mr. speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to this conference report on the patriot act . 
simply stated , mr. speaker , passing this conference report today will institutionalize an abridgment of the bill of rights . 
like all of my colleagues , i support common sense measures that will help our law enforcement and intelligence organizations protect the american people . 
for example , i support the provisions of the patriot act that permit surveillance or physical searches in foreign intelligence investigations where the `` significant '' purpose of the action is to collect intelligence . 
i also favor the provisions that allow the sharing of foreign intelligence information with federal law enforcement agencies , or with intelligence , protective , immigration , or military personnel for their official use . 
these are useful and necessary provisions that have clearly benefited our intelligence and law enforcement counterterrorism efforts without endangering the civil liberties of americans . 
however , the conference report before us today contains too many provisions and excludes too many others , making it impossible for me to support it in its current form . 
when this bill was on the house floor in july , i expressed grave concern about several provisions , including section 213 , which allows the so called `` sneak and peek '' searches in anyone 's home , as well as section 215 , which allows investigators broad access to any record without probable cause of a crime . 
this bill has not improved with age . 
if passed , this bill would , among other things : allow the `` sneak and peak '' searches to go on with no meaningful judicial review for at least 4 more years . 
allow the government to spy on your library book checkout habits and possibly your conversations with your attorney for at least 4 more years . 
allow secret eavesdropping and secret search orders that do not name a target or a location for at least 4 more years . 
this bill effectively guts the fourth amendment . 
let me repeat that . 
this bill guts the fourth amendment . 
how can any american feel `` secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches '' if the department of justice can send agents into one 's home without notice , either before or after the fact ? 
true , this new version of the act provides for a 90-day maximum for notification of a subject that her or his dwelling or business has been searched , but it is weak protection that in effect allows the fact of a search to be concealed from the subject indefinitely . 
how can any american feel `` secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches '' if the government can demand access to privileged information , potentially including conversations between a citizen and his or her lawyer ? 
how can any american feel `` secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches '' if the government is allowed to eavesdrop on a telephone conversation or secretly search a home or business and , in effect , fill in the names and locations on the search order later ? 
the search powers that would be reauthorized for federal law enforcement are too sweeping and will receive too little oversight if this bill passes in its current form , and that is unacceptable , mr. speaker . 
finally , this bill is significant for what it does not do : it fails to restructure the homeland security grant formula to a risk-based model . 
there is simply no excuse for a state like new jersey to get a smaller percentage of homeland security grants than states that clearly are not at the same level of risk of being attacked . 
homeland security grant money should be distributed based on risk , not on politics . 
the house strongly supported changing the distribution formula so that states , like new jersey , that face greater risk of terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events would get a greater share of the grant money , a viewed shared by secretary chertoff . 
further , the members of the 9/11 commission recently reiterated their support for a change in the formula and said , `` it should be obvious that our defenses should be strongest were the enemy intends to strike -- and where we are most vulnerable. '' failing to distribute these vital homeland security grants according to risk is like sending hurricane preparedness funds to north dakota . 
they may be well-received , but sending them to a low-risk area comes at a price to parts of the country that need it more . 
the fbi and department of homeland security have repeatedly warned of the threat to transportation and economic infrastructure targets in new jersey , and we know from published press reports that al qaeda operatives have conducted surveillance activities against economic and other targets in new jersey . 
under this bill , new jersey will not receive the federal support it needs to harden these targets or full range of tools that our police and other first responders would require to respond should another 9/11-style attack occur . 
the conferees had a chance to correct this glaring weakness but they failed to do so , and if for no other reason , i urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report . 
as president woodrow wilson said almost 100 years ago , `` liberty has never come from the government . 
liberty has always come from the subjects of it . 
the history of liberty is the history of resistance . 
the history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power , not the increase of it. '' today , we have made the mistake of ignoring history and increased the government 's power at the expense of our citizen 's liberty . 
this is a grave error , and it is why i will vote against reauthorization of the patriot act . 
