Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 2:15 p.m. for up to 15 minutes to make some final remarks on this bill.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate took further steps to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without the fundamental checks and balances that so many of us believe are needed. To bring us back to first principles, I read aloud the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And to remind us of the broad, bipartisan support for amending the PATRIOT Act all over this country, I read the eight statewide resolutions that have passed in the last few years expressing concerns about the PATRIOT Act. I also read some of the nearly 400 local resolutions that have passed--the four resolutions from my own State of Wisconsin. Today I want to continue by reading some additional items to take my colleagues back to how hard we fought in November and December to stop the flawed conference report, and how many Americans wanted us to do better than we have done this week.

Let me start with a few editorials. The resolutions passed by State and city governments that I read here on the floor yesterday are not the only way by which Americans have expressed their concerns about the PATRIOT Act. The Fourth Estate has weighed in too, with many newspapers running editorials or columns criticizing the PATRIOT Act's effect on Americans' freedom. And not just a few newspapers, but dozens and dozens, from all across the United States. From major national newspapers to small, local newspapers. Papers in big cities and small towns. All concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act. I am going to read just a few representative editorials.

From the Orlando Sentinel, August 17, 2005; headline: Fighting the terrorists.

Our position: Patriot Act changes need to be tough but

protect against abuse of power.

The U.S. House and Senate have taken different approaches

to renewing the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism

law that otherwise would expire at year's end. The Senate's

more thoughtful, bipartisan approach deserves to prevail when

members begin meeting next month to reconcile their competing

proposals.

The House proposal leaves the Patriot Act's expanded

surveillance and law-enforcement powers largely intact. It

does not accommodate legitimate concerns raised by both

liberals and conservatives about inadequate checks on those

powers.

The Senate proposal, passed unanimously, includes what

Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter called ``responsible changes

to safeguard civil liberties.'' It would continue to let the

government obtain secret court orders to seize medical,

financial, library and other records, but only records tied

to suspected terrorists or spies, or people in contact with

them. It would require the government to notify targets of

secret search warrants after seven days, though a judge could

extend that deadline.

Also under the Senate proposal, two of the most

controversial Patriot Act provisions--to seize records

secretly and conduct roving wiretaps--would expire in 2009

unless renewed. That would encourage Congress to re-evaluate

those provisions in four years.

The Senate proposal would not stop the government from

using the powers in the Patriot Act to go after terrorists.

But its changes would better protect ordinary Americans from

possible abuse of those powers.

Next, The Los Angeles Times; editorial, ``Checks on the Patriot Act,'' from November 21, 2005.

The Patriot Act, a 4-year-old federal law that gave

investigators unprecedented power to search for and chase

terrorists, is a case study in bad lawmaking. Angry and

anxious to respond to the atrocities of 9/11, Congress

hastily approved a measure that exposed an indeterminable

number of Americans to unreasonable searches and intrusive

snooping for the sake of the war on terror. The law provided

few of the legal system's usual checks to protect against

investigators abusing the new capabilities.

The measure eventually generated outrage on both sides of

the political spectrum, as well as from corporations,

libraries and retailers forced to report secretly on the

activities of employees and customers. Nevertheless, in their

haste to wrap up business before the Thanksgiving recess,

lawmakers were poised last week to reauthorize the Patriot

Act, which is due to expire at the end of the year, with only

minor changes.

That was the outcome sought by the White House and its

allies in the House. A bipartisan group of six senators

stopped the bill, however, by threatening a filibuster. They

demanded that House and Senate negotiators produce a

reauthorization bill with more of the safeguards that the

Senate had approved earlier this year.

The senators' demands are modest, recognizing that law

enforcement agencies do need enhanced powers to battle

elusive and technologically sophisticated groups of

terrorists. But the public also needs to be able to review

how those powers have been used. And people need more

assurance that the information vacuumed up by their

government is actually connected to a suspected terrorist or

spy.

In particular, the bill should do away with the automatic,

permanent gag orders that allow investigators to hide forever

their demands for records from banks, libraries, doctors and

other sources. And the most controversial provisions of the

Patriot Act should be extended for a much shorter period than

the seven years suggested by House and Senate conferees.

When Congress approved the Patriot Act, it put its trust in

prosecutors and investigators to use their expanded powers

responsibly. It now appears that trust was misplaced.

Authorities have gone on a snooping frenzy since 2001,

issuing more than 30,000 secret demands for records per year,

according to the Washington Post. And unless the law is

changed, no one will ever know whether those records should

have been gathered, or what has been done with them.

Americans want to trust their government. It is their

government's foundation, its system of checks and balances,

that enables that trust.

Now, from The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, entitled, ``True patriots: Some in Congress won't let terror limit freedom,'' from November 30, 2005.

Long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the so-called

Patriot Act that was passed in reaction and fear, a man with

stellar patriotic credentials who championed the cause of

liberty had words of wisdom for his fellow Americans: ``They

that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little

temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

What Benjamin Franklin said in his own day remains a

telling commentary for our time. Indeed, these words could

have been written specifically about the Patriot Act, which

went too far in trying to accomplish a legitimate goal: to

remove some of the bureaucratic and legal barriers that stood

in the way of hunting down terrorists.

But increasing government power while decreasing judicial

oversight was a troubling exercise in a free country, and

Congress realized as much when it passed the Patriot Act,

including sunset provisions that could be considered in

calmer days. That time has come and plenty of true patriots

have stood up and offered suggestions that would make the

Patriot Act more respectful of civil liberties and the

American ideal of freedom.

This is one issue that provides common ground for liberals

and conservatives. When a government has the power to search

a suspect's premises without his knowledge and can retrieve

personal business and library records of people without

showing any connection to terrorism, then the alarms that go

up are for Americans regardless of party. That is why, for

example, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, the scourge of

President Clinton, finds himself on the same side of the

fight as the American Civil Liberties Union.

Despite the bipartisan qualms about reauthorizing the

Patriot Act without proper amendment, the Bush administration

has not been sympathetic. Trust us, it says implicitly. But

because paranoia animates policy for this White House, the

use of the Patriot Act is bound to go too far and impinge on

basic civil liberties. This is an administration, after all,

that feels threatened when Sen. John McCain and others want

to outlaw torture.

Sadly, ordinary Americans can't naively trust their freedom

to such hands. The Patriot Act needs to have reasonable

checks and balances written into it. Of the two bills to

reauthorize the act, the Senate version accomplishes this

better than the House measure. A tentative agreement has been

reached on reconciling the bills, but principled opposition

remains.

Six senators--three Republicans (Larry Craig of Idaho, John

Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) and

three Democrats (Richard Durbin of Illinois, Russell Feingold

of Wisconsin and Ken Salazar of Colorado)--have emerged to

resist accepting a version of the Patriot Act that doesn't

meet their legitimate concerns.

This isn't about being pro-terror but pro-American. It is

possible to keep essential liberty and obtain safety. For

Americans to deserve both, the true patriots on Capitol Hill

need support.

From the New York Times, just recently, on February 11, 2006, entitled, ``Another Cave-In on the Patriot Act.''

The Patriot Act has been one of the few issues on which

Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to

renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties

protections were added. But key members of the Senate have

now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for

only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is

growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the

Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should

insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect

Americans against improper secret searches. When the Patriot

Act was passed after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress made some of

its most far-reaching provisions temporary so it would be

able to reconsider them later on. Those provisions were set

to expire last December, but Congress agreed to a very short

extension so greater civil liberties protections could be

added. This week, four key Republican senators--later backed

by two Democrats--said that they had agreed to a deal with

the White House. It is one that does little to protect

Americans from government invasions of their privacy.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act is the

``gag order'' imposed by Section 215, which prohibits anyone

holding financial, medical and other private records of

ordinary Americans from saying anything when the government

issues a subpoena for those records. That means that a person

whose records are being taken, and whose privacy is being

invaded, has no way to know about the subpoena and no way to

challenge it. Rather than removing this gag order, the deal

keeps it in place for a full year--too long for Americans to

wait to learn that the government is spying on them. Even

after a year, someone holding such records would have to meet

an exceedingly high standard to get the gag order lifted. It

is not clear that this change has much value at all.

The compromise also fails to address another problem with

Section 215: it lets the government go on fishing

expeditions, spying on Americans with no connection to

terrorism or foreign powers. The act should require the

government, in order to get a subpoena, to show that there is

a connection between the information it is seeking and a

terrorist or a spy.

But the deal would allow subpoenas in instances when there

are reasonable grounds for simply believing that information

is relevant to a terrorism investigation. That is an

extremely low bar.

One of the most well-publicized objections to the Patriot

Act is the fact that it allows the government to issue

national security letters, an extremely broad investigative

tool, to libraries, forcing them to turn over their patrons'

Internet records. The wording of the compromise is unclear.

If it actually says that national security letters cannot be

used to get Internet records from libraries, that would be an

improvement, but it is not clear that it does.

In late December, it looked as if there was bipartisan

interest in the Senate for changing the worst Patriot Act

provisions and standing up for Americans' privacy rights. Now

the hope of making the needed improvements has faded

considerably.

Clearly the PATRIOT Act touched a nerve, and has continued to do so for 4 years now. While I support a strong fight against terrorism, we cannot sacrifice our citizens' basic liberties in that fight. To do so would weaken this country.

