USA PATRIOT stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (United States, 2001, p. 1). The USA PATRIOT Act was adopted in October 2001 as a response to the September 11 attacks and the terrorist threat. The law contains ten titles and encompasses a wide range of issues, including the powers of law enforcement authorities and the liabilities of businesses. Several provisions of the Act were highly controversial to the point that some of them were deemed unconstitutional (Doyle, 2011). Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act requires describing its history, explaining its provisions, examining its implementation, and discussing its impact on business and society, which will allow evaluating the Act’s results and proposing recommendations for future policymakers.
History of the Act
The history of the Act is an important aspect of it as it helps understand the background of adopting the law, the reasons for it, and the procedural stages of its enactment. The Act appeared as a result of the September 11 attacks, the largest terrorist attacks ever. The victims of the four coordinated attacks, the responsibility for which was later claimed by the Islamist organization al-Qaeda, were almost 3,000 people, with 6,000 people injured, and tens of thousands of people physically suffering from the consequences of the attacks in New York City (Epifanio, 2011). The text of the public law mentions “September 11, 2001” 19 times (United States, 2001). The US legislation system quickly responded to the terrorist threat by taking measures on providing more tools to deter and punish terrorists as well as to detect and trace their activities.
The procedural history of the USA PATRIOT Act lasted as long as four days (H.R.3162, 2001). The policy was introduced into the House of Representatives on October 23, 2001, by Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. The next day, it was agreed to without objection and transferred to the Senate. One day later, it was approved by the Senate without amendment. One more day later, the Act was signed by the President and thus became public law. Considering the complexity of the law and its high controversy, the quickness of adopting the law is remarkable.
The United States was built upon principles such as the right to privacy and free trade. The USA PATRIOT Act puts certain restrictions on these rights and freedoms. Naturally, the adoption of the law caused heavy criticism. However, the Act became a law rather quickly, which signifies that Americans were ready to sacrifice part of their freedoms to the measures of security. It shows how the threat of terrorism changed the landscape of American society and shaped the post-September 11 worlds. Indeed, the analysis of anti-terrorism legislation shows that the presence of the threat can lead to the emergence of dramatic and, sometimes, extreme public policies (Epifanio, 2011). A major consideration, nonetheless, is the adequacy and efficacy of such legislation. Some policies have proved to be counter-productive in terms of combating terrorism, i.e. to facilitate radicalization and promote violence. Since the USA PATRIOT Act was adopted in a rush, it can be assumed that there had been a lack of analysis of its possible outcomes. Such analysis should be performed to ensure that the policy’s advantages outweigh its drawbacks.
An important aspect of analyzing a public policy that affects the market is examining whether the decision to adopt the policy was based on some kind of underperforming or failure of the market. The public-interest theory is a framework, within which government decisions, attempts, and actions to impose new regulations on the market and businesses are a response to the public inquiry based on market failures (Dolar & Shughart, 2011). Examples of such failures are inaccuracy of information and monopoly. However, it is emphasized by researchers that the consequences of such regulations often do not correspond to their declared purposes, which stresses the importance of the critical approach to analyzing regulations. In the case of the USA PATRIOT Act, there are two main focuses of evaluating its regulations within the framework of market failure. On the one hand, the adoption of the law was not mainly caused by any factors within the market. It was an external threat that made the United States authorities decide to intervene in the market by limiting the rights and freedoms of US businesses. From this point of view, no market failure was the reason for the legislation. However, there is another perspective, which deals with the issue of money laundering. Since financing terrorism was found to be linked to money laundering, a significant part of the USA PATRIOT Act was dedicated to reinforcing regulations preventing the transforming of illegal profits into legitimate assets. This part of the legislation received more praise than other provisions. The effects of the Act in terms of combating money laundering were regarded as positive. From this perspective, the USA PATRIOT Act addressed a serious market issue. Therefore, it can be said that the regulation was at least partially justified by market failure.
