A bill to amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to March 31, 2006.

Mr. President, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, this body came together--Republicans and Democrats alike--around the shared goal of preventing a similar tragedy from ever occurring again on our soil. Toward this end, Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation that expanded many of our laws, providing our Government and law enforcement with the tools needed to ably combat these threats. We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our fight against terrorism. And because there is no greater responsibility that we bear as Members of this body than ensuring the safety of our citizens, I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and supported its reauthorization when the Senate considered its bill earlier this year.

But even in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, Congress recognized that in its haste to give law enforcement these expanded powers, there was a risk that this new authority was coming at the expense of constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. And so in the wisdom of both Republican and Democratic legislators, several provisions of the PATRIOT Act included 4-year sunsets, allowing Congress the opportunity to revisit whether the PATRIOT Act strikes the proper balance between securing our safety and ensuring our freedom.

I have very serious concerns that the current PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report, which was negotiated largely without the input of Democrats, does not do enough to strike this proper balance. I believe that we can be both safe and free. The conference report falls well short of achieving that goal. I am hopeful that bipartisan negotiations can result in a compromise bill like the one agreed to in the Senate in July, a bill which did a far better job of protecting our civil liberties.

The current conference report fails in many respects.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement in domestic intelligence investigations nearly limitless power to obtain all types of personal records, including business, library, and medical records. Under current law, the Government merely needs to demonstrate that the records it seeks are ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. Upon such a showing, a secret court is required to issue the order. This is an extremely lenient standard, one that for the first time gives the Government almost unchecked access to the sensitive personal information of innocent Americans. To compound matters, the third parties--business, libraries, hospitals, and the like--who are recipients of these orders are subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for these records, including the person whose documents the Government is seeking.

Given its broad scope, this provision has tremendous potential for abuse. Innocent Americans should not be subjected to these possible intrusions when adequate safeguards can be written into the law, ones that would not sacrifice the utility of these orders as a law enforcement tool. Americans should not have to hope that the Government will demonstrate self-restraint in its exercise of this power, nor should they fear that their personal records will be part of a Government fishing expedition.

The Senate bill, which I supported, not only required the Government to meet a higher standard before issuing these orders, it also gave recipients of a FISA order an explicit and meaningful right to challenge these orders and their accompanying gag orders in court. The conference report sadly retains a variation of the current law's exceptionally lenient standard of review, a standard that effectively turns the courts into little more than a rubberstamp. Further, the conference report does not give the recipient of a FISA order any express right at all to seek meaningful judicial review of its gag order. Quite simply, the conference report places inadequate checks on these orders.

Another failure of the conference report was exposed in an article appearing in the Sunday, November 6, 2005 edition of The Washington Post, which brought to light a very troubling practice by the FBI that underscores the importance of adopting proper safeguards.

National security letters, NSLs, are administrative subpoenas that allow the FBI to obtain sensitive information about ordinary Americans in national security cases. NSLs are issued by FBI agents without the authorization or approval of a judge, grand jury or prosecutor. While the FBI has long employed NSLs, the PATRIOT Act greatly expanded their scope, significantly lowering the standard for their issuance. The result has been, according to The Washington Post, a ``hundredfold increase'' in their use, with the FBI annually issuing thousands of NSLs demanding private information about ordinary Americans not necessarily suspected of any crime. These records include financial, library, credit card, telephone, Internet service provider, and e-mail records as well as customer transaction information. These NSLs are governed by strict gag orders that prevent companies from telling their customers that their records were given to the FBI.

As this description suggests, NSLs are very similar to section 215 FISA orders but with one very critical difference--NSLs do not require the Government to get any court approval whatsoever. While NSLs can be an important tool in our fight against terrorism, their unfettered and unchecked use makes them susceptible to abuse that infringes upon the privacy of innocent people. The Senate version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill created important checks on the power to issue and enforce NSLs--protections absent from the conference report--without hindering the effectiveness of this law enforcement tool.

Other sections of the conference report give rise to additional concerns. The conference report would give law enforcement the free- wheeling power to impose roving ``John Doe'' wiretaps without the safeguards needed to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance, casting aside important checks on this power that were included in the Senate bill. The report would also give the FBI the right to enter and search a home or business without providing notice to the owner of the residence or business for a month or longer after the search. And the conference report contains a provision that seriously curtails the habeas corpus rights of prisoners to challenge their convictions in court. This provision was in neither the House nor Senate bills, and there has been practically no debate on the merits of this change.

Apart from the serious civil liberties concerns, perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the conference report is its failure to incorporate a threat-and-risk-based formula for the allocation of critical homeland security funds to our local communities, States, and first responders. This deficiency was emphasized just last week by the former 9/11 Commission, which issued a blistering indictment of our homeland security failures.

As I said earlier, I have long maintained that protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a Senator. To that end, I believe that to truly make America safe, we need to carefully allocate our homeland security resources. We need to make sure that the money gets to where it is needed, that our American cities and States living under the greatest threat receive the funding they need to protect themselves. Unfortunately, up until now, a substantial portion of our homeland security money has been allocated according to congressionally mandated formulas that bear little relation to need and risk.

Our resources should be dedicated to addressing our most glaring weaknesses. During their negotiations, I encouraged my House and Senate colleagues considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill to account for this reality in our homeland security funding. I have maintained-- as the former 9/11 Commission reiterated in its report last week--that lawmakers should cease playing politics with the allocation of our limited resources by promoting distribution formulas that ignore risk and threat. The Commission's report card was a condemnation of this administration and the Congress, both of whom have demonstrated far too little urgency in enacting the reforms needed to properly secure our homeland and fight the war on terror.

The former 9/11 Commission sent a clear, discernible message to the entire Nation last week--reform is needed at all levels of Government. The failure to incorporate in the PATRIOT Act conference report a much- needed threat-based formula for the allocation of homeland security funds is a major shortcoming and needs to be corrected.

As I noted at the outset, apart from these concerns, the PATRIOT Act contains provisions that provide law enforcement with important tools in the war on terror. Because we cannot afford to be without these tools, I am supporting bipartisan legislation that will extend the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. Just because we are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. This extension will preserve the current state of

the law on a temporary basis, giving those working on the bill the opportunity to craft a compromise that both safeguards our liberty and gives our law enforcement the capabilities they need to effectively combat and investigate terrorist threats. I am also hopeful that during this 3-month extension, those working on the reauthorization bill will heed the call of the former 9/11 Commission and include provisions that mandate the distribution of homeland security funds on the basis of threat and risk.

While we all recognize the importance of equipping our law enforcement with the tools they need to effectively combat terrorism, we also must ensure that those tools are administered in a manner that does not unnecessarily restrict the freedom and liberty that are the hallmark of American life. Like all Americans, I am troubled by recent reports that the President signed an order in 2002 that authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite legal prohibitions against such activity. Likewise, I am disturbed by recent reports that the Department of Defense is maintaining a database in order to monitor the activity of peaceful antiwar groups. The balance between the urgent goal of combating terrorism and the safeguarding of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms is not always an easy one to draw. However, they are not incompatible, and unbridled and unchecked executive power is not the answer.

I believe the conference report falls short of this goal, and I am hopeful that with more time, those negotiating these provisions will find the proper balance.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to say farewell to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Jon S. Corzine. In

January, he will resign his seat, bound for greener pastures. While he will be missed tremendously in this Chamber, I know that, as Governor, he will serve the people of New Jersey well.

Senator Corzine and I were elected to the Senate in the same year, and I have since been glad to have his friendship and advice. I would also like to say, how fortunate New Jersey has been to be represented by Senator Corzine. I am proud of the work that we did together in the time we shared in the Senate and am sad to see him go.

Along with his dedication to building a practical, progressive Government, Senator Corzine always brought a fresh and original perspective to this body. His previous career as cochairman and CEO at Goldman Sachs allowed him the benefit of invaluable experience in helping to solve the problems that face our economy and our financial sector. His combination of principle and practice, are, more than anything, what the Senate will sorely miss.

Consider Senator Corzine's role in crafting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. His work on this bipartisan legislation helped produce reforms that, in the wake of corporate abuse scandals, restored confidence in the markets, protected shareholders, and ensured that additional and more impartial oversight would act to prevent the damage to our economy that might flow from unchecked corporate malfeasance. Senator Corzine stood by his principles, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and used his expertise to help craft legislation to promote ethics, accountability, and economic growth.

