Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 1235, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This legislation passed the House unanimously on Monday, and I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same.

S. 1235 contains many important provisions, but I would like to focus my remarks on section 101 of the bill, which deals with adaptive housing grants. Section 101 upgrades eligibility criteria for housing assistance grants to better reflect the needs of today's veteran community and will help all disabled veterans move home from medical facilities sooner. The language in section 101 is almost identical to my bipartisan legislation, S. 1947, The Specially Adapted Housing Improvements Grants Act and a bi-partisan amendment I introduced to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act, which passed the Senate unanimously by voice vote.

First, I want to acknowledge my House colleague, Representative John Boozman of Arkansas, who serves as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and has demonstrated real leadership on this issue. I am grateful to him for his considerable efforts to advance this measure in the House and I am happy to do so here in this Chamber. I also appreciate the hard work of the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here in the Senate, Senator Craig, and the bipartisan group of Senators who cosponsored both my bill and amendment. The broad support of S. 1235 and its provisions represent a bipartisan belief on Capitol Hill that Congress must constantly evaluate veterans programs to make certain that our Nation provides responsive support to veterans.

While representing New Hampshire in the House and Senate, I have worked to ensure that those who served in our armed services receive their hard-earned benefits quickly and in full. Too often, out-of-date and burdensome regulations deny qualified veterans from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Whenever possible, it is imperative that we remove red tape that does not take into account the realities faced by today's veterans.

That is why I introduced legislation to reform rules that determine requirements for a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, grant program that helps many disabled veterans make their

homes suitable for occupancy. Currently, a disabled veteran must at least partly own his or her residence to receive VA housing assistance grants to perform necessary residence modifications, such as installing wheelchair ramps or railings. However, many younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet had the opportunity to become homeowners. Being ineligible for VA funding assistance to modify their homes, these veterans and their families often are compelled to either shoulder the costs of retrofitting their residences or face extended stays in VA medical facilities.

Section 101 of S. 1235 will establish a 5-year pilot program to allow severely disabled veterans who live temporarily with family to receive up to $10,000 in adaptive housing assistance; less severely disabled veterans could receive a maximum of $2,000. This grant money will help ensure that all disabled veterans--regardless of whether they own property--are able to leave hospitals and return home as quickly as possible.

Also, mindful that these individuals will likely purchase their own residence, the bill will allow disabled veterans to receive two additional specially adaptive housing grants to be used for homes that they own in the future. Severely disabled veterans could receive a total of $50,000 to modify residences; less severely disabled veterans would be eligible for a total of $10,000. Only one of the three total grants could be used for a temporary residence, such as a family-owned home.

America's veterans have made enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation and the ideals for which it stands. Our country owes a special obligation to those men and women who have become disabled as a result of their service. Under no circumstances should these American heroes be divided into groups of ``haves'' and ``have nots.''

This Nation must do no less than to ensure that all disabled veterans are returned to the normalcy of home life as quickly and comfortably as possible. The common sense changes put forth in section 101 of S. 1235 do just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to send this bill to President Bush to sign in to law in time, fittingly, for Memorial Day.

Mr. President, I wish to speak to the legislation before us and in particular to address some of the remarks that were made earlier by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. He raised concerns about the State of New Hampshire and suggested that this legislation would be bad for the State of New Hampshire and that the State of New Hampshire had already enacted legislation identical to this. I think it is wrong for someone to provide information that is not entirely accurate. I think that is inaccurate, and it is not inaccurate in some very key areas.

First, the bands that were discussed that were enacted in the State of New Hampshire were much smaller than the rating bands contemplated in this legislation, and they did it in New Hampshire without any transition period. Those are two very significant, specific differences between this legislation and what was attempted in New Hampshire.

Second, as with any legislation, it cuts both ways. There were some employers that saw increases in their premiums 2 and 3 years ago that some claimed were a result of the legislation in New Hampshire, but many businesses--in fact, the NFIB would suggest the majority of businesses--in New Hampshire saw some great relief because they are the smaller businesses that we are talking about, those who would be allowed to improve their negotiating position through the provisions in this bill. Moreover, this isn't a debate about one State. This is a debate about providing increased access--increased access--to plans that are negotiated by associations, by the members of small businesses and, as a result, negotiating lower prices.

Finally, there was discussion about community rating and how objectionable it is that there will be an ability to differentiate on price based on a number of factors. I think the truth is, when you force that kind of price control, you force adverse selection because if I tell you that you have to charge the exact same price to anyone, no matter what region, circumstance, or situation, then the insurer will automatically market to the healthiest people because they won't want to take on the additional costs associated with those who might have significant needs that result in higher prices.

So if you go to price control, which is exactly what the other side is suggesting, forcing the same price for everyone no matter who is covered, businesses will naturally--naturally--only market to those who are healthy and, as a result, reduce the accessibility and availability of health insurance to those who might need it most.