Next I want to turn back to some PATRIOT Act resolutions. It was not just State and city governments that passed resolutions these past several years. Colleges and universities across the United States have become actively involved in the PATRIOT Act debate as well. Across the country, 53 resolutions have been passed on 44 campuses advocating for substantial changes to the PATRIOT to protect the civil liberties of the American people. From Mt. Holyoke, a small private all-women's liberal arts school in South Hadley, MA, to the University of Texas at Austin, one of the largest public universities in the United States, students and faculties alike are coming together to pass these resolutions. Resolutions have been passed on college campuses in states from California to Kentucky. I will now read a few of these campus resolutions.

A resolution concerning the protection of students' civil

rights in the wake of the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.

University of Texas at Austin Student Government

WHEREAS: The United States Congress passed the Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act;

Public Law 107-56) on October 25, 2001, championed by U.S.

Attorney General John Ashcroft;

WHEREAS: The 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights

establishes: 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.

2. WHEREAS: According to Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman's

Austin City Council resolution regarding the PATRIOT Act,

``fundamental rights granted by the United States

Constitution are threatened by actions taken at the Federal

level, notably by passage of certain sections of the `U.S.A.

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,' other acts and executive orders which,

among other things:

Grant potential unchecked powers to the Attorney General

and the U.S. Secretary of State to designate legal domestic

groups as ``terrorist organizations'' by overly broad

definitions, and implying restrictions to Constitutionally

protect First Amendment rights of speech and assembly by

reference, such as political advocacy or the practice of a

religion; while lifting administrative regulations on covert,

surveillance counter-intelligence operations;

Violate the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution

through the expansion of the government's ability to wiretap

telephones, monitor e-mail communications, survey medical,

financial and student records, and secretly enter homes and

offices without customary administrative oversight or without

showing probable cause;

Give law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library

records, and prohibits librarians from informing patrons of

monitoring or information requests;

Violate the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution in establishing secret military tribunals, and

in subjecting citizens and non citizens to indefinite

detention without being allowed an attorney, without being

brought to trial, and without even being charged with a

crime;

Authorize eavesdropping on confidential communications

between lawyers and their clients in federal custody;''

WHEREAS: In the October 1997 edition of Global Issues,

available as Vol. 2, No. 4 of the USIA Electronic Journal,

then Senator John Ashcroft (R-MI) wrote in an article

entitled, ``Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet,''

The FBI wants access to decode, digest and discuss

financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary

information sent abroad--all in the name of national

security. . . This proposed policy raises obvious concerns

about American's privacy. . . The protections of the Fourth

Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful

searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years

of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental

right. The state's interest in crime-fighting should never

vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights. . .

The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly

unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's

track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by

which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by

those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no

reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail

diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or

translate our international communications. . .

WHEREAS: Eva Poole, President of the Texas Library

Association, the oldest and largest organization representing

Texas libraries, including university and academic libraries,

stated in a personal e-mail by request:

The USA PATRIOT Act is just one of several troubling

policies that compromise the public's privacy rights.

Enhanced surveillance powers permitted under the provisions

of the Act license law enforcement officials to peer into

Americans' most private reading, research, and

communications. Several of the Act's provisions not only

violate the privacy and confidentiality rights of those using

public libraries, but take no consideration of constitutional

checks and balances as it authorizes intelligence agencies to

gather information in situations that may be completely

unconnected to a potential criminal proceeding.

Librarians do not know how the USA PATRIOT Act and related

measures have been applied in libraries because the gag order

bars individuals from making that information public. Equally

troubling is the fact that librarians are not allowed to

comment on FBI visits to examine library users' Internet

surfing and book-borrowing habits. I oppose any use of

governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of

knowledge and information.

WHEREAS: The Student Governments of the University of

California at Berkeley and Santa Barbara, University of

Alaska Fairbanks, University of Washington, Washington State

University, University of Wisconsin and Southern Oregon

University have passed resolutions denouncing the USA PATRIOT

Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Government of the

University of Texas at Austin has been, and remains,

absolutely committed to the protection of civil rights and

civil liberties for all of its students and affirms its

commitment to embody democracy and to embrace, defend, and

uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties

granted to students under the United States and Texas

Constitutions;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the

University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon the Austin

Police Department, University of Texas Police Department,

Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task

Force to refrain from and, in certain cases, discontinue the

surveillance of individuals, groups of individuals, and

organizations based solely on their participation in

activities protected by the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution, such as political advocacy or the

practice of a religion without reasonable and particularized

suspicion of criminal conduct unrelated to the activity

protected by the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Student Government respectfully

requests that Dr. Fred Heath, Vice Provost of General

Libraries, direct all UT libraries to post in a prominent

place within the library a notice as follows:

``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA PATRIOT Act

(Public Law 107-56), records of books and other materials you

borrow from this library may be obtained by federal

agents. This law also prohibits librarians from informing

you if records about you have been obtained by federal

agents. Questions about this policy should be directed to

Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20530.'';

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the

University of Texas at Austin commits to organizing a forum

addressing student privacy concerns consisting of a panel of

relevant administrators and community members;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the

University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon UTPD to

preserve and uphold students' freedom of speech, assembly,

association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due

process in judicial proceedings, and protection from

unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested to do

otherwise in accordance with new federal law, which infringes

upon such rights granted to federal or state law enforcement

agencies under powers assumed by the USA PATRIOT Act by

Executive Order;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the

University of Texas at Austin calls upon the Austin City

Council to do everything in its power to protect and defend

the rights and liberties of University of Texas at Austin

students who reside within jurisdiction of the City of

Austin.

Next:

Associated Students of Mount Holyoke College

A Resolution Affirming Civil Rights and Liberties in Light of the USA

PATRIOT Act

WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College has a diverse student and

faculty body, including many students from outside the United

States, and many students with diverse cultural backgrounds

whose contributions to this community are vital to the

culture and civic character of Mount Holyoke College; and

WHEREAS, the preservation of civil rights and civil

liberties is a pillar of American society and is essential to

the well-being of any democracy, particularly during times of

conflict when such rights and liberties, especially those of

immigrants and ethnic minorities, may be threatened,

intentionally or unintentionally; and

WHEREAS the preservation of civil rights and liberties is

essential to the well-being of a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, The community of Mount Holyoke College denounces

terrorism, and acknowledges that federal, state and local

governments have a responsibility to protect the public from

terrorist attacks in a rational, deliberative and lawful

fashion to ensure that any new security measure enhances

public safety without impairing constitutional rights or

infringing upon civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College as a private institution, is

also responsible to protect its community, including all

faculty, staff, and students, whether they be residents or

non-residents; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act;

Public Law 107-56) on October 26, 2001; and

WHEREAS, some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other

related federal orders and measures may pose a threat to the

civil rights and civil liberties of all students, staff and

faculty at Mount Holyoke College, including natural citizens

of the United States, and particularly, but not limited to,

those who are of Middle Eastern, Muslim or South Asian

descent; by:

a. Reducing judicial supervision of telephone and Internet

surveillance.

b. Expanding the government's power to conduct secret

searches without warrant.

c. Granting power to the Secretary of State to designate

domestic groups, including political and religious groups, as

``terrorist organizations''.

d. Granting power to the Attorney General to subject non-

citizens to indefinite detention or deportation even if they

have not committed a crime.

e. Granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

access to sensitive medical, mental health, financial and

educational records about individuals without having to show

evidence of a crime.

f. Granting the FBI the power to compel libraries and

bookstores to produce circulation or book purchase records of

their patrons, and forbidding disclosure that such

records have been requested and produced; and

WHEREAS, law enforcement and security measures that

undermine fundamental constitutional rights do irreparable

damage to the American institutions and values of equal

justice and freedom that the students staff and faculty of

Mount Holyoke College hold dear; and

WHEREAS, the Senate of the Associated Students of Mount

Holyoke College believes that there is not and need not be

conflict between security and the preservation of liberty,

and that students of Mount Holyoke College can maintain their

privacy and be both safe and free;

Mr. President, every day children across this country learn about the role of their Government and how it is intended to function. I have also collected a handful of textbooks used by children from elementary school up through high school to see what they have to say about the role of Government. In looking at these books, I notice that each of them at different reading levels discuss the Government as a whole, the importance of the Constitution as the foundation of our Government, and the importance of checks and balances and separation of powers. Each of these books, at whatever learning level or reading level, teaches that the Government does not have endless, unchecked powers over the people it is intended to protect.

I started my presentation after cloture was invoked by reading the Constitution of the United States. I wish to conclude for now by reading a very brief portion of one of these books. It is entitled ``National Government, a Kids' Guide.'' ``Separation of Powers.''

The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted to make

sure that the leaders of the government did not have too much

power. The writers spread the power among three separate

branches of government that work together to govern the

country. This is called separation of powers.

The executive branch is lead by the president of the United

States. This part of the government is responsible for making

sure the laws are carried out, or executed.

The legislative branch is made up of the people in the

Senate and the House of Representatives. Together, the Senate

and the House of Representatives are called the United States

Congress. The legislative branch makes the laws.

