A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product of the United States during the previous calendar year.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 45 minutes of my time.

I thank the Chair.

When it comes to the conference report on the USA PATRIOT Act, the die has now been cast. The Senate has voted to reconsider the vote against cloture from last December and now has voted to limit debate on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. The rules of the Senate have changed since the days of Jimmy Stewart and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' One Senator, no matter how strongly he or she feels, cannot singlehandedly stop a bill when 60 or more of his or her colleagues are dead set on passing it. So obviously at this point, final passage of the reauthorization bill is now assured. I am disappointed in this result, obviously, but I believe this fight has been worth making and my dedication to changing the PATRIOT Act is as strong now as it has ever been.

We have made some progress since October 2001. The public understands the issues better and many of my colleagues do, too. Support for changes to the PATRIOT Act has grown over the years to the point where we actually had no objection in the Senate last year passing a pretty good bill--this was in July of 2005--a bill that made significant improvements to the PATRIOT Act. Then near the end of the year, 46 Senators actually voted to reject a conference report that took several steps backward from that bill. Even a few days ago, I was heartened when the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the foremost proponent of the conference report, actually announced he would essentially take the four amendments I had hoped to offer, the amendments I was denied the right to offer in the Senate, and combine them into a bill he will now seek to move through the Judiciary Committee and enact into law. His bill will have several cosponsors, including me. So even some of the Senators who fought for this reauthorization bill, of course, realize it falls short and will join the fight to try to fix the PATRIOT Act. That is somewhat encouraging, and I thank them for their honesty. I thank them for recognizing that the rights and freedoms of the American people are worth fighting for in the Senate, just as we ask so many of our young people to fight for them overseas.

The rules of the Senate provide that debate on this measure is now limited after the vote on cloture we took. But debate is not yet closed. I believe there is still more that needs to be said. In particular, in the time I have remaining, I want to give voice to the millions of Americans who have expressed concern about the PATRIOT Act and have asked repeatedly for it to be changed. There has been an extraordinary outpouring of public sentiment against this law, and that sentiment deserves to be heard on the floor of the Senate. So in a few minutes I am going to read some of the resolutions that have been passed and editorials that have been written and letters that have been sent. In these final hours before the PATRIOT Act is reauthorized, I want my colleagues to hear the voices of the citizens of this country. These voices cannot be stifled by votes taken here. They may have been ultimately defeated by procedural maneuvers in this body over the past few weeks, but their concerns for the liberties and freedoms are real, and they are not going away. We ignore them at our peril.

Before I turn to those voices, I want to start with the basic principle. Our Nation's strength comes not only from our mighty and our unmatched military might but from our constitutional system and our reverence for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for over 2\1/4\ quarter centuries in our history as a nation. Millions of patriotic Americans love this country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to defeat the terrorists who threaten us. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are documents we often talk about and less often actually pick up and reread. In light of their central importance to the debate about the PATRIOT Act, I thought it would be worth reading them today.

The United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic

Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the

general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the

Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be

vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall

consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed

of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the

several States, and the Electors in each State shall have

Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous

Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have

attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven

Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when

elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be

chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among

the several States which may be included within this Union,

according to their respective Numbers, which shall be

determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,

including those bound to Service for a Term of Years.

Of course, this provision has been amended by the 14th amendment so I will skip that part.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years

after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States,

and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner

as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives

shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each

State shall have at Least one Representative; and until

such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire

shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,

Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut

five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight,

Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina

five, South Carolina five, and George three.

As per act of November 15, 1941, the apportionment, based

on the Sixteenth Census (1940), the Seventeenth Census

(1950), and the Eighteenth Census (1960), distribute the 435

seats in the House among the States according to the method

of equal proportions. (See Senate Manual section 974).

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,

the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election

to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representative shall chuse their Speaker and

other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be

composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the

Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senators shall

have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of

the First Election, they shall be divided as equally as may

be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first

Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the Second Year,

of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and

of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year; so

that one-third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year; and

if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the

Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof

may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the

Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to

the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the

United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an

Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President

of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally

divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a

President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President,

or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the

United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all

Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on

Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States

is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person

shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of

the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further

than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and

enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United

States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable

and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment,

according to Law.

Section 1. The Time, Places and Manner of holding Elections

for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof; but the congress may at any

time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the

Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year,

and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,

unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections;

Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a

Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business;

but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be

authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in

such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may

provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the

concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and

from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as

may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays

of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the

Desire of one fifth of those Present be entered on the

Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall,

without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three

days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two

Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a

Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law,

and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall

in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,

be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the

Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and

returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in

either House, they shall not be questioned in any other

Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for

which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under

the Authority of the United States, which shall have been

created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased

during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the

United States, shall be a Member of either House during his

Continuance in Office.

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in

the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or

concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of

Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a

Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if

he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,

with his Objections to that House in which it shall have

originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their

Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such

Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass

the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to

the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,

and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become

a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall

be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons

voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the

Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not

be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays

excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the

Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed

it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its

Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence

of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary

(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to

the President of the United States; and before the Same shall

take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved

by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and

House of Representatives, according to the Rules and

Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect

Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and

provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the

United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be

uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the

several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform

Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United

States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign

Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the

Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the

high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and

make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money

to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land

and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the

Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel

Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the

Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be

employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to

the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and

the Authority of training the Militia according to the

discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,

by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of

Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United

States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places

purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in

which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,

Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful

Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for

carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other

Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the

United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as

any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,

shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one

thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be

imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for

each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be

suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the

public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless

in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before

directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any

State.

No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce

or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another:

nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State be obliged to

enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular

Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all

public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under

them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,

or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin

Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and

silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of

Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation

of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay

any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may

be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws:

and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any

State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the

Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be

subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any

duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of

Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another

State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless

actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not

admit of delay.

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a

President of the United States of

America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four

years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the

same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature

thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole

Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may

be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or

Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or

Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an

Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and

vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall

not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And

they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of

the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and

certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of

the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the

Senate and House of Representatives, open all the

Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person

having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,

if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors

appointed; and if there be more than one who have such

Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House

of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of

them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then

from the five highest on the List the said House shall in

like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the

President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the

Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for

this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-

thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall

be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of

the President, the Person having the greatest Number of

Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President. But if

there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the

Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the

Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes;

which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of

the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this

Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall

not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been

fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of

his Death, resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers

and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve

on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide

for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability,

both of the President and Vice President, declaring what

Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall

act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a

President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his

Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased

nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been

elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any

other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall

take the following Oath or Affirmation:--``I do solemly swear

(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of

President of the United States, and will to the best of my

Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the

United States.''

Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the

Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the

several States, when called into the actual Service of the

United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the

principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,

upon any subject relating to the Duties of their

respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant

Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United

States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of

the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the

Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and

with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of

the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United

States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided

for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress

may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as

they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of

Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies

that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting

Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next

Session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress

Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their

Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and

expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both

Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement

between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may

adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall

receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall,

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall

Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil

Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office

on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or

other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall

be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts

as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall

hold their offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at

stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation

which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in

Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in

Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of

the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,

under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,

other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of

admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to

which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies

between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of

another State;--between Citizens of different States;--

between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under

Grants of different States, and between a State, or the

Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers

and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the

supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the

other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have

appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such

Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall

make.

The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State

where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not

committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place

or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist

only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their

Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be

convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses

to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of

Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of

Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person

attainted.

Article IV

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each

State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings

of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws

prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and

Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to

all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several

States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or

other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in

another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of

the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed

to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the

Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of

any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such

Service or Labour, but shall, be delivered up on Claim of the

Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into

this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected

within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be

formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of

States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States

concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all

needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of

other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in

this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any

Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to ever State

in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall

protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of

the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature

cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem

it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of

the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing

Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all

Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when

ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several

States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the

one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by

the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made

prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight

shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in

the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State

without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal

Suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before

the Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against

the United States under this Constitution, as under the

Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or

which shall be made, under Authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every

State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution

or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the

Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive

and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the

several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to

support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever

be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust

under the United States.

Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be

sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between

the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States

present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our

Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the

Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

The Bill of Rights, amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution.

The Conventions of a number of States; having at the time

of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in

order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that

further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

And as extending the ground of public confidence in the

Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its

institution: RESOLVED by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress

assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the

following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the

several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by

three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all

intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.t.

Amendment [I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment [II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security

of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment [III]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any

house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,

but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment [IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Mr. President, I am going to read that one again. It is the fourth amendment. More than any other provision I am reading, this is the one that is at the heart of the debate about this USA PATRIOT Act and its provisions, and it is this provision that is particularly violated by the imminent reauthorization of this law:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall

issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other

wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment, or indictment

of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of

War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the

same offenses to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in, any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor shall private property be

taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of

the State and district wherein the crime shall have been

committed, which district shall have been previously

ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses

against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining

witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel

for his defence.