It is a dramatic, unintended consequence, and that is the exact outcome that will be the result of the policies that are being suggested by the other side. We need to be accurate in what we represent. This is a good bill for small business and, as a result, it is an excellent bill for New Hampshire because in New Hampshire, small businesses make up over 95% of all firm with employees. If we want to do something about the uninsured, the majority of whom are working as self-employed or for small businesses, we need to take up the exact kind of provisions that are in this bill: Increased access of health insurance for those working in the smallest firms.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on legislation I introduced yesterday, the Small Public Housing Authorities Paperwork Reduction Act. This legislation is an important step toward alleviating some of the burden placed on our Nation's smallest public housing authorities. PHAs play an important role in meeting the housing needs of the Nation's low-income individuals, families, seniors, and the disabled. Unfortunately, they face a challenge when balancing the housing needs of those they serve with the, oftentimes, consuming and duplicative reporting requirements placed upon them. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to address just one annual report that will free up a significant amount of time and resources, allowing housing authorities to focus more attention on the individuals they serve.

Specifically, this legislation would exempt PHAs with 500 or fewer public housing units and any number of section 8 vouchers from the requirement of submitting an annual plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 1992 Public Housing Reform Act required PHAs to submit separate 5-year and annual plans to HUD. The redundancy of the annual plan process creates an undue burden for small PHAs by requiring them to provide identical information to HUD every 12 months. For example, an annual plan outlines a PHA's goals, policies, eligibility guidelines, and other information that is unlikely to change from year to year. Under this bill, small PHAs would only be required to submit their 5-year plan--a more appropriate timeline for reevaluating their goals and policies--to better allow them to use scarce human and financial resources to directly serve the needs of their communities. Additionally, this bill would only exempt those PHAs that have demonstrated compliance with HUD regulations. PHAs that have been designated by HUD as troubled would not be exempted from the annual plan.

It is also important to note that PHAs would still be required to conduct an annual meeting in which residents and community members are included in the planning and development of a housing authority's objectives and priorities. My legislation makes certain that residents have an opportunity to comment on any changes to the goals, objectives, and policies of the agency. Housing authorities are also required to notify tenants of any proposed changes at least 45 days before the public hearing occurs. The annual public meeting, in combination with State and local public meeting requirements, will continue to ensure that any changes made to a PHA's policies are well vetted, with particular attention paid to resident concerns.

PHA directors in my State and across the country contend that this legislation is a significant step toward reducing the excessive paperwork and reporting requirements that burden their agencies. I agree, that by mitigating some of this burden, we will allow PHAs to focus more time and energy for their mission-driven service to their housing residents. Not all PHAs have the time, staff, or resources available to complete these annual plans. Some PHAs have had to hire outside consultants to complete the plans, a costly expense for these agencies. Given the fiscal constraints PHAs are facing, it is more important now than ever to give housing authorities the flexibility needed to work within these budget constraints. This legislation is one simple way Congress can assist in providing needed relief to PHAs.

My colleague, Congressman Randy Neugebauer, has introduced similar legislation which passed in the House of Representatives on December 13, 2005, by a vote of 387 to 2. The overwhelming support in the House for such an initiative makes very clear the need for this type of relief. I am hopeful my colleagues in the Senate will also see the value of providing paperwork reduction for those agencies that have demonstrated their ability to comply with current regulations.

Finally, I am pleased to have the support of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority and local agencies across my State in this effort. New Hampshire's PHAs continue to do an exceptional job of providing for the housing needs of those who need it most. State and local housing agencies perform an invaluable community function by securing housing for families and individuals in need. I remain committed to working further with them throughout this legislative process and to reducing unnecessary federal regulatory burdens for housing.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize an important milestone for an institution in the Middle East that brings American- style education to the region.

This academic year, the American Community School at Beirut celebrates 100 years of providing quality education in Lebanon. Founded in 1905 by a group of American missionary families living in the country, and supported by the American University of Beirut and Aramco, ACS was the first American K-12 school to open in Lebanon. An independent, nonprofit, co-educational institution chartered in the State of New York, about 1,000 students are now enrolled at the school.

ACS aims to provide an American education for Lebanese and international families. Similar to many schools in the United States, the school's mission clearly states that it: `` . . . seeks to educate the whole person and to lay the foundations for life-long learning . . . Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their thoughts, words and actions, to act with honor and purpose, and to make a difference in our diverse, complex global society. . . .'' The school's alumni have distinguished themselves in a range of fields, including serving the United States government and in Lebanese-American relations.

ACS, which appreciates the support of Congress through U.S. Agency for International Development and ASHA grants, starts a new century with a legacy of academic excellence, committed educators, and a dedicated community. I congratulate the school on this impressive achievement, and extend my best wishes for its next 100 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, which will designate approximately 34,500 acres of forest land in the State of New Hampshire as wilderness. Our bill, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, will enact the recommended wilderness designations as set forth in the Forest Service Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest.

Established under the Weeks Act of 1911, the White Mountain National Forest consists of nearly 800,000 acres--732,000 acres in the State of New Hampshire and 65,000 acres more in Maine. Over 6 million people visit the White Mountain National Forest annually, making it one of the most popular National Forests in the Nation.

In November of 2005, the Forest Service recommended the designation of additional acreage as wilderness in its management plan for the White Mountain National Forest. The bill that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, incorporates the recommendations of this management plan by designating some 23,700 acres in the area of the Wild River as wilderness, and adding another 10,800 acres to the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. This land would remain as White Mountain National Forest land under the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by our New Hampshire colleagues, Representative Charles Bass and Representative Jeb Bradley.

