[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 101 (Friday, July 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1583-E1584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. CONNIE MACK

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 21, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3199) to 
     extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my thoughts and 
concerns regarding the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199). This legislation--though controversial 
since it was originally signed into law in 2001--is an important and 
effective tool for combating and winning the war on terrorism. However, 
it is the duty of this body to err on the side of freedom and that is 
why I support commonsense legislative oversight of this law.
  Four years ago, Congress came together to provide law enforcement and 
intelligence officials with sweeping powers to increase intelligence-
gathering abilities and information sharing in the name of fighting 
terrorism. This was a wise and prudent choice. However, due to the 
legitimate concerns raised about the powers this law puts into the 
hands of government and the need to be mindful of the liberty we are 
sworn to uphold, sunset provisions were attached to the original law to 
ensure there would be a judicious review of the law and how it has been 
implemented. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: sunset provisions do not 
weaken the law, nor do they undermine its purpose or its execution.
  Last night, during the debate on the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3199), a Motion to Recommit was 
offered that included instructions to extend the current sunset 
provisions on the sixteen most controversial provisions from 2005 to 
2009. Two hundred and nine of my colleagues voted ``yea'' on this 
Motion to Recommit. I intended to vote ``yea,'' however, due to a 
technical malfunction, my vote was not recorded in the official 
Congressional Record. Regrettably, because the Motion to Recommit 
failed (209 to 218), the legislation contained only two limited 10-year 
sunsets. Thus, in the spirit of freedom, liberty, and limited 
government, I voted against the final passage of the House-version of 
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
  Detractors of sunset provisions state there has not been any evidence 
of widespread abuse of any of the PATRIOT Act's provisions. But, as 
leaders, we are supposed to have the gift of foresight. By making the 
law permanent at this time, we will handcuff the ability of Congress to 
carry out a constitutionally-mandated power legislative oversight. Why 
should we not review this Act in four year's time? Having an 
intelligent debate to weigh the accomplishments of the bill is a smart 
undertaking now, just as it will be in 2009.
  History tells us that in times of war or conflict, government is all 
too willing to ask its citizens to trade a bit of their liberty for the 
hope

[[Page E1584]]

of greater security. We witnessed it during World War II with the 
immoral internment of Japanese Americans. Liberty has been trampled 
during every war we've fought. But we must ensure that it does not 
happen again through vigilant oversight of the provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. Some have characterized the PATRIOT Act as an 
irresponsible reaction. I disagree because Congress was smart and just 
to include ``sunsets'' at the time. Most of the provisions in the 
PATRIOT Act were needed and should be reauthorized. But to contend as 
some of its supporters do that it is a perfect law and should not be 
looked at critically is absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my colleagues in both 
the House and the Senate to ensure that proper legislative safeguards 
are achieved, in conference, through additional sunsets on the most 
controversial provisions. In the words of one of our Founding Fathers, 
Benjamin Franklin, ``they that can give up essential liberty to obtain 
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Mr. 
Speaker, the war on terrorism will be won. But, America must continue 
to be a shining beacon of freedom, security, and prosperity for the 
world. It is the job of this esteemed legislative body to strike the 
proper balance between liberty and safety. We ascended to our current 
world position by being a cradle of freedom--now is not the time to 
turn our backs on that fundamental principle.

                          ____________________