Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. What is the difference that this amendment will make? The difference is between good police work and fishing expeditions.

This amendment is designed to say you can read without being afraid the government will someday reveal what you are reading. We do not want the chilling effect on free speech. If there is a real reason the government needs this information, that the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atomic bombs, then let the FBI go to a court and get a search warrant or show probable cause and get a subpoena. That is the American way. That is the way we have always done it.

The gentleman from Virginia says, well, we had an attack on 9/11. Indeed, we did. In my district, 3,000 people were killed; and he says, maybe, who knows, this power could be used to stop a future event. But we can say that about anything.

Ours is a government of limited powers. That is what distinguishes us from the Soviet Union or Communist China or any other tyranny; and those powers must be limited so as to protect liberty, even in the face of threats.

The gentleman says no instance of abuse has been shown. Well, sure, because all of this is secret. No instance of abuse can be shown.

Mr. Chairman, the point of this amendment is that we need not surrender fundamental liberty to protect ourselves from terrorism, and we should not; and this is why we should adopt this amendment. We can have our protection. We must have our protection. We must also have our liberty.