With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress set out to permanently preserve areas of natural beauty for the public to enjoy; areas ``where the earth and its community of life are

untrammeled by man.'' New Hampshire was one of the original States in 1964 to have wilderness designated with the establishment of the Great Gulf Wilderness, and it reflects the view in our State that Granite Staters place a premium on safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. In New Hampshire, we presently have four wilderness areas comprising more than 102,800 acres; and with the passage of this bill, we will expand one current wilderness area and create a fifth.

In New Hampshire, we have a tradition of multiple use for the consideration of our forest lands. In the White Mountain National Forest, it is generally understood that decisions affecting the forest are vetted thoroughly and that consensus is the guideline by which policies are implemented. Indeed, the development of the White Mountain National Forest Management Plan is one of the few times in the last 30 years that the final decision on how a particular National Forest will be managed over the next 15 years was not subject to an administrative appeal by concerned citizens.

As my colleagues know, wilderness areas consist of Federal lands that are permanently reserved from such activities as mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction. By law, the establishment of new wilderness must be approved by Congress. That presents a unique responsibility on the part of lawmakers to reflect the views of community leaders, residents, visitors and other interested parties in designating wilderness. Given the consensus approach they undertook in their decision-making process for the White Mountain National Forest, we chose to pattern our legislation on the recommendations set forth by the Forest Service.

One need only experience the beauty of the White Mountain National Forest once to understand the need to preserve it for future generations. The Forest Service has done an admirable job in putting together a Forest Management Plan that all can support. I am pleased to introduce this measure with Senator Gregg, and I encourage my colleagues to give quick consideration to our legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, which will designate approximately 34,500 acres of forest land in the State of New Hampshire as wilderness. Our bill, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, will enact the recommended wilderness designations as set forth in the Forest Service Management Plan for the White Mountain National Forest.

Established under the Weeks Act of 1911, the White Mountain National Forest consists of nearly 800,000 acres--732,000 acres in the State of New Hampshire and 65,000 acres more in Maine. Over 6 million people visit the White Mountain National Forest annually, making it one of the most popular National Forests in the Nation.

In November of 2005, the Forest Service recommended the designation of additional acreage as wilderness in its management plan for the White Mountain National Forest. The bill that Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006, incorporates the recommendations of this management plan by designating some 23,700 acres in the area of the Wild River as wilderness, and adding another 10,800 acres to the existing Sandwich Range Wilderness. This land would remain as White Mountain National Forest land under the protection of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by our New Hampshire colleagues, Representative Charles Bass and Representative Jeb Bradley.

With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, Congress set out to permanently preserve areas of natural beauty for the public to enjoy; areas ``where the earth and its community of life are

untrammeled by man.'' New Hampshire was one of the original States in 1964 to have wilderness designated with the establishment of the Great Gulf Wilderness, and it reflects the view in our State that Granite Staters place a premium on safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. In New Hampshire, we presently have four wilderness areas comprising more than 102,800 acres; and with the passage of this bill, we will expand one current wilderness area and create a fifth.

In New Hampshire, we have a tradition of multiple use for the consideration of our forest lands. In the White Mountain National Forest, it is generally understood that decisions affecting the forest are vetted thoroughly and that consensus is the guideline by which policies are implemented. Indeed, the development of the White Mountain National Forest Management Plan is one of the few times in the last 30 years that the final decision on how a particular National Forest will be managed over the next 15 years was not subject to an administrative appeal by concerned citizens.

As my colleagues know, wilderness areas consist of Federal lands that are permanently reserved from such activities as mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction. By law, the establishment of new wilderness must be approved by Congress. That presents a unique responsibility on the part of lawmakers to reflect the views of community leaders, residents, visitors and other interested parties in designating wilderness. Given the consensus approach they undertook in their decision-making process for the White Mountain National Forest, we chose to pattern our legislation on the recommendations set forth by the Forest Service.

One need only experience the beauty of the White Mountain National Forest once to understand the need to preserve it for future generations. The Forest Service has done an admirable job in putting together a Forest Management Plan that all can support. I am pleased to introduce this measure with Senator Gregg, and I encourage my colleagues to give quick consideration to our legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The senior Senator from New Hampshire I think has laid out a very strong case for why this amendment fails to enact the kind of basic fiscal restraint, basic fiscal responsibility that is essential--

essential in this particular time and place in our country's history, but I think essential at any time exercising that financial responsibility on the behalf of the taxpayers.

I wish to talk, though, about the broad failings of this amendment, and I am concerned that we are going to see similar failings in amendment after amendment offered in this debate. This amendment fails on a number of counts.

First, to pick up on the point that was made by the committee chairman, there is a complete failure to recognize the additional funds and resources that are already part of this budget, the additional funds in the education account that have been made available for vocational education, for TRIO, for Perkins, depending on what the priorities and desires and goals of the committees of jurisdiction are.

By offering this amendment, the suggestion is that those resources mean absolutely nothing in this debate, that we cannot possibly get the job done with the allowances made in those areas, and I think that suggests either a lack of leadership within the Congress or the Senate on those particular areas, a lack of confidence in the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, or a lack of homework being done to understand how much has been made available in the last several years and what resources are actually available.

