Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3199, USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. I rise in opposition not just because an important amendment that I offered, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) was not accepted by the Committee on Rules, but because this very same amendment has already been passed on the floor of this House by a 51-vote margin just a few weeks ago.

On June 15, by a vote of 238-187, this body voted overwhelmingly for the exact same amendment which would stop the FBI and other government agencies from going into our libraries and book stores without probable cause. We voted on that by a 238-187 vote; and now, a few weeks later, this provision is not included in the bill, and the Republican leadership has refused to allow the Members to even vote on it.

This, my friends, is an outrageous abuse of power and denies the majority of Members here the right to put into the bill what they want. There is no excuse for that. If you wanted to speak against it, let it come up, argue against it. But it has passed once; it will likely pass again. But the Republican leadership has not allowed that issue to be debated.

This whole discussion about the USA PATRIOT Act deals with two issues. Number one, every Member of this body is pledged to do everything that he or she can to protect the American people from the horrendous scourge of terrorism, but some of us have more confidence in our law enforcement agencies and the American people than others do. We believe that we can fight terrorism and protect the American people without undermining the basic constitutional rights which make us a free country.

Let all of us remember that in the 1940s innocent Japanese Americans, without any pretext, were herded into internment camps. In the 1960s, a President of the United States had a file on him, President Kennedy, by the FBI. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr., who some of us consider to be one of the great heroes of the 20th century, was hounded and investigated by the FBI.

The issue today is how do we effectively fight terrorism, but do it in a way which protects the constitutional rights which make us a free country.

I urge a "no" vote on the rule.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that since his amendment passed on June 15, Great Britain has been attacked twice, so circumstances have changed.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, we understand what happened today. Tell me why you will not allow that amendment to come up for a vote, despite the fact that the majority of the Members support it.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov