madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
madam speaker , i rise in strong support of this motion to instruct conferees on the patriot act . 
let me note that i am one of several , if not many , members of congress who feel that it was an act of bad faith on the part of those in this body who turned the temporary sunsetted provisions of the patriot act into permanent law for the united states of america . 
i supported the patriot act and would have again voted for the patriot act as it was when we first voted for it , except now we end up with a patriot act that permanently changes the balance of power in the united states between the police power and the limitations of power of the policing authorities of the federal government . 
that , i do not believe , should be tolerated by those of us who love liberty and justice and feel that limited government is vital to the protection of freedom . 
second of all , let me note that any , any investigation or hearings that we have had so far into the patriot act are irrelevant to the issue at hand , the issue at hand as to whether or not we have permanently changed this law and whether in the future there could be abuse . 
i would say , along with many others , that by permanently granting these excessive powers , or extended powers , to the federal government in a time of war and then permanently extending it so that now it is the norm for a time of peace is asking for abuse . 
so whatever hearings have been held so far in this conflict are irrelevant . 
on september 11 , our country was attacked and we saw 3 , 000 americans slaughtered before our eyes , and it totally justified the major expansion of the police and investigative powers of our government . 
i voted for the patriot act , as i just said , and i continue to support its provisions as a necessary expansion of police powers in order to prosecute this war on islamofacism . 
they declared war on us every bit as much as the japanese declared war on us on december 7 , 1941 . 
however , as i said in the original bill , sunset provisions were placed in all of these expanded police powers that were going to enable us to protect our people in this time of war . 
it was a consensus that when the war was won , it was a consensus when this war was won , those powers would be rescinded and their purposes would have then been served . 
the expanded authority we are talking about in terms of eliminating these sunsets in the current bill , this has nothing to do with fighting the war or winning the war on terror . 
it has everything to do with using that war as an excuse to permanently change the way we do business in the united states . 
the standard we set for a war when we are at war with radical islam should not be the new standard set for america once that war is over . 
it is as simple as that . 
i support the expansion of those powers until we win that war . 
but we can not , and this is what we have been handed , a bill that permanently does it so our way of life is changed after the war is over . 
the special grants of police power that we have approved we believe should only last for the duration of the war , and we must demand at least a forced reexamination of these provisions to ensure that winning the war on terror does not result in a permanent change of our way of life . 
of course , we are not here to debate the patriot act again . 
today , we are limited to instructing conferees to adopt the senate 's version of the bill , which would sunset in 4 years the same two provisions that the house bill would sunset in 10 years . 
the rest of the expansion of the police powers , such as the sneak-and-peak searches , internet and credit card seizures , the lowering of standards for logging all calls dialed from one particular phone , and the rules against discussing property seizure , all without the traditional warrants that would be required for those activities , have been made permanent in u.s. law . 
the two provisions being allowed to sunset , as one might expect , are the most questionable of the lot . 
specifically , section 206 of the house version of the patriot act extends to federal authorities for 10 years until 2015 the right to employ roving wiretaps , whether they have the name of a specific suspect or location notwithstanding . 
this should be reexamined before 10 years has lapsed if for no other reason than to just understand whether or not this tool is working for us in the war on terror . 
is it achieving the goals that it set out to achieve in this war ? 
the senate version sunsets the clause in 4 years ; that is much more responsible . 
let us come back and reassess it . 
that is reasonable . 
section 215 will also be sunsetted in 2015 in the house version rather than in the 5 years in the senate bill . 
this section allows for law enforcement to examine library and financial records of any person in connection with a federal investigation . 
this provision is possibly the most controversial in the entire bill . 
my colleagues on one side of the aisle say that this is an unconscionable invasion of privacy , never justified , even in wartime . 
others , however , argue that this particular provision is rarely , if ever , used , so why worry about it ? 
well , let us be frank and admit that searching library and financial records of our citizens is hugely intrusive , even if it is rarely used . 
nonetheless , this section 215 may be needed in a time of war to secure our country and to make sure our people are safe . 
while granting the expansion of this police power with a reasonable time limit , such as the expansion of a shorter term of years to ensure section 215 is not abused , that seems reasonable . 
but it may , again , 215 may be justified now . 
we may have a justification to find out if someone who checked out a book on radical islam has also checked out books on how to make bombs . 
that is why sunsetting this provision 4 years from now , rather than 10 years , is the right thing to do . 
we do not want to have that kind of power in the hands of the federal police authorities after this war is over . 
finally , we need to ask , why do the radical islamists hate us ? 
they hate the openness of our society . 
they hate our tolerances , our belief in the equality before the law , the right of those of other faiths to worship , and the right of us to express our beliefs . 
in short , radical islam is the enemy of freedom ; thus , they are our enemy . 
if we permanently alter the traditional limitations of our government here in america , the terrorists have won . 
they have changed our way of life . 
during no war in the past , whether world war ii or the cold war , were the police powers of the federal government permanently changed so that after the war a new standard of government would exist . 
well , ronald reagan would never have supported such an expansion of federal power and neither should we . 
i ask my colleagues to vote on this motion to instruct conferees , and i would ask them to search their consciences about voting for a new patriot act at all that threatens to permanently change the american way of life . 
madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