The USA PATRIOT Act consists of ten titles containing 168 sections overall (see Appendix 1). Title I of the Act is about enhancing domestic security against terrorism. It provides for increased funding of anti-terrorist organizations and initiatives, particularly the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI. Enhanced authority to act was provided to the military and the President in cases of the terrorist threat or terrorist attacks. Also, this Title condemns discrimination and aggression towards Arab and Muslim Americans. Section 102 states that “the acts of violence that have been taken against Arab and Muslim Americans since September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States should be and are condemned by all Americans who value freedom” (United States, 2001, p. 5). Also, the United States Secret Service was requested to create a nationwide network of electronic crime task forces to prevent and detect terrorist cyber attacks.
Title II provides for enhanced surveillance procedures. Some of the most heavily criticized provisions of the Act are concentrated in this part. For example, Title II obliged Internet service providers to reveal information about their customer’s activities and connections to law enforcement authorities without a court decision. Two particularly controversial provisions are delaying the warrant notice and roving wiretaps. Both were deemed by some unconstitutional (Witmer-Rich, 2014). The first one, specified in Section 206, allows applying multiple surveillance methods to an identified surveillance target, i.e. additional court decisions are not required to wiretap the target after he or she changes the location or the communication channel. The second one, specified in Section 213, allowed law enforcement authorities to search premises without the owner’s consent or knowledge about the warrant.
Title III can be separately referred to as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. It is divided into three subtitles. The first one provides for toughening government regulations for banks, which is aimed at making money laundering more difficult. The second subtitle requires enhanced reporting from financial institutions to law enforcement authorities. The third subtitle increases penalties for currency smuggling and counterfeiting. Title III received less criticism compared to the majority of other provisions of the Act.
Title IV is about protecting the border. It deals with revising the USA immigration policy. Generally, the provisions of this Title toughened immigration regulations and reinforced foreign monitoring programs. Title V broadens the capabilities of law enforcement authorities in investigating terrorism. Title VI is dedicated to the victims of terrorism. It requires the government to provide more aid and support to the victims of terrorism and their families. Title VII consists of a single section that requires creating information-sharing centers that would help authorities investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities. Title VIII is about strengthening the criminal laws against terrorism. This part of the Act specifies the legal understanding of terrorism and its prosecution. Title IX focuses on intelligence and offers amendments to the existing legislation to introduce new requirements for the Director of Central Intelligence.
Title X is Miscellaneous. Important provisions relevant to the business sphere under this Title are Sections 1006, 1011, and 1016. The first one established that persons suspected of money laundering might be refused admission into the United States. A certain procedure is prescribed to create and maintain a list of such individuals and provide the access to it for officials in appropriate positions. The second one addresses the issues of charity fraud by requiring solicitors to disclose their intentions to ask for contributions or donations when contacting individuals or organizations. Penalties were increased for impersonating representatives of charity organizations. Section 1016 provides for support and protection of critical infrastructure. It reads, “Private business, government, and the national security apparatus increasingly depend on an interdependent network of critical physical and information infrastructures, including telecommunications, energy, financial services, water, and transportation sectors” (United States, 2001, p. 129). The Section suggests enhanced collaboration between the government and the business sphere for maintaining an appropriate network of information infrastructure.
After the quick adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act, the implementation of its provisions was swiftly unfolding. It primarily involved prompt actions by the law enforcement agencies whose authority and capabilities had been enhanced by the new legislation. By November 5, 2001, the United States Department of Justice reported that 1,147 people had been detained on the basis of suspicion of connections to terrorist activities (Civil rights concerns, 2003). Some of those people were citizens of the United States; also, some of them held residence permits and visas. The detentions were directly connected to the broadened powers of the government, including the powers to organize surveillance, conduct searches, request records, and eavesdrop on personal communications with no court orders or with reduced requirements for the formal cause of such actions. Also, the new immigration regulations exposed immigrants to the increased attention of the law enforcement agencies. For example, on November 9, 2001, the United States Attorney General announced that 5,000 people who had come to the United States from particular countries since 2000 would be interrogated. The statement implied that, after the questioning, these men would be possibly detained if investigators found it necessary.
