Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for standing up for the fourth amendment principles he has articulated today.

This is an important issue to all Americans. Americans are at once concerned about our national security. They want to make sure we can identify and apprehend those people who would harm us. At the same time, Americans are firmly committed to the idea of constitutionally limited government--the concept that regardless of how passionately we might feel about the need for certain government intervention, we can't ever allow government to be operated completely unfettered. We have liberty in place whenever government is controlled by the people, and whenever there are certain things that are beyond the reach of the government.

Senator Paul has helped identify some key areas of concern that have been implicated by the PATRIOT Act. He has suggested that we ought to at a minimum have a robust debate and discussion over some amendments that might be proposed to the PATRIOT Act before we proceed. Three months ago we had a discussion, we had a vote, and there were a few of us who voted against the PATRIOT Act--not because we don't love America, we do. We want to protect America. We voted against it because we love America, because we believe in a constitutionally limited government, because we want to make it better. We want to make this something that can at the same time protect Americans but without needlessly trampling on privacy interests, including many of those privacy interests protected by the fourth amendment.

Bad things happen when we adopt a law without adequately discussing its merits. Years ago, when the PATRIOT Act was adopted, there were a number of people who raised some of these privacy concerns. For that and other reasons, Congress made the decision way back then--almost 10 years ago--to adopt the PATRIOT Act and adopt certain provisions of it subject to some sunsetting provisions so that Congress would periodically be required to debate and discuss these provisions. It does us no good if every time it comes up we are told we have to vote for it or against it; we can't really debate and discuss it or consider amendments to it.

We were told 3 months ago that at the end of May--and we are now here--we would have an opportunity to debate, discuss, and consider amendments. That opportunity has now been taken away from us and with it the chance to address many of these important privacy implications, many of which do implicate the fourth amendment in one way or another.

Senator Paul has referred to some of them, including some of the implications of the national security letters which, while not directly implicated by the expiring provisions at issue right now, are inextricably intertwined with other issues that are in front of us, including those related to section 215 orders and including the roving wiretap issue that is up for reauthorization.

So I speak in support of the idea of robust debate and discussion, especially where, as here, it relates to something that is so important to the American concept of limited government and so closely related to our fourth amendment interests. We ought to have robust debate, discussion, and an opportunity for amendment.

I thank Senator Paul for his leadership in this regard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source