A bill for the relief of Ernesto Guillen.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation which would amplify the PATRIOT Act, which we expect to be passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow, with these amendments to restore the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to the provisions of the Senate bill which was passed unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on which the Presiding Officer sits, as do I, and was then adopted by unanimous consent by the Senate.

The PATRIOT Act has had a complex procedural history where the House passed a version which was substantially different from the Senate version. Then we hammered out a conference report which, in my view, was an acceptable compromise. It did not have all of the provisions which I would have preferred. It did not have the provisions of the Senate bill. But in a bicameral legislature, we learn to work with the art of the possible. That was accommodation.

We worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House and crafted a bill which was acceptable. There were certain key concessions made to the Senate which I believed were important, perhaps indispensable, the leading one being the sunset provision which was finally established at 4 years. That had been the provision in the Senate bill. And by sunset, for anyone who may be watching on C-SPAN2, that is the provision which terminates the bill, and then it has to come back to Congress for reevaluation to see if we want to give the expanded powers to law enforcement officials. The House bill had 10 years; the Senate bill had 4 years. The House wanted a compromise at 7 years, and the Senate held fast. And the compromise was reached so we finally put a provision in at 4 years.

The PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after the terrible tragedies of 9/ 11, when the United States was victimized by a terrorist attack. It was an effort to give law enforcement officials more power to deal with terrorism. There is always a balance to be struck between civil liberties on the one hand and sufficient power for law enforcement on the other. There came into a coalition representatives of both extreme ends of the political spectrum, the so-called far left, the so-called far right, joining together with the insistence on more civil liberties. It seemed to me that the point was well taken.

The legislation I am introducing today, I introduce on behalf of myself, Senators Leahy, Murkowski, Sununu, Feingold, Craig, Hagel, Durbin, Salazar, Feinstein, Obama, and Kerry. The cosponsors are the four Republicans who did not vote for cloture when the bill was before the Senate. They had decided not to vote to cut off debate, which might have given us the leverage at that time to pass the conference report, but insisted on some modifications. With the leadership of Senator Sununu, those modifications have been enacted in a companion bill which is going to the House of Representatives for House action tomorrow. It is my expectation that the legislation will be passed. There is an enrolling ceremony set by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader for Wednesday morning, so that is a pretty good sign that we are en route to having the PATRIOT Act enacted.

I do not think that ought to be the ending point. That is why I am introducing this supplemental legislation today. What this legislation does is reinstate provisions of the original Senate-passed bill. For example, on the delayed notice search warrants, the

House bill had called for 180 days. The Senate bill had called for 7 days' notice. The conference report compromised out at 30 days, which I thought was acceptable, while not as good as I would have liked it. So in this new bill, the delayed notice provision is set at 7 days. That means that when a search warrant is authorized, where the subject of the search warrant is not told--ordinarily if you have a search and seizure, law enforcement officials come in and in broad daylight make the search and seizure. The resident, the owner of the residence knows about it. But a delayed notice search warrant is structured so that the recipient does not know about it, where there is cause shown that the investigation would be impeded if the recipient were to be told at that time. This cuts the time to 7 days.

There had been considerable controversy over the provisions of section 215 where the Senate bill had a three-part test, and a fourth provision was added to the conference report where the judge had the discretion to grant the order if there was adequate showing in the opinion of the court to pursue a terrorist investigation. But the new bill comes back to the three-part test of the original Senate bill so the records sought must, first, pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; second, are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation; or, three, pertain to an individual in contact with the suspected agent of a foreign power.

The third provision provides for a judicial review of national security letters. It would eliminate the conclusive presumption with respect to national security letters that the court would automatically uphold nondisclosure--that is, a gag order--upon the Government's good faith certification that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill introduced today would allow the judge to review all of the factors and would not be controlled by this conclusive presumption.

The bill introduced today also makes a change on judicial review of section 215, which eliminates both the conclusive presumption which was added in on the legislation sponsored by Senator Sununu, and it eliminates the mandatory 1-year waiting period.

The sunset on national security letters is an additional provision which adds a 4-year sunset to national security letters, which is the same sunset in the balance of the conference report. National security letters had not been subjected to the PATRIOT Act but were included in the Senate version this time. That provision is added.

