The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“EXPANSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S10427-S10429 on Oct. 10, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
EXPANSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will further discuss briefly the terrorism legislation which we expect to come to the floor later today. I have a reservation of some 30 minutes on the unanimous consent agreement which will be propounded later by the majority leader, but I think a few comments are in order at this time.
I have no doubt that there is a need for expanded law enforcement authority. That has been demonstrated by the fact that offenses of terrorism do not have the availability of electronics surveillance which other offenses can employ. This is demonstrated by the fact that there have been significant failures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that the Attorney General has represented a need to have additional detention for aliens who are subject to deportation.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing two weeks ago yesterday, I questioned Attorney General John Ashcroft on the record about the scope of the Anti-Terrorism bill. The bill did not delineate the Attorney General's needs for law enforcement. Attorney General Ashcroft commented that what the Department of Justice had in mind was the detention of aliens who were subject to deportation. It may well be that there is existing authority for the Attorney General to accomplish that, but if additional authority is necessary, then I think the Congress is prepared to give that additional authority. However, the bill as drafted, did not so delineate the detention to those subject to deportation.
Attorney General Ashcroft further made representations about the need to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He said before looking to use content there would be a statement of probable cause. Again, in reviewing the specific legislation, that was not present in the bill, so there had to be a revision of the text of the bill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee had only an hour and 20 minutes of hearings, two weeks ago yesterday. The Constitutional Law Subcommittee had hearings last Thursday morning. I have grave concerns that there has not been sufficient deliberation that would establish a record and withstand a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States. I will expand upon this point during the course of the consideration of the bill later today or tomorrow morning and will cite the Supreme Court decisions which have struck down acts of Congress where a sufficient showing of the deliberative process has been lacking.
In my judgment, that has been an overextension, a usurpation, by the Supreme Court of the United States of the separation of the powers. For the Supreme Court of the United States, in effect, to tell Congress that Congress has not ``thought through'' legislation that is part of the congressional function, that legislation violates a specific term or provision of the Constitution, that it is vague and ambiguous in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, or that Congress has run afoul of some other constitutional provision, then so be it. However, it seems to me an extraordinary stretch of judicial authority for the Supreme Court to say that the Congress has not been sufficiently deliberative, and that only the Supreme Court of the United States can gauge what is sufficiency on the deliberative process. That is the case law.
In the absence of hearings and in the absence of a record, there is a concern on my part that the legislation will withstand constitutional muster. There is no doubt there is a need to act with dispatch.
In my judgment, and I have communicated this to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we could have held a hearing three weeks ago. We could have worked on a Friday or Saturday. That is not beyond the workload of the Senate. Perhaps, we could have held closed sessions on confidential material. Also, we could have marked up the bill, undergoing the usual deliberative process--the Senate Judiciary Committee works on bills of much lesser importance--
and then have had it reported to the floor. Instead, the bill lay unproduced and held at the desk for action under Rule 14 without that customary committee hearing process, committee deliberation, and committee markup in executive session.
I thought, in the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, that it would be appropriate to make a few comments in that regard at this time.
But there is no doubt that there is a very heavy overhang on Washington, DC, at the present time as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. That very heavy overhang really exists, as I see it, across the country. I felt this when Senator Santorum and I went to Somerset County, Pennsylvania on September 14, 3 days after the September 11 attack. Although there had been no casualties on the ground, 40 Americans had lost their lives in that ill-fated plane, and there was a great urgency in hearing from Washington, D.C. alongside a great sense of concern.
Earlier today I went to Pennsylvania to meet with the Pennsylvania Business Roundtable. Again, there is a sense in the air of a heavy cloud over America, which we have to work through. I am confident that we will. I believe the Bush administration has done an excellent job in organizing an international coalition and not acting precipitously, but rather, acting very carefully. I believe Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice.
In the interim, as we look through the kinds of problems which law enforcement faces, I think it is important for Congress to have acted with dispatch--really even earlier than that. However, that could be done only with appropriate regard for constitutional rights. We can have deliberation, with hearings and analysis, get the job done for law enforcement, and protect constitutional rights at the same time. As we work through the very important issue of homeland security and the issue of reorganization of the intelligence community, I welcome comments from my colleagues on the draft legislation which I am submitting into the Record. It is going to require collaboration from many Members.
As I have said, Congressman Thornberry has already introduced legislation in the House; Senator Lieberman and Senator Robert Graham of Florida are working on it, as am I. I think from this we can structure some legislative changes which can better protect America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was not able to be here prior to the statement of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I would note both on the Intelligence Committee and on the Judiciary Committee his has been one of the most consistent and most clear voices on these issues. In fact, one of the things that disappointed me when we brought up the terrorism bill is the Attorney General was able to stay there only for part of the hearing. I was glad he was able to stay long enough for what was intended to be the first round of questioning, questioning from the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. He has a way of getting to the crux of the matter. I would have liked to have gone further on that.
These are serious matters. I get concerned when we have to rush things through without the kind of deliberation and scrutiny they deserve. The Senator from Pennsylvania has raised the obvious fact of making, for constitutional purposes, a record demonstrating legislative intent. Among all the suggestions he made, this is one to which we should pay the most attention. Sometimes as we rush--I say that as one who wants to get a terrorism bill up here and voted on, and hoping the House can do the same and we can get on to conference. But, frankly, we can spend a lot of time on this floor sometimes debating matters that are of minuscule moment and we would be better off if we did the kind of long-range thinking that he and others have discussed.
I think in the report, our former colleagues, Senator Rudman of New Hampshire and Senator Hart of Colorado, after September 11, after the fact, made everybody come and dust them off and say a lot of what happened was predicted here, and how we respond to it.
I worry sometimes also we think by passing a new law we will protect ourselves. We will go back, the Senate will go back--and I am sure the House will, too--and review the files of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and others for information that was there and perhaps not looked at nor acted upon prior to September 11. That is not to find scapegoats but to say: Was this a mistake? Had it been done differently would we have stopped this terrorist attack?
Sometimes we close the barn door after the horse has been stolen. We spend billions of dollars around this country so you cannot drive a car bomb into the lobby of buildings. In this case, the bomb came through the 80th floor of the building.
We should look at this matter very carefully, find out where mistakes were made prior to the 11th--and there were--find out what is needed, and I suspect it will not be just new laws but new ways of doing things to take care of it.
On the question of better use of computers, certainly the better use of translators, if you have after the fact the Attorney General and the FBI Director having to go on public television saying, please, we need some people and we will pay $35 or
$40 an hour to translate Arabic material or whatever other languages, somebody has to ask the question: Why weren't you doing that before?
There are so many things we have to do. But I hope people listen to the Senator from Pennsylvania. I intend to. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
