mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him on his previous eloquent statement . 
i rise this afternoon in opposition to this measure which would perpetuate the invasions of civil liberties that are embedded within the 4-year-old patriot act . 
i have deep concerns about many provisions of the original law , such as the use of the appropriately named sneak-and-peek warrants that allow secret searches of homes with delayed notification to the homeowner that a search has occurred . 
the secret search can be in almost any kind of investigation , and the notification to the & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h6223 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; but i am going to focus my remarks this afternoon on the two provisions of the original law which i think cause the deepest civil liberties invasion and which the measure before us does not , in my opinion , appropriately reform . 
in my view , the single most troubling provision confers on law enforcement the ability to use so-called national security letters . 
no prior review by a court is required . 
the fbi can issue a national security letter and then demand records from a business or from another record custodian . 
there is no requirement that the object of the search be an agent of a foreign power . 
the only requirement is that the seizure be relevant to a terrorism investigation , but there is no procedure by which a court would make that finding of relevance before the seizure occurs . 
frankly , there is no meaningful way through the use of this provision to ensure that privacy and fundamental civil liberties are protected . 
it is the unilateral ability of law enforcement to issue these letters and seize records without prior court review that i find to be the most troubling . 
i would note that one federal court has found the section 505 national security letter provisions to be an abridgement of both the first and the fourth amendments to the u.s. constitution . 
the bill before us does nothing to address this egregious provision or limit its use in any way . 
secondly , i strongly oppose the patriot act 's grant to law enforcement of the ability to go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and obtain an order permitting the seizure of library , bookstore , bank , or medical records of a person who is not even the subject of an investigation . 
moreover , the library or other institution is barred from telling its customer that his records have been seized . 
all law enforcement has to do is say to the court that there is a reasonable expectation that foreign intelligence about a non-u.s. person will be obtained or that the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation and the records can be seized . 
virtually anyone could have their records seized . 
you could be sitting in a concert near someone who is a suspected foreign agent , and potentially your records could be seized . 
you would never learn that seizure has occurred . 
while the custodian of the records could challenge the seizure , the library , the hospital , the bookstore , or the bank in possession of those records has a lot less incentive to spend resources hiring a lawyer in order to resist the seizure than would the person whose records are about to be seized ; but that person , the real party of interest , never knows that the seizure is about to occur . 
the house recently voted by a margin of 238-187 to bar enforcement of this overly broad provision , but the bill before us with minor changes perpetuates it and , i think , in an inappropriate way . 
mr. chairman , there is no need to short-circuit our normal processes that are designed to protect privacy and protect civil liberties . 
law enforcement could go before a court and present evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed , and by that showing obtain the records that it needs in both of these situations . 
these powers conferred by the original patriot act under sections 505 and 515 are designed primarily for the convenience of law enforcement , but mere convenience should not be a reason for a deep abridgement of privacy and individual rights . 
the protection of our freedoms does not require surrender of our long-held civil liberties . 
for these reasons , i oppose the measure before us , and i urge others to do so . 
