SUNUNU DELIVERS REMARKS ABOUT SAFE ACT ON SENATE FLOOR

WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH) delivered the following remarks on April 7, 2004, regarding the SAFE Act:

“Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of the PATRIOT Act and to follow up on the remarks earlier this afternoon by Senator Craig of Idaho. I have joined Senator Craig in cosponsoring the SAFE Act, a piece of legislation that would make certain modifications to the PATRIOT Act. I will not go into all of the details of the legislation, as Senator Craig did. However, I do want to highlight a couple of the main provisions of the legislation to outline our thinking in crafting these provisions and underscore why I think we need to take a step back, look at the PATRIOT Act in its totality and try to make it work better and try to strike a better balance between the protection of the civil liberties we all cherish as Americans and the tools we do believe are necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct the war against terror.

“It is unfortunate some people have come out with a knee-jerk reaction calling for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. Before the PATRIOT Act our laws did not reflect or foresee a day and age with cellular phones, satellite phones, and a high-speed Internet. There are a lot of very important provisions of the PATRIOT Act that do update our law enforcement capabilities in a way that reflects changes in technology. Protecting civil liberties while giving law enforcement the ability to operate as technology and new threats to our security emerge is critical to winning the global war on terror.

“We can draw an appropriate line to protect civil liberties in a few specific areas. First, let’s look at sneak-and-peek warrants, or a delayed notification search warrant. Senator Craig spoke at length about the provision in the SAFE Act that would modify the PATRIOT Act to say instead of requiring notification within a reasonable amount of time, which is clearly an arbitrary definition. Instead, we ought to have a set time limit that notification of a search warrant executed without notice has to be provided within 7 days of the execution of the warrant.

“Now, if there is a threat to safety, or risk of flight, or a risk of damage to the investigation, the SAFE Act allows law enforcement officials to go back to the judge and extend that notification another 7 days. And that can continue indefinitely. This approach – specifying a time limit on the warrant and providing for more judicial review – is much clearer and more respectful of civil liberties. For anyone to suggest adding clarity in the law for notification undermines the capacity of law enforcement to continue to do their job, I think, is a level of rhetoric that does not serve an important debate such as this very well.

“Second, we added clarification to the provision in the PATRIOT Act that deals with a roving wiretap. The SAFE Act would require law enforcement to specify either the suspect to be put under surveillance through a roving wiretap – an order that follows that suspect as they use different cell phones, and other means of communication – or specify a particular location to be monitored. Specify the suspect or specify the location. Changing the PATRIOT Act to require such specification would add clarity to ensure the PATRIOT Act is not misused and minimizes the likelihood that innocent parties would be unknowingly tapped. And again, such a change would only improve the PATRIOT Act as it would protect those who are not targets of investigation but it still give law enforcement the ability to conduct this kind of a roving wiretap.

“Third, another provision of the SAFE Act applies sunset provisions to a number of different sections of the PATRIOT Act that do not sunset over time. When we talk about a sunset provision in the U.S. Congress, we are talking about a specific period during which the legislation is in force, but after that period – it might be a 2-year or 3-year or 4-year period – the law sunsets, and it needs to be reenacted or reauthorized by Congress.

“I think sunsets are healthy. They are good because they force Congress to rethink and reargue a piece of legislation and examine how the legislation has been used and problems that might exist with it. I think we are much more likely to make improvements to legislation if we have to reauthorize it at different periods in the future.

“I do not understand why anyone would say a sunset provision weakens legislation. It does not. It simply requires us to renew them at a future date. I do not know why law enforcement would be afraid of a sunset provision. I do not know why the Justice Department would be afraid of a sunset provision. If there is value to the law, it is helping law enforcement do their job, and all the while it is appropriately protecting civil liberties, the law will be reauthorized and improved over time.

“I cannot think of any reason the provisions of the SAFE Act that add clarity to the time frame for notification and judicial review of a sneak and peak warrant, that add specification to the person or place targeted for a wiretap, or that sunset provisions to a law should be opposed on the grounds that they somehow threaten our ability to conduct the war on terrorism. Quite to the contrary, the provisions of the SAFE Act go a long way toward ensuring individual civil liberties are protected, that the ability to misuse or abuse the law is minimized, that law enforcement continues to have what it needs to prosecute the war on terrorism, and that Congress has to affirm and reauthorize legislation over time. I only see the SAFE Act as strengthening the PATRIOT Act .

“So I join with Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Crapo, other members of the Senate, and the wide range of citizen groups who have all endorsed and supported the SAFE Act. I hope when we begin deliberations and discussions about renewing and extending the PATRIOT Act, these substantive yet modest, thoughtful modifications are a vital part of that debate that is undertaken in this Chamber.”

# # #