Amendment [VII]

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy

shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall

be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be other-

wise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than

according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment [VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines

imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment [IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,

shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained

by the people.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time and also for his excellent remarks and his comments on this issue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we pass a lot of laws in this body, but most of them don't get any public attention. Not so with the PATRIOT Act. Few pieces of legislation have the kind of public understanding and recognition the PATRIOT Act does. The PATRIOT Act has become a rallying cry for those concerned about Government overreaching, grabbing for more power than it needs, using a time of crisis to justify changes in the law it otherwise could not hope to see made.

People all over the country want us to take a step back, to reconsider, to fix the PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the strongest evidence of this is that in the past 4 years, more than 400 State and local governments have passed resolutions opposing or objecting to various aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Eight of those government bodies are State legislatures that have already passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act.

In April 2003, Hawaii was the first State to adopt a statewide resolution. The next month, in May 2003, Alaska and Vermont passed resolutions. Over the course of 2004 and 2005, we saw three more resolutions in Colorado, Montana, and Maine. Finally, Idaho passed a resolution specifically to support the SAFE Act's amendments to the PATRIOT Act, and recently, on February 16, California passed a resolution on the PATRIOT Act.

I will read these resolutions. There are eight such resolutions, Alaska being the first.

A resolution:

Relating to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bill of Rights, the

Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the civil liberties,

peace, and security of the citizens of our country.

Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska:

WHEREAS the State of Alaska recognizes the Constitution of

the United States as our charter of liberty, and that the

Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable

rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion,

speech, assembly, and privacy; and

WHEREAS each of Alaska's duly elected public servants has

sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution and

the Constitution of the State of Alaska; and

WHEREAS the State of Alaska denounces and condemns all acts

of terrorism, wherever occurring; and

WHEREAS attacks against Americans such as those that

occurred on September 11, 2001, have necessitated the

crafting of effective laws to protect the public from

terrorist attacks; and

WHEREAS any new security measures of federal, state, and

local government should be carefully designed and employed to

enhance public safety without infringing on the civil

liberties and rights of innocent citizens of the State of

Alaska and the nation; and

WHEREAS certain provisions of the ``Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001'', also known

as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the federal government more

liberally to detain and investigate citizens and engage in

surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights

and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal

constitutions;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature supports

the government of the United States of America in its

campaign against terrorism, and affirms its commitment that

the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential rights

and liberties of citizens in this country contained in the

United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the policy of the State of

Alaska to oppose any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act that

would violate the rights and liberties guaranteed equally

under the state and federal constitutions; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Alaska state

policy, an agency or instrumentality of the State of Alaska,

in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

under Alaska State law, may not

(1) initiate, participate in, or assist or cooperate with

an inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention;

(2) record, file, or share intelligence information

concerning a person or organization, including library

lending and research records, book and video store sales and

rental records, medical records, financial records, student

records, and other personal data, even if--

Even if--

authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act;

(3) retain such intelligence information; the state

Attorney General shall review the intelligence information

currently held by the state for its legality and

appropriateness under the United States and Alaska

Constitutions and permanently dispose of it if there is no

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the

state may not,

(1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement

of federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility

of the federal government;

(2) collect or maintain information about the political,

religious, or social views, associations, or activities of

any individual, group, association, organization,

corporation, business, or partnership, unless the information

directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities

and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of

the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct;

(3) engage in racial profiling; law enforcement agencies

may not use race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin as

factors in selecting individuals to subject to investigatory

activities except when seeking to apprehend a suspect whose

race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the

description of the suspect; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature implores

the United States Congress to correct provisions in the USA

PATRIOT Act and other measures that infringe on civil

liberties, and opposes any pending and future federal

legislation to the extent it infringes on Americans' civil

rights and liberties.

Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable

George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable

John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States; the

Honorable Frank Murkowski, Governor of Alaska; and to the

Honorable Ted Stevens, and the Honorable Lisa Murkowski, U.S.

Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative,

members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

That is the Alaska resolution.

California Senate Joint Resolution No. 10--Relative to the USA PATRIOT Act. Approved by the California Senate, introduced by Senator Figueroa.

WHEREAS, The State of California recognizes the

Constitution of the United States of America as our charter

of liberty, and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the

fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including

freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy; and

WHEREAS, The State of California has a distinguished

history of safeguarding the freedoms of its residents; and

WHEREAS, Each of California's duly elected public servants

are sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution

and the Constitution of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, The State of California denounces and condemns all

acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and

WHEREAS, Any new security measures of Federal, State, and

local governments should be carefully designed and employed

to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil

liberties and rights of innocent persons in the State of

California and the Nation; and

WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also known as the

USA PATRIOT Act, allow the government greater authority to

detain and investigate persons and to engage in surveillance

activities that may violate or offend the rights and

liberties guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions,

including rights of due process, the right to privacy, the

right to counsel, protection against unreasonable searches

and seizures, and basic First Amendment freedoms; and

WHEREAS, The people of California are concerned that many

provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act pose significant threats to

constitutional protections; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of

California jointly, That the State of California supports

appropriate and effective measures by the Government of the

United States of America and the State of California to

combat terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign

not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and

liberties of citizens of this country contained in the United

States Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

Resolved, That the State of California also urges its

congressional delegation to work to repeal any provisions of

the USA PATRIOT Act that limit or impinge on rights and

liberties protected equally by the United States Constitution

and the California Constitution and to oppose any pending and

future Federal legislation to the extent that it would

infringe on Americans' civil rights and liberties; and be it

further

Resolved, that the State of California will ensure that no

State resources be provided

for any action that would violate the United States

Constitution or the Constitution of the State of California,

including but not limited to, all of the following:

(1) Collecting or maintaining information about the

political, religious, or social views, associations, or

activities of any individual group, association,

organization, corporation, business or partnership, unless

the information directly relates to an investigation of

criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to

suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved

in criminal conduct.

(2) Recording, filing, or sharing intelligence information

concerning a person or organization, including library

lending and research records, book and video sales and rental

records, medical records, financial records, student records

and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA

PATRIOT Act.

(3) Demanding nonconsensual releases of student and faculty

records from public schools and institutions of higher

learning.

(4) Eavesdropping on confidential communications between

lawyers and their clients.

(5) Engaging in racial profiling that enables law

enforcement agencies to use race, religion, ethnicity or

national origin as factors in selecting individuals to be

subject to investigational activities, except when seeking to

apprehend a specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity

or national origin is part of the description of the suspect;

and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of State shall transmit copies

of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of

the United States and the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, to the majority leader of the Senate, and to

each Senator and Representative from California in the

Congress, the Attorney General of the United States, and to

all Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

Mr. President, that is the second resolution. The third one is from Colorado. Senate Joint Resolution 05-044 concerning the State's commitment to Uphold Constitutional Rights in the Fight Against Terrorism, approved by the Colorado General Assembly.

WHEREAS, The State of Colorado is committed to upholding

the fundamental and inalienable rights, including the

freedoms of religion, speech, assembly and privacy, that are

enshrined in the Constitutions of the United States and the

State of Colorado; and

WHEREAS, Colorado's elected public servants have sworn to

defend and uphold the Federal and State Constitution; and

WHEREAS, The State of Colorado denounces and condemns all

acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and

WHEREAS, The attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

and the continuing threat of terrorism underscore the need

for strong and effective laws and policy to protect the

American public; and

WHEREAS, The security measures taken by Federal, State, and

local governments should be carefully designed and applied to

enhance public safety without infringing on the civil

liberties and rights of innocent people in the State of

Colorado and throughout the Nation; and

WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the Federal ``Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act'', also known as the

``USA PATRIOT Act'', expand the power of the Federal

Government to detain and investigate people in the United

States and to engage in surveillance activities that may be

inconsistent with the rights and liberties guaranteed by the

State and Federal constitutions; now, therefore,

Be it Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-fifth General

Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of

Representatives concurring herein:

(1) That the General Assembly supports the Government of

the United States in its campaign against terrorism and

affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the

expense of the essential civil rights and liberties enshrined

in the Constitution of the United States and the State of

Colorado;

(2) That it is the policy of the State of Colorado to

oppose any provision or application of the USA PATRIOT Act

that would violate the rights and liberties guaranteed by the

State and Federal Constitutions;

(3) That, in accordance with the policy of this State, no

agency or instrumentality of the State should, without

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Colorado law:

(A) Initiate, participate in, assist, or cooperate with any

inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention; (b)

Record, file, or share intelligence information concerning

any person or organization, including library lending and

research records, book and video store sales and rental

records, medical records, financial records, student records,

Internet mail and usage records, and other personal data,

even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act; or (c), Retain

such intelligence information.

(4) That no agency or instrumentality of the State should:

(A) collect or maintain information about the political,

religious, or social views, associations, or activities of

any individual, group, organization or business entity,

unless the information indirectly relates to an investigation

of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to

suspect that the subject of the information is involved in

criminal conduct; or (b) Use race, religion, ethnicity or

national origin as factors in selecting individuals to

subject to investigatory activities, except with respect to a

specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity, or national

origin is part of the description of the suspect.