Second, this amendment carries with it a suggestion that under no circumstances should any program in the education accounts ever be eliminated or redirected to better use those resources elsewhere. I think anyone outside of Washington who hears that statement--that no program should ever be eliminated, no funds should ever be redirected-- would think that cannot possibly be so; people within Washington, within the beltway, within the Senate cannot possibly think in those terms. But, unfortunately, this amendment makes plain they do think in those terms and, in fact, some legislation now being proposed in this very area creates 10 or 15 new education programs without looking at what exists currently and trying to find a way to better use those dollars.

It is unfortunate because it does those who are in the greatest need of these kinds of programs, support, and services an injustice because we don't want to do the hard work of oversight, of looking at when programs were created and how funding can be better used.

In the case of TRIO, for example, which has been mentioned, it is a worthwhile program, it is a program I have supported, but I have always made clear that I am willing to look at other programs in the Department and redirect funds and redirect resources to make sure a worthwhile effort such as TRIO gets the resources it needs.

So, one, there is no regard made for the resources that are actually in the budget.

Two, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly ever modify or eliminate a program to get more resources into the areas targeted by this amendment.

Three, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly redirect resources in any other part of the budget to education, that we wouldn't want to touch something politically sensitive such as agricultural subsidies, such as spending subsidies for fossil fuel, oil and gas research and development, which we greatly expanded in the Energy bill that was passed last year. No effort has been made to honestly identify areas that should be a lesser priority than those targeted by this amendment.

Fourth is the assumption that seems all too common, that if we want to spend more money, we should just raise taxes. We can talk about loopholes all we want, but the fact is, it is a tax increase, and they are tax increases that may have been passed in the United States Senate but were not signed into law, were not supported in the other body, and have little or no likelihood of ever making it through. So I think throwing out a tax increase in an effort to make an amendment budget neutral when you know those resources are never going to be delivered is deficit spending, pure and simple. It is wrong, it is not fiscally responsible, and it should be rejected.

Budgets are about setting priorities. We can do a better job, a more honest job of setting priorities. I am always willing to look at redirecting resources, whether it is from within the Department of Education to things that should be a priority, whether it is from other programs to this. If we are not willing to do that, we shouldn't be willing to vote for amendments that blow the budget caps.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following votes in this stacked series be limited to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the bill before us, a bill that I introduced and the details of which I helped work out over a period of 5 or 6 weeks following the delay of the conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act at the end of last year.

I recognize that this legislation, like almost any piece of legislation that is dealt with in Congress and in the Senate, in particular, represents a compromise. If you pursue every piece of legislation insisting that you get everything you asked for in that bill, in all likelihood you will never get anything you are seeking, and you certainly would not be able to count on the long-term support of others in this institution who might have requests or initiatives with which you might not agree. A compromise is always necessary.

But I think in this case the legislation represents a substantial step forward in terms of better safeguarding our civil liberties from where we were with the current law and, equally important, allows us to lock in, to get enacted into law a number of other improvements that many of us worked very hard on in a bipartisan way.

I understand that Senator Feingold doesn't support the legislation. That is certainly his right, his prerogative. But I think he shortchanges the nature of these improvements.

I want to touch on the three elements of this bill so that all Senators and the public understand how these three provisions take us forward. Maybe the agreement represented in this bill does not move us as far forward as he or I or others in the Senate might like, but its moves us forward nonetheless.

First, in this bill, we create an explicit review of the gag order that accompanies a 215 subpoena. He has criticized the fact that there is a 12-month waiting period for taking that gag order before a judge.

In our legislation, the SAFE Act, we had a 3-month waiting period. We asked for a 3-month waiting period, and we ended up with a 12-month waiting period. That is the nature of compromise, but we did get an explicit judicial review of the gag order. I think the principle that any gag order be given an opportunity for review before a judge is not only a step forward but a victory on principle, which is extremely important in this legislation, and I think it will guide us in the future when we might deal with similar questions.

Second, we struck a provision in the delayed conference report that requires the recipient of a national security letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI. That is a provision that doesn't occur anywhere else in the law. It is a provision that I think could have discouraged people from seeking legal advice. And in the case of a national security letter--a subpoena issued without the approval of a judge--we are not talking about a few

dozen subpoenas or a few dozen individuals or businesses affected; we are talking about tens of thousands. Striking that requirement regarding the recipient of an NSL notifying the FBI the name of their attorney, I think, again, is a very important step forward not only in encouraging people to seek legal advice but also a very important principle to set down in this bill.

A third improvement which was not even considered in the remarks of Senator Feingold is clarification that a library engaged in the traditional role of lending books, providing books to patrons in digital format, or providing access to the Internet, is not subject to a national security letter. This is an important clarification of congressional intent, an important clarification of the existing law which, unfortunately, is not clear on this point.

It is not clear because the underlying law uses definitions that were written 20 years ago before the age of the Internet. I hope the Judiciary Committee will take up a full review and evaluation of the definitions and the standards regarding technology and the underlying law that is referenced here. In lieu of that, the least we can do is provide clarification as to how and when this law applies to institutions such as libraries. We have done so in a positive and meaningful way.

There are two areas Senator Feingold mentioned where we had not made progress. I am more than willing to recognize we did not get everything asked for, even as we significantly improved the conference report. One is the standard of conclusive presumption which is a standard he does not support. I do not support imposing this standard of inclusive presumption for overturning the 215 and NSL gag orders, but the fact remains, as was pointed out by Chairman Specter during our original debate at the end of last year, that this is a standard that was in the Senate bill that was passed unanimously last summer. It is quite challenging tactically to try to negotiate out a provision that all Senators supported and voted for in the original Senate bill.

