Rep. Holt Speaks Out Against Domestic Spying, Votes Against Patriot Act Extensions

Though the effort likely isn’t enough to allow key provisions of the Patriot Act to lapse, a fast-tracked attempt to extend the provisions through the year failed to pass the U.S. House of Representatives in a recent vote.

The measure to extend three specific provisions for nine months needed a two-thirds majority vote but fell shy Tuesday 277-148. Among those who voted against the extension were U.S. Representatives Rush Holt, D-12, and Frank Pallone Jr., D-6, who each represent parts of Monmouth County.

The provisions, championed by Republican leaders as well as President Barack Obama, allow the use of roving wiretaps to track citizens, the seizure of personal or business records, and the tracking of individuals suspected as terrorists under a broad definition of the term.

A reactionary measure following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act was developed to help identify and fight terrorism. Despite criticisms that it violates civil liberties and encourages domestic spying, the Patriot Act, including provisions that were supposed to sunset, has remained mostly unchanged.

Holt, who represents Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury Township, Eatontown, Tinton Falls, Little Silver, Oceanport, Rumson, Fair Haven, Freehold, Holmdel, Middletown, and Manalapan, among other towns, encouraged his fellow members to vote no along with him.

Pallone represents Red Bank.

Though the collection of information and various forms of surveillance have enjoyed broad bipartisan support because of their value in protecting American citizens and its interests, he said, there exists potential for abuse.

“The powers of intelligence and enforcement are among the most important powers of government, but also the most fearsome,” he said. “They must be wielded very, very carefully.”

Provisions that failed to garner enough support for extension Tuesday are set to sunset by the end of the month. On Thursday, however, the House approved a measure to vote on the extension again.

One of Holt’s primary concerns is that the provisions have not been changed to prevent future abuses. Joining the majority of Democrats who voted against the extension were several Tea Party Republicans who view the Patriot Act as government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

“Subsequently, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, gave proponents of extended domestic surveillance a powerful political and rhetorical weapon, which they used to reduce constitutional protections against surveillance and seizures without appropriate warrants,” he said.

Holt has voted against extending the provisions since 2005, calling them “overly broad and frequently abused.” His concerns, he said, are further supported by revelations of abuses of those authorities during hearings of the House Judiciary Committee in 2009.

To hear all of Holt’s comments, view the accompanying video.