years in law enforcement. This provision goes a step further, requiring FISA court approval to obtain third-party information, NOT personal documents.
H.R. 514 only covers these three provisions, and is merely a temporary reauthorization through the end of the year. By voting for temporary reauthorization, we are ensuring our law enforcement agents have the necessary tools to keep our country safe from attack, while at the same time providing for a thorough examination of the law. Instead of rushing legislation through behind closed doors without proper oversight, this measure sets the stage for meaningful hearings to address any civil liberties concerns.
I have personally approached Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (the original author of the USA PATRIOT Act), and Representative Lamar Smith (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) urging them to conduct oversight hearings as soon as possible on the reauthorization of the three PATRIOT Act provisions set to expire at the end of 2011. I have been assured these hearings will occur, and expect to be an active participant in the process by asking tough questions and expecting candid responses.
We acknowledge the need to provide oversight in all aspects of government, including law enforcement and national security. I look forward to full, frank and fair debate on all aspects of the reauthorization in an open forum, with the public as an active partner in the oversight process.
-Trey