We can also look to Senator Corzine's efforts to end the crisis ravaging Darfur, Sudan. I was proud to cosponsor the legislation by Senator Corzine and Senator Sam Brownback to expand aid to the African Union and provide a framework for tackling the ongoing violence. We can all be proud that Senator Corzine was able to help usher the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act through the Senate. His dedication to the issue and commitment to stopping the genocide is admirable, to say the least. Senator Corzine has stood by his values, and worked hard to see those values reflected in the work of the Senate, the Congress, and the Nation.

Recently, I joined Senator Corzine in introducing legislation to help the victims of sexual assault receive the medical treatment they need and deserve. Senator Corzine believes as I do that we have a duty to these women; a woman who has already suffered so much should not have to worry about whether she will be offered emergency contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Senator Corzine's passion for protecting and improving access to health care and medical treatment, and to protecting the rights of patients, is truly exemplary.

Finally, Senator Corzine served New Jersey and his constituents with compassion and dedication in the days, weeks, months, and years following the attacks on September 11, 2001. New Jersey and New York shared in so much grief and loss that day, and Senator Corzine was tireless in his commitment to the citizens of New Jersey who bore the burden of that loss.

In the years since, he has remained steadfast in fighting for the families of 9/11 and fighting to strengthen our Nation to prevent future acts of terrorism. His hard work to secure our Nation's vulnerable chemical facilities serves as a noteworthy example. I was proud to cosponsor his legislation to safeguard our Nation's chemical plants, the Chemical Security Act, and share in his commitment to doing all we can to strengthen America's homeland security.

I would also acknowledge Senator Corzine's tenure at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In his leadership at the DSCC and throughout his time in office, Senator Corzine served with honesty, integrity, and a passion for improving the lives of all Americans.

Jon Corzine's absence will long be felt in the Senate, as will his good work. He brought his expertise and values to bear on the challenges facing our economy, our security, and our country.

To the great benefit of the citizens of New Jersey, Jon Corzine-- while retiring from the Senate will bring his values, his expertise, his passion, and his dedication with him to the Governorship of the Garden State. The citizens of New Jersey will no doubt continue to be fortunate to have Jon Corzine in their corner.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator from Nevada aware of the fact that the President said today, at his press conference:

In a war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law

[the PATRIOT Act] for a single moment.

I ask the Senator from Nevada: Did the Senator from Nevada not ask unanimous consent to extend the PATRIOT Act as written for 3 months, and is it not true that when you made that request a few days ago, the Republican leader of the Senate objected to extending the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, after the revision of the law was held up here on the Senate floor?

I want to make the record clear. I was with the Democratic leader when he made the statement about the PATRIOT Act. I took it to mean that we defeated cloture on the conference report on the PATRIOT Act. That was the way I understood it. It has been twisted a little bit by some who want to read more into it. But it is accurate, I believe, to say that.

I will just ask the Senator from Nevada, at least once informally with Senator Frist, and now four different times on the floor of the Senate, we have tried to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 additional months while we work out our differences--an extension which would not change the PATRIOT Act in any way whatsoever--so that for 90 days, at least, it could continue to be used and enforced without question. Now we have had the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, object to extending the PATRIOT Act for 90 days.

One could reach the conclusion that the Senator from Arizona opposes the PATRIOT Act as currently written if he opposes extending it for 90 days, I might say. I am happy to allow the Senator to reply. If the Senator from Arizona supports the PATRIOT Act as currently written, why would the Senator object to extending the PATRIOT Act for 90 days?

I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona if he would consider two questions. The first question is this: Is it not true that the position we are arguing in the PATRIOT Act is the same position that the Senator from Arizona voted for in the Judiciary Committee and at least did not object to on the floor of the Senate? So to suggest it is a radical position--I would like to ask the Senator, has he changed his view on that?

If the Senator will yield, I believe it worked when I voted for it in the Judiciary Committee, as the Senator did, and agreed to in passing it unanimously on the floor. I think it still will work.

The second question I ask the Senator is this: Here is the choice we have. The PATRIOT Act can expire on December 31 of this year or it can be extended at least 90 days by a request being made on the floor. Does the Senator from Arizona think it is better for the PATRIOT Act to expire December 31 than to extend it 90 days?

I say through the Chair--and I am not sure of the exact parliamentary form we are using here--in a question to the Senator from Arizona, based on his experience working in both the House and Senate, is it not more likely that when you say 1 year, it will be 11 months, 3 weeks, and 6 days before we consider this seriously again? Has it not been his experience--it has been mine--that in this legislative body, if one says 90 days, it is more likely people will get serious within a few weeks and start talking about real change? Perhaps the Senator's experience is different from mine. Giving it a year means putting off the inevitable. Let's get this resolved and move forward.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am glad we are having this conversation. I think it shows that there is some room for dialogue and, I hope, for progress to be made on this issue. I think it is unfortunate some of these statements made earlier today by the President suggesting that those who did not share his point of view on this issue were somehow not as sensitive to the threat of terrorism. I can assure the President and all listening to this debate there is sensitivity to that threat of terrorism on both sides of the aisle by people who were on both sides of that cloture vote on the PATRIOT Act.

What is at issue are some fundamental questions about our constitutional rights, our freedoms, and liberties in America. Each of us, when we assume the responsibility of Senator, swears to uphold the Constitution. There are so many important elements within that Constitution, but one might argue that the Bill of Rights is the most important because it is a guarantee of our individual rights and freedoms. So when we initially enacted the PATRIOT Act in the fear that was gripping this country after 9/11, there was a concern that perhaps we had gone too far; perhaps we had given the Government more authority over our privacy, more authority over our freedom, than was necessary.

In the bipartisan wisdom of those who wrote the act, we promised that 4 years afterwards we would revisit it and see if, in fact, it needed to be changed in any respect. That is what this debate is all about.

There may be some today who argue we should do away with the PATRIOT Act, but I cannot say who they might be. The only Senator who voted against it is supporting the reform that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, so it is clear that he was prepared to vote for a PATRIOT Act with some modifications.

The Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and I have been the lead cosponsors of the SAFE Act which, as he accurately described, was an attempt to modify the PATRIOT Act, not to abolish it, but to modify it, in certain respects, so as to protect our basic freedoms and liberties. We were happy at the end of the debate in the Senate when the bill came forward in the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote, which I hasten to add is a rare thing in the Judiciary Committee, if not the Senate. A unanimous, bipartisan vote on this measure brought it to the floor where it was enacted by a voice vote since there was no objection to it on the Senate floor. That is an amazing testimony to the fine work of the Senator from Pennsylvania as chairman of the committee and all the Members who compromised to reach that point.

It is worth noting for the record when that occurred. It occurred in July. It was in July that we finished our work on this and sent it over to the House of Representatives, understanding we were backing up against the deadline of December 31. It was not until November 9 of this year that the House appointed their conferees. They waited 3 months or more before they appointed conferees and sat down to seriously debate this issue. Then a few weeks later, even with Thanksgiving intervening, they produced this conference report. So if it is a matter of timing, it does not take that long to try to work out differences.

That is why those of us who are proposing a 3-month extension believe it is entirely appropriate and possible that we would reach an agreement in that short period of time.

I would like to spend a moment reflecting on the substance of this debate. We have talked about the Senate procedure and timing and what words were spoken by Members and what they meant, but it is important to get down to the substance of the issue to understand that what we are talking about are some fairly fundamental issues.

The first is the question of Section 215. That is a section that will allow the Government to obtain medical records, financial records, library records and other sensitive personal information simply by showing, under the current PATRIOT Act, that the information might be relevant to an authorized investigation. That is as low a standard as I can imagine, and it basically means that the Government, without proof of any wrongdoing on the part of any individual or group of individuals, could secure a great deal of private personal information and cull through it simply by saying it may be relevant to an authorized investigation.

When we passed the Senate bill reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, we said that it really should be a higher standard, not an impossible standard but a higher standard; that the person whose records are being sought has at least some connection to the kind of conduct we are trying to guard against. That is not a huge leap in terms of our legal standard in America. It is consistent with what we call due process.

The second concern with Section 215 is an equally important one. Assume that one is the custodian administrator of records, either at a business or at a hospital, and they receive a notice under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the Federal Government wants all of their records in their hospital on hundreds, if not thousands, of patients, and they believe that is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of their clients; what can one do if they believe the Government has gone too far?