We are having an oversight hearing with the Director of the FBI later this month. It is my intention, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to include in that oversight hearing these provisions. We want to see exactly how important they are, what the FBI is doing with them. We want law enforcement to have the tools it needs.

I know this is a subject near and dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer who was the U.S. attorney in Alabama for law enforcement and attorney general, and something of which this Senator has very substantial concern based in part on my tenure as district attorney of Philadelphia. So we want law enforcement to have the tools which are needed. At the same time we want to achieve an appropriate balance with civil liberties.

The statement has been made that it is not anticipated that the House will act on such legislation this year. It is a long year. We will wait and see. We will see what the developments are. We will see how our fight against terrorism goes. We will see what the oversight provisions are. But this bill will be useful as a marker to promote further reconsideration of that original Senate bill that passed last year. It was a significant occasion, if not monumental, to have all 18 members of the Judiciary Committee agree on a bill which, as the Presiding Officer knows, as do I and people who are familiar with the Judiciary Committee, we have representatives at opposite ends of the political spectrum. That is what is attractive about the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding our divergence of views, we have had remarkable success in the past 14 months passing the bankruptcy bill, the class action bill, and the asbestos bill out of committee.

We stumbled a little. We are one vote short on the budget point of order. That is going to be coming back.

We are taking a look at some of the provisions I am personally talking to Senators about on an individual basis. There is a recognized need for asbestos reform. There is only disagreement as to what it ought to be. I am asking Senators to take a look at the bill and tell me what it is they would like to see done in order to have the bill receive the requisite support here to overcome the budget point of order--I think we have the votes already there--but to overcome cloture and to have a bill that can be enacted.

Then our committee led the way in the confirmation of the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. We are now in the midst of working on immigration. I think the renewal of the PATRIOT Act is a significant step forward--something the President has been anxious to have done and something which will give law enforcement the tools it needs with appropriate balance.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this new bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with my friend, the senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, I send to the desk the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Senator Biden and I are joined in our efforts today by Senators DeMint, Mikulski, Martinez, Senator Nelson of Florida, Hagel, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, DeWine, Talent, Allen, Frist, Burns and Thune, all of whom are original cosponsors of this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership on the important issue of how the United States addresses the challenges posed by the new Hamas-dominated government in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Palestinian elections of January 25 produced a majority of Hamas supporters in the Palestinian parliament. Perhaps the Palestinians were frustrated with the corruption of the ruling Fatah Party, or perhaps they were tired of the slow pace of reforms. Either way, the Palestinian people cast their ballots for an organization that supports terrorism and rejects Israel's very right to exist. That is antithetical to our security interests in the Middle East, and it should be unacceptable to this Senate.

In light of the recent election, Senator Biden and I are submitting this legislation for the Senate's consideration which we hope will send an unequivocal message to the Hamas leadership: renounce terror, recognize Israel and live up to the commitments made by the previous Palestinian government.

In short, this legislation urges the Palestinian people to take another step toward joining the community of peaceful nations and a step away from the ranks of terrorism.

Our bill would do the following: it would restrict assistance to the Palestinian Authority, PA, unless it is determined that no PA government ministry is controlled by terrorists, that the PA publicly acknowledges Israel's right to exist, that the PA has recommitted itself to all its prior agreements with Israel, that the PA has made progress toward dismantling terrorist infrastructure, and that the PA has instituted fiscal transparency. This bill would essentially deny visas to certain PA officials and restrict their travel to the United States. It also limits diplomatic interaction with Palestinian terrorist groups. Finally, this bill contains rigorous audit and oversight requirements to ensure compliance with its provisions.

Let me also tell you what this bill does not do. It does not cut off assistance to the Palestinian people with respect to food, water, medicine, sanitation and other basic human needs. Thus, humanitarian assistance that does not go through the Palestinian government will continue. Moreover, funding for democracy programs will also be continued. Both Senator Biden and I appreciate the need not to punish the Palestinian people for actions its future government may take. Our concern is with the new regime taking power and in giving them the proper incentives to embrace peace and to abandon the pro-terror stance they have taken up until now.

Democracy is about more than just elections, it is also about responsible, accountable governance. The Palestinian elections a few weeks back reflect this fact. International observers indicate that the Palestinian elections were essentially free and fair--which in and of itself is certainly a good thing.

