Thank
you for the opportunity to present my thoughts on pending legislation
to increase the police powers of the federal government.
My name is Grover Glenn Norquist and I serve as president of Americans
for Tax Reform.
I
am also a member of the large coalition of conservative and liberal
civic groups entitled "In Defense of Freedom" that has
come together in response to the Justice Department's recent requests
for expanded police powers (see addendum).
Americans
for Tax Reform has had one primary concern throughout: that the
legislation cobbled together as a Justice Department wish list of
powers not be pushed through Congress without the time and effort
to look at what is in the legislation. I wrote a letter to all members
of the House and Senate urging them to promise not to vote for any
legislation on civil liberties restrictions that they had not actually
read.
I
did receive one fax from the Hill asking if I was kidding.
I
was not.
I
am delighted that leaders in the House and Senate have demanded
that this legislation be read, examined, debated and the good parts
enacted in a deliberative fashion, without reacting in panic.
I
am also very pleased that the proponents of massive new powers for
the federal government refrained from calling those of us who wanted
the legislation actually read silly names. Those of us who feel
strongly that the Constitution-and every little jot and tittle of
the Constitution-was written on purpose, that the Second and Fourth
Amendments were not mistakes, that the Fifth Amendment is not a
loophole, have been able to make our voices heard in this time of
national concern without people questioning our patriotism, seriousness
or opposition to bad guys.
As
we now consider the House of Representatives compromise legislation
that has the support of serious men such as Congressmen Sensenbrenner
and Conyers, as well as the legislation proposed by the Justice
Department, I would urge you to keep the following principles in
mind.
1-If
we are passing new powers for the federal government in response
to the murders of September 11, then any change in law should be
asked to show how it would have stopped that terrorist act. If a
new law would not have stopped the murders or helped us to catch
and punish those responsible, then why are we changing the law?
2-If
this is a response to terror, then the word terrorism should appear
not just in the title of the bill, but the new powers should be
limited to cases of terror. For example, Congress passed the RICO
statutes with the promise that it would be used against mobsters
and then prosecutors have turned it against pro-life organizations.
Congress gave the government powers to seize people's property-asset
forfeiture-promising that it would be used against drug peddlers,
and property seizures have swept the nation to the point that Congress
had to revisit the statutes and reduce those powers that were being
abused to the detriment of citizens.
Now
we are told the government just wants to fight against terrorists.
Okay, then put limits in the use of these powers to terrorist cases
and terrorist cases alone.
3-Consider
sunsetting all or part of the changes in law you propose. A bad
law that lasts two years is less damaging than a bad law that lasts
forever.
4-Along
with consideration of new powers, please consider reforming the
institutions that have been using the powers you have granted in
the past. The Pentagon has great credibility in asking for more
money for the Defense Department because Secretary Rumsfeld has
led the fight for a base closings commission and to end the production
of old weapons to afford the production of new weapons. An institution
looking to cut away old waste and to end destructive or wasteful
programs can be more seriously entrusted with new monies.
I
do not to date see any effort by the intelligence community for
serious self-examination, self-criticism or willingness to reform.
Something went wrong. Demands for more money and more power would
be more credible if they were accompanied by retirements, firings,
self-criticism and a public recognition that the present intelligence
agencies and their procedures are by definition flawed. If serious
self-examination is going on in private, that is only a first step.
A democracy must see its government reforming itself before it can
be asked to grant more powers and more money.
5-If
changes in the laws are needed, then what laws do you intend to
remove? Is it believable that all the laws and powers passed to
date are useful and productive and conducive to human liberty and
security? That the only problems were too few laws? That isn't believable.
The congressmen who passed the present set of powers that you now
say are flawed made only one mistake: too few powers. Never too
many.
The
In Defense of Freedom coalition is a broad cross section of American
thought. I would like to speak now for many conservative groups
such as the Eagle Forum and the Free Congress Foundation about some
of the proposals contained in the several bills that cause us the
most apprehension.
·
The use of wiretap information from foreign governments opens the
door to introducing evidence against a US citizen in a US court
of law that was gathered in a manner that violates the Fourth Amendment.
It is disturbing that this vital protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures could be waived.
·
Deleting the requirement under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act for a formal pleading to a court of law and the signature of
a FISA judge or magistrate to secure business documents and records
and replacing it with an administrative subpoena cuts the judiciary
out of the equation completely. The judicial branch was established
as a check on the other two. Not allowing for judicial oversight
in this instance creates an imbalance of power wholly inconsistent
with our constitutional principles.
·
Allowing for the compelled disclosure of educational records is
substantively unrelated to the effective pursuit and prosecution
of terrorists, and would infringe on the privacy rights of all students
throughout the nation. The National Statistics Act prohibited the
disclosure of this information for reasons far better than any argument
in favor of letting the government break open the seals.
·
Applying a uniform standard for eliminating the mandatory notice
of the issuance of search warrants when there is showing to a court
that such notice would jeopardize an investigation has been appropriately
derided as "sneak and peek". Such a standard would unacceptably
hamper judicial discretion in conferring or denying authority for
conducting "sneak and peak" searches.
·
Expanding the authority for pre-trial asset restraint so that the
government can take a defendant's property-even when the government
cannot prove it is traceable to any offense-is sufficiently outrageous
to not require further comment.
·
Unleashing the "Know Your Customer" rules on the population
would be a most unforgivable action. This idea, which has been rejected
every time it has surfaced, would deputize bank employees by obligating
them to monitor their customers' transaction activities, and requiring
them to report to the federal government any transaction that fell
conspicuously outside of a particular customer's "normal"
practice.
Some
observers have been surprised to see the American Civil Liberties
Union join with the American Conservative Union and other center-right
groups such as Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, Paul Weyrich's Free
Congress Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform.
I
am not surprised.
While
we may differ on many issues we are all Americans. America is a
nation not of a single people or race, native tongue or religion.
We are united by our dedication to the idea that men and women are
and should by nature be free to live their lives as they see fit
in liberty. The Constitution unites us. Historians have said that
Afghan factions feud unless the British or Soviets invade and they
unite in defense of the territory of Afghanistan.
We
are Americans and we unite in defense of the Constitution and ordered
liberty.
As
Senators you have all sworn an oath to oppose all enemies of the
Constitution-both foreign and domestic. Please, as this debate advances,
keep an eye on the domestic enemies of the Constitution. They are
the only ones who can do permanent damage to America.
Addendum
IN
DEFENSE OF FREEDOM
1. On September 11, 2001 thousands of people lost their lives in
a brutal assault on the American people and the American form of
government. We mourn the loss of these innocent lives and insist
that those who perpetrated these acts be held accountable.
2. This tragedy requires all Americans to examine carefully the
steps our country may now take to reduce the risk of future terrorist
attacks.
3. We need to consider proposals calmly and deliberately with a
determination not to erode the liberties and freedoms that are at
the core of the American way of life.
4. We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles
of a democratic society, accountable government and international
law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with
the Constitution.
5. We can, as we have in the past, in times of war and of peace,
reconcile the requirements of security with the demands of liberty.
6. We should resist the temptation to enact proposals in the mistaken
belief that anything that may be called anti-terrorist will necessarily
provide greater security.
7. We should resist efforts to target people because of their race,
religion, ethnic background or appearance, including immigrants
in general, Arab Americans and Muslims.
8. We affirm the right of peaceful dissent, protected by the First
Amendment, now, when it is most at risk.
9. We should applaud our political leaders in the days ahead who
have the courage to say that our freedoms should not be limited.
10. We must have faith in our democratic system and our Constitution,
and in our ability to protect at the same time both the freedom
and the security of all Americans.
