I think underlying the gentleman from Michigan's question, is this not about the difference between the FBI and law enforcement using a national security letter to ask a bank to give it the financial records of all of its customers versus asking the bank to give it the financial records of the specific individuals it suspects might be involved or that it is interested in? I think that is at the heart of the question of the standard. That is why relevance to a terrorist investigation is not an adequate standard. You want the focus on something specific, rather than all of the bank's records of everybody who uses that bank. You want the people who might have had contact with the terrorist or suspected terrorist.
Howard Berman: “I think underlying the gentleman from Michigan's question, is this not about the difference between the FBI and law…”
Share
More from Howard Berman
Secretary Clinton and other top officials in the Obama administration have repeatedly made clear to Beijing that we will not allow China to assert its hegemony over the region.
I think this is a very historic piece of bipartisan legislation. Just as Jackson-Vanik became a tool to deal with one aspect of a horrible set of policies by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we now, using the Magnitsky legislation…
I have no further requests for time. And I'd like to just raise a couple of the issues that my friends, Mr. Paul from Texas and Mr. Kucinich from Ohio, have put forth in the context of opposition to this bill. This is not the next step to…
We were appalled at Gurry's lack of accountability and transparency and his lack of judgment at attempts at keeping these illegal transfers secret.