The third branch is the judicial branch, which is led by

the Supreme Court. The judges--called justices--of the

Supreme Court explain the laws and decide if any laws are not

fair.

Each branch of the government has its own job to do, but

the three branches have to work together. The people who

wrote the Constitution were very careful to make sure that

each branch of the government could check up on the others. A

system called checks and balances keeps different parts of

the government from having too much power.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized at 12:30 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate will conclude a process that began over a year ago by reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. I will have a few closing remarks, but first I want to take this opportunity to thank the extraordinary staff who have worked on this bill for so long. These men and women, on both sides of the aisle, have worked extremely hard, and

they deserve to be recognized. Before I yield the floor, I will recognize the staff by name.

Mr. President, beginning in November, when we first saw a draft of the conference report, I have spoken at length about the substance of this bill. I hoped that when we started the task of reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act at the beginning of last year, the end product would be something the whole Senate could support. We had a real chance to pass a bill that would both reauthorize the tools to prevent terrorism and fix the provisions that threaten the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.

This conference report, even as amended by the bill incorporating the White House deal that we passed yesterday, falls well short of that goal. And so, of course, I will vote no.

Protecting the country from terrorism while also protecting our rights is a challenge for every one of us, particularly in the current political climate, and it is a challenge we all take seriously. I know many Senators who will vote for this reauthorization bill in a few minutes would have preferred to enact the bill we actually passed, without a single objection, in the Senate in July of last year.

I appreciate that so many of my colleagues came to recognize the need to take the opportunity presented by the sunset provisions included in the original PATRIOT Act to make changes that would better protect civil liberties than did the law we enacted in haste in October 2001. Nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed we have largely wasted this opportunity to fix the obvious problems with the PATRIOT Act.

The reason I spent so much time in the past few days talking about how the public views the PATRIOT Act was to make it clear that this fight was not about one Senator arguing about the details of the law. This fight was about trying to restore the public's trust in our Government. That trust has been severely shaken as the public learned more and more about the PATRIOT Act which we passed with so little debate in 2001 and as the administration resisted congressional oversight efforts and repeatedly politicized the reauthorization process. The revelations about secret, warrantless surveillance last year only confirmed the suspicions of many in our country that the Government is, unfortunately, willing to trample the rule of law and constitutional guarantees in the fight against terrorism.

The truth is, the negative reaction to the PATRIOT Act has been overwhelming. Over 400 State and local government bodies passed resolutions pleading with Congress to change the law. Citizens have signed petitions, library associations and campus groups have organized to petition the Congress to act. Numerous editorials have been written urging Congress not to reauthorize the law without adequate protections for civil liberties.

These things occurred because Americans across the country recognize that the PATRIOT Act includes provisions that pose a threat to their privacy and to their liberty. These are values--values--that are at the very core of what this country represents and of who we are as a people.

In 2001, we were viciously attacked by terrorists who care nothing for American freedoms and American values. We, as a people, came together to fight back, and we are prepared to make great sacrifices to defeat those who would destroy us. But what we will not do, and what we cannot do, is destroy our own freedoms in the process.

Without freedom, we are not America. If we do not preserve our liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill. That is why the several Senators who have said, at one time or another during this debate, things such as, ``Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead,'' are wrong about America at the most basic level. It seems they do not understand what America is all about. Theirs is a vision that the Founders of this Nation, who risked everything for freedom, would categorically reject, and so do the American people.

Americans want to defeat terrorism, and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper. They want to empower the Government to protect the Nation from terrorists, and they want protections against Government overreaching and Government overreacting. They know it might not be easy, but they expect the Congress to figure out how to do it. They do not want defeatism-- defeatism--on either score. They want both security and liberty. And unless we give them both--and we can, if we try--then we have failed.

This fight is not over. The vote today will not assuage the deep and legitimate concerns the public has about the PATRIOT Act. I am convinced that in the end the Government will respond to the people, as it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

It has been a particular privilege to work for so long and so closely with the bipartisan group that developed the SAFE Act. Each Senator is supported by dedicated and talented staff, and let me mention a few of them now. For Senator Sununu, Dave Cuzzi. Joe Zogby for Senator Durbin; Brooke Roberts and Lisa McGrath for Senator Craig; Sam Mitchell with Senator Salazar; and Isaac Edwards with Senator Murkowski. Let me also recognize Bruce Cohen, Julie Katzman, and Tara Magner with Senator Leahy; and Chairman Specter's hardworking team--Mike O'Neill, Brett Tolman, and Nick Rossi. Other key staff on the Judiciary Committee include Joe Matal with Senator Kyl; Christine Leonard with Senator Kennedy; Steve Cash for Senator Feinstein; Paul Thompson with Senator DeWine; Reed O'Connor with Senator Cornyn; and Bruce Artim with Senator Hatch; Cindy Hayden with Senator Sessions; Preet Bharara with Senator Schumer; Chad Groover with Senator Grassley; Eric Rosen with Senator Biden; Ajit Pai with Senator Brownback; Mary Chesser with Senator Coburn; Nate Jones with Senator Kohl; and James Galyean with Senator Graham.

Staff for a number of Senators not on the committee worked very hard on this bill as well. Let me recognize Brandon Milhorn and Jack Livingston for Senator Roberts; Mike Davidson, who works for Senator Rockefeller; Joe Bryan with Senator Levin; Alex Perkins and John Dickas with Senator Wyden; Steve Taylor with Senator Hagel; Ruchi Bhowmik with Senator Obama; Mirah Horowitz with Senator Kerry; Caryn Compton with Senator Byrd; Eric Buehlmann with Senator Jeffords; and Alan Hicks with Senator Frist. And thanks also to Senator Reid's staffers, Ron Weich and Serena Hoy, and to our Democratic floor staff--Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Gary Myrick, Chris Kang, and Mike Spahn for their help over the past several weeks of this debate.

Finally, let me sincerely thank my own tireless and dedicated staff: Mary Irvine, Paul Weinberger, Sumner Slichter, Chuck Stertz, Bob Schiff, Lara Flint, Farhana Khera, Alex Busansky, Sarah Preis, Margaret Whiting, Molly Askin, John Haffner, Bharat Ramamurti, Avery Wentzel, Tracy Jacobson, and Molly McNab.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

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

Madam President, I have been to the floor several times in the past few days to try to convince my colleagues that we should not be reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act without addressing the legitimate concerns of law-abiding Americans across the country. I am under no illusions that I will have more success making that argument now than I had yesterday, or the week before the recess. And I know that some of my colleagues may be wishing I would sit down and stop badgering them about this. But the stakes are too high to sit idly by while the Senate prepares to disappoint the millions of Americans who have been hoping, asking, advocating for years that we fix the PATRIOT Act.

Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor and, to quote the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, its significance is far greater. This bill is, to again quote Senator Specter, the ``cover'' that will allow colleagues to support the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. A vote for the bill introduced by my friend from New Hampshire is effectively a vote to perform cosmetic surgery on that ugly conference report. Anyone who opposed that conference report should oppose S. 2271 because cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.

So I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position. The White House, along with its allies, has tried to make life uncomfortable for some of them. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. These cynical and baseless attacks come from a playbook that the American people are by now very familiar with. Those attacks should be rejected, not accommodated. We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. It needs to be fixed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents. They are watching and they will want to know how a bill that is so trivial on its face protects their civil liberties. It doesn't. It should be rejected. And the Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

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.

Reserving the right to object, I wish to indicate that I am pleased we could work out a time for the vote tomorrow. I want to be very clear that not only have I not given up any of my rights under the bill, as I understand it, given the rules postcloture, I actually have more time for debate than I otherwise would have to oppose this unwise legislation. In terms of convenience for Members, I am pleased about that. It will be important to continue the debate tomorrow prior to 3 o'clock. I thank the leaders for the ability to achieve that.

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

Mr. President, later today we will have a cloture vote on S. 2271. We should not end debate on this bill, and we should not pass this bill. Doing so will only help implement the deeply flawed deal that was struck with the White House to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without enacting the core civil liberties protections for which so many of us have fought. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.

Everybody in this body wants to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Many of the expiring provisions are entirely noncontroversial. But we also need to fix the provisions that went too far, that do not contain the checks and balances necessary to protect our rights and freedoms. This reauthorization process is our chance to get it right, and moving forward with this bill takes us one step closer to wasting that chance.

Back in December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act conference report. I think it is clear by now that the deal makes only minor changes to that conference report, which remains as flawed today as it was 2 months ago. The Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the primary proponent of the conference report in this body, was quoted as saying that the changes that the White House agreed to were ``cosmetic.'' And then he said, according to the AP:

But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast

and provide enough cover for Senators to change their vote.

Since this deal was announced, editorial pages of newspapers also have pointed out how minimal these changes are and have urged Senators not to change their votes. Let me read a few examples.

The editorial board of the Roanoke Times in Virginia had this to say on February 11:

A compromise that is expected to clear the way for the

law's reauthorization is a victory of fear over strength. The

``compromise'' the White House and congressional leaders

reached this week on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act

is a compromise of the basic freedoms that define this

Nation. The Bush administration has made a few minor

concessions, enough to give the handful of defiant Senate

Republicans and some of their Democratic allies cover to

extend the broad antiterrorism bill and claim they have done

what they could to protect the civil liberties of innocent

Americans. They have not.