(5) The General Assembly urges the United States Congress

to amend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures

that infringe on civil rights and liberties and imposes the

enactment of future Federal legislation that infringes on

civil rights and liberties.

Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this joint

resolution be sent to the Honorable George W. Bush, President

of the United States; the Honorable Alberto Gonzalez,

Attorney General of the United States; the Honorable Bill

Owens, Governor of Colorado; and the members of Colorado's

congressional delegation.

Now we go to Hawaii's resolution, the first one to pass. Senate Concurrent Resolution Reaffirming the State of Hawaii's Commitment to Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights Approved by the Hawaii State legislature.

WHEREAS The Hawaii State legislature is committed to

upholding the United States Constitution and its Bill of

Rights and the Hawaii State Constitution and its Bill of

Rights (Article I, Sections 1 through 22); and

WHEREAS The State of Hawaii has a distinguished history of

safeguarding the freedoms of its residents; and

WHEREAS The State of Hawaii is comprised of a diverse and

multi-ethnic population, and has experienced firsthand the

value of immigration to the American way of life; and

WHEREAS The residents of Hawaii during World War II

experienced firsthand the dangers of unbalanced pursuit of

security without appropriate checks and balances for the

protection of basic liberties; and

WHEREAS The recent adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act and

several executive orders may unconstitutionally authorize the

Federal Government to infringe upon fundamental liberties in

violation of due process, the right to privacy, the right to

counsel, protection against unreasonable searches and

seizures, and basic first amendment freedoms, all of which

are guaranteed by the constitutions of Hawaii and the United

States; and

WHEREAS The citizens of Hawaii are concerned that the

actions of the Attorney General of the United States and the

United States Justice Department are significant threats to

constitutional protections; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Twenty-second

Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2003,

the House of Representatives concurring, that the State of

Hawaii urges its congressional delegation to work to repeal

any sections of the PATRIOT Act or recent executive orders

that limit or violate fundamental rights and liberties

protected by the constitutions of Hawaii and the United

States; and

Be It Further Resolved that to the extent legally possible,

no State resources--including law enforcement funds and

educational administrative resources--may be used for

unconstitutional activities, including but not limited to the

following under the USA PATRIOT Act:

(1) Monitoring political and religious gatherings

exercising their First Amendment Rights;

(2) Obtaining library records, bookstore records, and Web

site activities without proper authorization and without

notification;

(3) Issuing subpoenas through the United States Attorney's

Office without a court's approval or knowledge;

(4) Requesting nonconsensual releases of student and

faculty records from public schools and institutions of

higher learning; and

(5) Eavesdropping on confidential communications between

lawyers and their clients.

Be It Further Resolved that certified copies of this

concurrent resolution be transmitted to Hawaii's delegation

in the United States Congress.

Now Idaho.

Stating findings of the Legislature concerning adoption of

the SAFE Act to limit certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act

in order to protect liberties of citizens of the United

States and urging the congressional delegation representing

the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States to

support the SAFE Act: House Joint Memorial No. 7, approved by

the Idaho State legislature.

We, memorialists, the House of Representatives and the

Senate in the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular

Session of the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, do hereby

respectfully represent that:

WHEREAS, as citizens of the State of Idaho strongly believe

that basic civil liberties must be preserved and protected,

even as we seek to guard against terrorists and other threats

to national security; and

WHEREAS, there are some principles of our democracy which

are so fundamental to the rights of citizenship that they

must be preserved to guard the very liberties we seek to

protect; and

WHEREAS, legislation known as the SAFE Act has been

introduced in the Congress of the United States to adopt

amendments to

the PATRIOT Act which would address some of the most

problematic provisions of that act; and

WHEREAS, the SAFE Act amends the PATRIOT Act to modify the

provisions regarding the roving wiretaps to require that the

identity of the target be given and that the suspect be

present during the time when surveillance is conducted; and

WHEREAS, the SAFE Act revises provisions governing search

warrants to limit the circumstances when the delay of notice

may be exercised and to require reports to the Congress when

delays of notice are used; and

WHEREAS, the SAFE Act requires specific and articulable

facts to be given before business records are subject to

investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and

WHEREAS, the SAFE Act provides that libraries shall not be

treated as communication providers subject to providing

information and transaction records of library patrons; and

WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the legislature of the

State of Idaho, on behalf of the citizens of Idaho, express

support of the efforts of Senator Larry Craig to adopt the

SAFE Act, and encourage full support of the Idaho

congressional delegation.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by members of the First

Regular Session of the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the

House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein,

that the Idaho legislature endorses the efforts to amend the

PATRIOT Act to ensure that it works well to protect our

security, but that it does not unnecessarily compromise

essential liberties of the citizens of the United States. We

urge the congressional delegation representing the State of

Idaho in the Congress of the United States to support

legislation introduced by Senator Larry Craig, known as the

SAFE Act.

Mr. President, the Maine Resolution, Joint Resolution Memorializing the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States to Ensure the Protection of Civil Liberties and the Security of the United States Approved by the Maine State Legislature.

We, your Memorialists, the Members of the One Hundred and

Twenty-first legislature of the State of Maine now assembled

in the Second Special Session, most respectfully present the

petition of the President of the United States and the United

States Congress, as follows.

WHEREAS, the State of Maine recognizes that the

Constitution of the United States is our charter of liberty

and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and

inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of

religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; and

WHEREAS, each of Maine's duly elected public servants have

sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United

States and the Constitution of Maine; and

WHEREAS, the State of Maine denounces and condemns all acts

of terrorism, wherever occurring; and

WHEREAS, attacks against Americans such as those that

occurred on September 11, 2001 have necessitated the crafting

of effective laws to protect the public from terrorist

attacks; and

WHEREAS, any new security measures of Federal, State, and

local governments should be carefully designed and employed

to enhance public safety, without infringing on the civil

liberties and the rights of any citizens in the State of

Maine and the Nation; and

WHEREAS, matters relating to immigration are primarily

Federal in nature; and

WHEREAS, certain provisions of the ``Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,'' commonly

referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the Federal

Government more liberally to detain and investigate citizens

and engage in surveillance activities that may violate or

offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our State and

Federal Constitutions; now therefore,

Be It Resolved: That we, Your Memorialists, on behalf of

the people we represent, take this opportunity to inform the

President of the United States and the United States Congress

that the Maine State Legislature supports the government of

the United States of America in its campaign against

terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be

waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties

of citizens of this country contained in the Constitution of

the United States and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

Resolved: That the Maine State Legislature urges that the

Federal Government to continue to exercise its jurisdiction

over immigration matters and encourages the Federal

Government to work cooperatively with the States to provide

assistance and training to protect our country; and be it

further

Resolved: That laws passed by the United States Congress to

specifically combat the threat of international terrorism

should not be used in conducting domestic law enforcement;

and be it further

Resolved: That the Maine State legislature implores the

United States Congress to review the provisions in the USA

PATRIOT Act and other measures that may infringe on civil

liberties and ensure any pending and future Federal

liberties.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Legislature calls upon

our United States Representatives and Senators to monitor the

implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal

actions and, if necessary, repeal those sections of the USA

PATRIOT Act and related federal measures that may infringe

upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the

United States Constitution and its amendments; and be it

further resolved that official copies of this resolution,

duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted

to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United

States, the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the

United States; the Honorable John E. Baldacci, Governor or

the State of Maine; Richard Cheney, President of the United

States Senate; Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the United States

House of Representatives; and each member of the Maine

Congressional Delegation.

Mr. President, Montana:

A Joint Resolution of the Senate and the House of

Representatives of the State of Montana supporting the

Montana Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the

Bill of Rights; encouraging various actions in support of

fighting terrorism and protecting civil rights and civil

liberties; requesting the Attorney General of Montana to

compile and disseminate relevant information regarding

actions taken by the Federal Government under the USA PATRIOT

Act; and encouraging Montana's congressional delegation to

support and ensure the civil rights of all Montanans and

citizens of the United States, which includes allowing the

USA PATRIOT Act to expire.