Currently, under the PATRIOT Act, they are precluded from even arguing their case in court, arguing that the Government has gone too far. And section 215 has an automatic permanent gag that prevents any person from speaking out, even if he believes his rights have been violated. In my mind, that is a fundamental attack on a very basic freedom in America.

So when we wrote the revision of the PATRIOT Act in the Senate, which all

of the Senators voted for, Democrats and Republicans, we said we would give a person the right to go to court and to ask that this gag order be lifted so that they could argue the merits of the Government's activities. Those are two critical issues when it comes to the rights of the freedoms of Americans.

To argue that they are inconsequential, that they are not worthy of fight, is to ignore our basic responsibility. Many of us who are arguing to extend the PATRIOT Act also want to include in it some very fundamental protections of the rights of Americans. That is what this debate is about.

It is not about who can get the upper hand on the political debate on a day-to-day basis. I think most Americans are weary of that. I am. What we are trying to do is extend the PATRIOT Act for 90 days past December 31 and work out these differences, significant differences but differences we can address and address successfully.

It is interesting to note that this debate about the PATRIOT Act, which is going on on the floor of the Senate and in the President's press conference, is occurring at a moment in time which is freighted with significance in terms of the activities of this Government in relation to the privacy and the personal rights of its citizens.

It was disclosed in the New York Times and Washington Post and other major papers last week that for several years now our Government has been eavesdropping on American citizens through the National Security Agency. This, to me, is a dramatic departure from the basic rules and process we followed for over 30 years in America, where we have said that if you want to listen in on the conversation of my neighbor or someone in my family, you need to have a legal right to do so and that legal right will be established by going to court to establish why it is necessary for you to listen in on that conversation; to establish, for example, probable cause that a crime has been committed or probable cause or evidence that someone has engaged in unlawful activities. That is the American standard. It appears now, from what the President has said, that this administration for several years has rejected that standard. The President has assumed the power to eavesdrop on the conversations of innocent Americans on the possibility that they will come up with some evidence of wrongdoing. This is not only illegal, it borders if not crosses the border into a violation of criminal law. It is extremely significant.

In this holiday season with all the other things we are thinking about personally, with the rush of Congress to adjourn and go home and be with our families, I don't know if we are reflecting on the significance of what we have learned in the last several days. To think that any President of the United States believes he has the power as Commander in Chief to basically avoid, ignore, or violate the laws of the land is a significant charge.

I am encouraged that Senator Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a member of the President's own party, from Pennsylvania, has promised us a thorough investigation when we return in January as to what has been occurring in terms of the National Security Agency and this eavesdropping. But I raise this because our entire discussion of the PATRIOT Act is in the context of this consideration: Simply stated, have we gone too far in violating the basic rights and liberties and freedoms of Americans in our pursuit for security and safety? Can we strike a balance and be safe as a nation without endangering our basic freedoms and liberties? I think this question of eavesdropping on hundreds if not thousands of innocent Americans raises that question foursquare. But I also believe the extension of the PATRIOT Act does as well.

When the Democratic leader of the Senate comes before the body twice today, as he did last week, and asks for an extension of time so the PATRIOT Act will still be in force, can still be used for 90 days while we work out these significant questions, it is a good-faith offer. For his critics--whether in the executive branch or legislative branch--to suggest that he wants to do away with the PATRIOT Act or he is insensitive to the terrorist threat is not a fair characterization of his position nor the position of many of us. We believe the PATRIOT Act is important, but we believe some modifications will make it an act that is more consistent with our constitutional rights.

I hope the Republican leadership in the Senate will reconsider their position. I hope they will allow us to extend the PATRIOT Act for 90 days. We can go home for the holidays and return in January, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to do, anyway, and get down to business, rolling up our sleeves to work out this conference committee. Let's make sure the PATRIOT Act is not only reenacted but in a fashion that is consistent with our basic freedoms.

I am happy to yield for a question.

It certainly is in my State of Illinois and I suspect nationwide. It is interesting to me, the passions that many of our colleagues bring to the fight of protecting a person's money--which is an important part of our job--but when it comes to protecting our freedoms, I don't see the same level of passionate commitment. I hope we will see that change during the course of this debate. But I think Americans value their freedoms very much.

I always recall, as a practicing attorney, how many people would be dismissive of criminal procedures to protect defendants until it was their teenage son or daughter who was arrested and then they came to their attorney and said, What can we do? What does the law provide to protect us?

I think we should all be sensitive to that fact.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in approximately an hour and a half, there will be a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the PATRIOT Act conference report. Rather than terminate debate on this flawed piece of legislation, the Senate should work harder to achieve a strong, bipartisan PATRIOT Act that

strengthens national security while protecting the privacy of innocent Americans.

Earlier this year, after negotiations that went late into the night, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill to reauthorize and improve the PATRIOT Act. Soon after, the full Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent. Every Senator, Democrat and Republican, approved this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. Every Democrat and every Republican in the Senate--every one of us--is firmly on record in support of giving law enforcement the appropriate tools to fight terrorism.

We all know the House of Representatives is in shambles. Leadership is in a state of disarray.

The spirit of bipartisanship that led to passage of the Senate bill, because of the problems in the House of Representatives, did not prevail in the conference. Not long after the House appointed conferees, Democratic negotiators were shut out of discussions. In fact, Senator Leahy's staff was directed by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House to leave the room.

The final bill was written by Republican-only conferees working behind closed doors with Justice Department lawyers. The result was an imbalanced conference report that departed significantly from the bipartisan Senate bill.

Chairman Specter, to his credit, joined other conferees in refusing to sign the conference report. Over the next few weeks, he and Senator Leahy worked hard to improve it and succeeded in eliminating some of the worst provisions.

I commend and applaud the efforts of the chairman and our ranking member to work to improve this conference report.

But I am sorry to say, in my view--and in the view of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--the conference report still does not contain enough checks on the expanded powers granted to the Government by the PATRIOT Act. It simply is not acceptable.

I supported the passage of the original PATRIOT Act in 2001. This was enacted in the days immediately following the vicious attacks on September 11, 2001. I do not regret my vote. Much of the original act consisted of noncontroversial efforts to update and strengthen basic law enforcement authorities. More than 90 percent of the 2001 act is already part of permanent law and will not expire at the end of this year.

We are currently considering renewal of these provisions that were considered so expansive and so vulnerable to abuse that Congress wisely decided to subject them to 4-year sunsets, meaning that after 4 years they had to be renewed or they would fall. The authors of the act wanted Congress to reassess these in a more deliberative manner with the benefit of experience.

The act of 2001 came, as I mentioned, when the country was feeling the devastation of the terrorist attacks of 2001. I, frankly, don't think we took enough time at that time to do it the right way. That is why a number of us demanded the sunset provisions.

Now, more than 4 years later, we are presented with the opportunity to do it right.

While the conference report before us makes certain improvements over the original PATRIOT Act, it still does not strike the right balance.

We can provide the Government with the powers it needs to investigate potential terrorists and terrorist activity and at the same time protect the freedom of innocent Americans.

Liberty and security are not contradictory. Additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Government's surveillance and investigative authorities need not hamper the Government's ability to fight terrorism.

I say to the Presiding Officer, someone whose heritage is from the island of Cuba, where there is very little liberty and very little security, we are in the United States of America. We are not a dictatorship like Cuba. We can have liberty and we can have security.

As I said, additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Government's surveillance and investigative authorities need not hamper the Government's ability to fight terrorism. These checks are needed to ensure that the Government does not overreach or violate the privacy of ordinary American citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism.

Is there any reason to be concerned? Yes. There is a reason to be concerned.

For example, the need for such checks is based on a number of things, not the least of which is the story that ran in the Washington Post in early November of this year after the Senate passed the bill. The story reported that the FBI issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year--30,000. These letters go to businesses. And they say: I want you to tell everything you know about Ron Weich, Gary Myrick, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl. It doesn't matter who it is. And that person--the names I have mentioned--does not know that they have had this request to give all information about them or any information about them. The person who has been requested to give the information can't tell them. It is against the law to tell them.

These national security letters are issued by FBI agents without any judicial supervision. The third party recipients of these orders, such as banks, phone companies, and Internet service providers, are prohibited, as I have said, from telling anyone that they have been served. The customers whose records are seized will never know that the FBI has gathered their personal information.

