Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on September 22, 2004 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the SAFE Act. I am hopeful that this hearing will be the beginning of a long overdue, full and open debate on the USA PATRIOT Act and sensible proposals to protect our freedom and privacy, such as the SAFE Act. It is absolutely critical that this Committee have a full, honest debate about the PATRIOT Act, a law that may be the most controversial act of Congress in recent years. The independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission called for "a full and informed debate on the Patriot Act" and Commissioners Lee Hamilton and Slade Gorton underscored this recommendation when they testified before this Committee in August. For too long, the Administration has tried to avoid having a real debate on the parts of the law that trouble so many Americans. Instead, the Administration has ridiculed those with legitimate concerns or talked about provisions in the Act that are not controversial. And on those few occasions when Administration officials actually address the specific provisions and specific concerns that I and my colleagues have cited, they frequently distort what the law actually says. I hope that the Administration will take the advice of the 9/11 Commission and finally begin a good faith dialogue on the PATRIOT Act, and I hope it begins today. As I indicated when I voted against the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I support most of the provisions in the bill. I continue to think that it contained many prudent and necessary measures to protect our nation against terrorism. But I voted against the bill because certain provisions went too far. Those provisions included the expanded so-called "sneak and peek" power, the provision granting government access to library and personal records, and the roving wiretaps provision. I believed these provisions threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. I am very pleased that a growing number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who voted for the bill now agree with me that these provisions should be amended. I was very pleased to join my colleagues Senator Craig and Durbin as an original cosponsor of the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act amends a limited number of provisions of the PATRIOT Act in order to protect our civil liberties. It does not repeal any portion of the Act. The powers contained in each of the amended provisions remain available to help protect our nation against terrorism. But the SAFE Act strengthens the role of the courts as a check on the executive branch, a role that unfortunately was diminished by the PATRIOT Act. The SAFE Act makes important modifications to enhance judicial review of the FBI's roving wiretap and so-called "sneak and peek" search powers. The SAFE Act also restores meaningful judicial oversight to the FBI's ability to obtain business records under Section 215. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, investigators had to state, in their application to the court, that the records sought pertained to a suspected terrorist or spy. But the PATRIOT Act greatly expanded this power, so that investigators are no longer limited to records that relate to suspected terrorists or spies. Now, the government need only state that the records are "sought for" a counter-intelligence or international terrorism investigation. This standard is so low that it could allow the FBI to engage in fishing expeditions for information on people who are not suspected terrorists or spies. The provision also prevents judges from reviewing any facts to determine whether the scope of the request is reasonable. The SAFE Act corrects these problems by simply re-inserting the pre-PATRIOT Act standard to ensure that a judge's role as a check on the executive branch is real and effective. During the last year, the Administration has repeatedly claimed that Section 215 is already tailored to terror suspects. It is not. I am glad that the Administration seems to agree with me in principle that Section 215 should be focused on suspected terrorists, not innocent Americans. Now, let's have the law match the intent. That is precisely what the SAFE Act would do. Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough that the SAFE Act is a reasonable and bipartisan proposal. We are not seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act or to stop the government from doing its vital job of protecting our nation and tracking down suspected terrorists. We simply want to add sensible safeguards to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans who have no connection to terrorism at all.

# # #