WHEREAS, the citizens of Montana recognize the Constitution

of the United States as our charter of liberty and that the

Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable

rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion,

speech, assembly, and privacy; and

WHEREAS, each of Montana's duly elected public servants has

sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution and

the Constitution of the State of Montana; and

WHEREAS, the citizens of Montana denounce and condemn all

acts of terrorism by any entity, wherever the acts occur; and

WHEREAS, terrorist attacks against Americans, such as those

that occurred on September 11, 2001, have necessitated the

crafting of effective laws to protect citizens of the United

States and others from terrorist attacks; and

WHEREAS, any new security measures of federal, state, and

local governments should be carefully designed and employed

to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil

liberties and rights of innocent citizens of Montana and the

United States; and

WHEREAS, certain provisions of the ``Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001'', also known

as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the federal government to more

liberally detain and investigate citizens and to engage in

surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights

and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal

constitutions.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and the House

of Representatives of the State of Montana:

That the 59th Montana Legislature supports the government

of the United States in its campaign against terrorism and

affirms the commitment of the United States that the campaign

not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and

liberties of citizens of this country that are protected in

the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the

citizens of Montana to oppose any portion of the USA PATRIOT

Act that violates the rights and liberties guaranteed under

the Montana Constitution or the United States Constitution,

including the Bill of Rights.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Montana

state policy, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity under Montana law, the 59th Montana

Legislature exhorts agents and instrumentalities of this

state to not:

(1) initiate or participate in or assist or cooperate with

an inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention under

the USA PATRIOT Act if the action violates constitutionally

guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties;

(2) record, file, or share intelligence information

concerning a person or organization, including library

lending and research records, book and video store sales and

rental records, medical records, financial records, student

records, and other personal data, even if authorized under

the USA PATRIOT Act, if the action violates constitutionally

guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties; or

(3) retain any of the intelligence information described in

subsections (1) and (2) of this clause if the information

violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil

liberties.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Attorney General of

Montana is encouraged to review intelligence information

currently held by the state, assess the legality and

appropriateness of holding the information under the United

States Constitution and Montana Constitution, and permanently

dispose of all such information to which there is not

attached a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

admonishes every agency and instrumentality of the state to

not:

(1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement

of federal immigration matters that are the responsibility of

the federal government;

(2) collect or maintain information about the political,

religious, or social views, associations, or activities of

any individual, group, association, organization,

corporation, business, or partnership unless the information

directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities

and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject

of the information was, is, or may be involved in criminal

conduct; or

(3) engage in racial profiling.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that state and local law

enforcement agencies should not use race, religion,

ethnicity, or national origin as factors in selecting

individuals to subject to investigatory activities, except

when seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race,

religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the

description of the suspect.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

requests:

(1) public schools and institutions of higher learning

within Montana to provide notice to each individual whose

education records have been obtained by law enforcement

agents pursuant to section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act; and

(2) each public library within Montana to post in a

prominent place within the library a notice to library users

as follows: ``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA

PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), records of the books and

other material you borrow from this library may be obtained

by federal agents. Federal law prohibits librarians from

informing you if records about you have been obtained by

federal agents. Questions about the law and policy that

allows federal agents to obtain and use information about

your activities in this library should be directed to: U.S.

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20530''.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

encourages the Attorney General of Montana to periodically

seek from federal authorities the following information in a

form that facilitates an assessment of the effect of federal

antiterrorism efforts on the residents of Montana:

(1) the name of each resident of Montana who has been

arrested or otherwise detained by federal authorities as a

result of terrorism investigations since September 11, 2001,

the location of each detainee, the circumstances that led to

each detention, the charges, if any, lodged against each

detainee, and the name of counsel, if any, representing each

detainee;

(2) the number of search warrants that have been executed

in Montana pursuant to section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act and

without notice to the subject of the warrant;

(3) the extent of electronic surveillance carried out in

Montana under powers granted in the USA PATRIOT Act;

(4) the extent to which federal authorities monitor

political meetings, religious gatherings, or other activities

within Montana that are protected by the First Amendment;

(5) the number of times that education records have been

obtained from public schools and institutions of higher

learning in Montana under section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act;

(6) the number of times that library records have been

obtained from libraries in Montana under section 215 or

section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act; and

(7) the number of times that records of the books purchased

by store patrons from bookstores in Montana have been

obtained under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

requests the Attorney General of Montana to compile and

transmit to each member of the Legislature, at least once

every 6 months, a summary of the information obtained

pursuant to the legislative requests made in this resolution

and, based on the information and any other relevant

information, to include an assessment of the effect of

federal antiterrorism efforts on the residents of Montana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

desires that all public libraries adopt policies that ensure

the regular destruction of records, when the records are no

longer needed, that may be used to identify the name of a

book borrower or the name of any Internet user.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in order to protect

intellectual privacy rights, the 59th Montana Legislature

advises all persons in local businesses and institutions,

particularly booksellers, to refrain whenever possible from

keeping records that can be used to identify the name of any

purchaser and to regularly destroy sales records maintained

by the business or institution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

urges the Montana delegation in the United States Congress

to:

(1) correct provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and other

administrative measures that infringe on civil liberties by

supporting the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act,

slated to be reviewed by Congress in 2005, and ultimately

allow the USA PATRIOT Act to expire; and

(2) support passage of the Security and Freedom Ensured Act

of 2003 and the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature

urges the Montana Congressional Delegation to vigorously

oppose any pending and all future federal legislation if the

legislation infringes on the civil rights and civil liberties

of American citizens. Federal legislation that the Montana

Congressional Delegation is encouraged to oppose includes but

is not limited to the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of

2003, also known as Patriot Act II.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send a

copy of this resolution to President George W. Bush, the

Attorney General of the United States, Governor Brian

Schweitzer, Senator Max Baucus, Senator Conrad Burns, and

Representative Dennis Rehberg.

Mr. President, now we turn to Vermont.

Joint resolution strongly urging the President to revise

executive orders and policies, and for Congress to amend

provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which seriously erode

fundamental civil liberties.

Approved by: Vermont State Senate.

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, for the first time since

the War of 1812, the continental United States was subjected

to an attack from abroad when terrorists commandeered four

commercial airliners and destroyed the World Trade Center in

New York City and caused significant damage to the Pentagon,

and

WHEREAS, in response to these tragic and devastating

events, which cost nearly 3,000 innocent American lives,

Congress adopted the U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56)

which is intended to enable the federal government to act

more authoritatively in preventing future attacks, and

WHEREAS, while the prevention of future terrorist attacks

is a critical national priority, it is equally important to

preserve the fundamental civil liberties and personal

freedoms which were enshrined in the Bill of Rights over 200

years ago, and which have been preserved through a constant

vigilance and outcry against periodic threats to their

existence, and

WHEREAS, while sunset review dates were attached to certain

provisions, the final bill remains, perhaps, the most severe

legislative attack on civil liberties since the passage of

the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s, and

WHEREAS, under the auspices of both the U.S.A. Patriot Act

and related executive orders, persons from the Middle East

and South Asia have been unjustly targeted for interrogation

and possible deportation, and

WHEREAS, the ability of the Central Intelligence Agency to

engage in domestic spying activities, with tragic

repercussions, fortunately halted in the 1970s, but is now

being revived pursuant to sections 223 and 901 of the Act,

and

WHEREAS, section 213 greatly lowers the threshold required

for a court to issue a search warrant, and

WHEREAS, section 216 nearly eliminates judicial supervision

of telephone and internet surveillance, and

WHEREAS, section 411 gives the U.S. Attorney General

extraordinarily broad authority to designate domestic groups

as ``terrorist organizations,'' and

WHEREAS, both sections 411 and 412 subject noncitizens to

indefinite detention or deportation even if they have not

committed a crime, and

WHEREAS, several sections of the bill, including 215, 218,

358, and 508, permit law enforcement authorities to have

broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business,

financial, and educational records despite the existence of

previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended

to strengthen the protection of these types of records, and

WHEREAS, there has been an especially strong outcry in

Vermont against the ability of federal authorities, under

section 215 of the Act, to obtain judicially-issued warrants

for library or bookstore patron records based on minimal

information, and the accompanying prohibition on librarians

and bookstore personnel from revealing any information

regarding the request, and

WHEREAS, this provision runs directly counter to the intent

of the Vermont General Assembly to protect the privacy of a

library patron's records as codified in Title 3

Sec. 317(c)(19) of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, and the

code of ethics of the American Library Association, and

Whereas, both the Fletcher Free Library Commission and the

Vermont Library Association have expressed their strongest

possible concerns that the U.S.A. Patriot Act undermines

constitutionally-guaranteed rights and the privacy of library

patrons, and

WHEREAS, Congressman Bernard Sanders has announced his

intention to sponsor legislation to exempt libraries and

booksellers from the disclosure requirements of the U.S.A.

Patriot Act, and

WHEREAS, a number of municipal legislative bodies,

including the Burlington City Council, have expressed their

deep concerns relative to the U.S.A. Patriot Act's historic

degradation of civil liberties, and

WHEREAS, the law gravely threatens the civic values,

personal freedoms, and rights that constitute the foundation

of our national existence, now therefore be it Resolved by

the Senate and House of Representatives: That the General

Assembly strongly urges the President and members of the

executive branch to review and revise executive orders and

policies which have been adopted since September 11, 2001,

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly strongly urges the

United States Congress to

revise the U.S.A. Patriot Act in order to restore and protect

our nation's fundamental civil liberties, and, in particular,

to enact Representative Sanders' proposal to exempt libraries

and bookstores from the provisions of the Act, and be it

further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests that the

office of the Vermont Attorney General offer legal support to

any public library which is subject to a federal suit or

administrative enforcement action for refusing to comply with

the provisions of the Act related to library patrons'

records, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a

copy of this resolution to the President of the United

States, to each member of the Vermont Congressional

Delegation, and to Keith M. Fiels, Executive Director of the

American Library Association, in Chicago.