That same day from the New York Times we heard this:

The PATRIOT Act has been one of the few issues on which

Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to

renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties

protections were added. But key members of the Senate have

now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for

only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is

growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the

Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should

insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect

Americans against improper secret searches.

From my own home State, this is from the Wisconsin State Journal on February 18:

In recent weeks, Senators have worked with the White House

to produce a compromise. However, the compromise remains far

short of what is required to protect Americans' civil

liberties. Regrettably, the Senate has backed down from its

earlier stand and is poised to pass the inadequate bill.

These editorial boards and millions of Americans across the country recognize what everybody in this body already knows: that this deal makes only minor--yes, cosmetic--changes to the conference report that was blocked in December. The deal is woefully inadequate, and let me explain why.

I start by reminding my colleagues of the context for this deal. Back in November and December, when so many of us were fighting for improvements to the conference report, we made very clear what we were asking for. We laid out five issues that needed to be addressed to get our support, and I am going to read quickly excerpts from a letter we sent explaining our concerns because I think it will help demonstrate why this deal is so bad and so inadequate. Here are the problems we identified and the changes we asked for several months ago.

On section 215, we said:

The draft conference report would allow the Government to

obtain sensitive personal information on a mere showing of

relevance. This would allow Government fishing expeditions.

As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have

argued, the Government should be required to convince a judge

that the records they are seeking have some connection to a

suspected terrorist or spy.

Next, we discussed gag orders, both for section 215 orders and national security letters:

The draft conference report does not permit the recipient

of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent

gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate

the First Amendment. The recipient of a section 215 order is

entitled to meaningful judicial review of the gag order.

The draft conference report does not provide meaningful

judicial review of an NSL's 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. The recipients of NSLs are

entitled to meaningful judicial review of a gag order.

We then moved on to national security letters more generally. The draft conference report does not sunset the NSL authority. In light of recent revelations about possible abuses of NSLs, the NSL provision should sunset in no more than 4 years when the Congress will have an opportunity to review the use of this power.

Finally, we addressed sneak-and-peek search warrants. The draft conference report requires the Government to notify the target of a sneak-and-peek search no earlier than 30 days after the search rather than within 7 days as the Senate bill provides and as pre-PATRIOT Act judicial decisions required. The conference report should include a presumption that notice will be provided within a significantly shorter period in order to protect fourth amendment rights. The availability of additional 90-day extensions means that a shorter initial timeframe should not be a hardship on the Government.

Again, these quotes are from a letter we sent late last year. Now, you might ask, in this newly announced deal on the PATRIOT Act, have any of these five problems been solved?

The answer is no, not a single one. Only one of these issues has even been partially addressed by this deal, but it has not been fixed.

This deal only makes a few small changes. First, it would permit judicial review of section 215 gag orders, but under conditions that would make it very difficult for anyone to obtain meaningful judicial review. Under the deal, judicial review can only take place after a year has passed, and it can only be successful if the recipient of the section 215 order proves that the Government has acted in bad faith. As many have argued in the context of the national security letters, now that is a virtually impossible standard to meet. We need meaningful judicial review of these gag orders, not just the illusion of it.

Second, the deal would specifically allow the Government to serve national security letters on libraries if the library comes within the current requirements of the NSL statute. This is a provision that appears to just restate current law. Even the American

Library Association has called it nothing other than a fig leaf.

Third, the deal would clarify that people who receive a national security letter or a section 215 order would not have to tell the FBI if they consult with an attorney. Now, this last change is a positive step, but it is only one relatively minor change. So that is what we are left with: one relatively minor improvement. That is nowhere near enough.

Ordinarily, when we debate a flawed bill such as this one, we at least have the chance to improve it on the Senate floor by offering amendments, and I have been trying to do just that to make sure we don't miss the opportunity to address the core problem with the PATRIOT Act that so many of us have been fighting to fix. Before the recess, I filed four amendments to S. 2271, but I was prevented from calling them up because the majority leader used the procedural tactic of filling the amendment tree in order to prevent Senators from offering and getting votes on amendments. Using procedural maneuvers like this to prevent the Senate from debating and voting on amendments is an insult to the institution, and it is an insult to every one of my colleagues. We are being told that we have no choice but to accept the deal that a few Members cut with the White House, without being allowed to even try to change a single word.

We do have a choice--to oppose cloture on this bill and insist that any deal include meaningful civil liberties protections. I don't know if the majority leader fears that my amendments would actually pass or if he just wants to protect Senators from having to explain why they oppose basic protections for law-abiding Americans, but that should not be how the Senate does its business. Offering, debating, and voting on amendments is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. That is how we are supposed to craft legislation. Trying to ram this deal through without a real amending process is a cynical maneuver that we should all reject, regardless of how we may feel about the merits of the bill.

If my colleagues want to vote against my amendments, that is their right. But no one has the right to turn this body into a rubberstamp.

Let's take a step back and consider the process that got us here today. As we know, conference reports are not amendable. They come to this body as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Those are the rules, and we all understand them and play by them. In December, we understood that. In December, we just said no. We said no to the PATRIOT Act conference report.

Now we have a new bill, the product of a side deal with the White House, that is essentially an amendment to the conference report. It is even drafted that way. Each section of the bill amends the underlying law, as amended by the conference report. That is right. The bill we are considering today amends a law that hasn't even been passed by the Senate, much less signed into law. As I understand it, this bill, should both Houses of Congress pass it, will have to sit on the President's desk unsigned until the President signs the conference report bill into law.

The proponents of this deal want to effectively amend the conference report which couldn't pass the Senate in December, even though conference reports are unamendable, and they want to do it by circumventing the regular legislative process with a bill that no one is being allowed to amend, even though the bill did not go through committee, let alone a conference. How is that fair? Why should a handful of members of this body be able to amend an unamendable conference report with a deal struck by the White House, and then prevent the Senate from working its will on that deal?

How can one group of Senators amend the conference report but prevent other Senators from trying to do the same thing? How is that possible?

The answer is that it is not possible unless the Senate lets it happen. And the vote we will have later today is the vote where we will find out if the Senate will let it happen.

I hope even colleagues who may support the deal will oppose such a sham process. It makes no sense to agree to end debate without a guarantee that we will be allowed to actually try to improve the bill, and it is a discourtesy to all Senators, not just me, to try to ram through controversial legislation without the chance to improve it.

My amendments are limited and reasonable. I spoke about them at length before the recess, but let me just take a few minutes to explain again what they would do.

First, amendment No. 2892 would implement the standard for obtaining section 215 orders that was in the Senate bill that the Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 18 to 0, and that was agreed to in the Senate without objection. This is obviously a very reasonable amendment that every Senator in one way or another has basically supported.

It took hard work, but the Judiciary Committee came up with language on section 215 that protects innocent Americans, while also allowing the Government to do what it needs to do to investigate and prevent terrorism. The Senate standard would require the Government to convince a judge that a person has some connection to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their sensitive records.

The Senate standard is the following: One, that the records pertain to a terrorist or spy; two, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with or known to a suspected terrorist or spy; or--and I emphasize ``or''--three, that the records are relevant to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. That is the standard my amendment would impose.

This would not limit the types of records that the Government could obtain, and it does not go as far to protect law-abiding Americans as I might prefer, but it would make sure the Government cannot go on fishing expeditions into the records of innocent people.

The conference report did away with this delicate compromise, replacing the three-prong test with a simple and quite broad relevance standard which could arguably justify the collection of all kinds of information about perfectly law-abiding Americans.

Of all the concerns that have been raised about the PATRIOT Act since it was passed in 2001, section 215 is the one that has received the most public attention, and rightly so. A reauthorization bill that doesn't fix this provision, in my view, has no credibility.

My second amendment is amendment No. 2893, which would ensure the recipients of business records orders under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and also recipients of national security letters can get meaningful judicial review of the gag orders they are subject to.

Under the conference report, as modified by the Sununu bill, recipients of these documents would theoretically have the ability to challenge the gag orders in court, but the standard for getting the gag orders overturned would be virtually impossible to meet. In order to prevail in challenging the NSL or section 215 gag order, the recipient would have to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith. There would be what many have called a conclusive presumption that the gag order stands, unless the recipient can prove that the Government acted in bad faith. Again, I simply don't think that anyone could reasonably call this meaningful judicial review.

My amendment would eliminate the bad faith showing currently required for overturning both section 215 and NSL gag orders. And it would no longer require recipients of section 215 orders to wait a year before they can challenge the accompanying gag orders, which is actually a new requirement in the Sununu bill.

My third amendment, amendment No. 2891, would add to the conference report one additional 4-year sunset provision. It would sunset the national security letter authorities that were expanded by the PATRIOT Act. It would simply add that sunset to the already existing 4-year sunsets that are in the conference report with respect to section 206, section 215, and the so-called lone wolf provision.

National security letters, or NSLs, are finally starting to get the attention they deserve. This authority was expanded by sections 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. The issue of NSLs has flown under the radar for years, even though many of us have been trying to bring more public attention to it.

