STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ON PASSAGE OF THE BILL TO REAUTHORIZE THE USA PATRIOT ACT
March 9, 2006

"I applaud the Senate for voting to renew the Patriot Act and overcoming the partisan attempts to block its passage. The terrorists have not lost the will or the ability to attack us. The Patriot Act is vital to the war on terror and defending our citizens against a ruthless enemy. This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people."

Read President Bush's speech at the signing ceremony

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES ON THE PASSAGE OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
March 2, 2006

“Since the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice’s highest priority has been to protect Americans by preventing acts of terrorism. I applaud Congress for reauthorizing each and every expiring provision of the USA PATRIOT Act and providing additional tools to fight terrorism and other serious crimes."

“This reauthorization is the product of nearly a year of serious debate and congressional oversight -- an important process that demonstrated that the USA PATRIOT Act is critical to our ongoing efforts to protect Americans. This review also confirmed that the Department of Justice has used the investigative tools provided by the Act in a responsible manner. The reauthorization bill makes permanent vital provisions -- including those that helped dismantle the ‘wall’ between intelligence and law enforcement -- and also adds dozens of civil liberties safeguards. Importantly, the legislation provides additional tools for protecting our mass transportation systems and seaports from attack; takes steps to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our country; and closes dangerous loopholes in our ability to prevent terrorist financing. Finally, the reauthorization bill provides for the creation of a National Security Division at the Department of Justice, enabling us to more effectively fulfill our vital national security mission. We all can be proud of this legislation.”

FACT SHEET: USA PATRIOT ACT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted on October 26, 2001, has been critical in preventing another terrorist attack on the United States. It brought the federal government’s ability to investigate threats to the national security into the modern era—by modifying our investigative tools to reflect modern technologies, eliminating barriers to effective national security investigations, and giving national security investigators the same sorts of tools as have long been available to investigators who handle non-national security matters.

Today, following several months of intense debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199). This legislation reauthorizes all expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, adds dozens of additional safeguards to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties, strengthens port security, and provides tools to combat the spread of methamphetamine. The reauthorizing legislation provides essential support for our efforts to protect both Americans and the values that Americans cherish.

Read the full press release

30 NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES SAFEGUARDS ADDED TO THE USA PATRIOT ACT:
The Administration has scored a number of key victories in the War on Terror over the past four years, many as a result of expanded information sharing and investigative tools provided by the USA PATRIOT Act. On December 31, 2005, 16 key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire unless the Senate acts to reauthorize them.

Despite a four-year track record with no verified civil liberties abuses, the current bill adds more than 30 new significant civil liberties safeguards. Unless the Senate reauthorizes the USA PATRIOT Act, these additional civil liberties protections will also be lost.

Read the full press release

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA PATRIOT Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the PATRIOT Act provisions Congress is renewing.

Read the full op-ed

I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties.

Read the full op-ed

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. In response Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. Now, before it adjourns for the year, Congress must act again to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at work: Their stated goal is to kill Americans, cripple our economy and demoralize our people.

The bill to be considered this week is a good one. It equips law enforcement with the tools needed to fight terrorists, and it also includes new civil liberties protections. Members of Congress should put aside the rhetoric and focus on the facts surrounding this vital legislation.

Read the full op-ed

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUCIDIARY COMMITTEE JAMES SENSENBRENNER ON THE RENEWAL OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
March 2, 2006

"Today, the Senate faced a decision whether we continued to wage the war on terror or whether we retreated to a pre-9/11 security approach. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the Senate voted to extend the most critical anti-terrorism legislation enacted since 9/11. The 89-to-10 bipartisan vote illustrates an understanding that the PATRIOT Act has kept us safer while protecting the civil liberties we cherish."

Read the full quote

STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT IN COMBATTING TERRORISM
December 22, 2005

"The PATRIOT Act is essential to protecting the American people against the terrorists. The Act tore down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence officials so that they can share information and work together to help prevent attacks. . The PATRIOT Act has helped us to disrupt terrorist plots and break up cells here in the United States. I will work closely with the House and Senate to make sure that we are not without this crucial law for even a day."

STATEMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT
December 21, 2005

" The number one tool in defending this country is intelligence. Gathering it, investigating it, and sharing it. If we don't have the full ability to use the tools of gathering, sharing, and using intelligence, we are putting very important weapons in the war on terror down on the ground and walking away from them. And I don't think that's anything we can afford to do. . Our line of defense is a line with intelligence and investigation. And the PATRIOT Act gives us the ability to do that in a way that respects the Constitution, respects civil liberties, but gets the job done."