There you have it. Those are the eight State government resolutions, but more than 400 total resolutions and ordinances have been passed, the rest by local, city, and county governments. In fact, on December 13, just 3 days before the first cloture vote on the conference report, the town of Coupeville, WA, became the 400th community or State to pass a resolution to reflect its citizens' concerns about the impact of the PATRIOT Act on constitutional rights. And since then four additional communities have passed resolutions, not to mention the California State resolution I just read.

Let me read a few of these county and city resolutions. I can do more later. Why don't we begin with the four passed in my State of Wisconsin.

Douglas County, this is one of the northern most counties in the State.

Resolution by the Douglas County Board of Supervisors, Subject U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, approved by Douglas County Board of Supervisors.

WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, recognizes the

Constitution of the United States of America to be the

supreme law of the land, which all public servants are sworn

to uphold, superceding all administrative rules, local

ordinances, state statutes and federal laws, and

WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, recognizes that the

Bill of Rights, as represented in Exhibit H-5-03, embodies

the rights of citizenship that have made the United States of

America the land of freedom for more than 200 years, and

WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, and the United States

have benefited greatly through the constitutional rights and

liberties afforded their diverse citizenry, in freedom of

speech and assembly, equality before the law and the

presumption of innocence, access to counsel and due process

in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable

searches and seizures, and

WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, affirms its strong

opposition to terrorism, and further affirms that any efforts

to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of our civil

rights and liberties, and

WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001

terrorist attack, in an effort to unite and strengthen

America, and to combat terrorism, Congress passed the USA

Patriot Act, and

WHEREAS, it has become apparent that the USA Patriot Act

weakens the constitutional protections for every United

States citizen as follows:

(1) First Amendment rights, which guarantee ``freedom of

religion, of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition

the government for a redress of grievances,'' are compromised

by USA Patriot Act, Sections 802 and 215;

(2) Fourth Amendment protections, which guarantee the

``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures,'' are compromised by USA Patriot Act Sections 203,

206, 213, and 218; and

(3) Fifth Amendment protections of due process and

attorney-client confidentiality are compromised.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Douglas County

Board of Supervisors expresses deep concern over any

compromise of constitutional freedoms which protect civil

rights and liberties for all people of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Douglas County Board of

Supervisors affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, but

also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism should not be

waged at the expense of fundamental civil rights and

liberties, and that a threat to one person's constitutional

rights is a threat to the rights of all.

BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Douglas County Board

of Supervisors requests that United States representatives

and senators closely monitor implementation of the USA

Patriot Act, as well as Executive Orders issued pursuant to

the Act, and actively work to repeal those Sections of the

USA Patriot Act that threaten the essential civil rights and

liberties of all Americans.

BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that any enhancement to the

USA Patriot Act, such as USA Patriot Act II (aka Domestic

Security Act of 2003), be forestalled until such time as

enhancements or changes are done in full view of American

citizens.

BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of

this resolution shall be provided to Governor James Doyle,

Senator Robert Jauch, Representative Frank Boyle, each

Wisconsin congressional delegate, United States Attorney

General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and

President George W. Bush.

Next, a resolution from the northwestern part of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, WI, a resolution of the City of Eau Claire, WI, approved by the Eau Claire City Council.

WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire and its citizens being

governed by the United States Constitution and the

Constitution of the State of Wisconsin; and

WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire acknowledges that both the

United States and Wisconsin Constitutions guarantee her

citizens freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble,

freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of

religion, freedom to petition the government for grievances

and protection of the rights of the accused; and

WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire is home to a diverse

population, including citizens of other nations, whose

contributions to the community are vital to its charter and

function; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eau Claire, while

a strong opponent of terrorism and a strong proponent for the

safety and security of its citizens, believes that efforts to

maintain and enhance public safety and security should not

infringe on the essential civil rights and liberties of the

people of Eau Claire; and

WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire recognizes and honors all

those who have served in the Armed Forces of the United

States of America, and has with gratitude for their supreme

sacrifice memorialized those in the Armed Forces who have

died in battle to secure and protect these same cherished

rights and liberties; and

WHEREAS, sections of the USA PATRIOT Act now threaten these

fundamental rights and liberties; and

WHEREAS, many citizens of Eau Claire, surrounding

communities, and other communities across the nation are

concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act threatens the civil rights

and liberties of citizens of the United States and other

nations by

so broadly defining ``domestic terrorism'' that any

citizens who use direct action to further their political

causes are vulnerable to prosecution as ``domestic

terrorists'' (Sec. 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act);

authorizing federal agents to conduct covert searches of a

person's home or office without notice of the execution of a

search warrant until after the search has been completed, in

some cases up to 90 days later (Sec. 213 of the USA PATRIOT

Act);

requiring the surrender of ``any tangible things (including

books, records, papers, documents and other items)'' and

without limits as to the parties from whom the seizure of the

above-mentioned tangible things can be required (Sec. 215 of

the USA PATRIOT Act);

authorizing the government to install tracking devices on

Internet Service Providers which are capable of

intercepting all forms of Internet activity, e-mail

messages, web page activity and Internet telephone

communications whether the client is targeted in an

investigation or not (Sec. 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act);

allowing searches to take place without probable cause of

criminal conduct (Sec 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act); and

authorizing the United States Attorney General to detain

indefinitely non-citizens on immigration violations and to

arrest material witnesses not charged with any crime (Sec 412

of the USA PATRIOT Act).

WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire recognizes that to date

some 236 cities, towns, counties and states in the United

States of America have passed resolutions, ordinances or

ballot initiatives protecting the civil liberties of their

residents;

Therefore, we the City Council of Eau Claire, Wisconsin,

acting in the spirit of liberty, and to preserve those

liberties guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United

States of America and the State of Wisconsin, do hereby

request that local, state, and federal law enforcement

continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech, religion,

assembly, and privacy;

1. Rights to counsel and due process in judicial

proceedings; and protection from unreasonable searches and

seizures, detentions and racial profiling;

2. The Wisconsin Congressional delegation actively work for

the repeal of those portions of the Act and its extensions,

including ``Patriot Act II'' and national security letters,

that violate the rights and liberties guaranteed by the

United States Constitution; and

3. The City Clerk communicate this resolution to all City

and County departments and employees, Wisconsin's

Congressional delegation, the Governor and Attorney General

of the State of Wisconsin, and the President and Attorney

General of the United States.

Now to the south-central part of the State, our State Capital, Madison, WI, a Resolution to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, approved by the Madison City Council.

WHEREAS, the City of Madison recognizes the Constitution of

the United States of America to be the supreme law of the

land, which all public servants are sworn to uphold,

superceding all administrative rules, local ordinances, state

statutes and federal laws;

WHEREAS, the City of Madison has a long and proud tradition

of upholding the free exercise and enjoyment of the

inalienable rights granted to all persons by the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the

United States of America;

WHEREAS, the City of Madison greatly benefits from the many

contributions of its highly diverse population, which

includes citizens from around the world, and is vital to our

city's unique character;

WHEREAS, the City of Madison affirms its strong opposition

to terrorism, but also affirms that any efforts to end

terrorism not be waged at the expense of essential civil

rights and liberties of the people of Madison, the United

States and the World;

WHEREAS, the provisions of the USA Patriot Act expands the

authority of the federal government to detain and investigate

citizens and non-citizens and engage in electronic

surveillance of citizens and non- citizens and threatens

civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States

Constitution;

WHEREAS, the City of Madison recognizes that such

infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of any

person, under the color of law, is an abuse of power, a

breach of the public trust, a misappropriation of public

resources, a violation of civil rights and is beyond the

scope of governmental authority;

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the City of Madison remains

firmly committed to the protection of civil rights and

civil liberties for all people. The City of Madison will

completely avoid discrimination in every function of city

government, and vigorously uphold the constitutionally

protected rights of all persons to peacefully protest and

express their political views without any form of

governmental interference.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Madison joins

communities across the nation in expressing concern that the

USA PATRIOT Act threatens civil rights and liberties

guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, and is the policy of the City of

Madison, to forbid in the absence of probable cause of

criminal activity:

1. Any initiation of, participation in, assistance or

cooperation with any inquiry, investigation, surveillance or

detention; and

2. The recording, filing and sharing of any intelligence

information concerning any person or organization, even if

authorized by federal law enforcement, acting under new

powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act or Executive Orders.