National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain kinds of records without any--any--sort of court approval whatsoever. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses such as jewelers, car dealers, travel agents, and even casinos. This is a very broad power. I can think of no reason Congress would not want to place a sunset on these authorities to ensure we have the opportunity to take a close look at them.

Finally, my fourth amendment, amendment No. 2894, concerns so-called sneak-and-peek searches, whereby the Government can secretly search people's houses in everyday criminal investigations and not provide notice of the search until afterward. The key issue here is how long the Government should be allowed to wait, at least in most cases, before it notifies individuals that their homes have been searched. The Senate bill said 7 days, 7 days should be the presumption, with the ability to get extensions if necessary, but the conference report does away with that and instead allows a delay of 30 days in most cases.

My amendment would restore the key component in the Senate compromise by requiring that subjects of sneak-and-peek searches be notified of the search within 7 days unless a judge grants an extension of that time because there is good reason to still keep the search secret.

It makes no other change in the conference report other than changing 30 days to 7 days.

Those are my amendments. They are eminently reasonable. They are consistent with provisions that we approved in the Senate last year or they were central to the concerns raised by so many Senators late last year. So these are obviously not extreme ideas, and the Senate should be allowed to vote on these four amendments. All of us have as much right as the Senators who struck a deal with the White House to try to amend the conference report.

I am happy to report that the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, thinks these are reasonable amendments, too. In fact, he thinks they are so reasonable that late yesterday he announced that he is going to combine them into a single bill and introduce it today and try to move it through the Judiciary Committee. That is right. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the chief proponent in this body of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report and of the White House deal the Senate is being asked to ratify, has taken the four amendments I just described and, with a few minor tweaks, he has introduced them as a bill.

I must say, I guess I am flattered and, of course, I will support that bill, but there is an alternative to the lengthy and uncertain legislative process that awaits the chairman's new bill, and that is to simply allow the Senate to vote on my amendments this week. The chairman could offer them with me. We could make a pretty powerful team on this issue, maybe. We have the perfect and logical vehicle for these amendments to the PATRIOT Act before us right now. All we need to do is add the chairman's reasonable proposals to this bill and send it to the House, where it would almost certainly pass if the leadership would simply allow it to be voted on.

These provisions, most of which come right out of the bill that passed the Senate without objection last July, could become law in a matter of weeks rather than a year or more from now, if ever.

My amendments and Senator Specter's bill are simply what the bipartisan group asked for back in December when we blocked the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. Our requests were reasonable then, and they are reasonable now. The only reason we are considering a package that doesn't include them is that the White House played hardball, and the decision was made by some to capitulate.

Mr. President, I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify, and I oppose the sham process that the Senate is facing here. We still have not fixed some of the most significant problems of the PATRIOT Act, and if we allow the conference report to go through, the chairman's sincere hopes notwithstanding, I fear that we will lose that chance for at least another 4 years. So I must oppose cloture on this bill, which will allow the deal to go forward.

Before I yield the floor, let me ask one more time for unanimous consent to set the pending amendments aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2892, the amendment to modify the standard for section 215 orders.

Mr. President, that objection says it all. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture, not only because this deal is flawed but also because of the tactics being used to prevent votes on reasonable, relevant amendments--reasonable, relevant amendments that would improve the flawed bill we are debating.

I yield the floor and 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 unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate is going to vote on whether one small group of Senators, with the blessing of the majority leader, can effectively amend a conference report while other Senators are precluded from offering amendments by a procedural tactic. I urge my colleagues, regardless of their views on the White House deal or PATRIOT Act reauthorization, to vote against cloture. Senators should not be precluded from offering amendments to important pieces of legislation.

In December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. The deal we are asked to bless today makes only minor or, in the words of the Senator from Pennsylvania, ``cosmetic'' changes to that conference report. But regardless of whether you agree with me that the deal does not address the key civil liberties issues identified as problems with the conference report in December, there is no question this is a deal the vast majority of the Senate had no role in. A few Senators worked out a few changes with the White House, and we are now being asked to take it or leave it. That is not how the Senate is supposed to work.

I have filed four reasonable amendments. They reflect provisions that were included in the bill the Senate passed in July without objection or that were central to the concerns raised by so many Senators late last year. They are so reasonable the Senator from Pennsylvania plans to introduce a bill incorporating them and has pledged to pursue it after the conference report becomes law. There is no reason we should put off addressing these important concerns that long when we could be debating and voting on them this week.

I am also willing to have time agreements limiting debate on my amendments as long as they get votes. But, again, the majority leader has simply said no. He has filled the amendment tree, effectively blocking me or any other Senator from trying to improve this bill during debate. The majority leader has told us the conference report will be amended by this deal cut with the White House by a few Senators, and there is nothing the rest of us can do about it.

But, of course, there is something we can do about it. We can reject this parliamentary game. These kinds of strong-arm tactics are not right. They are an abuse of the process. They are beneath the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will send a strong message that it will not be tolerated on this bill or any other bill. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to allow the Senate to consider amendments to improve the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the last 33 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply, and available for wildlife and fish habitat--has become accepted by the public not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to provide adequate protection to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

Despite being one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, the Clean Water Act faces new and unprecedented challenges.

The Supreme Court recently heard two Clean Water Act cases, the outcome of which will have significant implications for Federal efforts to protect the Nation's waters from pollution and destruction. Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and national officials, professional organizations, and public interest groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency--Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and Carol Browner; nine current and former members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage of the 1972 Act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American Sportsfishing Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the Wildlife Management Institute, among others; and a number of local, regional, and national environmental groups. All of these interests filed briefs expressing strong support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the requirement to obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into waters of the United States.

With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that the Supreme Court will follow its own precedent and reaffirm Federal protections for streams, headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that have long been covered by the Act.

Whatever the outcome of these critical cases, Congress must reaffirm the historical scope of the Clean Water Act. The best way to do this is through passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act, S. 912. This bill simply confirms that the Act has always covered all of these waters, consistent with Congress's clear intent, by codifying the regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been in use since 1973.

The bill addresses protections for certain so-called isolated streams and wetlands in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers and will help to ward off any future legal challenges to the scope of the act.

Our Nation's streams, ponds, isolated wetlands, and other bodies of water are too important to not take action to protect them. We owe future generations nothing less than healthy waters.

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

Madam President, I yield the remaining time in morning business on our side.

Madam President, the upcoming cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2271, introduced by my friend Senator Sununu, is the first opportunity for my colleagues to go on record on whether they will accept the White House deal on PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Back in December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the conference report. I think it's clear by now that the deal makes only minor changes to that conference report. The Senator from Pennsylvania, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and primary proponent of the conference report in this body, was quoted yesterday as saying that the changes that the White House agreed to were ``cosmetic.'' And then he said, according to the AP, ``But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change their vote.''

The Senator from Alabama said on the floor yesterday: ``They're not large changes, but it made the Senators happy and they feel comfortable voting for the bill today.'' I agree with both of my adversaries on this bill that the changes were minor and cosmetic. I explained that at length yesterday, and no one else other than Senator Sununu came down to the floor to defend the deal.

Some of my colleagues have been arguing, however, that we should go along with this deal because the conference report, as amended by the Sununu bill, improves the PATRIOT Act that we passed 4\1/2\ years ago.

It's hard for me to understand how Senators who blocked the conference report in December can now say that it's such a great deal. It's not a great deal--the conference report is just as flawed as it was 2 months ago. No

amount of cosmetics is going to make this beast look any prettier. That said, let me walk through some of the provisions of the conference report that are being touted as improvements to the original PATRIOT Act.

First, there's the issue that was the linchpin of the bill the Senate passed without objection in July of last year, that of course is the standard for obtaining business records under Section 215. Section 215 gives the Government extremely broad powers to secretly obtain people's business records. The Senate bill would have required that the Government prove to a judge that the records it sought had some link to suspected terrorists or spies or their activities. The conference report does not include this requirement. Now, the conference report does contain some improvements to section 215, at least around the edges. It contains minimization requirements, meaning that the executive branch has to set rules for whether and how to retain and share information about U.S. citizens and permanent residents obtained from the records. And it requires clearance from a senior FBI official before the Goverment can seek to obtain particularly sensitive records like library, gun and medical records. But the core issue with section 215 is the standard for obtaining these records in the first place.

Neither the minimization procedures nor the high level signoff changes the fact that the Government can still obtain sensitive business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans. The standard in the conference report--``relevance''--will still allow Government fishing expeditions. That is unacceptable. And the Sununu bill does not change that.

Next, let me turn to judicial review of these section 215 orders. After all, if we are going to give the Government such intrusive powers, we should at least let people go to a judge to challenge the order. The conference report does provide for this judicial review. But it would require that the judicial review be conducted in secret, and that Government submissions not be shared with the challenger under any circumstances, without regard for whether there are national security concerns in any particular case. This would make it very difficult for a challenger to get meaningful judicial review that comports with due process.

And the Sununu bill does not address this problem.

What we have are very intrusive powers, very limited judicial review--and then, on top of it, anyone who gets a section 215 order can't even talk about it. That's right--they come complete with an automatic, indefinite gag order. The new ``deal'' supposedly allows judicial review of these gag orders, but that's just more cosmetics. As I explained yesterday, the deal that was struck does not permit meaningful judicial review of these gag orders. No judicial review is available for the first year after the 215 order has been issued. Even when the right to judicial review does finally kick in, the challenger has to prove that the Government acted in bad faith. We all know that is a virtually impossible standard to meet.