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES ON THE SENATE'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW A VOTE ON THE USA PATRIOT ACT
December 16, 2005

"These provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks. Our Nation cannot afford to let these important counterterrorism tools lapse. The House of Representatives has already acted, through a bipartisan vote that renewed the PATRIOT Act's sunsetted provisions while strengthening the Act's significant civil liberties protections. After 23 congressional hearings, testimony from more than 60 different witnesses, and months of deliberations, it is now time for the Senate to act. National security should not be compromised with procedural delaying tactics. The PATRIOT Act has clear bipartisan majority support, and the Senate should be allowed to vote up or down on the conference report. The American people deserve no less."

CONSEQUENCES OF LETTING THE USA PATRIOT ACT EXPIRE:
If the USA PATRIOT Act is allowed to expire, we will return to a pre-9/11 mode of information sharing where there are not clear rules governing investigators' ability to share information with each other, where terrorists and spies can use technology against us, and where it is more difficult to investigate a potential terrorist attack that it is to catch a drug dealer, a mobster, or a white collar criminal.

Read the full press release

The Wall Street Journal: PATRIOT Act Showdown
In a December 21 editorial, the Wall Street Journal calls on the Senate minority of 42 Democrats and four Republicans to end the filibuster on the PATRIOT Act and allow the Senate to give this important bill and up or down vote.

At midnight on December 31, while Americans are ringing in the New Year, terrorists will have something to celebrate too: The expiration of 16 key provisions of the USA Patriot Act. ...

There's still a chance a deal can be reached to extend the anti-terrorism law before the deadline, but don't count on it. That would require an act of responsibility from Senate Democrats -- something that's in short supply these days on matters of national security. Instead, this Senate minority of 42 Democrats and four Republicans prefers to impose its will on bipartisan majorities by refusing to let the renewal of the Patriot Act come to the Senate floor for a vote. President Bush called the filibuster "inexcusable" this week, and most Republicans seem ready to fight this one out for a change. They ought to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113513305466728143.html?mod=opinion_main

Fran Townsend: Pass the PATRIOT Act
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Frances Fragos Townsend, calls on Republicans and Democrats alike to place the protection of Americans before politics and reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act.

The USA Patriot Act is much more than an abstract political debate in Washington. It is an essential part of the United States' effort to prosecute the War on Terror in tangible, measurable ways. The House of Representatives has voted to reauthorize the provisions of the Patriot Act that are leading to real results in the war, but unfortunately, on Friday, a minority of senators blocked the reauthorization.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3327614

I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties.

Read the full op-ed

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. In response Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. Now, before it adjourns for the year, Congress must act again to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at work: Their stated goal is to kill Americans, cripple our economy and demoralize our people.

The bill to be considered this week is a good one. It equips law enforcement with the tools needed to fight terrorists, and it also includes new civil liberties protections. Members of Congress should put aside the rhetoric and focus on the facts surrounding this vital legislation.

Read the full op-ed

The PATRIOT Act has given investigators additional authorities they need to help stop terrorists before they can hurt Americans and harm our way of life. As we know, the Act was designed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress to deal directly with the shortcomings in our system prior to September 11th - providing new and better methods of sharing information, increasing cooperation and coordination in the law enforcement community, and improving our ability to track and investigate terrorist activity in the United States. Sixteen key provisions of the Act are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. For several months, Congress has debated these provisions. It is good in a democracy like ours that we discuss and analyze the wisdom of every law - particularly those that, if abused, would infringe your civil liberties. We have done that. Now, Congress must act to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act by sending the President a bill of which all Americans can be proud.

Read the full speech
Read the Council on Foreign Relations Fact sheet

The Justice Department cannot secure our nation against terrorist attack unless investigators are equipped with tools that allow them to disrupt plots before they can be carried out. These same tools must protect civil liberties. National Security Letters (NSLs) satisfy both requirements. In national security investigations, the FBI must follow up on every tip and every threat. The American people demand as much. NSLs, which predate the USA Patriot Act, enable the FBI to do so quickly and unobtrusively. An NSL is simply a request for information. It does not authorize the FBI to conduct a search or make a seizure. If the recipient of an NSL declines to produce the requested information, the FBI cannot compel him to do so; only a federal court has that authority.

