Judiciary committee, and we had some very rancorous debate within our own party, behind closed doors, out in the committee room, here on the floor over the patriot act. Over the extension of power under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts. I was very concerned, even though we had a republican administration, and president that i liked and respected, george w. Bush, smarter, wittier than people gave him credit for, a good decent man, but we have to consider the possibilities, and we have to be specific in our laws, and when we debated these changes before the Judiciary Committee back in the 109th congress, when i was a freshman, there were people, my democratic friends across the other side of the aisle, that were very concerned about an abuse of power that might be occasioned if we dont tighten up the patriot act. Anal enough, i read the bill as it existed, i read the law as it existed, i was pushing for some things to be changed, and it did cause me of concern that the title what basically is section 215 of he patriot act, as it was at that time before amended, access to records and other items under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. As amended it would read, access to certain Business Records for foreign intelligence and International Terrorism investigations. He so i knew that was the titles. So it really applied to foreign intelligence and International Terrorism investigations. And my democratic friends across the aisle that we would often consider way left had serious concerns. And i understood their concerns. I thought they were being way too fearful of government because the law we could make it specific enough that it would not be abused by a republican or democratic administration. And as i read through, having been a judge and a chief justice, and had to consider from a legal standpoint what do these words mean . What does this word mean . Can this be considered vage, ambiguous . Is this considered vague, ambiguous . Is this considered arbitrary, capricious . Is there room for misunderstanding . I actually had some concerns, and behind closed doors i was asking people from the Bush Administration, Justice Department im a little uncomfortable about this. What does this mean . One of the things i asked about was in the reference to the proposal for the amendment, it says, for this is ill just read it. It says the director of the federal bureau of investigation or designee of the director whose rank shall be no lower than assistants special agent in charge, may make an application for an ordinary requiring the production of any tangible things, including books, records, papers, documents, and other things for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a United States person. I was comfortable with that language. That seemed to protect u. S. Citizens pretty well. And then there is this disjunctionive preposition, or, it could be that or it could be this. The other aspect was, to protect against International Terrorism. Well, i felt like at the time, i was ok if we are really seriously to protect ourselves from International Terrorism, again that doesnt involve an american citizen unless you can establish with probable cause that an american citizen is involved in International Terrorism. Nd then we get a second or, or clandestined intelligence activities. I raised the issue behind closed doors in our republican meetings justice e met with officials, im uncomfortable with this because it doesnt Say International in that part. You have the or, but you left out international there. I would really be more comfortable if it said, to protect against international errorism or clandestined International Intelligence activities. And i was told, congressman, we know we are a judge and you get caught up in words sometimes, but look at the title of the article. The article says, access to certain Business Records for foreign intelligence and International Terrorism investigations. So you shouldnt have to be concerned, this is only about International Intelligence. Its only about foreign contacts. And we were assured repeatedly behind closed doors and in debate, that this amendment to the patriot act would make it more difficult for an administration to abuse it. Republican or democrat. And if you continue to read on so, i was still a little uneasy, yet and i know that when there is a disparate between language within a law and the title of the law, the language within the law itself takes priority over the title. I know that. But it was somewhat comforting, but if you read on down this was the as we were trying to amend it, and as the Justice Department under president bush was pushing, it says, an investigation conducted under this section shall, then it has an a part, conducted under the guidelines, b, not and there is an and. You cant go without b. A be, not be conducted of United States person solely on the basis, upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the constitution of the United States. There were concerns during this debate over amending section 215 of the patriot act back in the 109th congress that we dont want the administration gathering intel about someone if it is all having to do with their activity that is protected by the First Amendment to the constitution of the united tates. So, for example, if someone were burning a United States flag or burning a holy bible, the Supreme Court tells us those are protected activities. Protected by the First Amendment. And therefore you could not use those to go gather Intelligence Data about an american who was doing those things. Now, of course, we have the u. N. And former secretary clinton and president obama and others saying, we like what the u. N. s saying. Basically if we adopted what the be said, it would still true, our Supreme Court would allow you to burn a bible and a flag, but you could never, ever do anything like that to a koran which then would allow our radical islamist friends who want Ant International caliphate to check the box that they created and was discovered during a raid some years back, that one of their 10year goals was to subjucate the United States constitution to sharia law. As soon as we adopt a law that says you can destroy a bible and flag but not a koran, they can check that box. Proposed amendment in 2005 to the patriot act, or the official title under title 51, national defense, chapter 36, foreign Intelligence Surveillance, chapter 4, roman numeral 4, section 1861. So paragraph 3 after 2, says an investigation conducted in this section shall not be conducted by of a u. S. Person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment, we get to paragraph 3. And this was an issue that was very contentious. There were groups boycotting and demonstrating and saying, hey, this is all about library books. We dont want the Bush Administration being able to go in and get a list of books we have read. Well, i contended then and still contend now that to do such a thing of an american citizen you should have to have probable citizen an american has violated the law and get a warrant to do that. But this didnt require a warrant. This allowed under the patriot act if it was for foreign intelligence purposes and for International Terrorism investigations, according to the title, but unfortunately in the law itself it said or to protect against International Terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. I tell people at the time, im a little uncomfortable with that, because clandestined intelligence activities. What is that . What if its somebody going somewhere and asking questions . Not doing it in public, but going privately to individuals and saying, im concerned about what the administration is doing on this or that. What do you know about what this administration is doing . What have they done to you . Would that be considered somebody doing clandestined or private intelligence activities . And i was told you are being paranoid here, gohmert. Look at the title again. Its International Terrorism. Foreign intelligence. This is not about american citizens. Look at the overall context. Those words hanging out there ater a disjunctive or, it was little uneasing, but i had enough people and the Justice Department on my committee with