The last point on section 215 is that the conference report, as amended by Sununu bill, now explicitly permits recipients of these orders to consult with attorneys, and without having to inform the FBI that they have done so. It does the same thing with respect to national security letters. This is an important clarification, but keep in mind that the Justice Department had already argued in litigation that the provision in the NSL statute actually did permit recipients to consult with lawyers. So this isn't much of a victory at all. Making sure that recipients don't have to tell the FBI if they consult a lawyer is an improvement, but it is a minor one.

Next let's turn to national security letters or NSLs. These are the letters that the FBI can issue to obtain certain types of business records, with no prior court approval at all.

The conference report does provide for judicial review of NSLs, but it also gives the Government the explicit right to enforce NSLs and hold people in contempt for failing to comply, which was not previously laid out in the statute. In stark contrast to the Senate bill, the conference report also would require that the judicial review be conducted in secret and that Government submissions not be shared with a challenger under any circumstances without regard to whether there are national security concerns in any particular case. So just like the section 215 judicial review provision, this will make it very difficult for challengers to be successful. Again, the Sununu bill does not address this problem.

Of course, NSLs come with gag orders, too. The conference report addresses judicial review of these gag orders, but it has the same flaw as the Sununu bill with regard to judicial review of the section 215 gag rule. In order to prevail, you have to prove that the Government acted in bad faith, which, again, would prove to be virtually impossible. The Sununu bill does not modify these provisions at all.

Let me make one last point on NSLs. The Sununu bill contains a provision which states that libraries cannot receive an NSL for Internet records unless the libraries provide ``electronic communication services'' as defined by statute. But that statute already applies only to entities that satisfy this definition, so this provision is essentially just restating existing law. It is no improvement at all. Those cosmetics wear pretty thin when you look closely at this deal.

Let's turn to sneak-and-peek search warrants. As I laid out in detail yesterday, the conference report takes a significant step back from the Senate bill by presumptively allowing the Government to wait an entire month to either notify someone that agents secretly searched their home or to get approval from a judge to delay the notice even longer. The Senate said it should be 1 week. I have yet to hear any argument at all, even in direct debate from the Senator from Alabama, much less a persuasive argument, why that amount of time is insufficient for the Government.

The core fourth amendment protections are at stake. This is not like flipping a coin: Let's make it 7 days; no, make it 30 days. This involves people coming into somebody's house without their knowledge and how long that should be allowed without telling them you were in their house. Once again, the Sununu bill does nothing to address this issue.

Let me talk briefly about roving intelligence wiretaps under section 206 of the PATRIOT Act. We have not discussed this issue much, in part because the conference report does partially address the concerns raised about this provision. But the conference report language is still not as good as the Senate bill was on this issue. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not require that a roving wiretap include sufficient information to describe the specific person to be wiretapped with particularity. The Sununu bill does not address this problem.

Supporters of the conference report say it contains new 4-year sunsets for three provisions: section 206, section 215, and the so- called lone wolf expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that passed as a part of the intelligence reform bill in 2004. We agree, I am sure, that sunsets are not enough. This reauthorization process is our opportunity to fix the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Just sunsetting bad law again is hardly a real improvement. Of course, neither the conference report nor the Sununu bill contains a sunset for the highly controversial national security letter authorities which were expanded by the PATRIOT Act, even though many of us said back in December that was a very important change we wanted to see made.

I have the same response to those who point to the valuable new reporting provisions in the conference report: We must make substantive changes to the law, not just improve oversight.

I have laid out at length the many substantive reasons to oppose the deal. But there is an additional reason to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed; that is, it appears the majority leader is planning to prevent Senators from offering and getting votes on amendments to this bill.

I was on the Senate floor for 9 hours yesterday. I was not asking for much, just a guarantee that once we moved to proceed to the bill I could offer and get votes on a handful of amendments relavant to the bill. There was a time--in fact, I was here--when Senators did not have to camp out on the floor to plead for the opportunity to offer

amendments. In fact, offering debate and voting on amendments is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. That is how we craft legislation. But my offer was rejected.

It appears as if the other side may try to ram this deal through without a real amending process. I hope that even colleagues who may support the deal will oppose such a sham process. It makes no sense to agree to go forward without a guarantee that we will be allowed to actually try to improve the bill. It is a discourtesy to all Senators, not just me, to try to ram through controversial legislation without the chance to improve it.

In sum, I oppose the sham legislative process the Senate is facing, and I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify. Notwithstanding the improvements achieved in the conference report, we still have not adequately addressed some of the most significant problems of the PATRIOT Act. I must oppose proceeding to this bill which will allow this deal to go forward. I cannot understand how anyone who opposed the conference report back in December can justify supporting it now. The conference report was a beast 2 months ago, and it has not gotten any better looking since then.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. I reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment which is at the desk, amendment No. 2892.

I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment at the desk, No. 2892.

Mr. President, we can obviously see what is going on here when the majority leader offered those two amendments earlier. He was filling the amendment tree. That means he is trying--in fact, he is going to do everything he can, and he will succeed, if he wishes--to refuse to allow Senators to improve this bill. Those amendments are nothing more than meaningless amendments, the amendments he has offered, that have to do with the effective date of the bill. They are nothing other than an attempt to prevent me or any other Senator from trying to amend this legislation.

Not only was this a take-it-or-leave-it deal from the White House, but now the majority leader and perhaps other Senators are apparently afraid of what happens if the Senate actually does its work on this issue and has open votes on the merits of these issues.

I want everyone to know that is the game that is being played here, on a bill that has major implications for the rights and freedom of the American people. Obviously, when the majority leader talks about how urgent it is that this be passed, he is conveniently ignoring the fact that this current law is in effect until March 10, and there is no risk whatsoever that the bill would not be renewed.

I am going to speak for a few minutes about the various amendments I have filed and that the majority leader is preventing me from offering.

Amendment No. 2892

Amendment No. 2892 is the amendment that would implement the standard for obtaining section 215 orders that was in the Senate bill the Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 18 to 0 and that was agreed to in the Senate without objection. I hope my colleagues remember that. When the majority leader fills the tree, he is not preventing some type of esoteric amendments nobody has ever seen or heard of. Every member of the Judiciary Committee already voted for that

very provision and no Senator in the entire Senate, including the majority leader, objected to that being in the Senate bill. So this is not some kind of a last-minute deal. This is something the majority leader himself never objected to. It is a reasonable amendment that every Senator in one way or another has basically supported.

Of all the concerns that have been raised about the PATRIOT Act since it was passed in 2001, this is the one that has received the most public attention, and rightly so. This is the one that is often referred to as the ``library provision.'' A reauthorization bill that doesn't fix this provision, in my view, has no credibility.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds of business records about people, including not just library records, but also medical records and various other types of business records. The PATRIOT Act allowed the Government to obtain these records as long as they were ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. That is a very low standard. It didn't require that the records concern someone who was suspected of being a terrorist or spy, or even suspected of being connected to a terrorist or spy. It didn't require any demonstration of how the records would be useful in the investigation. Under section 215, if the Government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism investigation, the secret FISA court was required to issue the order-- period. To make matters worse, recipients of these orders are also subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for records.

Because of the breadth of this power, section 215 became the focal point of a lot of Americans' concerns about the PATRIOT Act. These voices came from the left and the right, from big cities and small towns all across the country. So far, more than 400 State and local government bodies have passed resolutions calling for revisions to the PATRIOT Act. And nearly every one mentions section 215.

The Government should not have the kind of broad, intrusive powers that section 215 provides--not this Government, not any government. The American people shouldn't have to live with a poorly drafted provision that clearly allows for the records of innocent Americans to be searched, and just hope that Government uses it with restraint. A Government of laws doesn't require its citizens to rely on the good will and good faith of those who have these powers--especially when adequate safeguards can be written into the laws without compromising their usefulness as a law enforcement tool. Not one of the amendments I am offering would threaten the ability of law enforcement to do what is needs to do to investigate and prevent terrorism.

After lengthy and difficult negotiations, the Judiciary Committee came up with language that achieved that goal. It would require the Government to convince a judge that a person has some connection to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their sensitive records. And when I say some connection, that's what I mean. The Senate bill's standard is the following: No. 1, that the records pertain to a terrorist or spy; No. 2, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with or known to a suspected terrorist or spy; or No. 3, that the records are relevant--just relevant--to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. That's the three-prong test in the Senate bill and I think it is more than adequate to give law enforcement the power it needs to conduct investigations, while also protecting the rights of innocent Americans. It would not limit the types of records that the Government could obtain, and it does not go as far to protect law-abiding Americans as I might prefer, but it would make sure the Government cannot go on fishing expeditions into the records of innocent people.

The conference report did away with this delicate compromise. It does not contain the critical modification to the standard for section 215 orders. The Senate bill permits the Government to obtain business records only if it can satisfy one or more prongs of the three-prong test. This is a broad standard with a lot of flexibility. But it retains the core protection that the Government cannot go after someone who has no connection whatsoever to a terrorist or spy or their activities.

