madam speaker , i rise to explain my decision to vote against the conference report on the patriot act . 
some of the provisions that are being authorized in this bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities . 
i support those provisions . 
other provisions , however , fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are protected . 
it is very important that , in our effort to defend the liberties that americans cherish , we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect . 
we can ensure that the government has the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy rights of americans . 
in the aftermath of september 11 , 2001 , it is essential that we stregthen our ability to detect , deter , and disrupt terrorist activities . 
many provisions in the patriot act accomplish this objective in a balanced way . 
other provisions , however , leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked , unwarranted , and potentially abusive invasions of privacy . 
many of these concerns were addressed in the senate bill that passed by bipartisan , unanimous support . 
unfortunately , the conference abandoned many of the safeguards in the final conference agreement . 
the conference report falls short in a number of areas . 
let me focus on 2 of these issues -- the inadequate checks on the national security letters and the foreign intelligence surveillance act court orders . 
the `` national security letters '' provision : ( 1. ) this authorization has no sunset ; ( 2. ) it provides no judicial review of a national security letter gag order . 
this is a departure from current law which allows the recipient of such a letter to challenge it in court . 
the conference agreement requires the court to accept the government 's assertion as `` conclusive '' . 
( 3. ) moreover , the conference report allows the government to maintain information gathered from the national security letters to be kept forever in government databases . 
`` foreign intelligence surveillance act '' ( fisa ) court orders for tangible things ( section 215 ) : ( 1 ) unlike the senate bill , the conference report allows the government to obtain personal information on a mere showing of `` relevance '' , thereby striking the safeguard contained in the senate passed bill that required a 3-part test . 
this allows the government to obtain this information without demonstrating that the information that they are seeking has some connection to a terrorist or a spy . 
( 2 ) the conference report does not permit the recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic , permanent gag order . 
courts have held that similar restrictions violate the first amendment of the constitution . 
( 3 ) finally , the conference report allows the government to use secret evidence to oppose a judicial challenge to a section 215 order . 
the court must review any government submission in secret , whether or not it contains classified material . 
it is important that any policy that is advanced to enhance our nation 's security always maintains appropriate `` sunshine '' and checks and balances on those law enforcement and intelligence agencies that are empowered to promote national security . 
history reminds us that these law enforcement tools can be overzealously used and may also be directed at innocent parties . 
the conference report on the patriot act that is before us today fails to strike the proper balance . 
the senate version included many of the necessary safeguards . 
unfortunately , many of those provisions were abandoned by the conference committee . 
as a result i voted in favor of mr. conyers ' motion to recommit the conference report to the conference committee so that the conferees could return to the consideration of the senate passed bill . 
unfortunately , this motion was defeated . 
therefore , i must vote against the passage of the conference report that is before us today . 