This includes collection and review of library lending and

research records, as well as book and video store sales and/

or rental records; and

3. The retention of intelligence information.

Information that is currently held shall be thoroughly and

carefully reviewed by the City Attorney or other appropriate

City official to be designated by the Mayor, for its legality

and appropriateness, using the United States and Wisconsin

Constitutions. Any information that was collected is

permanently disposed of if there is no probable cause of

criminal activity; and

4. Enforcement of immigration matters, which are entirely

the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service. No city service will be denied on the basis of

citizenship; and

5. Profiling based on race, ethnicity, citizenship,

religion, or political values.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that any state or federal law

enforcement agencies working within the City of Madison

comply with the policies and procedures of the Madison Police

Department, and regularly report to the Mayor the extent and

manner in which they have acted under the USA PATRIOT Act or

new Executive Orders. This includes the names of any

detainees held in the Madison area, or any Madison residents

detained elsewhere. The Mayor will then publicly report to

the Common Council.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk communicate

this resolution to all city departments, the Governor and

Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, the President and

Attorney General of the United States of America and to call

upon our congressional representatives to actively work to

repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.

IT IS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT, this Resolution shall be

severable if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of

this Resolution is declared by a court of competent

jurisdiction to be contrary to the Constitution of the United

States of America or the State of Wisconsin. If the

applicability thereof to any agency, person or circumstances

is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this

Resolution and applicability thereof to any other agency,

person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Finally, our largest city, Milwaukee, WI. Resolution

Affirming the Protection of Citizens' Civil Rights and Civil

Liberties. Approved by: Milwaukee City Council.

Whereas, The city of Milwaukee denounces terrorism and

acknowledges that Federal, state and local governments have a

responsibility to protect the public from terrorist attacks

and uphold:

1. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly and privacy,

2. The right to counsel and due process in judicial

proceedings, and

3. Protection from unreasonable searches, seizures and

detention; and

WHEREAS, the members of the Common Council believe that

there is no inherent conflict between national security and

the preservation of liberty--Americans can be both safe and

free; and

WHEREAS, Federal, state and local governments should

protect the public from terrorist attacks, such as those that

occurred on September 11, 2001, but should do so in a

rational and deliberative fashion in order to ensure that

security measures enhance the public safety without impairing

constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milwaukee is grateful for the supreme

sacrifice of military veterans and law enforcement officers

who have died in protecting this country's cherished rights

and liberties; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act on

October 26, 2001 with little debate, following the attacks on

the United States on September 11, 2001; and

WHEREAS, sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and several

Executive Orders, now threaten fundamental rights and

liberties, which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the

State of Wisconsin and the United States Constitution and its

Bill of Rights; the sections of the Act which threaten these

human rights and liberties include:

Section 213 which permits law enforcement to perform

searches with no one present and to delay notification of the

search of a citizen's home.

Section 215 which permits the FBI Director to seek records

from bookstores and libraries including books of patrons

based on minimal evidence of wrongdoing and prohibits

librarians and bookstore employees from disclosing the fact

that they have been ordered to produce such documents.

Section 218 which dilutes the ``probable cause''

requirement before conducting secret searches or surveillance

to obtain evidence of a crime.

Section 215, 218, 358, and 508 which permit law enforcement

authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health,

library, business, financial and educational records despite

the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws

which were intended to strengthen the protection of these

types of records; and

WHEREAS, the City of Milwaukee has a commitment to uphold

the human rights of all persons in Milwaukee and the free

exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges

secured by our constitutions and laws of the United States,

the State of Wisconsin and the Charter of the City of

Milwaukee; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee,

that the Common Council expresses its support of protection

of citizens' human rights and civil liberties and opposition

to those provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that threaten

those rights and liberties; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council recognizes the

crucial distinctions between:

Legal and peaceful demonstrations and protests, which are

protected by the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and laws.

Acts of protest involving civil disobedience of minor law

infractions such as disorderly conduct.

Acts of terrorism, which would involve serious threats or

violence, such as kidnapping or serious bodily injury to a

civilian population; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council affirms its

commitment to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and

therefore expresses its opposition to:

( a) investigation of individuals or groups of individuals

based on their participation in activities protected by the

First Amendment, such as political advocacy or the practice

of religion, without reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity, and

(b) racial, religious or ethnic profiling; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council calls upon

Wisconsin's federal legislators to monitor the implementation

of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal actions and to

actively work for the repeal of those sections of the USA

PATRIOT Act that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and

liberties as recognized in the U.S. Constitution; and, be

it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council urges Wisconsin's

federal legislators to support and co-sponsor the Security

and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003 (SAFE Act) and urges

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, chair of the House

Judiciary Committee, to schedule hearings on the SAFE Act;

and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee opposes any

unfunded federal mandates instructing local police to attempt

to enforce the complex civil immigration laws of the U.S. to

the detriment of their primary law enforcement duties, as

articulated by the Boston Police Commissioner: ``turning all

police officers into immigration agents . . . will discourage

immigrants from coming forward to report crimes and

suspicious activity, making our streets less safe as a

result''; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee remains

committed to the protection of civil rights and civil

liberties for all people and will uphold the constitutionally

protected rights of all people to peacefully express their

political views without governmental interference and that

officers of the Milwaukee Police Department be trained

consistent with the above principles; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council opposes requests

by federal authorities that, if granted, would cause agencies

of

the City of Milwaukee to exercise powers or cooperate in the

exercise of powers in violation of any city ordinance or the

laws or Constitution of the State of the United States; and,

be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That in order to assess the effect of

antiterrorism initiatives on the residents of the City of

Milwaukee, the Common Council calls upon federal officials to

make periodic reports, consistent with the Freedom of

Information Act; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee joins 43

million Americans, 250 communities in 37 states across the

nation and the National League of Cities as of February 24,

2004 in expressing concern that existing elements of the USA

PATRIOT Act threaten civil rights and liberties guaranteed

under the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. President, I shared with my colleagues the resolutions of all eight States in this country, all the way from Alaska to Maine, that express deep concerns about provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This was our opportunity to respond to the voices of those legislatures and the people of those States, to their heartfelt concerns about the degradation of their civil liberties. Many of these are not liberal States. Many of these are some of the reddest of the red States, to put it into common parlance, and they are some of the strongest States when it comes to the question of whether someone's library records or business records should be obtainable on no showing whatever-- whatever--that someone is connected either to terrorism or any kind of wrongdoing at all. That is American common sense, whether you are standing in Maine, Wisconsin, or Alaska.

I only shared 4 of the 400 resolutions from city councils and county governments that essentially say the same thing. But I did share four from all over my State of Wisconsin where I believe the sentiment is strong that there simply is no reason why we cannot get the balance right, why we can't always err on the side of more government power, where the feeling is that somehow we are capable in this Congress and in this Government and in this country of getting the terrorists and stopping the terrorists, but also protecting the fundamental rights on which this country is founded.

It is not just my words. I happen to have been the only person to vote against the original USA PATRIOT Act in this Senate. But what I have begun to share is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of governmental units across this country have passed resolutions by the elected representatives in those communities or in those States, saying, wait, there are problems with the USA PATRIOT Act and they must be fixed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Senator from Vermont, under the parliamentary situation, is entitled to time?

Mr. President, I will speak for a while. It is my intent to then yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

The Senate is going to soon vote to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. I am one of the authors of the original 2001 PATRIOT Act. I voted to reauthorize an improved version of the act back in July of 2005.

Obviously, I am concerned, as all Americans are, with our security. I am concerned, as is the distinguished Presiding Officer and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, as one who goes to work every day, along with thousands of others, in a building that was targeted for destruction by al-Qaida. So I am glad we are making progress. However, I have to admit to being disappointed at the missed opportunity to get it right.

The PATRIOT Act provides important and valuable tools for the protection of Americans from terrorism. These matters should be governed by law, not by whim.

Legislative action should be the clear and unambiguous legal footing for any Government powers. Former Congressman Armey, Dick Armey, the Republican leader of the House, and I insisted that sunset provisions be included in the 2001 act. Because we did that, we ended up with reconsideration and some refinement of the powers authorized in that measure.

Now the challenge of Congress is to provide the effective oversight needed

in the days ahead and to ensure that there is court review of the actions that affect the rights of Americans.

The bill contains several sunshine provisions that I proposed. I did that to ensure we would have oversight and to ensure some measure of public accountability for how our Government uses its powers.

For the first time ever, the Justice Department is going to be required to report publicly on its use of two secret surveillance tools that have come under fire from civil libertarians but also from the business community. These are the FISA business record authority and the so-called national security letters, or NSLs. The Justice Department has been declassifying this information sporadically, when politically convenient. It could offer no plausible justification for keeping the information classified, especially when comparable data regarding more sensitive surveillance techniques such as wiretapping and physical searches is routinely disclosed.

The conference between the two bodies accepted my proposal that these powers be subject to detailed, comprehensive, and unclassified audits by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. Specifically, the OIG will audit the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of the FISA business record and NSL authorities during the last several years and going forward.