the administration at that time that said, no, gosh, no. Youre looking for things where there arent any. This is not an issue. But this paragraph 3 in the case of an application for an ordinary requiring the production of order of requiring the production of Library Circulation records, Library Patron lists, book sales records, book customer list, firearm sales records, tax return records, educational records, or medical records containing information that would identify a person, wow, thats kind of scary when you consider that entire list of things that the justice ,epartment might be going after but it says the director of the federal bureau of investigation may delegate the authority to make such application to either the Deputy Director of the f. B. I. Or the executive assistant director of National Security. Deputy director or assistant executive assistant director may not further delegate such authority. They wanted to assure us that only people that were looking at foreign intelligence an foreign terrorism who had the big picture, not some low level rogue agent, would be mur suing pursuing anything like this, and we were told repeatedly, but its all tied to foreign terrorism. And when you go down under ragraph b, subparagraph b, each application under this ction, and two says, shall include, a statement of fact showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible thing sought are relevant to an authorized investigation other than a threat assessment, conducted in accordance with subsection a2 of this section, to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a u. S. , United States person, then theres this disjunctive or, or, to protect against International Terrorism another or, or class destined intelligence activities such things being presumptively relevant to an authorized investigation if the applicant shows in the statement of facts that they pertain to and then the one i, a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. If it pertains to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, ok, thats not an american citizen and if it is they are part of a foreign power. 2i, suspected activities of an agent of a foreign power who is subject of an authorized investigation. En another or before the 3 little i, an individual in contact with or known to a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation. And then it talks about minimumization procedures. But then under subparagraph ittle c2, it gives this order, this direction to a judge who may be asked to issue an order, an order under this subsection, capital a, shall describe the tangible things that are ordered to be produced th get this sufficient to be fairly identified. That gave me confident comfort. The surveillance intelligence court judge who is nominated by the United States president and confirmed by the United States senate thoroughly investigated by the f. B. I. , theyre the only people when theyre assigned to the fisa court that could issue an order like this and the law says that their order has to be with sufficient particularity. And we know from the law under the constitution that if you want to go every specific private information about people, you have to have a warrant and that warrant has to be based on probable cause and the probable cause must be established by a sworn statement and there must be we cient specificity that dont just have blanket orders to go get information. Know when i was an assistant d. A. Up in northeast texas we had a deputy come in one time and it was the policy if you want to get a warrant signed by the district judge you need to come through the d. A. s office first so we can help you make sure you got probable cause, make sure theres proper specificity. Great gentleman. Older deputy. And he was always after this tiny Little Community in our county. He said, i know theyre smoking dope out there. I just know it. Ive sat out there and surveiled their house and i havent seen them with dope but i know they got it. So he came in one day and he said, ive got them. I get a warrant now. Well, what do you got, deputy . Well, you know our little Convenient Store out there in our community was broken into and one of the things they tole was potato chips. Ok. So what does that have to do with a warrant to go after marijuana . Well, the place ive been surveiling and watching, i found out absolutely for sure theyre having a Party Friday Night and theyre going to have potato chips there. So all i need is a warrant to go look for potato chips and while im there ill find the dope. I said, is there anything identifiable on the potato chip packages that would allow you to determine these were the potato chips stolen from the Convenient Store . No. Theyre just potato chips. Well, deputy, im sorry. Thats not sufficient specificity. Ive known since law school, ive known since i was a d. A. And years as a judge and chief justice, you got to have specificity. The constitution requires it. And so basically thats what this provision is requiring. You got to describe with sufficient particularity that people can identify the specific items that youre demanding to be produced. Thats why when we all looked and saw Information Sources that a fisa court judge had granted an application for a warrant for every phone call made by anybody in america whether outside the u. S. Or inside the u. S. , i couldnt believe theyd find a judge that would sign that. I mean, sure, you know, you might can find some judge in some jurisdiction that maybe didnt have in that location and that court, you didnt have to go to law school. You didnt need to understand the constitution, but the justices of the peace i know know you got to have some specificity here. You cant just come in here and ask for everybodys phone record in the country. And so i have to say about my friends on the far left of the political spectrum that were suspicious back when we were pushing for and being pushed, really for an extension of the patriot act, they had concerns that somebody might come in and get Library Records without adequate out ble cause and it turns their concerns about Library Records didnt come close to the danger that this act would pose for an administration that felt like they should have everybodys information. I talked to people on both sides of the aisle and this may be one of the few rare issues where my sense is everybody truly wants the same thing. But when you look at what is being gathered, this was never, ever anticipated. I cant remember if it was publicly or privately in our conversations when we were discussing this extension of the patriot act, i was demanding sunsets so we could still have accountability and demand answers when we wanted them but either privately or publicly we were told, look, we dont even have the capability 2005 we dont have the capability to gather every single the data for every single phone call thats made by everybody in the United States. And if we did wed never do that. But anyway, that was one of the statements that was made that was either private or public. And that had some of our concerns. And the truth is i just couldnt imagine a judge that had been nominated by any president , liberal, conservative, i couldnt imagine, confirmed by the senate, obviously gone to law school that would sign an order saying, yeah, get every phone call made by every person everywhere. And i know the hearts of the people on both sides of the and that voted against spoke against Justin Amashs amendment. And i know this is one of those issues where we really i can feel it. I talked to people on both sides of the aisle in depth, in private, and i note we all want the same things here. We want to be safe but we want to protect our liberty. And it seems that those who have dealt directly with the intelligence agencies and information, classified information, theyve said, you know, we really do need this because you dont know how much trouble were really in if we dont have this. This stuff is critical. Hey need this information. Unfortunately it brings us back to other problems. One, for example, when you have open borders and you know there are people coming in the country that want to harm us, hurt us, destroy our way of life, take away our liberties, then you need to perhaps giv