mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i applaud the cosponsors of this particular amendment because it is a significant amendment . 
as it was indicated , under the patriot act the fbi can merely assert at this point in time that records are relevant to an intelligence investigation . 
that can be just simply about foreign policy objectives . 
in addition , it added a permanent nondisclosure requirement which , if violated , imposed severe sanctions on the recipient of the so-called national security letter . 
this was truly a profound expansion of government power where the subject of the order need not be suspected of any involvement in terrorism whatsoever , where there was no judicial review , where there was no statutory right to challenge , and where the order gags the recipient from telling anyone about it . 
a federal district court in new york has already ruled that the national security letters for communication records , as amended by the patriot act , are unconstitutional because they are coercive and violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and the first amendment as a result of the gag order . 
this amendment , i would submit , attempts to salvage the use of national security letters in intelligence investigations so as to comply with constitutional standards . 
it gives the recipient of a national security letter his day in court . 
he can consult a lawyer . 
a judge can reject or modify the fbi demand upon a finding that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive . 
the recipient can also seek to modify or set aside the gag order if the court makes certain findings that it was unnecessary . 
the amendment goes further to modify the nondisclosure requirement so that the recipients can tell other people with whom they work about the demand so that they can comply with the order . 
as i suggested , the current law is of dubious constitutionality , and i would suggest this amendment would permit appropriate use of so-called national security letters that would not only pass constitutional muster but would be sound policy . 
it also , i believe , strikes a more reasonable balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and national security on the other with only a negligible burden imposed on the government , and so i urge passage . 
