madam speaker , this vote on the patriot act reauthorization is tough ; it is far from being the best bill it could be .  but i will vote for it and want to explain why .  imagine a world in which terrorists make deals and connect with recruits on-line , in cabs , hotel lobbies or cafes all over the world .  communication is highly compartmentalized so few , if any , know what the big plans are .  sometimes , physical runners deliver messages to evade listening devices .  such a world is not the stuff of hollywood movies .  it is our 21st century world .  the horrific events of september 11 , and the more recent bombings in bali , britain , jordan , madrid , morocco , saudi arabia and turkey remind us that the terrorists are prepared to strike anywhere , at any time -- and with maximum destructive force .  with this as a backdrop , it has been and remains my view that the patriot act tools are needed : to track communications by email and internet , including the use of internet sites in libraries ; and to prevent and disrupt plots against us .  such powerful tools must be narrowly tailored to ensure that they do not violate the rights of innocent americans .  in reauthorizing the patriot act , congress had an opportunity to refine the law , but this conference report reflects only modest improvements .  many of us in both bodies worked hard to make this conference report better .  in the end , we asked for three things of critical importance .  first , four-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions -- section 215 orders ; section 206 roving wiretaps , and the lone wolf provision .  this request was accepted .  second , dropping the 1-year criminal penalty on divulging that a national security letter has been received , even in a case where there is no intent to obstruct justice .  this request was also accepted .  third , modifying the `` conclusive '' presumption that disclosure of an nsl would harm national security .  the legislation properly establishes that recipients of nsls have the ability to consult an attorney and challenge an nsl in a federal court .  but the `` conclusive '' presumption language makes it virtually impossible to challenge the `` gag '' order on recipients of nsls .  this is an important flaw in the bill and , sadly , our requested change was not accepted .  to remedy this , several of us will introduce legislation to replace the `` conclusive '' presumption language with a `` rebuttable '' presumption , and to incorporate critical checks and balances on the `` front end '' of the nsl process .  such changes will help ensure nsls can not be used as a `` back door '' for getting library circulation , medical , tax , educational or other sensitive records , and will help protect against other abuses .  this legislation will also ensure congress is finally provided with meaningful , detailed reports on nsls , which are critical to effective oversight .  another flaw in the report is section 215 , commonly called the library provision , which allows the government to gather a wide range of business materials , including library , medical and tax records .  this section is tightened by requiring that the records must be `` relevant '' to a terrorism investigation .  but the conference report should have explicitly required that the records be connected to a foreign power , or an agent of a foreign power -- the traditional fisa standard .  my refusal to sign the conference report was to protest the way the conference was managed .  instead of taking a few additional days to craft a strong bipartisan report that strikes the best balance , the majority rushed to file this flawed report .  that is why i have co-sponsored h.r. 4506 , to provide a 3-month extension of the patriot act to give the conferees additional time to bring to the floor a more carefully tailored bill with strong bipartisan support .  but the majority insists we proceed today .  my view of the patriot act is we need to mend it , not end it .  today we are mending it .  hopefully , soon , we will mend it further .  