On the recordDecember 19, 2005
let me respond to the minority leader and to the question asked of me. The words that the minority leader used were ``killed the PATRIOT Act.'' I don't suggest that this reflects his view that the PATRIOT Act should not exist. I want to be very clear about that, just as I am sure the question posed to me by the Senator from Illinois doesn't mean to suggest that my objecting to a 3-month extension means that I don't want the PATRIOT Act to exist. I have made it crystal clear in all of my comments before today that that is precisely what I want to see--if not the PATRIOT Act in its existing form, until December 31, in the modified form as developed in conference between the House and Senate. I think we can both agree that we understand that the PATRIOT Act is a good thing and indeed it is a good thing whether in the existing form or in the form that came out of conference committee. Let me address that for a moment. As we know, in the Senate, we passed it out unanimously--unanimously--and it is difficult for me to see why Members of the other side of the Chamber are proud of having filibustered it so it cannot come up--don't use the word ``killed it''--having prevented it from coming to a vote when, by everyone's agreement, about 80 percent of what the Senate passed unanimously ended up in the final version of the conference committee report. By 80 percent, I mean of the contentious issues. Most of the bill was not contentious.…
Source
govinfo.gov




