madam speaker , i rise in support of the conference report for h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 . 
through the patriot act congress has attempted the essential task of modernizing law enforcement tools to effectively combat the 21st century terrorist , who can now use cell phones , the internet , and e-mails to plan and coordinate attacks in the united states . 
as originally enacted in october 2001 , many patriot act provisions are set to expire at the end of this month if congress takes no action . 
the conference report before us extends and improves many provisions of the patriot act . 
it is a substantial improvement to the bill that was passed by the house in july 2005 . 
i do have significant concerns and misgivings about the administration 's use of the new powers of the patriot act , and i am pleased that this legislation addresses many of these concerns . 
this legislation : includes three sunset provisions for patriot act authorities ; requires greater oversight by congress and the judiciary of the justice department ; and gives new rights to subjects of a government investigation . 
given the complexity and importance of this measure , let me review these provisions in some detail . 
the 4-year sunsets adopted by the conference report apply to business records , roving wiretaps , and `` lone-wolf ' terrorist suspects who operate alone rather than as an agent of a foreign power . 
congress must revisit these provisions in 4 years , which will expire unless approved again . 
the conference report adopts the senate position of 4-year sunsets , and rejected the house position of 10-year sunsets . 
under the business records provision , section 215 of the patriot act , the bill provides that the government may seek a court order for `` any tangible item '' if law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation . 
the application to the fisa court , the foreign intelligence surveillance act court , must provide a `` statement of facts '' proving that the information sought is `` relevant '' to the investigation . 
this bill provides greater protection than current law , which simply requires the government to certify the records were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing . 
the conference report also explicitly provides -- unlike current law -- that anyone who receives a request for records under this provision may consult with an attorney in order to challenge the request in court . 
the bill requires new high-level approval by one of the top three fbi officials for certain records , including library records , medical records , educational records , and tax return records . 
the bill has several new requirements for the justice department , including : issuing `` minimization procedures '' which limits the retention of , and prohibits dissemination of , information concerning u.s. persons ; conducting two separate audits of the fbi 's use of section 215 orders , which will examine any improper or illegal use of this authority , and the manner in which such information is collected , retained , analyzed , and disseminated by the fbi ; and requiring the public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders , and a breakdown of its use to congress -- comparisons of library , medical , educational records , for example . 
the roving wiretaps provision , section 206 of the patriot act , provides that the fisa court may issue `` roving '' wiretaps to conduct surveillance on a foreign power or their agent when the target of surveillance has taken steps to thwart the investigation by changing accommodations , cell phones , internet accounts , or other forms of communications . 
court orders would apply to a person or persons , not a particular device or location , so that the government does not have to return to court each time that a target changes a communications device or moves to another location . 
the bill requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the target 's identity is unknown , higher burden than current law , and requires more detailed and timely reporting by the fbi to the courts and congress on the use of this authority . 
the conference report also makes substantial improvements to the national security letter , nsl , process , which existed before congress enacted the patriot act in 2001 . 
nsls allow the fbi to request customer records from communications companies and financial institutions related to an investigation . 
the bill explicitly provides a new right to nsl recipients to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter in court . 
the court is also given a new explicit right to review nsl requests . 
the bill provides that courts may block an nsl if it is `` unreasonable , oppressive , or otherwise unlawful '' ( same standard as used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case ) . 
recipients are also given a new right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in court . 
congress also requires the justice department to report to congress finally , the conference reports places some new restrictions on delayed notice search warrants , commonly called `` sneak and peek '' , under section 213 of the patriot act . 
this type of search warrant , which existed before the patriot act was adopted , requires that a federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe that : ( 1 ) a crime has been or is about to be committed ; ( 2 ) evidence of those crimes will be found at the location to be searched ; and ( 3 ) immediate notice would cause harm under certain specified criteria . 
the conference report restricts the government 's authority to delay notice to 30 days , and allows for an extension only if approved by a court . 
the bill also requires new reporting to congress on the use of this provision . 
madam speaker , we must not repeat the mistakes of the past , when the united states sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the name of security . 
whether in times of war or peace , finding the proper balance between government power and the rights of the american people is a delicate and extremely important process . 
it is a task that rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the founders created in our system of government . 
all three branches of government have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn appropriately , as we uphold our oaths to support the constitution . 
this legislation attempts to strike a balance as we seek to prevent another terrorist attack on u.s. soil , while protecting americans ' constitutional civil liberties . 
i will continue to work in congress to exercise our critical oversight responsibilities to protect our civil liberties . 
