mr. chairman , as we learned here on 9/11 and in london today and on 7/7 , we must crack down on terrorism , and we must ensure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to assess , detect and prevent future terrorist attacks . 
however , i do n't believe we have to shred the constitution and bill of rights in order to fight terrorism . 
we must be vigilant that the rights and liberties we are fighting to protect are not jeopardized in the name of the war against terrorism . 
regrettably , h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot act and terrorism prevention reauthorization act , does not provide adequate protections for the civil liberties of law abiding citizens and i must rise in opposition to the bill . 
when the house considered the original usa patriot act in 2001 , i expressed concerns with the bill both for substantive and procedural reasons . 
and , unfortunately , i have both substantive and procedural concerns with this reauthorization bill , as well . 
with that said , i support a number of provisions in h.r. 3199 . 
law enforcement officials need tools to find and track domestic criminals and international terrorists . 
federal law has not kept pace with emerging technological and communications systems , so i support judicially approved wire-taps to obtain email communications and internet records related to potential terrorist offenses . 
i also support provisions which authorize law enforcement officials to share information with foreign intelligence officials . 
allow judicially approved wire-taps on cell phones and disposable cell phones , permit judicially approved seizure of voice mail and not make permanent the provision making it a federal crime to provide material support to terrorists , among other meritorious provisions . 
however , as i mentioned earlier , i also have very serious concerns with a number of other provisions in the bill . 
many of the provisions in the bill that expand law enforcement authority to conduct domestic intelligence gathering , either do not require judicial review , or require that law enforcement only assert relevance to an investigation , rather than show probable cause that the information is relevant to a terrorist investigation . 
these expanded powers go a long way toward tearing down protections that were put in place in the post-watergate era when we learned of presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against individuals because of political affiliation or citizen activism . 
i am particularly concerned with a provision authorizing national security letters , nsl 's , which allow law enforcement officials unlimited access to business and personal records without any sort of judicial oversight . 
this provision is extraordinarily broad and intrusive and could apply to any tangible records on any and all americans whether or not they are suspected of a terrorist act . 
prior to the patriot act , nsl 's could be used to get records only when there was `` reason to believe '' someone was an agent of a foreign power . 
now they are issued simply when an agent asserts that it could be relevant to an investigation . 
according to the department of justice , this new power has been used hundreds of times since the usa patriot act was signed into law i am also concerned that the bill extends the government 's so-called `` sneak and peek '' authority which allows the government to conduct secret searches and seizure of property without notice , in violation of the 4th amendment . 
this authority has also been used hundreds of times since enactment of the usa patriot act , including against brandon mayfield in portland who was suspected of being involved in the madrid bombings . 
mr. mayfield was later exonerated of all charges related to the bombings because it was shown that the fbi based its investigation on incomplete and faulty information . 
but his life was changed forever as a result of the investigation and intrusive searches , and under this bill , it could happen to other law abiding citizens . 
i am disturbed that the bill extends many of these controversial provisions either permanently or up to 10 years , even though congress has not been properly provided information on the sue of many provisions of the act to date . 
without that information , it is difficult to know how this new law enforcement authority is being used , whether it 's necessary at all , or whether it needs to be modified to protect the civil rights and liberties of law abiding citizens . 
we know of some abuses that have occurred under the act , like the mayfield case . 
however , the administration has refused to provide information on some of the most broad and intrusive powers under the act , and the bill should provide for adequate disclosure and proper oversight of these provisions , but it does n't . 
finally , i am concerned that the bill is being brought up with limited debate and amendments . 
i am particularly concerned that the republican leadership refused to allow a vote on an amendment to remove library and bookstore records from sec . 
215 of the act , which grants law enforcement officials the authority to seize business records without notification . 
a similar amendment was approved by the house of representatives earlier this summer by an overwhelming vote of 238-187 . 
i would like to be able to support this bill , and as i said earlier , i support a number of provisions in the bill . 
i also believe we could have reached an agreement on protections to address most of my concerns with the bill by providing for judicial review and shorter-sunset provisions . 
unfortunately , the leadership chose to bring a bill to the floor which simply gives too much broad , intrusive and unchecked authority to the federal government , and does not provide for adequate legislative oversight of how these powers are being used , therefore , i can not support the bill . 
i hope the senate and conference committee will address these concerns . 
