Nevertheless, we applaud this de minimis effort to appeal to the requests for hearings that have been made by the distinguished Ranking Member of this body.

By way of background, I remind this body that PATRIOT was passed into law a mere six weeks following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The process of drafting this bill until its signing into law by President Bush took only four days from October 23 to October 26, 2001. The final measure, H.R. 3162, incorporated provisions of H.R. 2977, which the House passed on October 12, 2001, and S. 1510, which the other body passed on October 11, 2001.' While Congress grappled with the need to act expeditiously to fight terrorism, I still marvel that a bill more than three hundred pages long moved from

Katherine K. Coolidge, "Baseless Hysteria: The Controversy Between the Department of Justice and the American Library Association Over the USA PATRIOT Act." 97 LLibJ 7 (Winter, 2005).

introduction to enactment at such a daunting speed. The process

of reauthorization seems to resemble this path.

As a law review note entitled “Playing PATRIOT Games: National Security Challenges Civil Liberties" in the Houston Law Review, the late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan once said that "several factors lead to infringement of civil rights during a time of crisis. First, the crisis creates a "national fervor," which in turn leads to an exaggeration of the 'security risks posed by allowing individuals to exercise their civil

liberties.""

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, several provisions of the Patriot Act authorize federal law enforcement to skirt the line of reasonableness. For example,

restrictions involving domestic intelligence gathering by

allow[ing] a single wiretap to legally 'roam' from device to device, to tap the person rather than the phone."

Also, the Act allows federal law enforcement to delay notifying subjects of sneak-and-peek searches, as long as notice is provided within a "reasonable" time. A sneak-and-peek search is one in which a law enforcement official searches the premises of a subject but delays the notification required by the Fourth Amendment until a later time. This type of delay is allowed when notification of the subject might have an "adverse result."" The "reasonable" time may be extended for "good cause." These expanded surveillance powers are especially troubling because of their apparent contravention of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

3. "Domestic Terrorism" Broadly Defined. "Domestic terrorism"

has been added to the list of terms defined in the federal criminal code. It is defined as activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This broad definition of domestic terrorism could be used to deter the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association. Because the terms of this definition are "vague and broad," political dissent could be criminalized. This definition of domestic terrorism might encourage "federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and conduct surveillance of various organizations based on their opposition to official policies."

With the Patriot Act on the books, the Attorney General now has the power to place noncitizens in detention during removal proceedings as long as he "has reasonable grounds to believe" that they are involved in terrorist activities. These aliens can be detained up to seven days without any charges being filed. As soon as the Attorney General "certif[ies]" an individual as a suspected terrorist, the individual may be indefinitely detained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with limitation on indefinite detention only if "removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future."

Mr. Chairman, while this body has exercised oversight on the provisions that are up for reauthorization, I feel that, given their continued and increasing contentiousness, we must further analyze the possibly negative impact that they will have on our