The conference report replaces the three-prong test with a simple relevance standard. It then provides a presumption of relevance if the government meets one of the three-prongs. It is silly to argue that this is adequate protection against a fishing expedition. The only actual requirement in the conference report is that the Government show that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. Relevance is a very broad standard that could arguably justify the collection of all kinds of information about law-abiding Americans. The three-prongs now are just examples of how the Government can satisfy the relevance standard. That is not simply a loophole or an exception that swallows the rule. The exception is the rule, rendering basically meaningless the three-prong test that we worked so hard to create in the Senate version of the bill.

This issue was perhaps the most significant reason that I and others objected to the conference report. So how was this issue addressed by the White House deal to get the support of some Senators? It wasn't. Not one change was made on the standard for obtaining section 215 orders. That is a grave disappointment. The White House refused to make any changes at all. Not only would it not accept the Senate version of section 215, which, no member of this body objected to back in July-- including the majority leader--it wouldn't make any change in the conference report on this issue at all.

So today I offer an amendment to bring back the Senate standard on section 215. It simply replaces the standard in the conference report with the standard from the Senate bill. I urge my colleagues to support this change, which we all consented to 6 months ago, and which was one of the core issues that many of us stood up for in December when we voted against cloture on the conference report.

I know that some will say they must oppose this amendment because it would disrupt a delicate agreement that has been achieved with the White House. I disagree. There is no reason we can't reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and fix section 215--in fact, there is every reason we should do so. This body has expressed its strongly held views on this issue before, and it should do so again. If this issue went to a vote in the House I'm confident we would have strong support because the House has already indicated a willingness to modify section 215 to protect the privacy of innocent Americans. That is the first amendment I wanted to offer. Let me next turn to amendment No. 2893.

Amendment No. 2893

The second one is amendment No. 2893. This amendment would ensure that recipients of business records orders under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and recipients of national security letters can get meaningful judicial review of the gag orders that they are subject to.

Recipients of both section 215 orders and national security letters are subject to automatic, indefinite gag orders. This means both that a recipient cannot tell anyone what the section 215 order or NSL says, and that the recipient can never even acknowledge that he or she received a section 215 order or NSL. Now I understand there may very well be a need to protect the confidentiality of these business records orders and NSLs in many cases, particularly with regard to the identity of the people whose records they seek. But I do not understand why even the fact of their existence must be a secret, forever, in every case. Even classified information can undergo declassification procedures and ultimately become public, when appropriate.

So I think that meaningful judicial review of these gag orders is critically important. In fact, these automatic, permanent gag rules very likely violate the first amendment. In litigation challenging the gag rule in one of the national security letter statutes, two courts have found first amendment violations because there is no individualized evaluation of the need for secrecy.

So what does the reauthorization package do about this serious problem? Under the conference report, as modified by the Sununu bill, recipients would theoretically have the ability to challenge these gag orders in court, but

the standard for getting the gag orders overturned would be virtually impossible to meet. It is not the meaningful judicial review that the sponsors of the SAFE Act and so many others have been calling for.

Let me start with the NSL provision of the conference report. In order to prevail in challenging the NSL gag order, the recipient would have to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith.

There would be what many have called a ``conclusive presumption'' the gag order stands--unless the recipient can prove that the Government acted in bad faith. We all know that is not meaningful judicial review. That is just the illusion of judicial review.

Does the White House deal address this problem? It does not. In fact, it applies that same very troubling standard of review to judicial review of section 215 gag orders.

The conference report that was rejected back in December did not authorize judicial review of the gag order that comes with a section 215 order at all. That was a serious deficiency. But the White House deal does not solve it. Far from it. Under the deal, there is judicial review of section 215 gag orders, but subject to two limitations that are very problematic. First, judicial review can only take place after at least a year has passed. And second, it can only be successful if the recipient of the section 215 order proves that the Government has acted in bad faith, just as I have described with the NSL provision.

My amendment would eliminate the ``bad faith'' showing currently required for overturning both section 215 and NSL gag orders. And it would no longer require recipients of section 215 orders to wait a year before they can challenge the accompanying gag orders.

That is not everything I would want to address with regard to this issue. I am also concerned that the judicial review provisions allow the Government to present its evidence and arguments to the court in secret. But this amendment which I would like to offer is a good solid start. At a time when the Government is asserting extraordinary powers and seeking to exercise them without any oversight by the courts, judicial review of Government assertions that secrecy is necessary more essential than ever.

We cannot face the American people and claim that overreaching by the government under the PATRIOT Act cannot happen because the courts have the power to stop it--and then turn around and prevent the courts from doing their job. The illusion of judicial review is almost worse that no judicial review at all. In America, we cannot sanction kangaroo courts where the deck is stacked against one party before the case is even filed. Obviously, I hope that my colleagues will support this very reasonable amendment, if we are given a chance to vote on it. I think many would find it quite pervasive and particularly some of the people who were part of the White House negotiations.

amendment to add nsl sunset

The third amendment I would like to offer, No. 2891, would add to the conference report one additional 4-year sunset provision. It would sunset the national security letter authorities that were expanded by the PATRIOT Act. It would be simply add that sunset to the already existing 4-year sunsets that are in the conference report with respect to section 206, section 215, and the lone wolf provision.

National Security Letters, or NSLs, are finally starting to get the attention they deserve. This authority was expanded by sections 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. The issue of NSLs has flown under the radar for years, even though many of us have been trying to bring more public attention to it. I am gratified that we are finally talking about NSLs, in large part due to a lengthy Washington Post story published last year about these authorities.

What are NSLs, and why are they such a concern? Let me spend a little time on this because it really is important.

National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain types of records. So they are similar to section 215 orders, but with one very critical difference. The Government does not need to get any court approval whatsoever to issue them. It doesn't have to go to the FISA court and make even the most minimal showing. It simply issues the order signed by the special agent in charge of a field office or an FBI headquarters official.

NSLs can only be used to obtain certain categories of business records, While section 215 orders can be used to obtain ``any tangible thing.'' But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.

Just as with section 215, the PATRIOT Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the Government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being, or even of being connected to, terrorists or spies. The Government need only certify that the documents are either sought for or relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. And just as with section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule.

The conference report does nothing to fix the standard for issuing an NSL. It leaves in place the breathtakingly broad relevance standard. And the White House deal doesn't do anything about this either.

It is true that the Senate bill does not contain a sunset on the NSL provision. But the Senate bill was passed before the Post brought so much attention to this issue by reporting about the use of NSLs and the difficulties that the gag rule poses for businesses that feel they are being unfairly burdened by them. At the very least, I would think that a sunset of the NSL authorities is justified to ensure that Congress has the opportunity to take a close look at such a broad power. And let me emphasize, the sunset in this amendment would only apply to the expansions of NSL authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act, not to pre- existing authorities.

I suspect that the NSL power is something that the administration is zealously guarding because it is one area where there is almost no judicial involvement or oversight. It is the last refuge for those who want virtually unlimited Government power in intelligence investigations. And that is why the Congress should be very concerned, and very insistent on including a sunset of these expanded authorities. A sunset is a reasonable step here. It helps Congress conduct oversight of these authorities, and requires us to revisit them in 4 years. Ideally we could go ahead and actually fix the NSL statutes now, but sunsetting the expanded powers would at least be a step in the right direction.

Adding this sunset does not change the law in any way. I cannot imagine that adopting this amendment would blow up the White House deal. This is a reasonable amendment, and again I want my colleagues to have a chance to vote on it.

sneak and peek amendment

The fourth amendment that I have, No. 2894, concerns so-called ``sneak and peek'' searches, whereby the Government can secretly search people's houses. The Senate bill included compromise language that was acceptable to me and the other proponents of the SAFE Act. The conference report departs from that compromise in one very significant respect, and the White House deal doesn't address this at all. My amendment would restore the key component of the Senate compromise by requiring that subjects of sneak and peek searches be notified of the search within 7 days, unless a judge grants an extension of that time because there is a good reason to still keep the search secret. It makes no other change to the conference report other than changing 30 days to 7 days.

Let me take a little time to put this issue in context and explain why the difference between 30 days and 7 days is necessary to protect an important constitutional right.

One of the most fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights is the fourth amendment's guarantee that all citizens have the right to ``be secure in

their persons, houses, papers, and effects'' against ``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' The idea that the Government cannot enter our homes improperly is a bedrock principle for Americans, and rightly so. The fourth amendment has a rich history and includes in its ambit some very important requirements for searches. One is the requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The Constitution specifically requires that a warrant for a search be issued only where there is probable cause and that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the Constitution require that particular description? Well, for one thing, that description becomes a limit on what can be searched or seized. If the magistrate approves a warrant to search someone's home and the police show up at the person's business, that search is not valid. If the warrant authorizes a search at a particular address, and the police take it next door, they have no right to enter that house. But here is the key. There is no opportunity to point out that the warrant is inadequate unless that warrant is handed to someone at the premises. If there is no one present to receive the warrant, and the search must be carried out immediately, most warrants require that they be left behind at the premises that were searched. Notice of the search is part of the standard fourth amendment protection. It's what gives effect to the Constitution's requirement of a warrant and a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or items to be seized.