For example, the article described an incident at the end of 2003 in which the Department of Homeland Security compiled information of hundreds of thousands of New Year's visitors to Las Vegas. They obtained the records of everyone who had rented a hotel room, car, or storage unit, and every airplane passenger who landed in the city of Las Vegas. They obtained records, how much they paid for their hotel room, did they order any X-rated movies. I don't know what other information they got.

When Las Vegas businesses objected to this effort to gather unprecedented amounts of information on their customers, the FBI responded by serving them with national security letters. According to one law enforcement source quoted in this piece, agents encouraged voluntary disclosure of information by threatening to demand further records, further profiles from the casinos about their guests.

Perhaps worst of all, what happened in Las Vegas did not stay in Las Vegas, but, instead, stayed in Federal databanks. It is still in the Federal databanks. None of the information gathered in that investigation has been purged to this date. The rental and travel records of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans remain in Government hands.

Las Vegas first; was there any place else? Did they go to the New Year's Eve celebration at Times Square in New York? Did they go to the warm beaches of Florida snooping and spying?

I have three major concerns about this conference report. First, I am disturbed the conference report provides neither meaningful judicial review nor a sunset provision for those provisions regarding national security letters. Instead of protections, this conference report effectively turns these NSLs, as they are referred to, national security letters, into administrative subpoenas. For the first time, the report authorizes the Government to seek a court order to compel compliance with one of these letters. Recipients who do not comply could be found in contempt, fined, or even sent to jail.

A third-party recipient, such as one of the Las Vegas hotels, could theoretically challenge an NSL in court in order to protect the privacy of its customers, but the conference report makes it unlikely such judicial review will matter because the court is not required to find any individualized suspicion that the records sought are connected to a terrorist.

Second, I have significant concerns about section 215, often referred to as the library provision. Under a key provision in the Senate compromise reached this summer, the Government would have been required to show that the records sought under this provision had some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. But under the conference report we have now before the Senate, the Government may demand sensitive personal information of innocent Americans merely upon a showing that the records are ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation.

For example, the Government may be broadly suspicious of individuals in a

particular immigrant community. Under section 215, the Government could go to the library in that community and demand the records of library cardholders to see which individuals are reading what. What about someone reading scientific texts, maybe even Smithsonian or one of the magazines people read dealing with automobiles, or Scientific American? Are these people considered terrorist threats?

A court challenge to a section 215 order must be conducted in secret. At the Government's request, the recipient is not permitted to review Government submissions regardless of whether the Government has any national security concerns in that particular case. Moreover, the conference report does not permit any challenge to the automatic permanent gag order under section 215.

Third, the conference report contains sections not included in either the House or Senate bills limiting the right of habeas corpus in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. These provisions have not been passed by the Senate or the House. One provision would eliminate judicial review of whether a State has an effective system in providing competent lawyers in death penalty cases. That does not belong in this. Such a far-reaching change should not be inserted in an unrelated conference report.

There are many other problems with the conference report that leaves largely in place a definition of domestic terrorism so broad it could be read to cover acts of civil disobedience. For example, a few days ago we had members of the clergy who, believing that the budget before the House and the Senate is immoral, were protesting, saying it is a bad budget. There were a number of arrests. Are these individuals to be deemed domestic terrorists? They could be under the conference report.

The conference report still contains a catchall provision that authorizes a government to conduct a sneak-and-peek search upon a showing that notice would seriously jeopardize an investigation. Sneak and peek, what does it mean? It means they can go into your home, look around, see if there is anything that is incriminating, and then come back out and seek permission to use what they have obtained all without telling you--which I believe is un-American.

As many critics of the bill have observed, a good prosecutor could fit about any search under this provision. I say ``good'' prosecutor any prosecutor. He wouldn't even have to be good.

The Justice Department reported 90 percent of the searches that have taken place under sneak and peek under this act have nothing to do with terrorism. For these and other reasons, this conference report does not meet the American standard. It certainly should not merit Senate approval.

Fortunately, we do not face the choice of accepting this conference report or allowing the 16 PATRIOT Act provisions to expire. I am a cosponsor of S. 2082, introduced by Senator Sununu, to enact a 3-month extension of the expiring PATRIOT Act so we can take the time we need to produce a good bipartisan bill that will have the confidence of the American people.

The majority leader said previously he won't accept such a 3-month extension. I hope, if we fail in invoking cloture, he would reconsider this. I am confident in the end that it would be so much better that we extend this for 3 months to see if we can reach an acceptable goal.

Based on that, I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote be vitiated, the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, the 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I will continue to work to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act in a way that gives the Government needed tools to protect national security while placing sensible checks on those expanded powers.

I apologize to all my colleagues. I am sorry I took more time than I should have. I know there is a lot to do. I appreciate everyone's courtesy.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Chambliss is on his way over. I will yield when he gets here. I want to respond briefly to what the Senator from Montana said. I have respect for the Senator. He is one of the Members who is always constructive in trying to move the process forward in a way that is usually very bipartisan. But I do believe on the issue of the Medicaid accounts, he is inconsistent with where we ended up.

The Medicaid issue is really at the essence of this effort to reduce debt through this deficit reduction bill. Why is that? Well, because we know as we look into the outyears, the biggest problem we have as a Federal Government from the standpoint of fiscal policy is that we have these huge obligations. Yesterday I said it was $44 trillion. I am told by the staff that the Comptroller's office said it is $51 trillion of unfunded liability that the American people--especially our children and our children's children--are going to have to pay in order to support the retired population that is now called the baby boom generation. Of that $51 trillion--a trillion dollars is an impossible number to conceive, and $51 trillion is absolutely inconceivable. But of that number, the vast majority of it, up to $30 trillion, is health care costs in two accounts, Medicare and Medicaid.

Why is that? It is because the retiring generation is so huge that the demands it is going to put on the system are so dramatic that essentially it is going to bankrupt our children if we do not do something about addressing it. We know that by the year 2030, under the present flow of spending, the Federal Government, which today takes about 20 percent of the gross national product for everything we do-- national defense, education, laying out roads, environmental protection, health care, and veterans care--because of this retiring generation, 20 percent of the gross national product will have to be spent on 3 accounts: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is no way you can tax your way out of this unless you are willing to dramatically increase the taxes on our children and our children's children. You have to reform these programs.

This bill put our toe in the water, hopefully up to our ankles, on one of those three major entitlement accounts, specifically Medicaid. The proposals on this bill on Medicaid were proposals that essentially came to us as a Congress from the Governors in a bipartisan commission. The Governors got together and said, How can we improve the Medicaid Program? How can we give more services to more children but do it more effectively, thus costing less money and having the rate of growth of Medicaid slow a little bit. They came forward with a number of proposals which we have essentially adopted in this bill.

The practical effect of that is we will expand coverage to children. It is expected that about a million children who are not covered today under Medicaid will be picked up under this bill as a result of giving the Governors more flexibility.

As the Senator from Montana said, the concept that we are savaging the Medicaid accounts during the Christmas season is not defensible on its face. We will spend $1.2 trillion over this next 5 years on Medicaid. We are talking about reducing Medicaid spending during that period by $5 billion.

To give you a chart that reflects what type of reduction that is, the green line is Medicaid spending. The red line is Medicaid spending after this event, after this passes. There can be no difference because Medicaid spending goes up so dramatically during this period. When you reduce it by $5 billion, you literally are not dramatically reducing the Medicaid benefits--literally. The numbers still go up. You cannot even calculate it in terms of a digit. For example, Medicaid spending is going to go up 40 percent during the next 5 years. After this bill, Medicaid spending is going to go up 40 percent in the next 5 years. So this representation that we are doing some sort of terrible event to Medicaid is absurd on its face because the numbers don't defend it. What is in this bill that is important to Medicaid is the new policy which is going to give the Governors more flexibility, which is going to keep Medicaid from being abused and gamed by people, people who are worth a million dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, basically taking their obligations to pay for their retirement and putting it on the American taxpayer generally. That will end. Call it spend down. Governors will be given flexibility to try to reorganize their Medicaid Programs so they can deliver more services to more people.

I have to disagree strongly with the representation that somehow we have cut Medicaid. We have not cut it. The facts are that Medicaid is going to grow 40 percent over the 5-year period. I wanted to get a little more of a reduction in the rate of growth. I wanted to see us do $15 billion, but we compromised, as a result of a lot of different influences around here, at $5 billion on a $1.1 trillion base. It does not even show up as a statistical change over those 5 years.

