[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3199, USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 14, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, four years ago I voted against 
the bill that became the ``USA PATRIOT Act,'' more commonly called 
simply the ``PATRIOT Act.''
  I agreed that our law-enforcement agencies needed increased power and 
more tools to fight terrorists. But I also thought then--and still 
think today--it was imperative for Congress to proceed carefully in 
order to protect Americans' civil liberties. However, I took some 
comfort from the fact that a number of the most troublesome provisions 
of the new law were temporary and would expire at the end of this year 
unless Congress acts to renew them.
  The imminent expiration of those provisions is why the House 
considered this legislation in July, and provides the impetus for the 
conference report before us today.
  I think the value of such ``sunset'' provisions is shown by the 
debate on that bill and today's debate on the conference report. It is 
evidence that requiring Congressional action to renew agencies' 
authorities can and does result in ongoing Congressional oversight and 
periodic reconsideration.
  In July, I voted against the bill because it would have made 
permanent no fewer than 14 of the 16 provisions of the original 
``Patriot Act'' that were covered by the law's ``sunset'' clause--as 
well as other new authorities provided by last year's bill to reform 
the intelligence community--and under the bill the other two would not 
have faced a ``sunset'' for a full 10 years.
  However, at the same time I noted that there was considerable support 
in the other body--by Senators on both sides of the aisle--for 
provisions that would improve on this legislation. And I hoped and 
expected that once the Senate had acted and the conference was 
completed, the result would be a measure that deserves the support of 
all Members of Congress.
  Unfortunately, after careful review I have concluded that this 
conference report, while an improvement over the bill the House passed 
in July, is still so seriously flawed that I cannot support it.
  The conference report does not do enough to reduce the potential that 
the authority it gives to the FBI and other agencies could be abused or 
misused in ways that intrude on Americans' privacy and civil 
liberties--a potential that has led more than 300 communities and seven 
States, including Colorado--governments representing over 62 million 
people--to pass resolutions opposing parts of the Patriot Act.
  The Senate, to its credit, did a better job than the House in 
responding to the concerns that prompted such resolutions, while still 
providing ample tools that the government can use to work against the 
threat of more terrorist attacks, at home and abroad.
  I could have supported enactment of the bill as passed by the Senate. 
That is why I voted for the motion to recommit. But I cannot support 
this conference report as it stands.

                          ____________________