Later that month, the President of the United States signed the decree that allowed law enforcement authorities to file the cases of noncitizens charged with crimes related to terrorism to military tribunals (Civil rights concerns, 2003). This type of court of justice deprives a defendant of certain constitutional protections ensured in civilian courts. The next spring, the so-called Operation Green Quest was conducted. Houses, companies, and various kinds of facilities (e.g. schools) in Northern Virginia that were owned by Muslims or associated with the Muslim community were raided. The Operation attracted much criticism from the Muslim community and human rights activists. Although the USA PATRIOT Act condemns the discrimination against Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, the actual implementation, such as in this case, showed that the authorities used the provisions of the Act to conduct extensive investigations among Muslims particularly.
Panel Three on the civil rights impact of the USA PATRIOT Act was conducted in 2002. Its speakers included representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, attorneys, legal counselors, and civil rights activists. According to a summary of the panel, one of the main ideas expressed by the speakers was that some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were “being applied without meaningful judicial review” (Civil rights concerns, 2003, p. 43). It was emphasized that some of the enforcement powers acquired by the government and law enforcement agencies had been proposed and requested previously but repeatedly rejected by Congress.
Another idea was that the modifications introduced by the USA PATRIOT Act to the immigration legislation made many immigrants vulnerable. The reasons for detaining hundreds of Arab and Muslim people that the authorities had indicated were associated with visa violations; however, according to specialists, those violations were “extremely technical,” and the detainees “would not have been prosecuted before September 11” (Civil rights concerns, 2003, p. 20). Many detentions resulted in deportations, which were carried out in secrecy and with violations of the right to legal counsel. A wave of ethnic and religious discrimination was observed after the adoption of the law among air carriers of the United States. It was so blatant that the Department of Transportation had to issue a public statement reminding that such discrimination was illegal. Some of the specialists noted that people of Arab descent or Muslim background in the United States were being treated as if they were guilty, and they had to prove their innocence. Such a situation is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence, which is one of the fundamental principles of justice. Overall, it was pronounced during the Panel by various experts that the American society was displaying rather neurotic behaviors.
Some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were adopted for certain periods of time and expired since then. Therefore, certain measures, particularly those deemed by many unconstitutional, were a kind of emergency action necessary under the circumstances of the serious terrorist threat. However, the opponents of the Act persistently stressed that the implementation of it repeatedly violated human rights and civil liberties. Although the Act openly condemned discrimination, the implementation of the provisions was found to promote such discrimination. There was a significant number of other effects of the new legislation, particularly on business and society.
Impact on Business and Society
The USA PATRIOT Act contains a series of amendments to various laws and policies. The Act also affected the activities, rights, and authority of many organizations, such as the CIA and the FBI, as well as US businesses and citizens. Two Sections of the law that were deemed to affect the US business world the most are Section 215 and Section 505. Section 215 is referred to as the library records provision as it authorizes investigators to access a wide range of personal and confidential information. Section 505 provides for expanding the use of National Security Letters (NSL), i.e. documents issued by the government to request certain information from entities without a court decision. Both provisions were highly controversial and deemed unconstitutional by several jurists, including the District of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken and the Federal Judge Victor Marrero (Doyle, 2011). Besides allegedly violating personal freedoms of Americans, the provisions affected the business environment significantly.
First of all, after the law was adopted, the law enforcement agencies, primarily the FBI, started actively using their enhanced authorities, for which the Act provided. By 2005, the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSL. The Bureau requested different kinds of records, including demographic information and data about finances and health from individuals who were customers of certain businesses in just one large city of the USA (Perrine, 2005). The library records provision and the delayed warrant provision (the latter is also known as the “sneak and peek” law) were widely used by the authorities, too.