I strongly support democratic elections. That said, any right-minded person deplores the result of those elections.

A key part of democratic governance is that elected officials are responsible for the actions they take. If Hamas

takes power and persists in sponsoring terror, rejecting Israel's right to exist and refusing to accept prior commitments made to Israel, then they should be held accountable for their actions and for the foreign aid investments in the West Bank and Gaza paid for by American taxpayers. The PA's budget is supported in large part by foreign assistance, and Hamas has been put on notice by the United States and many in the donor community about the steps it must take in order to receive assistance in the future.

Along these same lines, I must say I am somewhat mystified at the recent diplomatic efforts undertaken by Russia. Russia broke from the Middle East Quartet and hosted representatives from Hamas in Moscow.

In so doing, the Russians granted Hamas a measure of international legitimacy Hamas had hitherto lacked, while the Russians appear to have received no meaningful concessions in return. I am afraid I fail to see the benefit in Russia's actions other than emboldening other nations to follow a similar course of dealing with a terrorist organization. I suspect the Russians would be less than elated if Israel hosted Chechen separatists in Jerusalem.

Foreign aid is not an entitlement. It is assistance from the American people to other nations, and it should be conducted in furtherance of U.S. interests and those of our allies. It is not to be given to organizations that actively work against those interests. Hamas, as it now stands, is just such an organization.

The ball is squarely in Hamas' court. It can either work for the good of its citizens as an accountable democratic government should, or it can continue to act as a revolutionary group to the profound detriment of its citizens.

Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation that the Senate may vote on this week still has serious flaws and troubling omissions. I have spent several months working closely with Members from both parties in an attempt to improve these defects. Even after the Bush administration and congressional Republicans hijacked the House-Senate conference, I tried to get this measure back on the right track. Working with a bipartisan group of Senators, we were able to achieve some improvements. I regret that the final package is not better and that the intransigence of the administration has prevented a better bill with better protections for the American people.

I remain committed to working to provide the tools that we need to protect the American people. That includes working to provide the oversight and checks needed on the uses of Government power and to improve the current reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I am therefore pleased to join Senator Specter, Senator Sununu, Senator Craig, Senator Feingold, and others in introducing a bill to improve the reauthorization legislation in several important respects.

Most importantly, the Specter-Leahy bill corrects one of the most egregious ``police state'' provisions regarding gag orders. The Bush- Cheney administration used the last round of discussions with Republican Senators to make the gag order provisions worse, in my view, by forbidding any court challenge for 1 year. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and our bill eliminates it. Our bill also eliminates provisions that allow the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. These un-American restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable.

I sought to make these changes to the gag orders provisions in an amendment I filed to Senator Sununu's bill, S. 227l, which modified the conference report in various respects. Senator Feingold filed other amendments aimed at bringing the conference report more in line with the bipartisan reauthorization bill that every Member of the Senate approved last year. Regrettably, the majority leader chose to prevent any effort to offer amendments to S. 227l and effectively stifled open debate.

In addition to fixing the gag order provisions, the Specter-Leahy bill adopts the Senate-passed standard for obtaining secret court orders under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Under this standard, the Government can obtain private, confidential records such as library and medical records only if there is some connection between those records and a suspected terrorist or spy. The Specter-Leahy bill also restores the pre-PATRIOT Act rule, adopted by the Senate, that notice of ``sneak and peek'' searches may be delayed for no more than 7 days unless extended. The conference report sets a 30-day rule for the initial delay, more than three times what the Senate, and pre-PATRIOT Act courts, deemed appropriate. Finally, the Specter-Leahy bill adds a 4 year sunset to the national security letter authorities created in the conference report. This sunset provision, like those included in the original PATRIOT Act at the insistence of myself and House Majority Leader Dick Armey, would facilitate oversight and ensure accountability for the use of these administrative subpoena authorities.

Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act has been a more difficult and far more painful process than it should have been. Under the leadership of Chairman Specter, the Judiciary Committee managed in just a few weeks to produce a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate unanimously. The House-Senate conference took a different course and produced a bill that Members on both sides of the aisle found unacceptable. It has been improved, but critical problems remain. The Specter-Leahy bill corrects the worst of these problems, and I will work with the chairman to enact these commonsense reforms before the end of the year.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Kentucky as the lead cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

This bill sends a clear message: The United States will not provide a single penny to a Hamas-led government unless it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These requirements are clear, and they reflect the will not just of the United States, but of the international community, including the so-called Quartet of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

Simply put, Hamas must choose between bullets and ballots, between destructive terror and constructive governance. It cannot have it both ways.