"Like all Americans, I hold dear our freedom from unwanted government intrusion into our private lives. As a people, we have always recognized that greater freedom may be accompanied by somewhat diminished security. As recent events have shown, terrorism poses a serious threat to both our security and freedom.

The Patriot Act strikes a reasonable and sensible balance between freedom and security to meet the real dangers we face. The act provides the essential means we need to defend ourselves against terrorists while maintaining and protecting the civil and constitutional rights we cherish."

"We now know from these attacks that the threat is still out there, that we shouldn't become complacent, that we do need authorities like the Patriot Act to help us, to help the law enforcement community gather information so that we can prevent additional attacks not only against America, but against America's friends and allies."

"But this is a very diabolical, very patient enemy. And what we can assure the American viewers is that we've done a lot to protect America. We now have a Department of Homeland Security. We have additional resources, personnel, and technology to deal with this issue. We're in the process of reorganizing the Department of Justice and the FBI, all to make sure that we can share information better. And all this is an attempt to ensure that the government is doing everything it can do to protect America and its allies."

"Well, what I've said is I would welcome clarifications and certain reforms in The Patriot Act. But I've always been very clear, very consistent in saying that I could not support provisions or changes, amendments to the act that would weaken the act, that would make it more difficult to protect America against these kinds of threats and against these kinds of attacks."

We need accurate information about who is in our country, about where they came from, about unusual or suspicious activities that experience has shown may be related to terrorist plots. Unless we enhance our ability to prevent attacks by effectively gathering, sharing and analyzing information about our enemies we will have no chance to defeat them. We will be left to look back again and again, impotently, in the aftermath of brutal attacks, like the ones in London, and try to solve the mystery of who committed the crime.

The USA Patriot Act is, quite simply, a vital tool in the information arsenal for this 21st century war. The Patriot Act has been undergoing a robust and necessary debate in Congress. However, the Act has come under unwarranted and misinformed attack.

The Patriot Act allows criminal investigators to share information with intelligence officials and visa versa. This information sharing was prohibited by law before the Patriot Act. This prohibition contributed to our inability to detect and stop the attacks on 9/11. The Patriot Act modernized our ability to monitor criminal and terrorist communications by applying our wiretap laws to new technologies such as cell phones and e-mail without modifying or reducing the legal and constitutional restraints applicable to those tools. Wiretap orders must still be reviewed by, approved by and monitored by a federal court to prevent any abuse of this power.

The war on terror is multifaceted and requires an offensive strategy abroad as well as appropriate and clear policies at home that allow law enforcement officials to break up terrorist cells, both in the U.S. and overseas. These cells need to be infiltrated in order to protect America from another attack. This requires law enforcement officers to trace finances, monitor suspicious activity and uncover this vast network known as al-Qaida. The Patriot Act serves this role by allowing agents to pursue subpoenas to search a terrorist's background, Internet activity, phone calls, travel plans or any other detail that will determine the suspect's involvement. Ultimately, the goal is to stop terrorists from plotting to murder innocent Americans and the Patriot Act has helped apprehend many of these killers.

America's national security investigators work to prevent terrorists' communication and freeze their assets. As we move into the 21st century with new and different threats, part of their goal is to make it difficult, impossible even, for terrorists to hide, plan and coordinate. The unconventional threats facing America today are not like the dangers of the past. We are fighting a wide-ranging and complex system of spylike terrorists who act covertly and are ready to give up their lives to kill. Their end-goal is unclear but it does not include freedom or democracy. Taking the fight to the enemy is necessary but not enough; America must defend its homeland by providing federal investigators with tools to track down terrorists within our borders. The Patriot Act provides these and is essential to winning the war on terror.

In order to fight this new enemy, law enforcement and the intelligence community needed to be able to use the same tools that law enforcement has successfully used over the years to fight the mob, drug cartels, public corruption and other types of organized criminal activity. Those tools include wiretaps, roving wiretaps, search warrants, delayed notification search warrants, grand jury subpoenas requiring the production of records and, most importantly, being able to share the information that was obtained with other law enforcement agencies. The Patriot Act gave the war on terrorism those tools. The Patriot Act also provided for broad judicial oversight as to the use of these new tools.

I also want to discuss Section 215. The criticism of this section more than any other underscores the misunderstanding surrounding the Patriot Act. The critics of this provision call it "the library provision." The fact is, the word "library" does not appear in the section. Rather, the terms used are "records" or "things."

