Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader of the House. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the customary half an hour. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying legislation. While all of us understand the need to give law enforcement the tools it needs to combat terrorism, the bill goes too far. In the name of protecting Americans, it eats away at some of our most cherished freedoms. The events of September 11 are etched in all of our hearts and minds. Last week, I attended services for two constituents who were lost at the World Trade Center, a 52-year-old businessman and a 28-year-old consultant. Both had long, fulfilling lives ahead of them, and both were innocent victims of terror. We have to track down the perpetrators of these heinous crimes and ensure such atrocities can never be repeated. In order to do so, Congress is prepared to give the law enforcement community unprecedented powers to engage in surveillance, wiretapping, and collection of evidence. At the same time, however, we must balance the need to pursue terrorists against the need to protect the civil rights of law-abiding Americans. On September 19, Attorney General John Ashcroft outlined his proposal to combat terrorism. Since that time, the Committee on the Judiciary majority and minority staffs have been working nonstop, including weekends, to develop compromise language that would accommodate many of the administration's requests. On Monday, October 1, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, announced an agreement on a compromise bill. The bill was reported unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 36 to 0. At that time, the leadership of both sides of the aisle wisely refused to be stampeded into abandoning civil liberties by approving the proposals that the administration hastily pulled together last month. This was Congress at its best. The underlying bill demonstrated bipartisan resolve in response to a Nation in crisis. Unfortunately, that bipartisan bill has now been abandoned in favor of an extreme proposal that threatens the civil rights of all Americans. The bill presented in the House today contains a variety of provisions that, at any other time and place, would never receive serious consideration in this Chamber. Only the current crisis is persuading Congress to throw caution and civil rights to the wind. As a result, some of the most important compromises developed in the committee process have been renounced. Under the new bill, our own citizens can be wiretapped by the CIA. Immigrants can be deported for donating money to groups they did not know were linked to terrorism. The government can introduce information obtained from illegal wiretaps in court; and significant new restrictions are placed on the disclosure of information from grand jury proceedings, changes which were made with no input, there was no decisions given by Federal judges, by the lawyers, by any members of the bar as to the constitutionality and the fitness of these changes, and perhaps most critically, the 2-year sunset provision was deleted. The bill essentially allows changes to stand for 5 years before Congress has any obligation to review them. If we are truly concerned about the civil rights of our constituents, surely we should not allow 5 years to lapse before exercising oversight over these expanded powers. The Members of this Chamber need to understand that the bill before us today is no longer just about terrorism. These sweeping new powers can be used in the pursuit of any criminal case against any American citizen or immigrant. No one doubts that we and our constituents are at risk for further attacks. Law enforcement, as I said, needs to have the tools to confront this new threat. Included in this bill are worthy provisions from the administration's proposal. For example, the bill would let the government seek court approval to place a wiretap not just on a particular phone but on a person, regardless of which phone they will use. But these positive provisions are tainted by the inclusion of unnecessarily broad proposals that will erode the civil rights of all Americans. Given the opportunity, Members of the House could mitigate some of the most problematic provisions of this bill. However, we are being denied that opportunity. The closed rule allows no amendments to the civil rights bill of this generation. We cannot fight terrorism by destroying those very things that make our Nation special. If we are going to cut into civil rights laws, we should use a scalpel, not a scythe. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and to vote against the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. Slaughter asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to read into the Record in just a moment a statement by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) who is the ranking minority member in answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's question: ``What we have before us is a tale of two bills. One bill was crafted by the standing committee of the House. The other was crafted by the Attorney General and the President. One bill is limited in scope and sunsets after this crisis will have passed. The other bill is a power grab by prosecutors that can be used not just in terrorism cases but in drug cases and gun cases. This administration bill would last for the remainder of the President's term of office, long after the bombing stops and the terrorists are brought to justice. ``We must all rally around the flag at a time like this, but we also shouldn't take leave of our senses. Benjamin Franklin said it best: `They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' '' Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).