But what is important in this bill is the policy, the policy which in later years, and hopefully as we move through this period, will allow Governors to deliver this program more effectively to more people at less of a rate of growth. We have to address this. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand, and we have done that now for 8 years. We have not addressed the entitlement accounts for 8 years. This is the first time we tried to step on this area, which represents 60 percent of Federal spending, but if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and not pass this small step forward in the area of trying to put better policy in place for these health care programs, all we are doing is saying to our children we don't have the courage to step up and try to give you a chance to have a decent lifestyle. We are going to take advantage of you. We are going to tax you so when you want to send your kids to college, you will not be able to afford it or when you want to buy a house, you won't be able to afford it because your tax burden will be so high to support this generation, it will be so huge.

It is not right for policymakers to take this position. We should step onto this turf called entitlement spending. That is what this bill does and that is why I think we should pass it.

I do not think Senator Chambliss has arrived, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is a good outline. I note that if Members want to speak, it would be nice if they would give us a call and tell us they want to speak, and we will make sure they have time to speak. We want to make sure everybody has the time they need to get their points across.

Do I understand that the Senator is yielding time off the bill on his side to Senator Chambliss?

Mr. President, I yield whatever time Senator Chambliss uses.

Mr. President, we are going have a series of speakers.

I wish to respond quickly to the point of the Senator from Massachusetts on a couple of areas.

First, the purpose of the deficit reduction bill is to slow the rate of growth of entitlement programs. It is a net bill. In this bill, there are very major initiatives, especially in the area of education, which are new and fully paid for. There is $40 billion in debt reduction, but the actual reductions in the bill exceed that by a considerable amount.

The new programmatic activity which is fully paid for in the student area is $9 billion of additional funds for student activity.

The Senator from Massachusetts says we should have the best and the brightest have an opportunity to participate and go to good colleges. We agree with that. In fact, we are doing something about it. We are following the proposals of John Adams, a Massachusetts individual of note who helped our country get started and who considered public education and education generally to be the essence of how the American dream is going to be fulfilled. He was totally committed to a meritocracy.

We are essentially saying in this bill, by creating this new program called SMART, if you are a low-income student and you are focusing on math and science, we are going to give you a lot of help. If you can perform well in those two areas, you are going to get an opportunity to really succeed in this country. But we are going to give you the support you need to succeed. We are going to give you $4,000 a year on top of your Pell grant, on top of scholarships, on top of your borrowing capabilities. You are potentially getting $4,000 a year in college if you study math and science and have a low income.

We forgive $4 billion in student loans. We are going to reduce student loan taxes and fees by $4 billion, and we are going to provide $1.9 billion of loan forgiveness for people who go into special areas that we consider important, specifically teaching, primarily in these special education areas. This bill structures a $17,500 loan forgiveness program for people who go into special education teaching. We recognize special education teachers are, first, needed, and second, they are put under tremendous stress. If we can encourage people to go into that field, we want to.

This bill has some very good policy in the area of education. Sure, it isn't as strong as what left the Senate, which was actually worked out within the HELP Committee. That happened with the House. The House was zero, we were at eight, and we ended up essentially at four. This so-called compromise in that $4 billion is a lot of good initiatives in the area of the SMART Program.

I yield to the Senator if he has a question. For the purposes of a question, I will yield time off his time, of course.

Should I charge this to the Senator's time? Essentially, I am clarifying the Senator's point. I will do this on my time.

Essentially, the origination fees are being eliminated under this bill.

I point out that the initiatives which are in this bill are initiatives which had bipartisan support, the SMART Program specifically. But the new grant and aid for low-income college students is about $3.7 billion in this bill. Lower fees charged to students will cause students to gain about $4 billion in this bill. The program which extends the loan forgiveness program, as I just mentioned, to a number of different categories will generate about $1.9 billion in this bill. That adds up to about $9 billion of initiative in this bill.

We think this bill has some pretty positive initiatives.

As to the loan rates, I didn't insist on staying at this loan rate. I think that came from the other side of the aisle. Did it not? I believe it did. I think the Senator from Massachusetts is the person who basically has locked us into this fixed rate when it should be a variable rate. The variable rate would save our students a lot more money. Unfortunately, my idea of going to the variable rate was rejected in committee by, I believe, the Senator from Massachusetts, who wanted to stay at the fixed rate. That costs how many billions? Over $5 billion, according to my staff. Now, that is a back-of-the- envelope guess, but that is probably in the ballpark.

As to rates, I note to the Senator from Massachusetts, I disagree with the policy in the bill, yes. I wish we had gone to my policy and saved another $5 billion. That would be up to $14 billion to save students.

Does the Senator want to outline who he thinks is speaking next?

And Senator Coburn.

Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to speak about

the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. While this agreement does not give everyone all that they want, it is the result of lengthy, difficult negotiations. It represents a reasonable compromise for all parties involved, and it extends tools important to our national security, while enhancing civil liberties protections.

It has been more than 4 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months since that day, the American people have braced themselves for the possibility of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

After all, we know all too well that al-Qaida is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and its leadership is motivated to launch another devastating attack on American citizens and soil.

Outside the United States, al-Qaida and its affiliates have continued to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous attacks, spanning the globe from Pakistan to Bali, Spain to London.

It is precisely because al-Qaida is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America that I am grateful that, to date, they still have not successfully launched another attack on our soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost: the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. They are fighting the terrorist abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. Also, our efforts to strengthen antiterrorism and law enforcement tools through the USA PATRIOT Act has had much to do with this record of success and peace to date.

This diligence that has kept us safe at home must continue. The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. That is why I am disappointed when we witness false reports and scare tactics about phantom civil rights violations. Such reports and tactics serve no legitimate cause--but they do a grave disservice to the American people. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly. Congress works hard to strike both a careful and wise balance between national security and civil liberties. While this is not always easy, we do so with the best interests of our Nation in mind--and we do so in a manner that is both honest and in good faith. This conference report strikes a careful balance by both preserving the provisions that have made America safer since 9/11 and increasing congressional and judicial oversight--which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the law enforcement tools endanger civil liberties.

Many who oppose this agreement do so because of concerns that law enforcement will abuse these tools. While a legitimate concern, it simply has not been borne out by facts. First, the reports issued by the Department of Justice's independent inspector general have repeatedly found no systematic abuses of any of the provisions of Patriot. Second, these provisions are carried out by professional and dedicated law enforcement officers in a way that respects the rights of all Americans.

It has been said that time is a great healer. And, as time goes by, the shock we all felt following the 9/11 attacks has abated, somewhat. But as we recall those terrible memories, we are reminded of the institutional failures of our Government that failed to prevent the attacks. And we as a Nation, and the Congress in particular, vowed to tear down the walls that prevented information sharing, and to enact other tools vital to defending this country. It is clear that the PATRIOT Act has played a significant role in this process, as it has been instrumental in dismantling terrorist cells from New York to Oregon.

The failure to pass this conference report will cause these critical tools to lapse. It will weaken our country by reverting to September 10th-era tools. We cannot allow that to happen. We are living in profoundly different times. There are obviously deep feelings about the PATRIOT Act from all quarters. I and others support the PATRIOT Act and have been vocal about making these provisions permanent. Because not everyone agrees with this view, negotiations and compromises took place to reach an agreement that achieves the dual goals of continuing these critical authorities and enhancing congressional and judicial oversight.

Some have proposed that we pass a 3-month extension to continue working on the reauthorization. I oppose that. The Congress placed a December 31, 2005, deadline for a reason. The President, the Attorney General and the House support this agreement. We should vote on this agreement, and I intend to vote for cloture and will support the conference report.

However, if we are searching for alternatives, I propose the Senate take up and immediately pass legislation that I cosponsored last Congress which would strike all of the sunsets contained in the PATRIOT Act. This would eliminate the deadline we face, those in the House and those in the Senate can offer what they consider improving legislation and work to move it through the regular legislative process. That way, none of the vital authorities will be allowed to lapse and any changes that majority of the Congress supports will be implemented through the regular order.

Beyond this proposal, I want to discuss some of the specific items addressed by the conference report and try to explain why I think this report should be supported, beginning with sunsets.

I have stated that I oppose sunsets for this important legislation. I believe that our intelligence and law enforcement officials should never again be left wondering whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our Nation.

