[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 101 (Friday, July 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1585]
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. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    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. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization. We must provide law 
enforcement all the tools they need to keep us safe in today's changing 
world, but we need a bill that strikes a more appropriate balance 
between civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism.
  Since the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11, I 
have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the 
details of this controversial legislation. At a town hall meeting I 
hosted, the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island and a representative of the 
state's American Civil Liberties Union passionately argued their cases. 
Some agreed with the U.S. Attorney that only the USA PATRIOT Act can 
prevent us from another attack. However, most of that crowd, as well as 
most Rhode Islanders, worry that we have already ceded too much ground 
on our precious civil liberties. In my state, six cities and towns have 
passed resolutions opposing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, and my 
constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom.
  Keeping America safe is not a partisan issue, but unfortunately, 
several provisions of this bill are. We could have reached a bipartisan 
solution to extend the provisions that are effective, such as 
permitting searches to the Internet and e-mail, and modify the 
provisions that need changes, such as the searching of library records 
and ``sneak and peek'' searches, to which Congress has already voiced 
strong and clear opposition. Instead, we forgo Congressional oversight 
and take away future opportunities for review.
  I am most troubled that the Rules Committee has not permitted a 
single amendment to determine if 15 controversial provisions should 
expire. Sunsets require Congress to review the Act, extend what is 
working, and change what is not. Sunsets would make the bill better, 
and ensure regular oversight, but the rule does not permit us to vote 
on this important modification. Simply adding sunsets could have made 
the H.R. 3199 more palatable, and I am confident it could have had 
strong bipartisan support. However, the Republicans have again chosen 
division over unity.
  I recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology 
and a changing world, and I am committed to ensuring our law 
enforcement has the tools they need to keep our nation safe. However, 
providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and 
freedoms that we hold so dear. If we cede these, we have already given 
up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to make many changes in 
H.R. 3199 to fight terrorism and protect our freedoms. I am encouraged 
that the Senate is taking a more bipartisan approach to renewal of the 
USA PATRIOT Act, and I look forward to a conference agreement that we 
can all support to protect our liberties and our country.

                          ____________________