madam speaker , i rise in support of the motion to instruct . 
we have heard much from many sides about the usa patrlot act -- concerns about what the bill does , statements about what it does not do , and fears about what it could do in the future . 
we have shared these discussions with constituents , state and local officials , businesses , librarians , and other government agencies . 
but earlier this year we had an important opportunity to move those conversations back to congress to examine -- in a light much more clear and objective than that in which we passed the original bill -- how the patrlot act has protected us from further terrorist attack , and also how balance between national security and personal security needs to be restored . 
as a result of the opportunity to debate , deliberate , and discuss , we made important changes to the original usa patrlot act in h.r. 3199 , changes that enable law enforcement to continue to investigate and prosecute crime while protecting civil liberties . 
congress was able to go back and make those changes because the original bill included a sunset and made many questionable provisions subject to it . 
this sunset served us well , and so i am perplexed that in the same bill where we made vital revisions to the usa patrlot act we also eliminated many of the sunsets and extended others for a decade or more . 
in doing so , h.r. 3199 takes away from congress the opportunity to periodically review these provisions and ensure that the tools they provide law enforcement are necessary and that they are not being abused . 
i am glad that , in respect to sections 206 and 215 of the usa patrlot act , the senate did not act as rashly as we did . 
i strongly urge conferees to see the wisdom of four-year sunsets for these sections , as passed by the senate , and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct . 