But realizing that there are those who feel that these sunsets are important to the negotiations, I choose to support the sunsets, even though if we were going to have sunsets I would have preferred the 10- year sunsets included in the House-passed version. This conference report retains 4-year sunsets for two of the most controversial PATRIOT Act provisions, the multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps and the business records provision.

It also includes a sunset for the ``Lone Wolf' provision added to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by last year's Intelligence Reform Act. This guarantees the Congress will review these provisions and continue to conduct rigorous oversight.

Senator Specter and others on the conference attempted to address civil liberty concerns in many ways, for example, dealing with the delayed search warrant provision. As my colleagues know, this section is not to sunset. Nevertheless, recognizing the sensitivity to this provision certain Members had, the conference report requires the Government to now give notice of any search under this provision within 30 days of its execution, unless the facts justify a later date certain.

Although the 30-day period is a few weeks longer than the 7-day time limit contained in the original Senate bill, it is considerably shorter than the 180 days permitted under the House bill. The conference report allows for extensions but only ``upon an updated showing of the need for further delay.'' Also, it limits any extensions to 90 days or less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay.

It also adds new public reporting on the use of delayed notice warrants, so that Congress and the American people will be better informed about the use of this provision.

My time is short today, but I want to briefly mention other civil liberties protections Chairman Specter negotiated. The report made explicit the ability of recipients of NSL letters and 215 orders to seek judicial review. Significantly, on both of these authorities, the conference report requires the inspector general to conduct two audits of these authorities, one audit covering 2002 through 2004; another covering 2005-2006. And, in recognition of concerns about NSLs, the conference report adds a new ``sunshine'' provision. Namely, it requires annual public reporting on NSLs, including the aggregate ``number of requests made by the Department of Justice.''

Additionally, this report gives the Senate Judiciary Committees access to significant FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence Committee. It also includes a provision cosponsored by Senators Specter and Leahy requiring that rules and procedures of the FISA court be supplied to

Congress. It further creates new reporting requirements to Congress for the use of emergency authorities under FISA and requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures of communications information made under Section 212 of the PATRIOT Act. And finally, it retains a modified version of the data-mining report contained in the House- passed bill which will require the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress on the Department's data-mining activities.

I also want to mention another provision contained in the conference report because it is based on legislation that I introduced in the Senate. The Narco-Terrorism Prevention Act confronts the new reality and very real danger of the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism.

Terrorists, like the old organized crime syndicates from the past, have recognized that illegal drug trafficking is a valuable source of financing and another way to threaten our country.

My State is experiencing the collateral effects of a drug war being carried out by modern day narco-terrorists in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. News reports have described an ongoing battle between rival drug cartels over drug smuggling routes from Mexico into the United States. These organizations assassinate police officers and other government officials in a clear attempt to force the local government to allow these organizations to carry on their illegal activity, unimpeded. Our government needs every available tool at its disposal to combat this activity.

This new provision makes it a Federal crime designed to punish the trafficking of controlled substances which are intended to benefit a foreign terrorist organization or any one else planning a terrorist attack. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone convicted. Importantly, it provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction which allows law enforcement to reach beyond our borders to arrest and deter those who intend to carry out a crime of this nature.

Mr. President, I have opposed changing the core provisions of the PATRIOT Act and have opposed any increase in the burdens for terrorism or national security investigations or on terrorism or national security investigators because they should have the same tools available to them as do ordinary criminal investigators.

We must remain vigilant, and we must make sure that evidentiary hurdles do not creep back into the law in terrorism and national security investigations. We should avoid moving back to a pre-9/11 mindset. I believe that the package before us today continues the reforms we have made in the post-9/11 period, and I intend to vote in favor of this package.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my comments, Senator Stabenow be recognized, then Senator Salazar and Senator Reed be recognized. All of us seek to speak about our colleague, Senator Corzine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, in a few weeks our good friend, Jon Corzine, will leave the Senate, where he so effectively represented New Jersey and its people over the past 5 years, to become Governor of his State. I have been privileged to serve with Senator Corzine on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to whose work he has brought an extraordinary combination of principle, vision, intelligence, and solid common sense. I wish to say a few words today about his spectacular work on that committee. For a while, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee, and I can tell you that no chairman could have a better fate than to have Jon Corzine as one of his members.

Prior to entering the U.S. Senate, Jon Corzine spent nearly a quarter of a century with Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, including five as its chairman and CEO. His long and wide-ranging experience in the financial markets made him especially well qualified to deal with the issues that came within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction. In very short order, it was apparent that whenever Jon Corzine's turn in a committee meeting came to put questions to witnesses, even the most confident and sophisticated among them listened more intently and responded more carefully.

Senator Corzine's contribution to the accounting reform and investor protection legislation known as Sarbanes-Oxley was invaluable. Along with Senator Dodd, who also serves on the committee, Jon Corzine was among the first members of the Senate to call for hearings on investor protection in the wake of the collapse of Enron Corporation. Those hearings took place in February and March of 2002, and Senator Corzine, along with others on the committee, Senator Dodd and others, played a critical role in shaping the reform legislation enacted 4 months later. I have done it before and I wish to again acknowledge the very substantial and significant contributions Jon Corzine made in helping to shape and develop that legislation. His work was invaluable.

Consistently in the work of the committee, Jon Corzine played a critical role in efforts to strengthen protections for investors in our capital markets. BusinessWeek, in fact, noted that his work in this area gave him ``an unusually high profile for a junior Senator.''

His contributions to the work of the committee were by no means focused only on these issues. Indeed, he touched virtually every issue in the committee's jurisdiction. He has worked vigorously to expand housing opportunities and the effectiveness of Federal housing programs. He has been a forceful spokesman for full funding for critical programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-- section 8 vouchers, housing for the elderly, improved public housing, and other efforts to assist low-income homeowners and renters. It is indicative of his commitment, and in his statement here in the Chamber only a few minutes ago he again was making reference to how people who work at minimum wage can't afford an apartment in county after county across the country.

He led efforts to expand coverage of FHA insurance for multifamily housing, something especially relevant in States such as New Jersey where inflated housing costs affected previous program ceilings. He pressed for energy efficiency requirements in public and assisted housing, and he has remained committed to Federal action to assure secondary mortgage market liquidity and affordable housing.

Jon Corzine was an original cosponsor of the legislation to stop predatory lending practices and spoke forcefully in the committee's deliberation about the harsh and cynical techniques predatory lenders used to exploit vulnerable borrowers seeking mortgages and other credit. He has been one of the leaders in the Senate in the fight against Federal preemption of State consumer protection laws which are designed to protect our citizens against these practices.

He has been among the Senate's most outspoken advocates for public and private financial literacy programs to ensure that all Americans of all ages and all backgrounds have the skills to grasp the financial implications of the often complex credit card loans and other financial arrangements they are offered.

He has obtained Federal funding for financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools and was the leader in the ultimately successful efforts in 2003 to pass the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act, which incorporates many of his ideas. For his work on this issue, the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy named him ``Federal Financial Literacy and Education Legislator of the Year.''

Throughout his tenure, Senator Corzine has been among our most articulate advocates for public transportation, whose importance in the day-to-day lives of his constituents he knows firsthand since he represents the most densely populated State in the Nation. He fought to preserve and enhance the Federal transit program as the new surface transportation authorization legislation was developed. As a result of his efforts, New Jersey will receive nearly $2.5 billion in transit formula funds from 2004 through 2009, a 50-percent increase over the amount the State received in the predecessor legislation.

He also succeeded in assuring priority treatment in terms of planning, funding, and execution under this new legislation for a new commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River. This project, the Trans- Hudson Midtown Corridor, has been identified as a crucial investment for the region's mobility and security. As a result of his efforts, the National Transit Institute, which provides training, education, and clearinghouse services to support public transportation, will be maintained at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Senator Corzine was a leader in the effort to develop a Federal backstop for terrorism insurance after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks left such insurance widely unavailable and put businesses and commercial property owners at risk of future losses from terrorism without having insurance coverage. He recognized immediately this situation would create a drag on economic activity and again brought his expertise to bear in helping to develop the Federal legislation under which the Federal Government would share the risk of future terrorism losses with the industry.

