Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Reintroduction of The Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2005 April 5, 2005 I am very pleased to join my colleagues in the reintroduction of the SAFE Act. Senator Craig and Senator Durbin, thank you for your commitment to these important issues. When I decided to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001, I never could have imagined that as we embark on the reauthorization process, I would be standing here today with this distinguished, bipartisan group of Senators and individuals, announcing the reintroduction of a bill that goes so far in providing the checks and balances that were missing from the PATRIOT Act at the time of its initial passage. The SAFE Act takes the right approach: It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but only within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. I am particularly gratified that this bill fixes some of the problems that I identified when we passed the PATRIOT Act. "Sneak and peek" searches, the need for reasonable limits on the FBI's use of roving wiretaps, and access to business records were issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as some of the reasons why I believed the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. The new version of the SAFE Act that we are introducing also fixes other parts of the PATRIOT Act that threaten civil liberties. It ensures that recipients of secret business records orders can challenge them in court. It ensures that the FBI cannot use National Security Letters, which FBI agents issue with no judicial supervision, to go on fishing expeditions for information about innocent Americans. It ensures that the FBI does not obtain sensitive information about our Internet usage without satisfying an appropriate standard. It ensures that environmental protesters or abortion protesters who engage in civil disobedience are not labeled terrorists. And it ensures that the FBI provides some very limited public reporting regarding its secret intelligence surveillance authority. As we review the PATRIOT Act and consider the need for reauthorization of the 16 provisions that sunset, I hope we can have a productive dialogue with the Justice Department and with other members of Congress who might not agree with us. We heard from the Attorney General this morning that he agrees that some changes to the PATRIOT Act must be made -- a welcome change after three and a half years of the Justice Department adamantly opposing any modifications and belittling critics. I hope as we go forward that we can have a debate that is honest. Recently, an Administration official said that we need an honest debate, and then proceeded almost in the same sentence to imply that concerns about library records were unfounded because the PATRIOT Act does not specifically mention libraries. That's true of course, but Section 215 relates to business records of any kind, including library records. So those who call for an honest debate have to be honest themselves about what this law could allow. We also need more than a debate. We need true engagement and a willingness to listen to the concerns of the American people and address them. The Attorney General took the first step this morning. Now we need to sit down at a table together, and go through the details of the law. I want to hear and understand the Administration's concerns about our approach, and I want the Justice Department to hear and understand our concerns about the PATRIOT Act and about their proposals. I look forward to working with my friends and colleagues here today as the PATRIOT Act reauthorization process moves forward to ensure that our laws give the government the tools it needs to combat terrorism while respecting the privacy and civil liberties of people in this country. The SAFE Act is a very good place to start.

# # #