Congressmen Sam Farr, Mike Honda, send messages to Congress
calling law ‘anti-liberty’
President Bush’s controversial Patriot Act was renewed by the
House of Representatives Wednesday, but not without public outcry
against the anti-terrorism bill from local Democratic lawmakers and
local municipalities alike.
Congressmen Sam Farr, Mike Honda, send messages to Congress calling law ‘anti-liberty’
President Bush’s controversial Patriot Act was renewed by the House of Representatives Wednesday, but not without public outcry against the anti-terrorism bill from local Democratic lawmakers and local municipalities alike.
Congressman Sam Farr (D-Monterey), the local representative who along with most other congressional Democrats fiercely denounced the Act for its stripping of civil liberties, voiced his opposition to it before the final vote was taken by sending a statement to the floor to be read into the Congressional Record. Republicans, who hold the majority, allowed no debate on the bill, and aides to Farr said it was the only way to voice a stand on the law for the record.
Farr said he and others voted against the amendments on the law, which will end the taking of civil liberties in four years instead of 10, because the law is so bad, they did not want to show any support for it in any way.
“This final version was just a technical cleanup,” Farr said in an interview on Wednesday. “This Administration constantly hides behind waving the flag of terror to get their agenda through. And it’s this flag of fear that wins elections.”
Congressman Mike Honda (D-Santa Clara) also voiced his opposition to the law’s renewal, calling the amendments “token” and “mere window-dressing,” thrown in to appease civil libertarians.
“We most definitely need to utilize every resource to ensure Americans are safe in their homes and workplaces; on their roads and rivers; and of our ports and borders – but we must be equally vigilant to protect American civil liberties guaranteed over 200 years ago in our Constitution,” Honda said.
The Act passed in the House 280-138 – just two votes more than needed under the special rules requiring a two-thirds majority. The Senate passed it last week, and it is now expected to be signed within coming weeks by President Bush.
It’s renewal allows greater investigation of terrorist suspects, but critics say it goes too far: it also allows for expansion of eavesdropping on American citizens and searches of their homes or offices – without prior notice. Under the Patriot Act, federal agents can search one’s home or office while the owner or occupier isn’t there, and are only required to inform the residents 30 days after the fact. It also forces librarians and doctors to give up client records on demand, and will create a new federal police force whose main purpose will be to spy on terrorist suspects in the country, including American citizens. Records and information obtained on the federal level under the auspices of fighting terrorism can now be shared with domestic law enforcement agencies in their criminal cases against local citizens.
Honda said one of his biggest concerns about the Patriot Act and its amendments are what’s called National Security Letters, or NSLs. NSLs are traditionally an FBI tool used to compel companies and other entities to give the bureau private information about their customers, and keep the request secret.
“Americans are concerned that NSLs could, and would be applied to libraries, for example,” read a statement from Honda’s office. “This [amendment] measure would exempt libraries from NSLs only if they don’t offer Internet access. The American Library Association puts the number of libraries without Internet access near zero.”
But Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., (R-Wisconsin) who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, lauded the extension of the Act and blasted opponents like Farr and Honda for relying on “exaggeration and hyperbole” to challenge it.
“Intense Congressional and public scrutiny has not produced a single substantiated claim that the Patriot Act has been misused to violate Americans’ civil liberties,” Sensenbrenner said.
Farr said dealing with the Administration has been frustrating for the lack of checks and balances between the White House and the Congress.
“It’s very frustrating to work with an administration that is not intellectual enough to ask how to solve problems,” Farr said.
“James Madison, our fourth president, said, ‘I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations,'” Farr said in his statement to Congress. “The Patriot Act and its subsequent amendments are exactly what the ‘Father of the Constitution’ was talking about.”
Farr also let his fellow lawmakers know that many leaders of jurisdictions in his district, the 17th, have made a stand against the Patriot Act by passing resolutions in their towns and cities, which include Watsonville, Salinas, Pacific Grove and Santa Cruz.
“Democracy means the ‘common people rule,'” Farr wrote. “And the ‘common people’ of the 17th district have proclaimed that Americans should not have to compromise their civil liberties in order to combat extremism.”
Farr said those local governments in his district that have passed resolutions against the bill have “expressed concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty nature of the Patriot Act.”
As for Hollister, San Benito County or Gilroy, none have entertained passing resolutions against the Patriot Act as neighboring cities have. Progressive local leaders say they don’t cling to the false hope of being able to convince their fellow leaders of the need to oppose the law that will allow for a new federal police to conduct search and seizures of people’s homes without a warrant.
“I would be very surprised if San Benito County would take any formal action,” said a solemn Pat Loe, chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors. Loe is often the lone vote in a voice of four other supervisors, who are arguably more conservative. Loe pushed unsuccessfully – and solely – for such changes as a campaign ethics commission and local campaign finance caps.
Farr said he has high hopes in getting rid of the Patriot Act, should Americans vote this year to restore a balance of power between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He said a Democratic majority would have the power to bring back the bill for review and abolishing it.
“There would be oversight hearings, there would be all kinds of things,” Farr said, imagining a House or Senate with a Democratic majority. “The public has a right to know, that’s what oversight hearings are all about. We need more transparency.”
The measure was supported by 214 Republicans and 66 Democrats and opposed by 13 Republicans, 124 Democrats and one Independent
