Providing for Consideration of H.R. 514, Extending Counter Terrorism Authorities

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the historical account that was just delivered by my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, former Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I have abundant respect and admiration for him and his motives and his desire to protect the civil rights that we all hold dear. But I find it disturbing that today we're going to start out on a 9 1/2 -hour debate on a meaningless, redundant measure that simply instructs Congress and its committees to review regulations and we could be spending that time dealing with such a very important, serious issue such as reauthorization of this so-called Patriot Act.

This bill is too serious, it's too important, to be reauthorized without any hearings, no markups, no opportunity for amendments. I was glad to be one of the true patriots to vote against this measure when it was brought to the floor yesterday on a suspension of the rules without due consideration by our Judiciary Committee.

There is bipartisan consensus that these provisions need some improvement--roving wiretaps, the lone wolf provisions, especially business records. While the threat of terrorism is real and law enforcement must have the right tools to protect Americans, any counter terrorism measure must have a solid constitutional footing and respect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

If Congress reauthorizes these provisions with no changes, Americans will remain subject to warrantless intrusions into their personal affairs and a gross overreach of Federal investigative authority that could be and has been abused. It's just not how we do things in this country, ladies and gentlemen.

Rather than taking the time to craft reforms that will better protect private citizens' communications and privacy from overbroad government surveillance, the Republican Party simply wants to ram this bill through without providing any opportunity for anybody to offer amendments that would improve the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We all acknowledge that law enforcement needs new tools to keep up with 21st century threats, but surely it's our responsibility in Congress to reexamine legislation that was hurried through Congress in the wake of 9/11 to make sure it lives up to our national ideals.

Because this bill fails to contain any checks and balances to prevent law enforcement abuses and protect civil liberties, I must oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source