mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to this restrictive rule . 
i am disappointed that this rule is preventing many of us from even offering amendments that are very important to any discussion of the patriot act . 
yesterday i went to the rules committee seeking an opportunity to offer two amendments . 
one that dealt with the privacy and civil liberties oversight board that was created by the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act . 
it was the third such time that i , in a bipartisan way with congressmen shays and tom udall , that we have sought the opportunity to debate this issue , but each time the committee has not made it in order . 
i do n't understand why this body refuses to even discuss this issue . 
if our amendment was made in order , it would : 1 . 
give the board subpoena power . 
currently the board needs the permission of the attorney general to issue a subpoena . 
2 . 
create the board as an independent agency in the executive branch . 
currently the board is in the executive office of the president . 
3 . 
require that all 5 members of the board be confirmed by the senate . 
currently only the chair and the vice chair will be confirmed . 
4 . 
require that no more than 3 members can be from the same political party . 
5 . 
set a term for board members at 6 years . 
currently members will serve at the pleasure of the president . 
6 . 
create the chairman as a full-time member of the board . 
7 . 
restore the qualifications of board members that were originally included in the senate bill . 
8 . 
restore reporting requirements to congress . 
9 . 
require each executive department or agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism functions -- should designate a privacy and civil liberties officer . 
the reason why we sought to offer this amendment is because the civil liberties board that we have right now does not have the teeth it needs to do its job . 
in fact , the board that we have right now has never even met and we are still waiting on confirmation of the chair and the vice chair . 
as we fight to prevent future terrorist attacks , we must also protect the rights we are fighting for . 
the 9/11 commission got it exactly right when they wrote : we must find ways of reconciling security with liberty , since the success of one helps protects the other . 
... .. 
if our liberties are curtailed , we lose the values we are struggling to defend . 
this is why we need a robust board . 
that is why this body at the very least should be allowed to have this discussion . 
my other amendments dealt with humanitarian relief that we owe the victims of the attacks of september 11 , 2001 . 
this amendment was also offered in a bipartisan manner with my colleague from new york , peter king . 
temporary relief for non-citizens , who were here legally or not , was included in the original patriot act . 
i could think of no better time than now , during reauthorization of the act that gave many temporary relief , to make this relief permanent . 
the maloney/peter king amendment , provides adjustment in immigration status to `` an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence '' and a stay of removal to the surviving spouses and children of individuals who died in the terrorist attacks of september 11 , 2001 . 
to receive this adjusted status , the individual must be either lawfully present or be deemed a beneficiary of the september 11th victims compensation fund . 
these families have already suffered once , suffering the loss of a loved-one in the attacks of 9/11 , we should not prolong their suffering . 
this body should have made this amendment in order . 
this body should be taking up the important issues that surround this bill . 
instead , we have a restrictive rule . 
all we are requesting is an honest debate and unfortunately this rule does not provide this . 