The second issue is the most problematic, the one where I would like to have made more progress. That is in changing the standard for getting a 215 subpoena from one of mere relevance to terrorism investigation, as is the current law and the standard in the conference report, to having a clear connection to a suspected or known terrorist or foreign power. We did not succeed in getting an improvement to the standard itself. However, through the course of negotiations, because of the work done by me and Senator Feingold and others, we were able to get other requirements and criteria to be met by the government before a 215 subpoena can be issued which I will speak to in a moment.

These three provisions, again, are significant steps forward from the delayed conference report. They are a step forward in the very areas that were raised as concerns at the end of the session. In conversations with Senator Feingold and Senator Craig and others after we defeated cloture on the conference report in December, we came back to the four priorities about which most of our discussions with the administration took place. We made progress on two of those priorities and added the provision clarifying the applicability of national security letters to libraries. That is a real success, indeed.

It is unfortunate in this debate on the underlying bill has included language such as ``capitulation'' and ``caving.'' But it certainly does not bother me. I am very comfortable with the process we used to get these improvements. I am certainly very comfortable with the stand I took, the priorities I raised, and the end result as far as this reauthorization process goes. The conference report is a significant improvement over current law and the bill before us today is a significant improvement to the conference report. However, it is unfair to those Members who might not have had the opportunity to work directly on these issues in Judiciary or directly in our working group but feel this is a good, appropriate improvement and a good compromise, to suggest that they are only changing their vote for political reasons. There were many individuals--Democrats and Republicans--who were never willing to take a stand on this issue, even though they may have agreed with Senator Feingold, me, or others, about our concerns. They may have wished the issue would go away. There were some Members who claimed to support us but, frankly, when given the opportunity to weigh in with the administration or to help move the process forward, they chose not to.

It is unfair to criticize those who worked with us--Democrats and Republicans--to push this issue forward, to make these improvements, to suddenly bring their motivation into question when they decide to support a compromise. I do not think that serves the institution of the Senate well, especially as we had before the recess a 93-to-6 vote to move forward. We have leadership on both sides of the aisle supporting this package. I think the ultimate vote on final passage of my bill and the delayed conference report will yield a very strong bipartisan agreement also.

We can take issue with the level of progress that was made, we can take issue with the underlying substance of the original PATRIOT Act, the conference report, or these additional improvements, but everyone I have dealt with in this process has worked in a very direct, straightforward way. There has been a desire to find common ground, and in finding that common ground, to come to a consensus that allowed this conference report to move forward.

In addition to the three improvements I described, we had previously gained improvements in a number of other areas in the conference report. I talked about the 215 standard and the fact we were not successful in changing the standard as it exists in current law. We were successful, though, in getting into the conference report the requirement that a statement of facts is provided, a statement of articulable facts supporting the 215 subpoena request. We now have minimization requirements in the conference report that require the Justice Department to eliminate extraneous information, information collected on innocent Americans, and to report to Congress exactly how that is done. We were successful in adding clarity to the roving wiretap provision so it is less likely to be abused or misused. We were able to improve the sneak-and-peek search warrant.

Senator Feingold indicated we supported a 7-day notification period. In the bill we have a 30-day notification period. The original PATRIOT Act contains no specific requirement on notice other than that notice must be given to the subject of a search ``in a reasonable amount of time,'' which I think everyone would recognize leaves things to the whim of a prosecutor or a judge unnecessarily.

We have 4-year sunsets for the most controversial provisions of this bill, including the 215 subpoena power, the roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf provisions.

Through the work of Senator Leahy, in particular, we were able to get a criminal penalty for inadvertent disclosure of national security letters dropped from the conference report. All of these represent significant changes from the original act, significant changes included in the conference report. And in addition to the three changes in this underlying legislation, we have a better product and one that will receive strong bipartisan support.

I look forward to passage of the bill. I was pleased to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this done. In doing so, in forcing us to take more time and forcing the administration to add additional protections for civil liberties to the legislation and putting together a bipartisan group willing to demand these things, we sent an important message, a message that we have a group willing to work in Congress to achieve these improvements and a message to the administration that when we are dealing with these issues, they need to be engaged and active and working toward consensus from the very beginning of the process.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters to libraries.

A National Security Letter is a type of administrative subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement officials, to get access to documents. It is a document signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge before being issued.

What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language that states that libraries operating in their traditional functions: lending books, providing access to digital books or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access to the Internet would not be subject to a national security letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as they do communication service providers such as a telephone company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet and send and receive e-mail.

Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a national security letter, simply by virtue of making that access available to the public.

Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct. A library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a National Security Letter as a result of that particular service and other services that are very much in keeping with the traditional role of libraries.

Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service. But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is providing the communication service--the Internet communication service provider itself--and not the library, which is simply making available a computer with access to the Internet.

So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the law as he described, in addition to providing other improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing law enforcement with the tools that they need in their terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to the law in giving access to the courts to object to section 215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI.

