mr. chairman , almost four years ago , our country was traumatized by the vicious attacks on september 11 , 2001 . 
we will never forget that day or the days immediately following the attacks , and once it became clear who was behind the attacks and what their motives were , we realized that we were facing a threat unlike any other . 
in the years since , we have seen these senseless attacks continue on our allies across the world . 
as a former state attorney general , i fully understand the need to balance the security of our nation and the liberties of our citizens . 
the gravity of the situation is not lost on me , or any of my colleagues in this chamber . 
on october 24 , 2001 , a justified sense of urgency resulted in an unjustifiably rushed vote on the patriot act . 
many members had outstanding questions about the bill , which the rules committee put in place of another bill that had been passed by the judiciary committee . 
in the years since that bill passed , over 374 cities , towns , and counties in 43 states have passed resolutions expressing concern about the patriot act or an extension of it . 
in new mexico alone , ten cities and four counties have passed resolutions . 
i have received over 3 , 000 letters and emails from constituents on this issue , and i have met with hundreds of constituents in my district to discuss the patriot act in town hall meetings . 
i have found that americans of all stripes share my concerns about the act . 
the long awaited house floor debate of this bill has arrived . 
many of my colleagues and i are eager to make some commonsense changes to this law , and to bring to light our concerns . 
unfortunately , the bill before us today is just more of the same . 
it gives blanket reauthorization to the bill with only very minor improvements . 
all but two of the expiring provisions are made permanent , and 10-year sunsets are applied to sections 206 and 215 , the roving wiretaps provision and the `` library provision , '' respectively . 
all amendments brought to the rules committee that would have shortened the sunset period , so that congress could continue to conduct important oversight and review of this legislation , were not allowed a vote on the floor . 
i brought two amendments to the rules committee , both of which were rejected . 
the first , sponsored by representative bernie sanders , would have reined in what is probably the most notorious provision in this bill -- section 215 . 
this section grants law enforcement authorities unprecedented powers to search , or order the search of , library and bookstore records without probable cause or the need for search warrants . 
because these surveillance powers were cast so broadly and the law prohibits them from revealing to the subject that an investigation is occurring , librarians , storeowners and operators are left in an impossible position . 
just one month ago , this house passed an amendment to the fy06 science-state-justice-commerce bill denying funding for this section . 
why , then , does the majority insist on giving this section a blanket renewal for 10 years ? 
librarians and library and bookstore patrons in my district will have i also brought to the rules committee , along with representative carolyn maloney and representative chris shays , an amendment that would strengthen the privacy and civil liberties board created in last year 's intelligence reform bill . 
unfortunately , in its current form , the board does not have the tools to adequately do its job . 
my amendment would have changed the civil liberties board to be an independent agency within the executive branch , have true subpoena power , make full and frequent reports to congress , have access to information through privacy and civil liberties officers , and have fair composition . 
it is our responsibility to ensure that the executive branch has checks and balances , and i am disappointed that this amendment was not allowed a vote today . 
i must also express my grave concern about a section of the bill that was not given a sunset , and thus has not been given the debate that i believe it deserves . 
section 213 , known as the `` sneak and peek '' provision , allows federal agents to search homes and businesses without giving notice for months . 
changes to this section should have been included in the bill before us . 
mr. chairman , i will vote against this bill today not because i oppose the patriot act in its entirety , but because i do not believe this bill represents the will of the people or their representatives . 
i think that if we were allowed a vote on an amendment to section 215 , for example , a majority of members would probably support it . 
and i think many members here would feel more comfortable attaching four-year sunsets to the expiring provisions than permanently reauthorizing them . 
but we will not be given that chance today . 
in their final report , the 9/11 commissioners brilliantly stated , `` the choice between security and liberty is a false choice , '' and that `` if our liberties are curtailed , we lose the values that we are struggling to defend. '' we must continue to encourage debate on this law , the events leading up to its passage , and the long-term implications . 
because the bill before us today does not reflect this need , i will oppose it . 