In terms of the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on business and society, every controversial provision can be considered for possible pros and cons. For example, Section 215, which provides for a broadened and simplified access to business records for law enforcement authorities, can be regarded as positive in terms of making easier and facilitating the investigations associated with terrorist activities. On the other hand, the breadth of the provision is criticized. The section allows for examining business records “to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities” (United States, 2001, p. 17). Therefore, it is left to a law enforcement agency to decide whether a particular case qualifies for certain measures for the purpose of the protection against terrorism. The legal framework of this qualification is not explained, i.e. an official of the FBI can consider a wide range of cases to be connected to the matters of the terrorist threat. Therefore, there is a concern in society that the provision may be abused. Another example is enhanced information sharing capabilities provided to the intelligence services (e.g. Section 203). The intention explained in the Section is to create a network of information that will improve the work of the FBI and the CIA and other authorities associated with security. However, the Section can also lead to the creation of large databases containing various types of personal information about citizens who are not suspects or associated with terrorism. This possibility undermines the right to privacy and confidentiality of Americans. Similarly, roving wiretapping is controversial because, on the one hand, it is acknowledged that it can assist in investigations but, on the other hand, may violate certain fundamental freedoms. Roving wiretapping can improve the detection and surveillance of technologically savvy terrorists but, at the same time, the privacy of anyone who comes into contact with suspects may be violated.
Another controversy is Section 805. It increases punishments for providing material support to terrorists and widens the list of actions that the concept of material support includes. Along with monetary instruments, various resources, and training, the words “expert advice or assistance” were added to the United States Code (United States, 2001, p. 106). Critics of the provision have been concerned that the implementation of Section 805 may lead to guilt by association, i.e. guilt ascribed to a person not based on evidence but due to having been somehow associated with the suspect of a crime. Guilt by association is a fundamental violation of the presumption of innocence.
After revising the effects of the USA PATRIOT Act on businesses and society and defining possible negative consequences, researchers suggested that the criticism of the law is obstructed by the nature of its provisions (McCartney-Smith & Tanner, 2002). For example, businesses whose records have been examined may be reluctant to share this information although no association with terrorism was found. This situation takes away from the opposition to the questionable provisions of the Act.
Federal statutes are written in a specific language of lawyers and jurists which makes law documents hard to read by nonprofessionals. In addition, a significant portion of the text of a federal policy can consist of amendments to the existing legislation, i.e. indications of sections that should be omitted or added and particular words or sentences that should be inserted into the text. If one is not familiar with the content of the amended articles, such amending provisions are hard for him or her to understand. However, legal analysis of a statute is not mere explanation of its provisions. The legal analysis should include considering the general meaning of a statute, possible changes that it can cause, its predictable consequences, and the impact on society and the economy. Solid and insightful legal analysis performed by specialists is in the best interest of everyone who can be affected by the law.
Due to the scope of the USA PATRIOT Act, it requires complex legal analysis to thoroughly examine the provisions, possible drawbacks for businesses, constitutionality controversies, and other related issues. Since the Act had been adopted quickly and the implementation immediately unfolded, there were swift attempts by specialists to perform and present legal analyses for the consideration of the authorities and the public. One of such analyses was the report of the Senior Specialist at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Charles Doyle for the United States Congress.
The purpose of the Act is clearly defined in the report as a) enabling law enforcement authorities to identify, capture, and penalize persons responsible for the September 11 attacks and b) protecting the country from the terrorist threat (Doyle, 2002). One of the primary tools to achieve the purpose is providing federal officials with enhanced powers to access various kinds of communication among suspects and information about them. The second tool is strengthening anti-money laundering policies and regulations with the purpose to cut off the funding that terrorists receive from transforming illegally acquired funds into legitimate assets. The third is reinforcing immigration laws to protect the borders from terrorists who are trying to enter the country and to effectively expel those who have already entered it. Finally, the fourth tool is revising the existing terrorist-related legislation to broaden the list of activities regarded as terrorism and toughen the penalties for them.