The bill affirms support for a two-state solution to end the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, an objective that Hamas rejects. The bill also requires the administration to report on steps it is taking to urge other nations to refrain from providing financial assistance to Hamas. In addition, it places restrictions on diplomatic contacts and movements by representatives of Hamas.

At the same time, the bill makes clear that we want to continue to support the basic needs of the Palestinian people. Assistance to the Palestinians for things such as food, water, medicine, and sanitation through non-governmental organizations will be permitted under this * * *

Instead of moving urgently, we dithered. Several months into last year, the President made a smart move by appointing Jim Wolfensohn the Quartet's special envoy to the Middle East, but he failed to strongly support his efforts. It wasn't until November that Secretary Rice got directly involved by brokering a breakthrough agreement on Gaza. That was welcome, but it was too little, too late.

I don't want to dwell on the past, but I think it's important that we try to learn from it.

It's also well known that Israel had deep misgivings about proceeding with these elections. Their views should have been considered more closely--after all, the consequences affect them directly.

Overall, I think this Administration has made the mistake of confusing democracy with elections. Elections are necessary but not sufficient--they do not a democracy make. Democracy is about building durable institutions--including political parties, transparent and effective government, civil society and a strong private sector.

We see what happens in the Middle East when you have elections with weak institutions--including in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iraq, SCIRI, and now the Palestinian Authority. All of us support the spread of democracy, but we should also support the hard work and investments it takes to build it.

Regarding the Palestinian vote, what should we do now? Obviously, Hamas's victory casts a pall on the future of the peace process.

First, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that calls for its destruction, engages in terrorism and maintains an armed militia.

Second, we should build international support for the position of the Quartet--no assistance to a Hamas-led government until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept past agreements.

Third, we need to press the Arab Gulf states not to rush in and financially support a Hamas-led government. That would take the pressure off Hamas, and it would reveal the hypocrisy of the Arab governments who say they support peace, but were unwilling to be more generous with Abbas's government.

Hamas is now ``the dog that caught the car.'' It must respond to international demands and, even more importantly, it must be responsive to the Palestinian public which wants reform, but doesn't want isolation, poverty, and radicalism.

The legislation I have introduced with my colleague, the senior Senator from Kentucky, is our attempt to clarify the choices for Hamas, and to make clear our rejection of a group that is committed to terror.

Mr. President. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that establishes a constitutional line item veto, which would allow the President to reduce pork barrel spending and save taxpayers billions of dollars. Congress has an opportunity this week in our debate on lobbying reform to take ethics reform seriously and take action to rid the federal budget of special interest projects. Giving the President the ability to target projects placed in the budget at the last minute at the request of a single lawmaker is a step in the right direction and a critical move toward needed transparency.

It is no secret that President Bush and I do not agree on many policy matters, but I fully support giving him this line item veto authority and I applaud the President's comments earlier today. I hope that Congress immediately takes up and passes this legislation, and I hope that President Bush will be able to use this new veto authority soon to get tough on wasteful spending.

Under the Republican-led House and Senate, pork-barrel spending has skyrocketed. Nearly $30 billion a year is being spent on projects that have never even been debated. For fiscal year 2005, appropriators added 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year's total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal year 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year's total of $22.9 billion. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on things like research to enhance the flavor of roasted peanuts and the infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' We have the largest deficit in American history and Congress and the President must take action to get spending under control.

In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the ``Line Item Veto Act'', P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method used to give the President line item veto authority was unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize them to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.

We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the Constitution.

The key difference between what I am proposing and what the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's actions. The ``Line Item Veto Act'' allowed the President to cancel provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this arrangement. The Line Item Veto Act of 2006 is different. It will empower the President to suspend provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove of that suspension with an up or down vote. The provisions are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change addresses the Supreme Court's concerns.

I agree with President Bush's comments earlier today, it is indeed `time to bring this important tool of fiscal discipline to Washington, D.C.' I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass the Line Item Veto Act and I look forward to President Bush using this authority to reign in pork-barrel spending.