PJA As the debate over the USA PATRIOT Act moves to the U.S. Senate, the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA) is deeply concerned that the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3199, the “USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005,” thereby extending the provisions of the Patriot Act which were set to sunset on December 31, 2005, without a full and fair debate and with insufficient attention paid to protecting civil liberties.       

The Senate should reject the seriously flawed House bill that makes all but two of the Patriot Act's expiring provisions permanent and puts an excessively long ten-year sunset on those two provisions. The House bill was railroaded to approval after the Rules Committee refused to allow a fair, up-or-down vote on a series of important amendments that would have

1. required individual suspicion for orders demanding personal records, offered by Reps. Harman and Berman; 
2. exempted library and bookstore records from secret Patriot Act records powers, offered by Rep. Sanders (and already approved by the House last month); 
3. expanded the new sunset clause to include all expiring provisions, offered by Rep. Ruppersberger;
4. extended the so-called “lone wolf” surveillance power as part of the new sunset period, rather than make this power permanent, offered by Rep. Hastings; 
5. allowed individuals to challenge secrecy orders in records requests, offered by Rep. Nadler; and
6. reformed roving wiretaps in FISA cases to contain the same privacy safeguards as roving wiretaps in criminal cases, offered by Rep. Harman.

Denying a fair vote on these amendments is itself a grave denial of democracy and an abuse of power which the Senate must not repeat.  The bill falls far short of correcting the most intrusive provisions of the Patriot Act that are subject to the sunset clause. For example (this list is not exhaustive): 

• Sec. 215: Secret searches of personal records, including library records. The bill does not provide a standard of individual suspicion so that the court that examines these extraordinary requests can ensure personal privacy is respected, and also falls short by failing to correct the automatic, permanent secrecy order. The “right to challenge” in the bill may be illusory in many cases because challenges may only be filed in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and would be heard secretly, with secret evidence. The changes proposed are minimal, and reflect concessions the Justice Department has already made in litigation challenging this section. Extending this section for an entire decade, without any real changes to protect privacy, is inconsistent with the bipartisan House vote (238-187), just last month, to bar funding for the use of this intrusive power to obtain certain library and bookstore records.
• Sec. 206: “Roving” wiretaps in national security cases without naming a suspect or telephone. The bill does nothing to correct the overbroad provision of the Patriot Act that allows the government to get “John Doe” roving wiretaps ­ wiretaps that fail to specify the target or the device. The bill also does not include any requirement that the government check to make sure its “roving” wiretaps are intercepting only the target’s conversations. Both of these requirements are part of the criminal “roving wiretap” statute. There is no reason why they should not be included in the statute that covers an even more secret and intrusive form of surveillance.

The bill also falls far short in failing to address the most controversial permanent sections of the Patriot Act. For example (this list is also not exhaustive): 

• Sec. 213: Secret “delayed notice” searches of homes and offices. The bill leaves in place an overbroad, “catch-all” standard for allowing the government to delay notice of an ordinary criminal search warrant (available in all cases). The bill also imposes no time limit on delays, allowing such delays to continue for weeks, months or even indefinitely. Again, failing to reform this section is inconsistent with the overwhelming bipartisan House vote (309-118) in 2003 to bar funding for such “sneak and peek” searches.
• Sec. 505: Intrusive “national security letters.” The bill does nothing to correct the FBI’s extraordinary power to obtain credit reports, communications service provider records, and so-called “financial records” (which actually covers businesses as varied as casinos, real estate offices, and car dealerships) with a demand that requires no individual suspicion, is permanently secret, and contains no right to challenge. Corrections are sorely needed to respond to a federal court decision (Doe v. Ashcroft) that struck down a “national security letter” as a result of these flaws because the statute violates the First and Fourth Amendments.
• Sec. 802: Overbroad “domestic terrorism” definition. The bill does nothing to correct an overbroad definition of “domestic terrorism” that could cover some direct action protest tactics, such as blocking traffic, trespassing on private property, or other civil disobedience that is regarded as “dangerous to human life” and is motivated by a desire to influence government policy. 
    

Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, PJA has spoken out on several occasions calling for greater protection of our cherished civil liberties. Our nation cannot abandon fundamental constitutional rights in the name of "national security." We are never safe if our liberties are in danger.
     
PJA calls on the Senate to reject the House bill and to conduct public hearings which allow all views to be heard, leading to reforms in the Patriot Act that retain what has proven to help maintain security and eliminate those provisions that pose a dangerous threat to our constitutional rights.