Section 215 permits federal judges to order that business records or similar types of records be provided to law enforcement when those records are being sought for the purpose of fighting international terrorism. It gives to the war on terrorism another of the tools that historically has been employed in the fight against organized crime, gangs, official corruption and drug cartels.

The irony of the criticism of this section is that such information is routinely obtained in traditional criminal investigations pursuant to a subpoena with no judicial oversight. Section 215 authorizes terrorism investigators to obtain the same type of information but only through a court order.

Wood writes:

Inter-agency sharing of information is crucial to a thorough and meaningful terrorism investigation. Here in Georgia, our law enforcement agencies have benefited from this exchange on a regular basis. Since passage of the Act, 212 individuals in terrorism-related investigations have been convicted across the country.

Critics of the Patriot Act raise hypothetical civil rights abuses that they fear might someday occur. A common target of the hypothetical abuse musings is Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Critics fear that it would result in unchecked government searches of library records.

Actually, Section 215 does not contain the word "library." It does allow terrorism investigators to gather relevant documents. It has been used exactly 35 times in three and a half years and never to gather information from a library. Moreover, to be certain that it is not misused, it contains a requirement that a federal judge approve its usage in advance.

Wood's entire op-ed can be read here: http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/071905/3170055.shtml

Corrente writes:

The Patriot Act made a number of important and sensible improvements in the rules that govern intelligence investigations. First, it broke down "The Wall," which had prohibited the sharing of information between criminal investigators and intelligence personnel.

For example, a federal prosecutor told Congress about a criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in 1996 and described how he had been able to talk to police officers and even to al-Qaida members, but not to the FBI agents across the street, who were involved in an intelligence investigation of bin Laden.

The ability to share information has been critical to the dismantling of several terror cells, including ones in Portland, Ore., and Lackawanna, N.Y. No one has openly advocated rebuilding The Wall, but several of the information-sharing provisions of the act are among those scheduled to expire this year.

Corrente's entire op-ed can be read here: http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20050720_20ctpa.ts.3fceca9.html

As Attorney General, I have sworn to enforce the laws and protect the liberties of the American people. And as district attorneys, you bring your expertise and integrity to bear every day to serve the citizens of your communities. You are the men and women on the frontlines and you have the most to lose whenever an effective law enforcement tool is lost or compromised. For this reason, I want to say a few words about the PATRIOT Act.

In my experience in the White House and now at the Department of Justice, I have seen just how critical it is for law enforcement to use the PATRIOT Act to build better communication and cooperation. We know today that the terrorists avoided detention of the plans for September 11, in part, because of our inability to share information adequately.

President Bush believes that winning the war on terror requires winning the war of information.

Sixteen critical provisions of the PATRIOT Act-including those that encourage information sharing-are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. We are at a critical point as the bill is being debated in both houses of Congress. I am optimistic that members of Congress share my sense of urgency in making sure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect this country from future terrorist attacks-tools that are consistent with our long cherished values and consistent with our rights under the Constitution.

Read the full speech: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/071805nationaldisattassocmeeting.htm

Fuelner writes:

Today, almost four years later, the verdict is in: The Patriot Act works -- and the provisions scheduled to "sunset" should be renewed.

Of course, this being Washington, not everyone agrees.

Critics tend to focus on Section 215 of the Act. It allows a special federal court to approve a search warrant for any tangible thing (books, records, papers, documents and other items) during an investigation aimed at international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Such a search is allowed, provided the investigation doesn't violate the First Amendment rights of an American citizen.

This is a critical power. As Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey told Congress last month, "You want to catch a terrorist with his hands on the check instead of his hands on the bomb. You want to be many steps ahead of the devastating event. The way we do that is through preventive and disruptive measures, by using investigative tools to learn as much as we can, as quickly as we can, and then incapacitating a target at the right moment."

...On the other hand, if we repeal Section 215, we remove even the possibility that the police could investigate suspicious activity in a library or a bookstore. We'd effectively make those places safe havens for terrorists. That would clearly be a big mistake.

You can read the entire article on the Heritage Foundation website: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed071805a.cfm

Over the past year, the Register has expressed criticisms in various editorials of the USA Patriot Act ["The House takes a patriotic stand," June 17; "A' for effort, needs work," Oct. 17, 2004; and "Welcome limitation on the Patriot Act," Oct. 3, 2004]. The Register's views reflect common misconceptions of the reforms the USA Patriot Act made to existing laws and how the FBI uses these laws to investigate national security cases.

