|
Our Nation was founded on the principles of the equality of all men and
women and the inalienable rights of our citizens. Throughout our
history Americans have strenuously fought for and defended these
rights. The ongoing struggle against terrorism and disputes over
cultural values have brought these issues to the forefront of political
debate.
In this section:
USA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act, originally passed in 2001, has been
one of the most controversial laws enacted in recent memory. The most
prudent thing Congress did in passing the original USA PATRIOT Act was to sunset certain provisions, thus ensuring that a future Congress would review and revise them.
Throughout its existence, the most contentious provision of the PATRIOT Act has been Section 215 (Access to Business Records). Prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, federal investigators could obtain access to flight records, car rental receipts or hotel records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) without obtaining a subpoena from a federal court. Section 215
expanded this ability to allow investigators to obtain any tangible
business record, including library circulation records and bookstore
receipts. Under this law, businesses who are requested to provide this
information cannot divulge that they were requested to do so. This
provision is an alarming invasion of privacy and since its inception,
Rep. Eshoo has fought against it.
On June 15, 2005, Rep. Eshoo voted for an amendment offered by Rep. Sanders to H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice & Commerce Appropriations Act for FY 2006,
that prohibited federal funds from being used to acquire library
circulation records, library patron lists, or bookstore sales records
without judicial approval. The amendment was adopted by the House by a
vote of 238 to 187. Despite its support in both the House and Senate,
this language was subsequently removed from the final Conference Report
on H.R. 2862.
Because several provisions of the original USA PATRIOT Act were set to expire on December 31, 2005, H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and Improvement Act,
was introduced to permanently extend all provisions of the law except
for Section 215, Section 206 (Roving Wiretaps) and the "Lone Wolf"
terrorist provision.
Despite the controversy surrounding the PATRIOT Act, H.R.
3199 failed to address many of the serious civil liberties concerns
that have been raised since its original enactment. Most notably, H.R.
3199 failed to correct the problems caused by Section 215 and expanded
the use of National Security Letters (see below). During consideration
of H.R. 3199 by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Rep. Eshoo offered an amendment that prohibited the FBI from obtaining
library and bookstore records. Rep. Eshoo's amendment was defeated in
Committee and she was not allowed to offer it during consideration of
this bill by the full House. Because of these shortfalls, Rep. Eshoo
voted against H.R. 3199, which ultimately passed the House on July 21,
2005 by a vote of 257 to 171.
After House passage, Rep. Eshoo joined her colleagues in sending a
letter to House-Senate Conferees on H.R. 3199 urging them to adopt the
Senate-passed language regarding Section 215. This language would have
required the FBI to provide facts to prove the records sought were
relevant to a terrorist investigation, require the Department of
Justice to report to Congress annually about the number of times
Section 215 was used and sunset the provision after four years. Because
these protections were not included in the Conference Report on H.R.
3199, Rep. Eshoo also voted against it on December 14, 2005.
Unfortunately, the Conference Report passed the House by a vote of 251
to 174.
In the Senate, a bipartisan group of Senators managed to block
consideration of the Conference Report because of its failure to
provide adequate protections for the rights of American citizens. S.
2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act,
was subsequently introduced to appease these concerns. Unfortunately,
this legislation provided mostly cosmetic changes and failed to provide
substantial changes to the underlying bill. Rep. Eshoo opposed S. 2271,
which passed the House by a vote of 280-138.
Ultimately, the President signed H.R. 3199 and S. 2271 into law on March 9, 2006.
National Security Letters
Another serious problem with the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act was
the expanded use of National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs are requests
for financial, telecommunications, credit, and other business records
issued directly by government agencies in national security
investigations without the approval of a judge. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI and other issuing agencies could issue an NSL only if there was a link to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist. Post-PATRIOT Act,
the government only has to allege the request is relevant to an
investigation. This has resulted in an explosion in the number of NSLs
issued. Unfortunately, passage of H.R. 3199 did nothing to change this
disturbing trend or enhance congressional or judicial oversight over
NSLs.
Because of her concerns, Rep. Eshoo introduced H.R. 4570, the National Security Letter Judicial and Congressional Oversight Act,
which establishes guidelines for issuing NSLs to protect American
citizens from this overreaching authority. This legislation prohibits
the issuance of a NSL unless a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
or a designated U.S. Magistrate Judge finds that the information being
sought is relevant to an approved ongoing terrorism investigation; that
the investigation is not being solely conducted on activities protected
under the First Amendment; and that there are facts giving reason to
believe that the information being sought pertains directly to a
foreign power or its agent operating. Lastly, this legislation would
require the Attorney General to provide the House and Senate Committees
on Intelligence with semiannual reports on the number of NSLs issued
and a summary of how the information gathered assisted the intended
investigation.
Same-Sex Marriage
Rep. Eshoo believes that issues related to marriage should be handled
by the individual states as they have been throughout our nation's
history. In the 108th Congress she opposed H. J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment,
which would have amended the Constitution by taking this decision out
of the hands of states and effectively banning same-sex marriage.
Rep. Eshoo also voted against H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act,
which would have stripped federal courts (including the Supreme Court)
of their jurisdiction to hear cases challenging the constitutionality
of the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Marriage Statute.
Rep. Eshoo believes this bill was discriminatory, singling out for the
first time a minority to prevent their interests from being considered
by the highest courts in the land. While the bill was passed by the
House of Representatives, no further action was taken during the 108th Congress, effectively defeating the bill. No action has been taken in the 109th Congress.
Voting Rights Act
Rep. Eshoo believes strongly in the need to protect the voting rights of every American. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
in 1965, in response to widespread disenfranchisement of minorities,
particularly in the South. Since its enactment, the VRA has been
reauthorized numerous times and expanded to address other issues that
impact voting access and fair representation, including congressional
districting, language requirements and election monitoring.
With some provisions of the VRA set to expire in 2007, Rep. Eshoo is proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act.
H.R. 9 reauthorizes the temporary provisions of the VRA for 25 years.
These provisions are essential to ensuring that voters' rights are not
stifled by unfair and unethical practices by:
- Requiring pre-approval of any changes to election practices
that may restrict voting rights for States and voting precincts
specifically outlined in the VRA (Section 5).
- Establishing guidelines for federal election monitors to be brought in to oversee elections (Sections 6 through 9).
- Mandating
that jurisdictions with greater than 5 percent of the voting-age
citizens (or 10,000 voting-age citizens) belonging to a single language
minority with limited English proficiency be provided with bilingual
voting materials (Section 203).
|
