madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to the conference report on the usa patriot reauthorization act .  as a member of the homeland security committee since its creation almost 3 years ago , i understand the importance of providing our nation 's counter-terror and law enforcement officers with the capabilities to act aggressively to detect and deter terrorist attacks .  as co-chairman of the congressional privacy caucus , i remain concerned about government encroachments into the private lives of innocent americans , which can undermine the principles of liberty , freedom of association and protection from unjust searches and seizures that have been embedded in our constitution and culture .  clearly , the interests of security and privacy must be balanced .  unfortunately , this conference report does not strike the appropriate balance , and i can not support it .  the conference report fails to include essential privacy protections that had been included in the senate version of this legislation .  specifically , the senate-passed bill contained key safeguards not included in the conference report regarding the patriot act 's use of so-called `` national security letters '' and `` business and library records '' .  madam speaker , as you know , national security letters are , in effect , a form of secret administrative subpoena .  they are issued by federal authorities , most often the fbi , without any court supervision , and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served .  these letters represent a counter-terror tool that must be carefully and judiciously used , provided their secretive nature outside the traditional judicial process .  unlike the senate-passed bill , however , the conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of a national security letter 's gag order .  the conference report requires a court to accept as conclusive the government 's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted , unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith .  despite strong opposition to this the conference report eliminated key protections in the senate-passed bill regarding the `` business and library records '' provisions .  under the conference report , the government can compel the production of business and library records merely upon the showing that the records are `` relevant '' to a terrorism investigation .  by contrast , the senate-passed bill required the government to show that the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy .  this is a commonsense protection that would not restrict government capabilities , but would prevent government overreaching and fishing expeditions .  the house-senate conference committee had an opportunity to adjust the patriot act 's expiring provisions to protect the rights and liberties of all americans more effectively .  regrettably , this opportunity was lost and the conference report we are considering today does not contain key privacy protections that had been included in the senate-passed bill .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on this conference report and support the democratic substitute offered by ranking member conyers , which strikes the proper balance between security and privacy .  