In performing these audits, the OIG will examine the categories of records obtained, the importance of the information required, the manner in which it is retained and disseminated, and whether the information is used for data mining purposes. The NSL audit will be followed by a report on the feasibility of applying minimization procedures in the context of NSLs to ensure the protection of the constitutional rights of United States persons.

I have tried to describe it accurately. I realize that sounds like a bureaucratic computer wrote it. I want to be very specific because this administration sometimes does not pay attention to specific items. What we do not want is any agency of our Government feeling they can simply go and use these demands for records to go on a fishing expedition or find somebody they do not like and say: Let's just grab all their records. Let's go through all their records. Let's follow up on these records and see if there is something else we want--and just do that on and on with somebody who has no recourse, no ability to speak out. Their businesses might be ruined, their lives might be ruined, and it turns out: Whoops, sorry, we made a mistake. We are going on to somebody else. We saw after 9/11 when that happened. We saw businesses ruined, ranging from restaurants to other kinds of businesses, where: Whoops, sorry, we got the wrong person. Too bad you had no real ability to question what we were doing.

I proposed another sunshine provision. I am glad the conference accepted it. It comes from a bill I introduced in the last Congress with Senators Specter and Grassley. It requires the FISA Court to publish its procedures and share their rules in an unclassified report. Also, it requires annual reporting of the use of so-called sneak-and- peek search warrants and FISA's emergency surveillance authorities.

Again, we give very special powers to our Government, recognizing the fact that, as long as the distinguished Presiding Officer lives, as long as I live, we will face these kinds of threats. But we want to make sure the powers we give do not become powers just unto themselves where none of us know where the check or the balance is.

The bill includes a scaled-back version of a data-mining provision that was added by a floor amendment in the House.

Most of us use e-mails. We often send medical information on ourselves, our children, our families. Maybe if you are in a business you send information you want held so you can have a competitive advantage over your competitor. A lot of that can be picked up in data- mining operations.

As contained in the current bill, the provision calls for a one-time report on pattern-based data mining by the Department of Justice. What is that expression, pattern-based data mining? They develop models based on expected behavior or profiles of criminal or terrorist activity, then they mine databases of personal information to try to identify those patterns.

It is sort of the Kevin Bacon ``six degrees of separation,'' except we assume they are not going after Kevin Bacon. It does raise concerns about profiling and individual privacy. There is a concern that if you happen to be in a restaurant somebody frequented, you are now going to be under surveillance.

Now, in addition to the sunshine provisions, I proposed we retain the sunset mechanism that worked so well in the original PATRIOT Act. Sometimes both sunshine and sunset work well together. As I said, Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I insisted, in 2001, on a 4-year sunset for certain PATRIOT Act powers. If we had not done that, we would not even be having this debate today. We would not have even looked at what happened, especially with a Congress reluctant to do oversight, a Congress unwilling to question anything this administration does.

They were forced, actually, to ask questions about what is happening under the PATRIOT Act because a conservative Member of the House--Dick Armey--and a liberal Senator--myself--put in the sunset provisions so we would be forced to look at it no matter who was President, no matter who controlled the House, no matter who controlled the Senate. And thank goodness we did because if we had not done that, I guarantee you, this Congress never would have asked a question of anybody. If we had not had that, the Bush administration would have stonewalled our request for information, just as they have on so many other things.

The sunsets are the reasons we have been going through a review and renewal process over the last few months. And the improvements were hard won. The Bush administration pursued its usual strategy of demanding sweeping Executive powers, resisting checks and balances. They were long on partisan rhetoric and awfully short on bipartisan dialog. As usual, the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate did their utmost to follow the White House's directives to prevent any sudden breakout of bipartisanship. But a ray of bipartisanship slipped through the cracks, and the bill is the better for it.

It contains 4-year sunsets, not 7- or 10-year sunsets like the administration wanted. The bill no longer contains a provision that would have made it a crime merely to disclose the receipt of a national security letter. Somebody hands you a national security letter and demands documents and it's a crime if you tell anybody about it. ``Wait a minute, you just closed down my business. I can't comply with this.'' ``Tough. You can't tell anybody. You can't tell your wife. You can't tell the people who work for you.'' This is America. We finally did away with that, even though the administration strongly wanted that kind of control.

They even wanted Americans, if they were served with a national security letter and dared to seek legal advice, they had to go humbly to the FBI first and tell them they were actually going to get a lawyer--in America--to find out why they were being subpoenaed. Now, I know they like control in this administration. That went too far. So we no longer require American citizens to tell the FBI before they exercise their right as Americans to seek the advice of counsel. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When the sunlight came in on this bill, some of these things fell.

Chairman Specter and I worked together on these improvements, and our efforts have produced a better bill for the protection of all Americans. In this regard, I also compliment the Senate Democratic conferees, whose efforts were extraordinary. Whether they vote for or against the final product, Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Kennedy all deserve the thanks of the Senate and the American people for their hard work and steadfastness.

Late changes were achieved by Republican Senators who had joined us in resisting the conference report in December.

When terrorists strike, they do not ask whether you are Democrats or Republicans or Independents. If they want to strike Americans, they strike Americans. They do not ask what your politics are. And all Americans--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--want to stop terrorists. All Americans

oppose what they have done. So, therefore, it was regrettable that this administration--with a President who was elected on a solemn campaign pledge to be a uniter and not a divider--refused to engage both Democrats and Republicans on ways to improve the bill. They spoke to only one party, as though only one party cared about America being safe. The White House Counsel spoke to only Republican Senators. So they, in turn, negotiated to achieve what they view as improvements and what they could. It is, of course, less than what we would have liked, but I appreciate the fact they did what they could insofar as they were dealing with an administration that did not want to treat the safety of Americans in a bipartisan way.

But, therefore, the bill still falls short in several critical regards.

Let's talk about section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the business records provision that has been so important to the libraries. Under section 215, the Government can obtain a secret order that compels access to sensitive records of American citizens. It also imposes a permanent gag on the recipient. In other words, I grabbed your records. Don't you dare tell anyone. This is America. This is America. We have had Presidents condemn other countries--and rightly so--for doing this sort of thing to their citizens, and we want to do it to our own?

Before passage of the PATRIOT Act, there were two significant limitations on the FBI's power to seize business records. First, it could be used only for a few discrete categories of travel records, such as records held by hotels, motels, vehicle rental facilities. Second, the legal standard for obtaining the order was demanding. The Government had to present specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the subject of the investigation was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Passed in the weeks following 9/11, the PATRIOT Act did away with these limitations. It both expanded what the FBI may obtain with a Section 215 order and it lowered the standard for obtaining it. Under current law, the Government need only assert that something--anything-- is sought for an authorized investigation to protect against terrorism or espionage, and the judge will order its production. What counts as an authorized investigation is within the discretion of the Executive branch.

Now, the Senate--and I compliment those Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who got together on the reauthorization bill that we passed last July--the Senate reestablished a significant check on this power. Under the Senate bill, relevance to an authorized investigation is not enough. The Government must also show some connection between the records sought and a suspected terrorist or spy. This is a fundamental protection that would not hamstring the Government, but would do much to prevent overreaching in Government surveillance. I fought for it in the Senate. Chairman Specter and every Republican Senator voted for it. Then the Bush administration found out about that. It ordered the Republican Members of Congress to strip it out in conference, and these independent bodies--this check and balance--said: Aye, aye, sir, and stripped it out.

The current bill also falls short on its treatment of national security letters. These are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. Again, my God, they love doing things in secret. They love doing things in secret, and they tell us afterwards: Trust us. I seem to have read something recently in the press about an agreement to have another country run the operations of our ports. They said, after failing to consult Congress, trust us. We secretly looked at Dubai. We secretly looked at this, and we understand that money for the hijackers went through that country, but we have secretly looked at it and it is a good idea. Don't ask us any questions.

Well, now they have this form of secret administrative subpoena. They are issued by FBI agents without the approval of a judge or a grand jury or a prosecutor. They allow agents to obtain certain types of sensitive information about innocent Americans simply by certifying its relevance to a terrorism or espionage investigation. If the FBI agent does not like your looks, they can just come in with this secret subpoena and seize your records. Your business can be shut down on the whim of one agent--no judge, no grand jury, no prosecutor, no check and balance. And oh, by the way, we will do it secretly. Like section 215 orders, NSLs come with a permanent gag. Recipients are prohibited from telling anyone anything about it.

The bill does not allow meaningful judicial review of this gag order. It requires the court to accept as conclusive the Government's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the Government is acting in bad faith. This raises serious First Amendment and due process concerns. Fixing this provision was one of my top priorities in the conference and during my subsequent discussions with Senator Specter. The Bush administration's refusal to agree to this change was a significant factor in my consistent opposition to the conference report in December. And there is strong opposition to this provision from both Democrats and Republicans from the right to the left. But the administration refused to correct it. They also refused, as an alternative, to sunset the national security letter authority.

