Changes

==Passage of the Act==

==Passage of the Act==

[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with many members of Congress felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <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>

[[United States|Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] formally proposed the increases in law enforcement powers on September 19th, requesting that they be considered immediately. Ashcrof and the Bush administration, along with the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, felt these provisions were necessary to find and apprehend the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as prevent any more imminent or future attacks. Many of the proposed powers had been sought by the Justice Department for years (the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] administration, for example, sought but was denied so-called [[roving wiretap]]s – a power that was included in Ashcroft’s bill), but the new and real threat of terrorism on American soil gave the Justice Department a more agreeable atmosphere in which to propose the measures again. <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 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" />  These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. 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 Antiterrorism 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 2nd. It made mostly minor changes, with one exception: the committee added [[sunset clause]]s to most of the surveillance and investigative powers, against the wishes of the administration.<ref name="CQ" />  These clauses would cause certain provisions of the bill to expire in 2003 unless Congress agreed to extend the date. 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 Antiterrorism Bill.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5th, 2001, p. A.18</ref>