mr. chairman , i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3199 , the u.s. patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act . 
this act grants the government overbroad and even unconstitutional powers that have not been adequately addressed . 
the patriot act is misleading american citizens and causing them to forfeit their civil liberties in the interest of what has become a political war on terrorism . 
at the same time , the president 's war on terrorism fails to fund protection for our transportation systems , our ports and , still today , uninspected cargo is being placed in the belly of the airplanes of all of our airlines . 
yet we continue in this act to violate the privacy of our citizens with section 505 , the national security letters section of the patriot act , which allows law enforcement to demand detailed information about an individual 's private records without judicial review , without the individual ever being suspected of a crime , without a requirement that law enforcement notify the individual that they are the subject of an investigation . 
furthermore , this section contains an automatic permanent gag order on the recipient of a national security letter , not even allowing the recipient to consult with an attorney . 
and this act is very confusing . 
in one section of the law , 215 , they can get an attorney . 
in section 505 they can not . 
i do not know what we are doing here today . 
mr. chairman , this power represents a clear violation of the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure , as well as threatening speech protected under the first amendment . 
in fact , a u.s. district judge struck down section 505 in a case involving the government 's collection of sensitive customer records from internet service providers without judicial oversight . 
the judge found that the government seizure of these records constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment , and found the broad gag provision to be an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech . 
to address this , i proposed an amendment that would have provided the recipients of national security letters that would allow them to consult with their attorneys and any person that was necessary to produce the required records . 
this amendment would not have greatly changed the real meaning of section 505 . 
it was simply a common sense amendment that would have provided some legal recourse and balance for the recipients of national security letters . 
however , the amendment was not made in order . 
mr. chairman , what makes this country so great is our respect and protection of individual rights and civil liberties , and we must continue to provide adequate safeguards and protection to these rights . 
while i agree that our national security is a top concern , we must find the appropriate balance . 