The analysis recognized that the Act’s provisions had attracted much criticism. The general tone of the criticism was that the government had gone too far in limiting the personal freedoms of the citizens for the protection against terrorism. Major concerns of the United States businesses were that the Act provided for the authority to request business records, impose more comprehensive financial reporting requirements, conduct advanced surveillance, monitor communications traffic, confiscate property, and search premises under delayed warrants. Doyle (2002) suggests that these measures are adequate because “the Act creates judicial safeguards for e-mail monitoring and grand jury disclosures; recognizes innocent owner defenses to forfeiture, and entrusts enhanced anti-money laundering powers to those regulatory authorities whose concerns include the well being of our financial institutions” (p. iii). It was also stressed in the report that many provisions are emergency measures whose validity would expire within the next years.
Concerning the USA PATRIOT Act’s impact on the business sphere, analysts disagree whether the legislation was effective or not. On the one hand, the portion of the Act dedicated to money laundering was one of the least criticized ones. It was acknowledged that the provisions aimed at preventing corrupted business schemes helped raise the investor confidence, which is a significant indicator of an improved business environment. However, the business environment was also damaged by other provisions such as the “sneak and peek” provision and the library records provision. Even if the law achieved its goal (in this case, one of the goals: reducing money laundering), it is important to analyze whether or not it also caused harm, which sometimes may outweigh the positive achievements. Under Section 215, for example, government officials were entitled to request various types of information including business records and personal data without a court decision or presenting a “probable cause,” i.e. evidence of specific facts indicating that a crime had been committed and the requested information might be relevant to the investigation. Instead, the officials only had to claim that the requested information was somehow associated with an ongoing investigation without revealing details. The legal status of such a claim was indefinite because it did not have to be supported by evidence or court decisions. It created a situation where many companies were concerned that the provision might be abused by the officials. It had a rather negative effect on the business environment.
Analyzing the USA PATRIOT Act allows offering several recommendations for future policymakers. First of all, any legislation that enhances the powers of law enforcement authorities is seen as an attempt by the government to violate its citizens’ civil liberties. Second, any legislative measures that impose new requirements on businesses complicate their operation, which may negatively affect the economy and international competitiveness. Finally, emergency security measures, such as the adoption of the “sneak and peek” policy, create an environment of distrust and tension that hinders economic development. The general recommendation is to ensure that a policy is effectively communicated and adequately enforced so that businesses do not feel vulnerable and do not perceive government regulations as a threat to their development.
H. R. 3162
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
At the First Session
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents.
(A) Short Title.—
This Act may be cited as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001´´.
(B) Table of Contents.—
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short Title and Table of Contents.
Sec. 2. Construction; Severability.
Title I—Enhancing Domestic Security Against Terrorism
Sec. 101. Counterterrorism fund.
Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.
Sec. 103. Increased funding for the Technical Support Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 104. Requests for military assistance to enforce prohibition in certain emergencies.
Sec. 105. Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force Initiative.
Sec. 106. Presidential authority.
Title II—Enhanced Surveillance Procedures
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.
Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.
Sec. 208. Designation of judges.
Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages under warrants.
Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.
Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.
Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.
Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.
Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.
Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Sec. 224. Sunset.
Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap.
Title III—International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act of 2001
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 303. 4-year Congressional review; Expedited consideration.
Subtitle A—International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures
Sec. 311. Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, or international transactions of primary money laundering concern.
Sec. 312. Special due diligence for correspondent accounts and private banking accounts.
Sec. 313. Prohibition on United States correspondent accounts with foreign shell banks.
Sec. 314. Cooperative efforts to deter money laundering.
Sec. 315. Inclusion of foreign corruption offenses as money laundering crimes.
Sec. 316. Anti-terrorist forfeiture protection.
Sec. 317. Long-arm jurisdiction over foreign money launderers.
Sec. 318. Laundering money through a foreign bank.
Sec. 319. Forfeiture of funds in United States interbank accounts.
Sec. 320. Proceeds of foreign crimes.