All of these are improvements to the underlying legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming, bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the motion to proceed and in support of the underlying legislation itself. This bill was introduced to make changes, changes to the PATRIOT Act conference report that was delayed at the end of last year, just as we were ready to adjourn for the holidays.

That conference report had some flaws and weaknesses. I began focusing on and working on reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act well over a year and a half ago, recognizing that we could do more to improve the original Act, we could make this bill more balanced by adding better protections for civil liberties even as we reauthorized the law enforcement tools in the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement power to conduct terrorism investigations.

I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who believes we should not provide law enforcement with tools necessary to deal with the threat of terrorism, both domestically and overseas. But whenever we give law enforcement new tools, new powers, we want to make sure they are balanced, balanced by the ability of individuals who think they have been singled out unfairly to raise objections in court, balanced by the ability of individuals to seek legal advice, balanced by restricting the use of these tools to ensure they are only used in appropriate circumstances. That is what protecting civil liberties is all about.

As the process of reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act began well over a year and a half ago, a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, joined to highlight a number of areas where we felt the legislation could and should be improved and strengthened to provide the kinds of protections I mentioned.

We spoke with Justice Department officials, not a month or 2 months before this process began, but, as I've said, over a year and a half ago, raising our concerns in a clear, articulate fashion, trying to make certain that DOJ knew full well that there was a bipartisan group that would push to make changes to improve the PATRIOT Act and that we would be willing to stand up for those changes and stand up on principle.

Unfortunately, the people who should have been engaged in this discussion process early on simply were not and much of the work was left to the very end of the process, and continued after the law was originally set to expire at the end of last year. As a result, changes that should have been made early were not, and we found ourselves

with reauthorization legislation that could not win enough bipartisan votes to gain passage at the end of December.

What I wish to do today is to talk about the changes that were made to the PATRIOT Act earlier in the reauthorization process that better safeguard civil liberties, and the changes that are in this underlying legislation that I think will allow us to move forward with some confidence that we have made additional improvements since the cloture vote in December.

In the conference report that was delayed, I certainly agree that there were many significant improvements made to the original PATRIOT Act. For example, improvements were made to add clarity to a roving wiretap order to require more specificity as to the target or location of the surveillance to be conducted. Improvement was made to add clarity to delayed notification search warrants, which are search warrants that are conducted without immediately telling the targets of the search.

I think delayed notice search warrants are appropriate tools for law enforcement, but at a certain point law enforcement either needs to inform the target of the search or get agreement from a judge to further delay the notification. In the delayed conference report we added clarity. We added a requirement that a target must be notified of a search within 30 days unless a judge agrees to continue delaying the notification.

We were successful when we took a stand at the end of last year in moving the sunset period in the draft conference report from a 7-year sunset on the most controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act to a 4- year sunset period, so that 215 subpoena power, a very significant subpoena power for law enforcement to access the most sensitive of records, the lone wolf provisions and the roving wiretap provisions I mentioned, would have to be reviewed four years from now.

All of these were improvements to the PATRIOT Act. But a number of us still had many concerns, concerns in three particular areas.

First, our most significant concern was and is the breadth of the standard for obtaining a 215 subpoena. We felt--and we still feel--it is unnecessarily broad. It could result in the gathering of information that is not only extraneous, but pertains to innocent Americans. We think that standard should be more narrow so that there be shown that an individual who is a target of this subpoena be connected to a suspected terrorist or suspected spy. The current standard of mere relevance to a terrorist investigations is unnecessarily broad.

Second, we feel there should be a clear judicial review, a review before a judge, of the gag order associated with the 215 subpoena. If you are the recipient of one of these subpoenas, that subpoena comes with a restriction on your ability to tell anyone about the subpoena. But you ought to be able to challenge that gag order before a judge.

Third, we feel the provision in the conference report that required the recipient of a national security letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI was punitive and might have the result of discouraging an individual from seeking legal advice. Over the last 6 weeks, I have worked with a number of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, on changes to the PATRIOT Act, negotiating with the Justice Department, making Members of the House aware of what we were pursuing, working with Chairman Arlen Specter, who has been very helpful throughout this whole process. Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold have all been part of these discussions and I have worked to share with them the concepts we were working on, the language we were working on in the areas where there were still differences, differences between those who wanted to pass the conference report as it was and those of us who felt we could strike a better balance.

In the end, we have worked out an agreement on language that has received bipartisan support and makes changes to the conference report in three areas.

First, we add a clear, explicit judicial review process for the 215 subpoena gag order. It is a judicial review process that is very similar to the judicial review process for the National Security Letter gag order set forth in the conference report. I think it is important that we stand for the principle that a restriction on free speech such as a gag order can be objected to in a court of law before a judge. You can at least have your case heard. That does not mean you will win, necessarily, but you can at least have your case heard.

Second, we were able to get language striking the requirement that the recipient of a National Security Letter disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI. Again this is a punitive provision, and it could have the unintended effect of discouraging people from seeking legal advice.

Third, we added clarification to National Security Letters as they pertain to libraries. Our agreement adds a provision that makes very clear that libraries operating in their traditional role, including the lending of books, including making books available in digital form, including providing basic Internet access, are not subject to National Security Letters.

