[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 22394-22395]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   H. RES. 264, PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2975; TO COMBAT 
                               TERRORISM

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM UDALL

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 13, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to this 
rule in the strongest possible terms. I believe that both the path 
taken and the point at which we have arrived this morning are an 
affront to the democratic process and are stunning examples of a 
breakdown in the systems that have served our country and the Congress 
for over two hundred years.
  The issues addressed in this legislation are of profound importance 
to the safety and security of our constituents and to the continued 
safety of the country as a whole. I believe that there is no more 
important duty undertaken by a member of this body than to protect the 
welfare of his or her constituents while also protecting the civil 
liberties for which so many Americans have given their lives. The 
procedural tactics employed this morning in the name of expediency, 
however, threaten not only to derail a legislative process that would 
have resulted in a widely supported bill to protect Americans, it also 
threatens to undermine the civil liberties enjoyed by Americans and the 
democratic principles enshrined in this very chamber.
  The outrage of this morning is tremendously disturbing to me and many 
of my colleagues. Rather than allowing a widely supported bill--passed 
unanimously by a committee that is often viewed as one of the most 
partisan in the Congress--to come to the floor for debate and a vote, 
the leadership of this body has decided to craft an alternative bill in 
the dead of night without providing the membership of the body at-large 
sufficient time to study its contents. I cannot understand why the 
leadership would threaten the wonderful spirit of bipartisanship that 
has flourished in the Congress over the last month by resorting to 
these types of procedural tactics and back-room deal making.
  I arrived at the Capitol this morning buoyed by the prospects that a 
thoughtfully deliberated and considered bill would be presented on the 
floor of the House for additional debate and consideration. I was 
monumentally disappointed to discover, however, that the bill

[[Page 22395]]

had been pulled and replaced by an unstudied substitute, the contents 
of which remain largely a mystery to even many senior members of the 
Judiciary Committee. At nearly two hundred pages of esoteric and 
technical language, the bill is beyond the length that a member of this 
body may be reasonably assumed to have read and understood.
  By opposing this unfair rule, I am standing in support of fairness 
and the democratic process. I fully understand the need to implement 
new measures that will allow law enforcement to respond to the new 
threats posed to the United States by those who would do us harm, but I 
must urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. By defeating this rule, we 
will allow sufficient time to pass so that we may, in good conscience, 
examine this new bill and cast our votes confident that we understand 
its contents and its implications for law enforcement and democracy.

                          ____________________