mr. chairman , we should oppose this amendment . 
first , we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the flake/delahunt/otter/nadler amendment -- protections for recipients of a national security letter , which is an administrative subpoena used in terrorism investigations or in covert intelligence activities . 
they are a necessary and critical tool in our fight against terrorism . 
current laws prohibit the recipient of a national security letter from disclosing the fact that they received it . 
this amendment creates a safe haven for individuals who tell others that they received a national security letter , by prohibiting them from being punished for violating the order not to tell . 
non-disclosure orders prevent others being investigated for involvement in terrorist activities from being alerted to that investigation . 
if a person knows he is being investigated , he may destroy evidence , tell others with whom he is working about the investigation , and flee the country . 
while i understand the motive behind not punishing mentally incompetent individuals or those under duress , the law already allows for that through the use of an affirmative defense . 
any amendment that makes it easier to tip off terrorists to the fact that they are being investigated is irresponsible and should not be supported . 
the waters amendment should be opposed . 
mr. chairman , i yield back the balance of my time . 