Senator Corzine was one of the first to recognize the threat that identity theft poses both to consumers and to the integrity of the Nation's payment system. He has been a leader in the fight for safeguards on personal information, on protecting the privacy of our citizens.

Many of these things I have spoken about reflect a common theme, and that is Jon Corzine's concern for those left out and left behind. It has been a hallmark of his service in the Senate that he has sought to bring into the mainstream of American life those who have been left out of it. This concern for those, in a sense, who have been forgotten, was reflected in his work in the international arena, particularly the emphasis he placed on the situation in Darfur. Again and again, Jon Corzine took the floor of the Senate to bring to our attention the terrible things that were happening there and to push for measures to help alleviate that situation.

Finally, let me say what has distinguished Senator Corzine's service in the Senate over and above his many specific accomplishments is the dedication and vision and principles that underlie all his work. Before coming to

the Senate, he spent much of his professional life as an investment banker. But he brought to his responsibilities certain fundamental convictions about the nature of American society, a hopeful and optimistic vision of American life that first took place as he was growing up in a small farming community in central Illinois. It was there he has said he learned ``the meaning of hard work and the opportunities afforded by a strong education system.''

Jon Corzine went on to earn his B.A. as Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve where he served for 6 years. He attended the University of Chicago Business School at night, and not too much later he joined Goldman Sachs.

His many years in the financial markets have not dimmed Jon Corzine's vision of America as a nation grounded in opportunity--opportunity for a good education, for a decent job, a place to raise one's family and someday to retire with dignity, security, and self-respect. He has dedicated his efforts to advance programs that can make this vision a reality for all his fellow Americans.

When he announced his candidacy for Governor of New Jersey last December, Senator Corzine pledged he would ``fight like crazy to make sure that there is a view that government can be a partner in lifting up the lives of the rest of America.'' This is surely what he has done in the Senate.

In just 5 short years, notwithstanding his junior status in a body that sets a high premium on seniority--when I first came here I was very critical of the seniority system, but I have to admit that as time has gone by I have come to see the virtues of the system. Jon Corzine has had an impressive record of accomplishment. He has demonstrated the astute and principled leadership in the Senate that will most assuredly make him a distinguished Governor of the State of New Jersey in the service of all its people.

If I may be so bold as to address a word to the people of New Jersey, I simply say they have an extraordinary leader about to take over as the Governor of their State. I urge them to give Jon Corzine their backing and support so he can bring his vision to bear in the State of New Jersey.

When Woodrow Wilson became Governor of the State of New Jersey, he introduced a progressive agenda which became the model for the Nation. New Jersey went to the very forefront of the 50 States in addressing fairness and opportunity for its citizens and enhancing their quality of life. I say today, as we bid our dear colleague a fond farewell, Jon Corzine can provide that kind of leadership for New Jersey. He can move that State to the very forefront of the 50 States and make it a shining example of what can be accomplished when all of us pull together in order to enhance opportunity for each and every one. I wish him the very best as he leaves this body and in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?

I thank the very able Senator from California for her yielding to allow these tributes to be paid to Senator Corzine. I know she has been here quite a while waiting to speak on another issue. It was extremely gracious of her to do that. I wanted to recognize that and thank her very much.

Mr. President, today the Senate was presented with a false choice on the conference report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act. That is why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture. There is a better way that gives us the time we need to thoughtfully debate some very weighty constitutional and civil liberty issues. With 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act already permanently authorized, we can and should extend the provisions expiring on December 31, 2005, for 3 months.

Let me be clear, those of us advocating for a 3-month extension support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. What we want to do is keep the law intact, exactly as it is right now, so that we can more carefully debate these important matters without feeling rushed by the impending adjournment of this session of Congress.

Like almost everyone in this Chamber, I voted for the PATRIOT Act shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I believed the PATRIOT Act would bolster the ability of Federal authorities to conduct criminal and intelligence investigations, to bar and expel foreign terrorists from the United States, to separate terrorists from their sources of financial support, to punish acts of terrorism, and to assist victims of the events of September 11. While I had reservations about some parts of this legislation, the need to address the obvious threat, combined with the fact that many of the more untested provisions in the act were set to expire on December 31, 2005, prompted me to vote for the bill.

The provision of greater investigative authority to our Nation's law enforcement officials is a matter that raises many issues, most particularly, the need to balance Government power and civil liberties. Certainly, there is a great onus upon the Department of Justice, DOJ, to utilize the awesome authority of the PATRIOT Act in a circumspect and cautious manner. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight on the use of the PATRIOT Act's powers and to carefully debate any changes to these powers.

In the spring, in anticipation of the impending need to reauthorize the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I cosponsored S. 737, the Security and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act of 2005. This thoughtful, bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Craig on April 6, 2005, and seeks to revise and improve--not eliminate--several of the more controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including roving wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches, and FISA orders for library and other personal records.

Many of the proposed revisions to the PATRIOT Act in S.737 were ultimately incorporated in some form into S. 1389, the Senate version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT Act Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, passed by unanimous consent in July and the Senate immediately appointed conferees so that the House and the Senate could begin discussing their very different visions of the reauthorization. Unfortunately, the House waited until November to appoint its conferees, which in large part is why we are now in the position of having very little time to debate and resolve the differences between the two bills.

The Senate's version of the PATRIOT Act attempted to deal with many of the civil liberties issues that have come to the fore since the passage of the PATRIOT Act. In particular, S. 1389 would require that the Department of Justice convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records, or other sensitive information. It would require that targets of sneak-and-peek searches are notified within 7 days, instead of the undefined delay that is currently permitted under the PATRIOT Act. The Senate bill also would prohibit the issuance of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps, which identify neither the person nor the place to be put under surveillance.

Additionally, S. 1389 would give the recipient of an order for sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in court on the same grounds they could challenge a grand jury subpoena, as well as provide a right to challenge the gag order that currently prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out even if they feel the Government is violating their rights. The legislation also requires increased reporting by the DOJ on its use of PATRIOT Act powers and sets a 4-year sunset on three provisions regarding roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``lone wolf'' surveillance.

Unlike the Senate bill, the House version proposed to permanently reauthorize all but two of the expiring provisions--instead it sunsets FISA orders for library and other personal records and the roving wiretap provision after 10 years--and placed few, if any, limits on many of the expanded law enforcement powers in the PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, the conference report has removed or weakened some of the most important limits on enhanced investigative powers in the Senate bill, particularly those relating to FISA orders for library, medical, and other types of business records about people, National Security Letters, and notification of sneak-and-peek searches. We need to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but we need to do so with procedural safeguards like those in the Senate bill.

The Senate is known as the more contemplative body in Congress for a reason, and I think we should take the time we need to truly debate and discuss some important civil liberties issues that the conference report implicates. For this reason, I have cosponsored Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, which would extend the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act until March 31, 2006. I believe that 3 months is enough time for us to come back after the holidays and work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to be here today to say a few words about my colleague and friend, Jon Corzine. He has honored this Senate and he has honored the people of New Jersey with his service.

I did not know Jon before he came here. I heard about his campaign. I heard about his success on Wall Street. I, frankly, must confess, I did not know what quite to expect. Having seen the movie ``Wall Street,'' I almost thought that Michael Douglas would walk in the door in a $3,000 suit and with expensive accoutrements.

Jon surprised us all because he is not like that. He might have found his success on Wall Street, but his values were formed in the heartland of America and in the U.S. Marine Corps. He believes very deeply in values that are important and central to our party and to the people of this country: the notion of opportunity for all and the notion that this is a community, not just a collection of individuals.

His service in this body has exemplified those values and made us all extraordinarily proud. I served with Jon on the Senate Banking Committee. As the chairman and ranking member at various times of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I was familiar with all of Jon's efforts in making real progress on issues of importance to the people of New Jersey and the people of this country.

My friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has pointed out some of these, and I would like to, for the Record, amplify again what Jon has done.

The Federal Housing Administration Multifamily Housing Program provides insurance to those seeking to build multifamily rental housing. The program has played a critical role in the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. However, as the cost of building new housing has dramatically increased in recent years, Federal multifamily mortgage insurance loan limits have failed to keep pace with inflation.

In 2002, Senator Corzine led the way to secure passage of a provision to raise FHA multifamily loan limits by indexing them to the annual construction cost index to ensure that the program keeps pace with inflation.

In 2003, Senator Corzine further improved the FHA multifamily loan program by securing passage of legislation to boost those limits in high-cost communities around the country.

