Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Mr. Conyers, Mr. Paul, myself and Mr. Jones. The amendment would prohibit the use of any funds made available in this act to make an application for what's commonly known as a section 215 order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sale records or book customer lists. The amendment is very narrowly drawn to protect the privacy of all Americans from unwarranted governmental investigation in an area directly related to their beliefs and private thoughts.

What we read, where we read, what we listen to, our interests, the type of information we seek, our private tastes in art and music all tell a great deal about us. The right to be free from the prying eyes of government in these areas is absolutely necessary to protect our rights of free speech, religious liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of association and political freedom. This amendment will not prevent the government from obtaining this type of information provided it obtains the constitutionally required warrant. What it will stop is the use of 215 orders which are issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under standards so loose it is almost impossible for the government to get turned down, instead of the normal warrant. In fact, the secret court has become a virtual rubber stamp for the government.

The amendment also will not stop the use of section 215 orders in other investigations such as surveillance of computer communications, even if conducted in libraries. Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' so long as the government provides a ``statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things are relevant to a foreign intelligence or an international terrorism or espionage investigation.''

This would include business records, library records, tax records, educational records, or medical records. Before the enactment of section 215, only specific types of records were subject to the orders issued by the secret court, and the government had to show ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the record pertains is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.'' In other words, specific reason to believe that the person you were talking about is either a foreign agent or a terrorist.

This dragnet approach of section 215, which does not need those specific facts, allows the government to review personal records even if there is no reason to believe that the individual involved has anything to do with terrorism. This poses a threat to individual rights in the most sensitive area of our lives with little restraint on the Congress.

While Congress has decided to extend the life of section 215 that does all these things for the next few months, during which I hope we can take a closer look at it and, if not reform it, then do away with it, I think it entirely inappropriate for us to provide some reasonable protection for these very limited and sensitive areas and in effect cutting out library records from the section 215 extension that we just voted.

Do not believe the scare tactics that this amendment might impede investigations and might make us vulnerable to terrorism. The government has many tools with which to investigate terrorism and other types of wrongdoing. In fact, section 215 is rarely used. Search warrants and other investigative tools would still be available to the government. But in any event, most of section 215 is unaffected by this amendment and will continue. This amendment pertains only to library records.

When we last considered this amendment a number of years ago, it passed this House overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. Today, Representative Conyers and I offer it with two Republican colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). I urge my colleagues to support this amendment dealing only with the library records aspect of section the 215.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source