Changes

==Passage of the Act==

==Passage of the Act==

In rthe immediate aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]] [[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in [[law enforcement]] powers on September 19, 2001 requesting that they be considered immediately.  [[Bush administration]], along with the overwhelming majority of members of [[Congress]], felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Clinton administration]], for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impetus to pass the measures.<ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

In rthe immediate aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]] Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in [[law enforcement]] powers on September 19, 2001 requesting that they be considered immediately.  [[Bush administration]], along with the overwhelming majority of members of [[Congress]], felt these provisions were necessary to prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Clinton administration]], for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in the final bill), but in the wake of a successful attack upon American soil and the demands of the American public for action gave Congress the impetus to pass the measures.<ref name="CQ">"USA PATRIOT Act, 2001-2002 Legislative Chronology." Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, pp. 187-8 (Washington: CQ Press, 2006)</ref>

   

   

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2, with few minor changes.  A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Anti-terrorism Bill.” [[The Wall Street Journal]], October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>

The [[House Judiciary Committee]] debated the proposal for weeks and reached an agreement on October 2, with few minor changes.  A [[sunset provision]], the hallmark of [[Newt Gingrich|Gingrich]]-style reform, was included requiring renewal of the act within two years. The committee said that it understood the need for expediency, so it would add the sunset clauses to allow debate on the issue when time was not as much of an issue. The administration, however, was worried that the United States would still be fighting the war on terror when the clause came into effect.<ref>Bridis, Ted and Jess Bravin. “White House Seeks to Remove Time Limit On Surveillance Part of Anti-terrorism Bill.” [[The Wall Street Journal]], October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>