What They're Saying: a look at the GOP freshmen who voted against extending provisions of the Patriot Act

Natalie Gonnella

During yesterday's supermajority vote in the House Chamber, Republicans fell seven "yeas" short of reauthorizing key provisions of the Patriot Act.  The bill, which aimed to extend three counter-terrorism surveillance measures, was defeated with 148 members in opposition. 

Of the 26 Republicans who voted against the extension (and the rest of their party), nearly a third were newly elected Representatives. While many speculate this to be the first test of Tea Party defiance against House leadership, here's a quick look at what several of the Republican freshmen who voted against the bill had to say (both past and present) about the Patriot Act:

After yesterday's vote, Idaho's Raul Labrador released a statement explaining his decision: 

While I agree that law enforcement and national security agencies need the tools necessary to keep America safe from terrorism, when crafting policy we need to be sure we are not infringing upon the protections and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution

New York's Chris Gibson said of the Patriot Act in October 2010:

I’m strongly influenced by my reading of the Founding Fathers, who were trying to set up a design to let us live free...We need to limit government. I’m opposed to the PATRIOT Act for the same reason.

In a March 2010 Q & A with the Chicago Tribune, Illinois's Bobby Schilling noted his views on the Patriot Act:

Benjamin Franklin once said that people who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both. Our legislators need to be careful when they draw up the guidelines and laws for protecting this nation. We need increased national security, but to give up the right to due process and a fair trial should never be an option. We should also be careful when we give up our rights to privacy. Should the federal government be able to wiretap every domestic call in the U.S? I don't believe so. I do believe that they should be able to tap foreign phone calls made to outside of the United States. We must be very careful when dealing with individual liberties and rights. I believe that most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are successful and do not infringe upon the rights of most American citizens.

In the same set of editorial questions with the Tribune, Randy Hultgren (also of Illinois) commented:

The balance between civil liberty and security is an age-old challenge. I am firm believer in our constitutional right to privacy; however, these provisions in the Patriot Act have successfully thwarted a number of attacks, both documented and undocumented, and they’ve done so without tearing at the edges of our civil society. In fact, many of these provisions are far less reaching than those found in other free societies such as England. I think the FISA courts are a proper mechanism and already provide proper restrictions on their use.

In addition to Labrador, Gibson, Schilling and Hultgren, four other freshmen also voted against extending the provisions: Justin Amash (MI), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA), David Schweikert (AZ), Rob Woodall (GA).

Comments

[Christopher Hinn]

I think their reason for going against the extension is obsolete. They base their decision on principles that are old and not fit for today's situation. We can always amend and revise the constitution or make new laws that caters to our present situation that is best for the majority.