◆ SpookStack

ISSA: Weil, | would suspect that I join the chairman and many members on both sides of the aisle in saying [ have serious doubts about whether or not the Congress can continue to extend capahilities that are not 100 percent adhered to and there are no significant results when they're not adhered to, and then not feel that what we're doing is giving the FBI the ability to violate people's constitutional rights. And, you know, | heard today, "Well, geez, we wouldn't exclude this” --and Congressman Schiff brought it out -- "we won't exclude this information, even though we played fast and loose. And we won't dismiss and we won't prosecute.” Weill, with all due respect, from the attorney general on down, you should be ashamed of yourself. We stretched what we could give in the Patriot Act. We stretched to try to give you the tools necessary to make America safe, And it is very, very clear that you've abused that trust. And when the reauthorization of the Patriot Act comes up or any bill coming down the pike. if you lose some of these tools, America may be less safe, but the Constitution will be more secure. And it will be because of your failure to deal with this in a serious fashion. I yield back. CONYERS: Thank you very much. The chair recognizes Keith Ellison, the gentleman from Minnesota. ELLISON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fine, T want to talk to you about your report recommendations, starting with the exigent letters. Wouldn't it be better, simply, to adopt the FBI's current practice of simply banning the use of exigent letters? [ noticed that in your recommendations -- or in what I believe are your recommendations -- your suggestion is to take steps that the FBI not improperly use the letters. But why not just say: "No exigent letters"? FINE: Well, there shouldn't be an exigent letter of the sort that they use. There is a process under the statute to get emergency information under certain conditions. And that’s the way they ought to do it. So that is a proper use of such a request. They surely should ban the way they did it in the past. ELLISON: ; And that would be a change by statute or a rule change? FINE: Well, 1t doesn't need to be a statute. There ts a statute that allows voluntary disclosure if there is an imminent threat and danger to the safety of an individual or others.