Specifically, his legislation raised the loan limits in high-cost areas to 140 percent of the statutory base limit and by 170 percent on a project-by-project basis.

These increases have been vitally important in the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing in high-cost States such as New Jersey and my own State of Rhode Island where the shortage of affordable housing has become a crisis.

Jon recognizes that at the heart of every family's efforts to educate their children, to find work, to hold work, is the need for safe and affordable housing. Senator Corzine has been on the vanguard of that effort. I salute him for that.

He has also been particularly concerned about housing for veterans. The Veterans' Administration Home Loan Program provides access to home financing for veterans who often, because of their time spent serving our Nation, have not had the opportunity to build up the credit they need to qualify for a conventional mortgage. Senator Corzine's legislation to increase veterans' home purchasing power, which became law as part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, raised the loan limits available under the VA Home Loan Program to allow veterans to obtain mortgages of up to $333,700, the same level available in the traditional mortgage market.

Finally, the Senator from New Jersey has been a fierce advocate for mass transit funding, not in his home State of New Jersey but across this country. He has been particularly effective, though, in helping his home State.

Senator Corzine was instrumental in providing legislation to help build a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River as part of the recently passed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The language that Senator Corzine included will expedite the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River and require the Federal Transit Administration to sign a Full Funding Grant Agreement with New Jersey Transit that will provide the Federal funding needed to complete the tunnel, and in so doing not only will he assist the people of New Jersey, but he will assist the economy of this Nation, since so much is dependent upon transit access through New Jersey to the Eastern Seaboard, Boston, New York and down to Washington.

We all are going to miss Senator Corzine immensely in the Senate, but he is going forth now to a mission that is equally important; that is, to serve the people of New Jersey as their Governor. I know he will be successful. And I know those values of opportunity and community and fairness and tolerance and decency that exemplified his service in the Senate will mark him as a remarkable Governor for the State of New Jersey.

I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Vermont.

Mr. President, when this bill left the Senate, under the leadership of Senators Specter and Leahy, we had a balanced bill with provisions which protected both our security and our liberty. We are all very much in their debt for the bill that left the Senate a few months ago. But what now has come back to the Senate is a bill which contains provisions which could sweep into the net of a fishing expedition the most private records of innocent Americans. The conference report amends section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This is one of many examples, and 3 minutes only allows one example. Section 215 permits the Government to seek court orders, to compel the production of any tangible thing, including library and medical records, in foreign intelligence investigations. Under the new provision, the Government need not describe, much less identify, a particular person to whom the records relate. The PATRIOT Act's standard in the conference report fails to narrow the scope of records that the Government can subpoena to less than the entire universe of records of people who, for instance, patronize the library or visit a doctor's office.

One example of that: The Government could seek all of a doctor's records, if it has an allegation that some unidentified patient of the doctor was sending money to an organization in the Middle East that was being looked at as part of a foreign intelligence investigation and the government thought that reviewing all of the records of that doctor might help identify that unidentified person.

Therefore, the Government argues, all of that doctor's records are relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation.

The same thing with library records; all of a library's records would be subject to being turned over to the Government if the Government has an allegation that somebody, one unidentified person, is using that library for some purpose; for instance, its computer, to have access to some organization in the Middle East that is involved in a terrorist organization. Everybody's library records would be swept into that net.

When this bill left the Senate, it had protective provisions against that. There had to be a showing, not just of relevance to a foreign intelligence investigation, there had to be a showing that the records sought were relevant and either pertained to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, were relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation, or pertained to an individual in contact with or known to be a suspected agent. In other words, the order had to be linked to some identifiable individual or suspected agent. Those protections are missing.

This is not the first time that Congress has addressed this issue. For instance, the Internal Revenue Code places limitations on what it calls ``John Doe'' summons for the production of certain taxpayer records.

Under 26 U.S.C. 2709 any summons which:

Does not identify the person with respect to whose

liability the summons is issued may be served only after a

court proceeding in which the Secretary establishes that--

(1) the summons relates to the investigation of a

particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,

(2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such

person or group or class of persons may fail or may have

failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue

law, and

(3) the information sought to be obtained from the

examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of

the person or persons with respect to whose liability the

summons is issued) is not readily available from other

sources.

Some kind of narrowing language should be included in the Patriot Act for 215 orders. Without it, the PATRIOT Act authorizes the rankest kind of fishing expedition.

In addition to the problem with the standard for issuing 215 order, a gag order can be imposed by the FBI to prevent the library from telling people that their records were turned over. That means innocent Americans might never know that the government was looking into their reading habits or medical records. Further, while some argue that the recipient of a gag order could challenge that gag order in court, the conference report is not at all clear on this point. During staff negotiations, language that would have clarified the right to challenge a gag order was rejected. The idea of a permanent, unreviewable restraint on the First Amendment rights of American citizens is deeply troubling.

To add insult to injury, if the library wanted to seek legal advice, this conference report requires the library to tell the government who it had consulted even if the lawyer consulted had turned down the case.

The conference report is similarly flawed in its treatment of National Security Letters or NSLs. NSLs compel phone companies and banks, for example, to turn over certain customer records. The government can issue an NSL without going to court. And, like 215 court orders, NSLs can be issued without identifying anyone in particular that the government suspects is a terrorist or spy. Again, the government does not have to show any connection between the records sought and a person who the government thinks is a terrorist or spy. And like 215 orders, the government can impose a gag order on the recipient of an NSL.

While the conference report does permit recipients of NSLs to challenge gag orders in court, it severely constrains the court's discretion to review the gag order, potentially rendering the review meaningless. Under the conference report, if the Attorney General or another specified senior official certifies that disclosure may endanger national security or harm diplomatic relations, the court may modify or set it aside it only if it finds ``bad faith'' on behalf of the government.

And, like 215 court orders, if the recipient of an NSL wanted to seek legal advice before turning over records, the conference report would require the recipient to tell the government who they had consulted.

Also troubling about the NSL authority is that there is no requirement that the government destroy records acquired with an NSL that are irrelevant to the investigation under which they've been gathered. These are records that relate to innocent Americans. The government should be required to destroy them if they contain no relevant material.

I outlined many of my concerns in a December 7th letter to the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'd ask consent that a copy of that letter be placed in the record.

As I and my fellow Senate Democratic conferees said in a December 8th letter to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the conference report falls short of what the American people have every reason to expect Congress to achieve in defending their rights while advancing their security. Congress should not rush ahead to enact flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. If three more months are needed to make this an acceptable bill, then we should take and prudently use that time.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated December 7, 2005.

Mr. President, although we will miss him greatly in the Senate, I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Jon Corzine on his election as Governor of New Jersey. It has been a pleasure to serve with Jon on the Intelligence Committee and to work with him on issues of corporate accountability. He has been a strong and determined leader here, and I know he will continue to make the people of New Jersey proud in his new position.

Jon Corzine has led a distinctly American life. He grew up on a family farm. He served his country in the Marine Corps Reserves. He had extraordinary success in business as a self-made man. And he has continued to serve his country in public life, first as a Senator and soon as a Governor. Jon loves America and fights for what he believes is best for our people.

In the Senate, Jon has used the financial expertise he gained at Goldman Sachs to become a singularly credible voice for corporate reform. He was a driving force on the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which cracked down on corporate abuses such as those that led to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. He has been a leader on strengthening oversight of the mutual fund industry and on protecting the financial privacy of Americans. Jon has also been at the forefront of promoting financial literacy, so that Americans can manage their personal finances wisely.

Working with Jon on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen Jon's piercing mental acumen and commitment to protecting our country. Following the September 11 attacks, which took a heavy toll on his State, Jon recognized the weakness of our system of chemical plant security. He seized that issue and did not let go. In October, Congress finally passed mandatory security requirements at chemical plants based on Jon's work. That this necessary improvement in our security will be substantially improved is due to his tenacity.

On every issue, Jon has been outspoken in support of policies that benefit working Americans. He has fought for universal health care, for expanded student aid, and for full funding for education programs. Jon has also been a passionate voice for human rights around the world. Just last month, the Senate approved the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which Jon sponsored with Senator Brownback, to help stop the genocide in the Sudan.

During his short time in the Senate, Jon Corzine has made a big impact. His is a unique voice that will be personally missed. I join my colleagues in saluting Jon on his election as Governor and in wishing him well in his new position.