These are three areas that were highlighted as being of concern at the end of last year. I did--and I think the others would agree--we all did everything possible to stay focused on these areas of concern. We made improvements in each of these three areas. I think we ought to be able to move forward now with the reauthorization, knowing full well that in an effort such as this, no party ever gets everything they want. But having shown that there is a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate and I believe Members of the House as well who will look carefully at these measures, who will push hard for improvements, I think the oversight of the PATRIOT Act will be improved. I know that the reporting to Congress as to how this act is used will be improved. Requirements to report on the use of 215 subpoenas and the minimization procedures used to get rid of data and information on innocent Americans collected through 215 subpoenas and National Security Letters are improvements.

So I feel confident we have legislation that is a vast improvement over current law in terms of protecting civil liberties. We have oversight that is improved and, frankly, we have a strong coalition within Congress that is committed to doing an effective job in making sure these important law enforcement tools are used effectively but also used fairly.

I know not all my colleagues will support this final package. I know in particular Senator Feingold, who has worked extremely hard on this issue, is not able to support this final package. He will speak more eloquently than I can as to the concerns that remain, but among his concerns is the breadth of the 215 standard and the feeling that we ought to be able to agree on and work toward a standard that will prevent fishing expeditions, that will better protect civil liberties but still enable law enforcement to do their job. I share that concern and that goal, but I at the same time recognize we have an obligation to take the many gains we received throughout the reauthorization process and reauthorize this legislation so we can move forward, focus on our outstanding concerns, and focus on the agenda that still sits before Congress.

I thank the President for the time and the opportunity to lay out the improvements that are in the package before us. I look forward to the debate and the discussion, but I do hope we can, in a deliberate fashion, complete work on this legislation that now has gained bipartisan support, has gained additional votes from Republicans, including Senator Craig, Senator Hagel, Senator Murkowski, who have raised concerns, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, and others on the Democratic side who have stood with us too since the end of last year in the hopes of improving the balance of the conference report. I think we do the country a service by enacting this legislation now with a commitment to continue to try to improve it wherever we can.

I thank the Chair.

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

I ask consent that the Senator be allowed to make his point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Honorable Preston M. Geren to be Under Secretary of the Army; Honorable Michael L. Dominguez to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr. James I. Finley to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; and Mr. Thomas P. D'Agostino to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Rebuilding Needs in Katrina-Impacted Areas.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Video Franchising.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Nanotechnology.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2197 to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology, to strengthen basic research programs at the Department of Energy, and to provide support for mathematics and science education at all levels through the resources available

through the Department of Energy, including at the national laboratories.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a business meeting on February 15, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following agenda:

Agenda

Nominations: Terrence L. Bracy--Nominee to a position on the Board of Trustees at the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Foundation and the following 6 to Members of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority: Dennis C. Bottorff, Robert M. Duncan, Susan Richardson Williams, William B. Sansom, Howard A. Thrailkill, and Donald R. DePriest.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on February 15, 2006 at 9:35 a.m. to receive testimony on EPA's proposed Budget for FY 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 9:45 a.m. to hold a hearing on the President's Budget for Foreign Affairs and a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 11:15 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Hurricane Katrina: The Homeland Security Department's Preparation and Response.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness

Panel I: Members of Congress, TBA.

Panel II: Stephen G. Larson to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; Jack Zouhary to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; and John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 15, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 15 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the progress made on the development of interim and long-term plans for use of fire retardant aircraft in Federal wildfire suppression operations.

Thank you, Mr. President.

As was indicated by Senator Craig, this is not a last-minute effort to derail a piece of legislation. These are concerns that began with the introduction of the SAFE Act nearly 2 years ago and our goal was and still is to make improvements to the PATRIOT Act, and to ensure that it better protects civil liberties without undermining law enforcement's ability to do their job in terrorist investigations.

I met with the Attorney General after he was confirmed. I know Senator Craig and others did the same thing. I spoke to senior White House staff not weeks, or months, but as long as a year ago and underscored the importance of sitting down and working through the legislation. I made very specific recommendations in just a few key areas of the PATRIOT Act and indicated that we could come to an agreement on a strong bipartisan bill.

I heard effectively nothing in response to that request. Moreover, even after all of our requests, no substantive material has been provided to argue how our specific changes would weaken or undermine law enforcement's ability to do its job in pursuing terrorists. A standard should be to put in place which will protect civil liberties no matter who holds the power in the executive, the legislative or the judicial branches.

So we are here today with a conference report that has many shortcomings, including a 215 standard that is too broad and could potentially be abused. There is no reason why we cannot clarify it to assure a connection to a specific spy or a terrorist. The conference report also has no meaningful judicial review of national security letters. Specifically there is a gag order requirement on national security letters that can only be overturned by a showing of bad faith on the part of the Federal Government. This is a requirement that will never be met by any individual or small business.

There is no judicial review explicit of the 215 gag order in the bill. This section requires that all evidence from the recipient of a 215 order is kept, even if that evidence is unclassified. It requires that if you are the target of one of these orders you must identify any lawyer you speak with to the FBI. To the best of my knowledge, this is a provision that exists nowhere else in law and could have a chilling effect on the individual's right to counsel. But more importantly it is unclear how eliminating this provision, and allowing one who receives a 215 warrant or national security letter to have the same right to counsel as anyone who is served with a normal subpoena undermines our ability to fight terrorism. We should not be afraid of a judicial review or setting the appropriate standards of evidence. We need to be mindful of Ben Franklin's words over 200 years ago: Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

We could pass a 6-month extension or take up the Senate bill which is on the calender and still respect important freedoms. We need to be more vigilant and we can do better.

May I have 4 minutes to touch on a few points?

Let me begin by addressing a concern that was just raised. It was suggested that if cloture is not invoked tomorrow that there might not be a 3-month extension and the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which are now law, would effectively be killed. Why would there not be a some short-term extension of the PATRIOT Act of 3 months or 6 months? It would be because some Member of Congress--I hope no one in the Chamber at the moment--but some Member of the House or Senate thinks that we will be better off without a PATRIOT Act, rather than with a 3-month extension.

I suggest, No. 1, that is absolutely irresponsible, and, No. 2, that anyone who would make that argument is suggesting that the President, Chairman Specter, and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, are insincere in their suggestion that the tools provided to law enforcement under the PATRIOT Act are extremely important tools that law enforcement genuinely needs.

Anyone who would be willing to oppose a temporary extension and prevent some elements of the PATRIOT Act to remain in force is either behaving irresponsibly or they are arguing--and it may be a heartfelt belief on that person's part that current law actually is not as important as they had previously suggested. I believe everyone can decide for themselves what they think the likely option, the almost certain option would be if cloture is not invoked.

With regard to the substantive concerns, there are many. But let me first address the issue of the national security letters. Under the conference report, there is no meaningful judicial review of a national security letter or its accompanying gag order because the threshold that has to be met by an individual or a business served with a national security letter is a showing of bad faith on the part of the Federal Government. You will never win that argument in court. You will never be able to meet that high a threshold. Therefore, even in the most egregious cases, you will never overturn the national security letter or its accompanying gag order.

The suggestion that this concern is moot because similar language was in the Senate-passed version is irrelevant because that Senate-passed version also included a real standard on Section 215 subpoenas, which required the individual to be connected to a terrorist or spy; it included a judicial review of the gag order associated with a 215 order; and it included a 7-day notification period for delayed notice, or sneak and peak search warrants. All of this, which again, we approved in the Senate package, has been scrapped.

When we saw the Senate bill, many of us were not happy with that national security letter language. But in that bill we had other substantial gains for civil liberty protections, and those have been left at the doorstep by this conference report. To come back and say to us now that our concerns about national security letters do not count because they were part of some previous compromise that is no longer before us avoids the substantive concerns we have raised.

There are other problematic provisions that were put into the bill in conference that were not part of the Senate bill. Under the conference report, you have to tell the FBI if you want to challenge a national security letter or 215. That means you have to tell the FBI you have hired an attorney and you have to tell the FBI the name of the attorney.

I ask for 1 additional minute.

I am not a lawyer. I am an engineer by training. But I know of no other provision in law where that is required. Even if it is required in a few very limited cases in law, I believe this will provide a chilling effect on our right to counsel. I believe such a requirement is an unnecessary limitation on our civil liberties.

I have one final point about the arguments made by the administration and by some here in the Senate. The suggestion was made that changes do not need to be made because there has been no evidence of abuse of the existing law. We do not seek to insert protections for civil liberties in law because we do not trust a particular person. The Framers enacted the fourth amendment to the Constitution, not because they didn't trust George Washington but because they wanted to protect these freedoms in perpetuity.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask to be yielded 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, I want to be courteous to my colleagues who wish also to speak, so I will briefly address a couple of the points raised.

First, I never suggested that the ability, allowed under the conference report, to hire a lawyer to challenge an NSL is an improvement. I am for that. I don't know that is some great show of benevolence on the part of the Federal Government that now for the first time you will actually be allowed to contact a lawyer if you are served with a national security letter. So I appreciate that. But this is about much more than that simple fact.

Judicial review is important. But to have a meaningful judicial review you have to have at least a threshold, that the recipient of a NSL may actually be able to achieve. I suggest that the showing of oppressive or abusive behavior by the Federal Government, the showing of bad faith, is simply too high a threshold to make that judicial review process meaningful.

Finally, I come back to the suggestion that if this bill fails on cloture, we will not have a bill, and portions of the PATRIOT Act and the lone wolf provision will expire. I do not take that to mean that the Senator from Pennsylvania will not support a 3-month extension. I hope and I believe that he would in such an event. I hope and I believe that the House would support such an extension of the expiring provisions because having them remain in place on a short term basis of 3 months or 6 months, is much more important than having these provisions expire.

If those who do not agree with my opposition to cloture on the conference report really think they will have no bill, then obviously their arguments that the PATRIOT Act is a very important piece of legislation don't have credibility.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will address the question and the concern. I think the threshold is too high. But I would prefer that time be provided to others--there are a number of others on the floor-- who support my position and oppose cloture.

Mr. President, that is not the only basis on which these will be reviewed. The national security letter and the gag order require showing of bad faith on the part of the Government. I believe that standard as written in the conference report will prove to be too great of a threshold for individuals or businesses to have any reasonable chance of meeting. We have had 30,000 national security letters issued. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have been overturned. I think we owe the public a clear, reasonable, and pragmatic standard in order for those to be overturned. I do not believe this conference report includes such a standard.

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

Mr. President, I ask permission to speak in morning business.