Dec 16th, 2005 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I want to make clear that this vote was not about whether I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I do. This vote was about whether I thought that the significant and unnecessary invasions into the privacy rights of all Americans were necessary to protect our national security--I do not.
Last July, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. I supported that bipartisan, compromise bill. Even though it did not contain all the privacy protections I would have liked, it took a lot of steps towards improving the problems in the PATRIOT Act that have become evidence since its passage. If that bill was on the floor today, I would support it.
But it is not. What we do have on the floor is a conference report that fails to address some of the most serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. For example, its version of Section 215 allows the Government to obtain library, medical, gun records, and other sensitive personal information on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. That is it. Relevance is all that is required. The Senate bill, on the other hand would have established a three part test to determine whether the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This seemingly small change will help prevent investigations which invade the privacy of American citizens that may have no connection to any suspected terrorist or spy. This is an important restriction.
In addition, unlike the Senate bill the conference report provides no mechanism for the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge the accompanying automatic, permanent gag order. The FISA, Foreign Intelliegence Surveillance Act, court reviews are simply not sufficient. They have the power only to review the Government application for the underlying Section 215 order. They do not have the power to make an individualized determination about whether a gag order should accompany it. So the recipient of a Section 215 order is automatically silenced forever. How is that fair? How is that consistent with our democratic principles?
The conference report doesn't provide judicial review of National Security Letters either. The Senate bill did. Judicial review is one of our best checks on unnecessary Government intrusion into individual privacy. Why deny it to our citizens?
Lastly, I would like to mention the problem with the conference reports provisions on the so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not include any protections against these warrants. Rather than requiring that the government notify the target of these warrants within 7 days, as the Senate bill did, the conference report requires notification within 30 days of the search. Thirty days. That is an awfully long time to go before learning that you have been the subject of a Government search.
These are just a few of the problems with the conference report. They are the most significant problems. Those in support know that it is flawed, but they are creating artificial time pressure to force us to approve the bill, flawed as it may be.
I realize that 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. I certainly do not want that to happen. But passing this conference report is not the only way to prevent their expiration. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to extend those provisions by three months to allow us time to fix the problems with the conference report. If that effort fails and the PATRIOT Act expires, the blame rests only with the White House and leadership that controls the House and the Senate. There was and remains a simple, unified way to get this done, and they rejected it.
There is no reason why we cannot be safe and free. The Senate bill accomplished this. And, I will keep working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that whatever legislation we ultimately pass to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act also accomplishes this.
Jan 25, 2006 Objecting to Judge Alito to SCOTUS This is part of a bigger speech, but it was a reason Sen. Kerry gave for opposing Judge Alito's appointment to the SCOTUS:
In that speech, Judge Alito ``preached the gospel'' of the Reagan administration's Justice Department, the theory of a unitary executive. And though in the hearings Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it didn't address the scope of the power of the executive branch but, rather, addressed the question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of Executive power.
In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that ``he practical consequences of the theory are dramatic. It renders unconstitutional independent agencies and councils.'' That means that Congress would lose the power to protect public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Products Commission, which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace, or the Securities and Exchange Commission which protects Americans from corporations such as Enron. And who would gain the power? The Executive, the President.
Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than simply invalidating independent agencies. The Bush administration has already used this theory to justify its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for Executive overreaching.
Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not the only cause for concern. In 1986, while working at the Justice Department, he endorsed the idea that Presidential signing statements could be used to influence judicial interpretation of legislation. His premise was that the President's understanding of legislation is just as important in determining legislative intent as Congress's, which is absolutely startling when you look at the history of legislative intent and of the legislative branch itself. President Bush has taken the practice of issuing signing statements to an extraordinarily new level. Most recently, he used a signing statement to reserve the right to ignore the ban on torture that Congress overwhelmingly passed. He also used signing statements to attempt to apply the law restricting habeas corpus review of enemy combatants retroactively, despite our understanding in Congress that it would not affect cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of passage.
The signing statements have been used to specifically negate or make an end run around very specific congressional intent. The implication of President Bush's signing statements are absolutely astounding. His administration is reserving the right to ignore those laws it doesn't like. Only one thing can hold this President accountable, and it is called the Supreme Court. Given Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive and his consistent deference to government power, I don't think Judge Alito is prepared to be the kind of check we need. Reining in excessive government power matters more today to the average American than perhaps at any recent time in our memory, as we work to try to provide a balance between protecting our rights and our safety. As Justice O'Connor said: The war on terror is not a blank slate for government action. We can and must fight that in a manner consistent with our Constitution.
There's also an interview on CNN-
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=1...A search can be a good thing, and I give props to my friends Mass and Tay Tay for providing this info!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