I continued to seek remediation of this provision in January and February through discussions with Senator Sununu and Senator Specter, but they were unable to achieve that result. This creates, in my view, a sham judicial proceeding within the complete control of the Government that smacks too much of a police state. It is wrong. It needs to be fixed.

I wish Americans would think: What are we giving up with the idea we might be a little more secure? Wouldn't it be a lot better to fix the mistakes that were made by the administration that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, to go back and find out where those mistakes were made and fix them? Wouldn't it be better to finally, years later, start actually being able to translate all the information we have picked up--something we did not do before 9/11 and today we still do not do it anywhere near enough?

Wouldn't it have been better to have done that than to say to Americans, most of whom would be law-abiding: We are going to give you this letter--which just one person decides on--and we will seize your records. You can't talk to anybody about it, and there's really nothing you can do about that. You have no real judicial way of overturning the gag order.

If we heard of other countries doing this, we would be critical and rightly so. If the Chinese did this, we would criticize them and rightly so. If the old Soviet Union did this, we would have criticized them and rightly so. Please, do not let our country go down that road. We are too good a people. We are too honest a people.

The bill's treatment of the PATRIOT Act's so-called sneak-and-peek provisions is another area of concern. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act authorized the Government to carry out secret searches in ordinary criminal investigations. Armed with a Section 213 search warrant, FBI agents may enter and search a home or office and not tell anyone about it until weeks or months later.

It is interesting to recall that four years ago, the House Judiciary Committee took one look at the Bush administration's original proposal for sneak and peak authority and dropped it entirely from its version of the legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was able to make some improvements in the administration's proposal, but problems remained. In particular, Section 213 says that notice may be delayed only for ``a reasonable period.'' The Bush administration has abused that flexible standard and used it to justify delays in notice of a year or more. Pre-PATRIOT Act case law stated that the appropriate period of delay was no more than seven days.

The Senate voted to replace the ``reasonable period'' standard, which the Bush administration has been abusing, with a basic 7-day rule, while permitting the Government to obtain additional 90-day extensions of the delay from the court. The current bill sets a 30-day rule for the initial delay, more than three times what the Senate, and

pre-PATRIOT Act courts, deemed appropriate. The shorter period would better protect Fourth Amendment rights without in any way impeding legitimate government investigations. The availability of additional 90-day extensions means that a shorter initial time frame should not be a hardship on the Government. But our improvement has been rejected in favor of too much Government power.

The current bill is also loaded with extraneous provisions that have nothing to do with the expiring PATRIOT Act authorities or even with terrorism. The bill modifies habeas corpus law--the great writ--a highly controversial provision that is wholly improper to consider in this context. I doubt it would ever pass, if it were put to a straight up-or-down vote. But slip it in the bill and say: It is for national security. Give up your rights, Americans. It is for national security.

Many times people in this Chamber talk about Benjamin Franklin, and we think back to that time. Here is a man involved in the revolution against King George. Had he failed, he would have been hanged. Most of those around him would have been hanged. But when he has now become the Government and his friends have become the Government, replacing King George, he wanted to make sure to protect the people from the Government. As he said, those who would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.

Habeas corpus, the one thing that every one of us can count on, the great writ, the thing that sets us apart from virtually every other country and the thing that protects us so much, was changed because a small number of Republican conferees wanted to change it. They did not want to bring it on the floor of the Senate or the House and vote on it up or down. It has nothing do to do with terrorism or even the more general tools of Federal law enforcement. It was almost a whim, let's take away these rights.

These changes were not included in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill of either the House or the Senate, but mysteriously, here it is, slipped in.

I recall that part in ``A Man for All Seasons'' where Sir Thomas More's protege William Roper is basically saying, the end justifies the means, and Sir Thomas More spoke of the law as something there to protect us. He said, and I am paraphrasing: All of England is planted thick with laws. And his protege said, in effect, he would cut down all those laws, if need be, to get at the devil. And Thomas More said: And what will protect you then, with all the laws cut down? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

I wonder if we are not doing that, especially with the sneaky way this was done. That is the only way I can describe it, sneaky. The administration said: Kick the Democratic conferees out. And the independent bodies, the House and the Senate, said: Aye-aye, sir. It violates our rules, but, yes, sir, if you want that for the White House. And then they slipped it in. Neither body's Judiciary Committee approved it. Incidentally, the U.S. Judicial Conference, at that time headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, made up of some of the most conservative judges in the country, strongly opposed doing this.

Another extraneous provision of the bill will revive a small group of pending death penalty prosecutions for aircraft hijacking murders committed in the 1970s and 1980s. It is designed to overrule the district court decision in United States v. Safarini, which struck the death penalty for a 1986 hijacking offense on the grounds that the Federal Death Penalty Procedures Act of 1994 could not be retroactively applied to a pre-1994 crime, absent clear congressional intent to do so.

To my knowledge, Congress has never enacted death penalty legislation intended to allow the execution of a tiny number of known offenders for crimes they are alleged to have committed from one to three decades previously. Whether the Government can ultimately persuade the courts that this does not violate the letter of the ex post facto and bill of attainder clauses of the Constitution, it certainly violates their spirit. It is telling that the Department of Justice, in its testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, strongly recommended adding in a severability clause, in case this provision was ultimately held invalid by a court of law. I share the Department's skepticism regarding the constitutionality of this wrongheaded provision, and deeply regret its inclusion in the conference report.

To sum up, the bill presents a complex mixture of valuable provisions which I support and would vote for if they were individually here, significant improvements on the one hand but so many serious flaws and missed opportunities on the other. I think the final product would have been better if Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, both bodies had been allowed to work as Members of Congress, as representatives of the people instead of as puppets of the most secretive administration of the six administrations with which I have served. The Bush administration insisted on locking Democrats out of the negotiations. They did that, first, in connection with the conference and, again, after the Senate would not proceed to pass the conference report last December. When I and others tried to have conversations with the White House to improve the bill, our efforts were dismissed. Basically, they took the attitude, as long as they can get the votes they needed on the Republican side of the aisle, there is no purpose in any bipartisan effort. What a mistake.

This is a bill that has both virtues and vices. I respect those who conclude that on balance the bill's virtues outweigh its vices. And if they conclude that, then vote for it. But I believe we can and should do better. I believe America can do better. I will continue to work to improve the PATRIOT Act. I will work to provide better oversight of the use of national security letters. I will work to remove what is a gross, un-American restraint on meaningful judicial review, the sort of thing that Presidents of both parties have strongly condemned when done by other countries. I hate to see our country do it.

I will seek to monitor how sensitive personal information that they are now allowed to seize from medical files, gun stores, and libraries is obtained and used. Today, I will join Senators Specter, Sununu, Craig, and others in introducing a bill to improve the PATRIOT Act and reauthorization legislation in several important respects. While we have made some progress, much is left to be done.

Let me be very clear about this. There are good parts of this bill, but there are also serious bad parts. The serious bad parts are worse if you have an administration that does not believe in checks and balances and prefers to do everything in secret. We now see the administration seeking to twist the Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida into a justification for its secret, illegal wiretapping of Americans' emails and telephone calls. We see the administration claiming that it need not fulfill its constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and that it can pick and choose among the laws it will recognize. And we see an administration that continues to attack anyone that gets in their way and insists on the rule of law.

Confronted with the administration's claims of unchecked power, I do not believe that the restraints we have been able to include in this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act are sufficient. I will continue to work to provide the tools that we need to protect the American people. I trust that Vermonters will understand that while I have repeatedly voted to extend and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, this measure, this time, falls short of what they deserve. So I won't support it in its current form. I will continue to work to provide the oversight of checks needed on the use of Government power and seek to improve this reauthorization legislation. I know the Senate will adopt it, but it is a pale shadow of what it could be. It is not the best that the greatest democracy on Earth deserves. I will fight for the best, but I will not vote for second best.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

I thank the Chair, my good friend.

I yield all but 15 minutes of that time to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.

I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and questions.

The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.

My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.

For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.

Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.

The political and substantive utility of this system, full of pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.

Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the Electoral College.

My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a way that eliminates undue consequences.

I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that through the Senate hearing process.

There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States large and small about protecting their interests.

The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local ``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national presidential election.

This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.

Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the President than southern states. And States that independently extended rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.

The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.

Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a ``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the Presidency.

Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.

Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American public.

Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 votes.

The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would have been returned to the White House.

And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.

And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the Democrat to

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.

According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of victory runs into the millions.

Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College System.

History shows that electors have not been faithful to the presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when electoral votes are formally counted.

Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.

These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of the people.

The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.

In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the White House.

In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an unfortunate outcome?

This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College system.

Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported the concept.

A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.

I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building blocks of our democracy.

Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate influence in the process compared to California.

I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. Their votes will count for something.

In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.

Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not benefit from a direct popular election in California.

But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential candidates in my home State.

As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.

I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral landscape.

At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of American voters, who represent different economic and social backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority of votes in presidential races.

I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person lives in the country, should be counted equally.

Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College Abolition Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to

introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to

introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

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