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 TEXT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but before I speak on the rule itself, let me say to our friends in Great Britain, one of our strongest allies in the fight against terrorism, we are with you. We empathize with the pain that has been visited upon you once again. We are in this fight against terrorists together.
Everybody on this floor views themselves and acts as a patriot on behalf of America, its values, and its people. All 435 Members of this House. They will see things differently as we consider this bill, but they are all 100 percent committed to defeating terrorism, to ferreting out terrorists, to getting them off our streets, out of our country and incarcerated, as they should be. Make no mistake about the commonality of that commitment. I know that the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle are united in that commitment.
Today, on this House floor the American people will see no division in our willingness to do what is necessary to fight terrorism. What they will see today, however, Mr. Speaker, is an abuse of power by the Republican majority, which has deliberately and purposefully chosen to stifle a full debate on this critical legislation.
I voted for the PATRIOT Act. I think we need to reauthorize the sections involved, but we ought to look at them carefully. A Republican rule that has been offered today is nothing less, and I use my words carefully, than a craven failure of our congressional oversight responsibility on legislation that involves the government's power to intrude on the lives of Americans. We must protect Americans, we must confront terrorists, but we must also ensure our constitutional values.
Every single year, Mr. Speaker, this Congress reauthorizes the Department of Defense programs. This reauthorization process allows us to assess, reexamine, and to recalibrate our defense policies to changing circumstances. Today, however, we are being asked to give up that oversight responsibility and permanently authorize many sections of this bill.
Now, let me make it clear to the public that the overwhelming majority of the PATRIOT Act is in law right now and will not be affected by this legislation. Sixteen sections only are the subject of this legislation. We are being asked to extend two provisions, particularly one that involves roving wiretaps, and the other dealing with the FBI's power to demand business records for 10 years.
Democrats have suggested we ought to sunset these provisions. Why are you afraid to have a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives on that provision? Why are you fearful? Why do you fear the democratic process? I do not know.
The Sanders amendment. You failed to offer that, yet 238 Members of this House, just days ago, voted for that provision. Why are you afraid to have another vote on the floor? Are you afraid you cannot get your Members to change their minds? Are you afraid of the democratic process in this, the people's House? Do you undermine that democracy which we confront terrorists for doing?
My friends, this rule is not consistent with the open democratic process in adopting one of the most important bills that we will consider. I agree with the gentleman from California. That is why I voted for the PATRIOT Act, to give law enforcement the capability and assurance we could confront and catch terrorists and protect Americans in our country, but we should have come with a better rule. It is lamentable that we did not.
BREAK IN TEXT
http://thomas.loc.gov