Sec. 321. Financial institutions are specified in Subchapter II of Chapter 53 of Title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 322. Corporation represented by a fugitive.
Sec. 323. Enforcement of foreign judgments.
Sec. 324. Report and recommendation.
Sec. 325. Concentration accounts at financial institutions.
Sec. 326. Verification of identification.
Sec. 327. Consideration of anti-money laundering record.
Sec. 328. International cooperation on identification of originators of wire transfers.
Sec. 329. Criminal penalties.
Sec. 330. International cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.
Subtitle B—Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements
Sec. 351. Amendments relating to reporting of suspicious activities.
Sec. 352. Anti-money laundering programs.
Sec. 353. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain recordkeeping requirements, and lengthening effective period of geographic targeting orders.
Sec. 354. Anti-money laundering strategy.
Sec. 355. Authorization to include suspicions of illegal activity in written employment references.
Sec. 356. Reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and dealers; investment company study.
Sec. 357. Special report on the administration of bank secrecy provisions.
Sec. 358. Bank secrecy provisions and activities of United States intelligence agencies to fight international terrorism.
Sec. 359. Reporting of suspicious activities by underground banking systems.
Sec. 360. Use of authority of United States Executive Directors.
Sec. 361. Financial crimes enforcement network.
Sec. 362. Establishment of highly secure network.
Sec. 363. Increase in civil and criminal penalties for money laundering.
Sec. 364. Uniform protection authority for Federal Reserve facilities.
Sec. 365. Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business.
Sec. 366. Efficient use of currency transaction report system.
Subtitle C—Currency Crimes and Protection
Sec. 371. Bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States.
Sec. 372. Forfeiture in currency reporting cases.
Sec. 373. Illegal money transmitting businesses.
Sec. 374. Counterfeiting domestic currency and obligations.
Sec. 375. Counterfeiting foreign currency and obligations.
Sec. 376. Laundering the proceeds of terrorism.
Sec. 377. Extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Title IV—Protecting the Border
Subtitle A—Protecting the Northern Border
Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the Northern Border.
Sec. 402. Northern Border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.
Subtitle B—Enhanced Immigration Provisions
Sec. 411. Definitions relating to terrorism.
Sec. 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.
Sec. 413. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.
Sec. 414. Visa integrity and security.
Sec. 415. Participation of Office of Homeland Security on Entry-Exit Task Force.
Sec. 416. Foreign student monitoring program.
Sec. 417. Machine-readable passports.
Sec. 418. Prevention of consulate shopping.
Subtitle C—Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism
Sec. 421. Special immigrant status.
Sec. 422. Extension of filing or reentry deadlines.
Sec. 423. Humanitarian relief for certain surviving spouses and children.
Sec. 424. Age-out’ protection for children.
Sec. 425. Temporary administrative relief.
Sec. 426. Evidence of death, disability, or loss of employment.
Sec. 427. No benefits to terrorists or family members of terrorists.
Sec. 428. Definitions.
Title V—Removing Obstacles to Investigating Terrorism
Sec. 501. Attorney General’s authority to pay rewards to combat terrorism.
Sec. 502. Secretary of State’s authority to pay rewards.
Sec. 503. DNA identification of terrorists and other violent offenders.
Sec. 504. Coordination with law enforcement.
Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities.
Sec. 506. Extension of Secret Service jurisdiction.
Sec. 507. Disclosure of educational records.
Sec. 508. Disclosure of information from NCES surveys.
Title VI—Providing for Victims of Terrorism, Public Safety Officers, and Their Families
Subtitle A—Aid to Families of Public Safety Officers
Sec. 611. Expedited payment for public safety officers involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue, or recovery efforts related to a terrorist attack.
Sec. 612. Technical correction with respect to expedited payments for heroic public safety officers.
Sec. 613. Public safety officers benefit from program payment increases.
Sec. 614. Office of Justice programs.
Subtitle B—Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984
Sec. 621. Crime victims fund.
Sec. 622. Crime victim compensation.
Sec. 623. Crime victim assistance.
Sec. 624. Victims of terrorism.
Title VII—Increased Information Sharing for Critical Infrastructure Protection
Sec. 701. Expansion of regional information sharing system to facilitate federal-state-local law enforcement response related to terrorist attacks.
Title VIII—Strengthening the Criminal Laws Against Terrorism
Sec. 801. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems.
Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism.
Sec. 803. Prohibition against harboring terrorists.
Sec. 804. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at U.S. facilities abroad.
Sec. 805. Material support for terrorism.
Sec. 806. Assets of terrorist organizations.
Sec. 807. Technical clarification relating to provision of material support to terrorism.
Sec. 808. Definition of federal crime of terrorism.
Sec. 809. No statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses.
Sec. 810. Alternate maximum penalties for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 811. Penalties for terrorist conspiracies.
Sec. 812. Post-release supervision of terrorists.
Sec. 813. Inclusion of acts of terrorism as racketeering activity.
Sec. 814. Deterrence and prevention of cyberterrorism.
Sec. 815. Additional defense to civil actions relating to preserving records in response to government requests.
Sec. 816. Development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities.
Sec. 817. Expansion of the biological weapons statute.
Title IX—Improved Intelligence
Sec. 901. Responsibilities of Director of Central Intelligence regarding foreign intelligence collected under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 902. Inclusion of international terrorist activities within the scope of foreign intelligence under National Security Act of 1947.
Sec. 903. Sense of Congress on the establishment and maintenance of intelligence relationships to acquire information on terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Sec. 904. Temporary authority to defer submittal to Congress of reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters.
Sec. 905. Disclosure to Director of Central Intelligence of foreign intelligence-related information concerning criminal investigations.
Sec. 906. Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center.
Sec. 907. National Virtual Translation Center.
Sec. 908. Training of government officials regarding identification and use of foreign intelligence.
Sec. 1001. Review of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 1002. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 1003. Definition of electronic surveillance’.
Sec. 1004. Venue in money laundering cases.
Sec. 1005. First responders assistance act.
Sec. 1006. Inadmissibility of aliens engaged in money laundering.
Sec. 1007. Authorization of funds for DEA police training in south and central asia.
Sec. 1008. Feasibility study on use of biometric identifier scanning system with access to the FBI integrated automated fingerprint identification system at overseas consular posts and points of entry to the United States.
Sec. 1009. Study of access.
Sec. 1010. Temporary authority to contract with local and state governments for performance of security functions at United States military installations.
Sec. 1011. Crimes against charitable Americans.
Sec. 1012. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.
Sec. 1013. Expressing the sense of the senate concerning the provision of funding for bioterrorism preparedness and response.
Sec. 1014. Grant program for State and local domestic preparedness support.
Sec. 1015. Expansion and reauthorization of the crime identification technology act for antiterrorism grants to States and localities.
Sec. 1016. Critical infrastructures protection.
Dolar, B., & Shughart, W. F. (2011). Enforcement of the USA Patriot Act’s anti-money laundering provisions: Have regulators followed a risk-based approach? Global Finance Journal, 22(1), 19-31.
Doyle, C. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: A legal analysis. Web.
Doyle, C. (2011). National Security Letters: Proposals in the 112th Congress. Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing.
Epifanio, M. (2011). Legislative response to international terrorism. Journal of peace research, 48(3), 399-411.
H.R.3162 – Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. (2001). Web.
McCartney-Smith, E., & Tanner, N. B. (2002). How does the USA PATRIOT Act affect international business? Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 13(6), 23-30.
Perrine, J. B. (2005). The USA Patriot Act: Big Brother or business as usual. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 19(1), 163-195.
United States. (2001). The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving life and liberty: Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Witmer-Rich, J. (2014). The Fatal Flaws of the ‘Sneak and Peek’ Statute and How to Fix it. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 65(112), 121-179.