Contrary to the Register's views that the act was cobbled together in haste after 9/11, the act actually intelligently addressed laws and policies that had placed unnecessary restraints on the FBI's ability to gather, analyze and share terrorism-related information. In other areas, the act updated federal laws - written in the era of rotary telephones - to account for new technologies such as the Internet and voice-mail.

Although almost four years have passed since the tragic attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it is imperative that we not forget the horror of that fateful day or the courageous efforts of countless individuals who went to the aid of others in need. It is also imperative that we learn from the lessons of the attacks.

One such lesson is the critical need for our nation's intelligence and law enforcement officials to be working hand-in-hand in defending our citizens against terrorist threats. Many parties, including the highly regarded 9/11 Commission, believe that the so-called "wall" that had been erected between our intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies contributed significantly to the federal government's failure to prevent the attacks. In the days since Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has taken steps to implement the lessons learned in order to better protect our citizens against the threat of additional terrorist attacks. One of the most important of these steps was the Patriot Act.

Anti-terrorism laws have made our country safer while preserving the civil liberties that Americans hold so dear. We've all seen the devastation caused by acts of terrorism. Congress enacted laws in the wake of two of the worst tragedies in U.S. history -- the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 2001 al-Qaida terrorist attacks -- to help law enforcement detect and disrupt any terrorist threat to our citizens.

From firsthand experience as a federal prosecutor, I can tell you that we need these laws. They've made our country safer while preserving the civil liberties that Americans hold so dear.

The Bush administration has provided over 30 witnesses to take part in more than 20 hearings and Congress and the Department of Justice's Inspector General regularly scrutinize the act and its application to ensure that rights are being respected.

To date, there have been no verified civil liberties complaints against the act.

The act helps law enforcement officials identify and eradicate terror cells and their members before they launch attacks against Americans.

The threat of another terrorist attack within our borders is very real. There are significant numbers of people on U.S. soil who want to harm our country. We must never let them succeed again. To do that, we must be vigilant. We must continue to pursue terrorists with every legal means available.

Sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are up for reauthorization. For those of us working in the war against terror and the fight against crime, the act is critical to helping intelligence and law enforcement agencies work together effectively, efficiently and constitutionally. We need the tools of the Patriot Act as we work to keep our nation safe from attack.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last night appealed to sheriffs from across the country to support federal initiatives against terrorism and other violent crime, including renewal of key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire later this year.

"You are the strength and hope of our nation in the war against terror, in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice," he said. "Your service and sacrifice are changing our beloved America for the better. Together we are working to establish a nation safer and more secure."

Gonzales characterized the Patriot Act as providing important and effective tools to law enforcement while at the same time being "respectful of civil liberties."

The Patriot Act is important because it corrected major weaknesses in our nation's pre-Sept. 11 defenses.

First, the Patriot Act removed the "wall" that prevented our law-enforcement and foreign counterintelligence investigators from sharing information.

Second, the Patriot Act gives intelligence officials and law-enforcement officers the necessary tools to identify, apprehend, and prosecute terrorists within our borders. Court-approved legal authorities that have long been used in investigations of drug smugglers and organized crime can now be used for terrorist investigations.

One piece of legislation a majority of voters support is renewal of the Patriot Act. A 57 percent majority says the Patriot Act is a good thing for America, up from 54 percent last year (April 2004). Similarly, support for extending the act is up slightly (3 percentage points), as today 56 percent support and 31 percent oppose renewing the legislation.

By 50 percent to 35 percent voters think the Patriot Act has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

I regret to say it, but the rhetoric of those opposed to permanently authorizing the act has no substance and borders on paranoia. Opponents have criticized the act for years but can cite only hypothetical abuses. Facts are stubborn things. The actual record is quite clear - there have been no substantiated allegations of abuse of Patriot Act authorities, period.

Through aggressive congressional oversight, we know the FBI uses Patriot Act authorities within the law. Permanent authorization of these intelligence tools - with the modifications proposed by the committee - is the right thing to do.

KEN WAINSTEIN: It's a very important provision to the FBI and to law enforcement and to our national security effort. In many ways this provision is like many parts of the Patriot Act, where Congress recognized after 9/11 that we needed to give our national security investigators -- those people who are protecting us against international spies and international terrorists -- the same tools that our criminal investigators have had for years and decades.

