William F. Smith: “we should oppose this amendment. First, we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the Flake/…”

“we should oppose this amendment. First, we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the Flake/ Delahunt/Otter/Nadler amendment--protections for recipients of a National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena used in terrorism investigations or in covert Intelligence activities. They are a necessary and critical tool in our fight against terrorism. Current laws prohibit the recipient of a National Security Letter from disclosing the fact that they received it. This amendment creates a safe haven for individuals who tell others that they received a National Security Letter, by prohibiting them from being punished for violating the order not to tell. Non-disclosure orders prevent others being investigated for involvement in terrorist activities from being alerted to that investigation. If a person knows he is being investigated, he may destroy evidence, tell others with whom he is working about the investigation, and flee the country. While I understand the motive behind not punishing mentally incompetent individuals or those under duress, the law already allows for that through the use of an affirmative defense. Any amendment that makes it easier to tip off terrorists to the fact that they are being investigated is irresponsible and should not be supported. The Waters amendment should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington).…”