This is an example of it. They are giving it -- in Section 215, Congress gave national security investigators, those people who are running down foreign spies and terrorists in our midst, the ability to obtain records just like criminal investigators can with grand jury subpoenas when they are investigating criminal cases, a vital tool that we need to use in order to track down terrorists.

There are checks and balances in the statute, a host of them. There is congressional oversight of our use of this provision, so there are many ways in which this -- which Congress made sure that we would use this provision responsibly.

To some, section 215 has become known as "the library provision". This moniker, however, is a gross distortion of the provision and makes about as much sense as calling all grand jury subpoenas "library subpoenas." Section 215 does not single out or mention libraries, and the Attorney General has recently declassified that as of March 30,2005, the provision had never be used to obtain library records.

As explained above, section 215 can be used to request the production of a wide variety of records, and library records are simply one of the types of records to which the provision could theoretically be applied. While some have called for library and bookstore records to be exempted from section 215, I think that this course of action would be a serious mistake.

Libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies. We know for a fact that terrorists and spies use public libraries. In the spring of 2004, to give one example, federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al-Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited a library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world. The library's hard drives were scrubbed after each user finished, and he used the computer at the library because he believed that the library permitted him to communicate free of any monitoring. Thankfully, this individual is now in federal custody. But this example should teach us that we should not make it more difficult to investigate a terrorist's use of a library computer than his or her use of a home computer.

• Section 215 requires FBI agents to get a court order. Agents cannot use this authority unilaterally to compel any entity to turn over its records. FISA orders are unlike grand jury subpoenas, which are requested without court supervision.
  
  
• Section 215 has a narrow scope. It can only be used (1) "to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person"; or (2) "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." It cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism.
  
  
• Section 215 preserves First Amendment rights. It expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations "of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

In just the last few weeks, the Attorney General and I have met with dozens of Members of Congress to discuss these important tools. In addition, the Attorney General has appeared three times to testify. Moreover, 20 Department of Justice witnesses have appeared at 14 Congressional hearings, which have explored in depth the various tools contained in the USA PATRIOT Act. All of this activity is because Congress is rightly engaging in its critical role to conduct appropriate oversight. But Sunsets are not required to conduct oversight.

Congress maintains its authority and responsibility to conduct oversight, to ask questions, to demand answers, even without sunsets. My concern is that sunsets on these important tools might inhibit the culture of information sharing that we are trying to foster. Rather than encouraging and empowering our agents and prosecutors to rely upon these new tools, we send a message that a particular provision may only be temporary and chill development of the culture of information sharing. As long as congressional oversight remains robust, which I am convinced it will, there is no need for sunsets.

To date, detractors of the Patriot Act have not been able to point to a single event, episode or occurrence in which an American citizen has had his or her constitutional rights violated as a result of the enforcement of any provision of the act. Not one. The Justice Department is committed to an honest and reasonable debate and dialogue about the Patriot Act, with the ultimate goal of strengthening our ability to fight terrorism while protecting the rights and privileges afforded all citizens under our Constitution.

For years, law enforcement has used court-approved tools to go after the mob, drug traffickers, gangs and other criminals. The Patriot Act allows use of those same court-approved tools to go after terrorists. Congress needs to renew the USA Patriot Act, giving law enforcement the tools needed to keep our country and our citizens safe.

President Bush on Thursday credited the Patriot Act with helping to convict more than 200 terrorists and dismissed accusations that the law has violated civil liberties.

Bush urged lawmakers to disregard what he called "unfair criticisms of this important good law." He said the Patriot Act has been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half have been convicted. He also said it has been used to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida.

Fifty-nine percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll favor continuing the additional investigative authority in terrorism investigations that was granted to the FBI starting in 2001. President Bush urged such an extension of the Patriot Act today.

A renewed Patriot Act that gives the FBI more powers is a step closer to reality, thanks in large part to Sen. Pat Roberts.

Roberts is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which this week approved the new bill on an 11-4 vote...

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the bill places new checks and balances on the powers it would grant, such as new procedures that would allow people to challenge such administrative orders. He called the Patriot Act 'a vital tool in the war on terror'.

Critics of the Patriot Act have distorted the truth to the point where an honest debate has become extremely difficult. This is dangerous, for the act has saved countless lives and protected our national economy.

The legal tools it provides are backed up by a process requiring judicial review; they are the same tools authorities have used for decades in dealing with drug dealers and organized crime.