Over the years, the courts have faced claims by the Government that the circumstances of a particular investigation require a search without notifying the target prior to carrying out the search. In some cases, giving notice would compromise the success of the search by causing the suspect to flee or destroy evidence. The two leading court decisions on so-called surreptitious entry, or what have come to be known as ``sneak and peek'' searches, came to very similar conclusions. They held that notice of criminal search warrants could be delayed, but not omitted entirely. Both the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Villegas and the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Freitas held that a sneak and peek warrant must provide that notice of the search will be given within 7 days, unless extended by the court. Listen to what the Freitas court said about such searches:

We take this position because surreptitious searches and

seizures of intangibles strike at the very heart of the

interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. The mere thought

of strangers walking through and visually examining the

center of our privacy interest, our home, arouses our passion

for freedom as does nothing else. That passion, the true

source of the Fourth Amendment, demands that surreptitious

entries be closely circumscribed.

So when defenders of the PATRIOT Act say that sneak and peek searches were commonly approved by courts prior to the PATRIOT Act, they are partially correct. Some courts permitted secret searches in very limited circumstances, but they also recognized the need for prompt notice after the search unless a reason to continue to delay notice was demonstrated. And they specifically said that notice had to occur within 7 days.

Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act didn't get this balance right. It allowed notice to be delayed for any ``reasonable'' length of time. What is ``reasonable''? Information provided by the administration about the use of this provision since 2001 indicates that delays of months at a time are now becoming commonplace. Those are hardly the kind of delays that the courts had been allowing prior to the PATRIOT Act.

I know that the conference report requirement of notice within 30 days was a compromise between the Senate and House provisions. And so, the Senator from Pennsylvania and others will strongly oppose this amendment, if I ever get to offer it. But let me point out that the House passed the Otter amendment to completely eliminate the sneak and peek provision by a wide bipartisan margin. I hardly think the House will balk at this reasonable amendment that allows these sneak and peek reviews but says that after 7 days you have to go back and get an application for more time, or you have to give notice to the persons whose house is intruded upon.

More importantly, here is the crucial question that no one has been able to answer so far. Listen carefully to the arguments made by the opponents of the amendment and see if they answer it this time, if we ever get a chance to debate it. What possible rationale is there for not requiring the Government to go back to a court within 7 days after a sneak and peek search and demonstrate a need for continued secrecy? What is the problem here? Why insist that the Government get 30 days of secrecy, instead of 7 days, without getting an extension from the court? Could it be that they think that the courts usually won't agree that continued secrecy is needed after the search is conducted, so they won't get the 90-day extension? If they have to go back to a court at some point, why not go back after 7 days rather than 30? From the point of view of the Government, I don't see the big deal.

It amazes me to hear Senators on the floor saying 7 days, 30 days. What is the difference? This is about big government coming into your home without your knowledge and saying it doesn't matter that you are not given notice in 7 days as opposed to 30 days. I tell you that it matters to people in my State, and it would matter to me. Government shouldn't be in your house without notice except for very narrowly identified circumstances that are consistent with the court decisions that allowed the sneak-and-peek provisions in the first place. There is a big difference between 1 week and 1 month when it comes to something like the Government secretly coming into your home.

Suppose, for example, that the Government actually searched the wrong house. As I mentioned, that is one of the reasons that notice is a fourth amendment requirement. The innocent owner of the place that had been searched might suspect that someone had broken in his house, and he might be living in fear that someone has a key or some other way to enter his house. The owner might wonder: When is the intruder going to return? Do the locks have to be changed?

I implore my colleagues to look at this issue from the point of view of an innocent person in their own home somewhere in their own home State. Why would we make that person wait a month to get an explanation rather than a week? Presumably, if the search revealed nothing, and especially if the Government realized the mistake and does not intend to apply for an extension, it will be no hardship other than a little embarrassment for notice to be given within 7 days.

If, on the other hand, the search was successful and revealed illegal activity and notifying the subject would compromise an ongoing investigation, the Government should have no trouble at all getting a 90-day extension of the search warrant. All they have to do is walk into the court and tell the judge: Judge, we found something, and we are now keeping the place under surveillance because there is ongoing criminal activity taking place there, so give us more time before we serve the search warrant.

That is all you have to say. What is so hard about that? We all know the judges will give them that. It is perfectly reasonable.

The Senate bill is already a compromise on this very controversial provision. There is no good reason not to adopt the Senate's position. I have pointed this out repeatedly and no one has ever come to the Senate and come up with any explanation of why the Government cannot come back to the court within 7 days of executing the search. The Senate provision was what the courts required prior to the PATRIOT Act. It worked fine then. It can work now.

Let me make one final point about sneak-and-peek warrants. Do not be fooled for a minute that this power has anything to do with just investigating terrorism or espionage. It does not. Section 213 is a criminal provision that applies in any kind of criminal investigation. In fact, most sneak-and-peek warrants are issued for drug investigations. So why do I say they are not needed in terrorism investigations? Because FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, can also apply to these investigations. FISA search warrants are always executed in secret and never require notice--not in 7 days, not in 30 days, not in 180 days, not ever. So

if you do not want to give notice of a search in a terrorism investigation, you can get a FISA warrant. So any argument that adopting this amendment will interfere with sensitive terrorism investigations is false. It is false, plain and simple.

I look forward to hearing the response of the opponents on this issue. I am beginning to lose faith I will ever hear from them. But I also urge my colleagues to listen carefully: Will anyone come forward and argue convincingly that 7 days, which the entire Senate approved in July, is too short of a period of time? If not, we should adopt this amendment.

I have had the opportunity the last few minutes to describe the four remaining amendments I have filed. I have tried to explain them clearly. These are provisions that are either consistent with or the same as provisions that we approved in the Senate last year by unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee and in a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, which not one single Senator, including the majority leader, objected to. Or they were central to the concerns raised by so many Senators late last year. So these are obviously not extreme ideas. They are very reasonable ideas.

The idea that right after the motion to proceed was approved the majority leader would come and ``fill up the tree,'' which means preventing me from offering these amendments on the Senate floor, is a disservice to the Senate and it is a disservice to the American people. The American people are concerned about this legislation. Whether Members of this Senate want to admit it, there is a lot of concern about this legislation. The goal should be to make sure that the law enforcement in our country has the tools it needs to fight those who are involved in terrorism or spying. But the goal should also be to reassure the American people that we are not somehow trying to take away the rights and freedoms and privacy of perfectly innocent Americans. I would think all of us would want that to be the way this legislation is perceived.

The act of preventing reasonable amendments, under a limited timeframe, on provisions that have already been approved by the Senate or that so many Senators have raised concerns about, is a guarantee of causing anxiety and concern on the part of the American people that something is wrong, that somehow the power grab by this administration is out of control.

I implore my colleagues to join me in imploring the majority leader to allow us to offer these reasonable amendments. That is not only the right thing to do, it is our responsibility, as Members of this Senate.

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

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from New Hampshire is going to make some remarks and I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after he has completed his remarks.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I object to raising the quorum call.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous--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 unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak at 11 a.m. on the motion to proceed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it will come as no surprise that I would like to talk about the PATRIOT Act today, and certainly I listened to the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire and have greatly enjoyed the experience of working with him on this issue for the last couple of years.

I, of course, come to a very different conclusion about the matters before us. I strongly oppose proceeding to the consideration of S. 2271, which is legislation introduced by some of my friends and colleagues to implement the deal on the PATRIOT Act that was struck by the White House last week.

Some may argue that there is no harm in passing a bill that could charitably be described as trivial. But protecting the rights of law- abiding Americans is not trivial, and passage of S. 2271 is the first step toward passage of the flawed PATRIOT Act conference report.

I will oppose both measures, and I am prepared to discuss at length my reasons for doing so. I do greatly respect the Senators who negotiated this deal, but I am gravely disappointed in the outcome. The White House would agree to only a few very minor changes to the same PATRIOT Act conference report that could not get through the Senate just back in this past December. These changes do not address the major problems with the PATRIOT Act that the bipartisan coalition has been trying to fix for the past several years.

In fact, the Senator from New Hampshire described the issues that brought us together, the points that brought us together. This agreement doesn't relate, in any significant way, to the provisions that we were concerned about that brought us together in a bipartisan way.

What came out of this agreement is, quite frankly, a figleaf to allow those who were fighting hard to improve the act to step down, claim victory, and move on. What a hollow victory that would be and what a complete reversal of the strong, bipartisan consensus that we saw in this body a couple months ago.

What we are seeing, I regret to say, is quite simply a capitulation on the intransigent and misleading rhetoric of the White House that sees any effort to protect civil liberties as a sign of weakness. Protecting American values is not weakness. Standing on principle is not weakness. Committing to fight terrorism aggressively without compromising the rights and freedoms this country was founded upon is not weakness either.

We have come too far and fought too hard to agree to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without fixing any of the major problems with the act. A few insignificant face-saving changes don't cut it. So I cannot support this deal. I strongly oppose proceeding to legislation that would implement it.

I understand the pressure my colleagues have been under on this issue, and I again want to say I appreciate all the hard work they have done on the PATRIOT Act. It has been very gratifying to work on a bipartisan basis on this issue. It is unfortunate the White House is so obviously trying to make this into a partisan issue because it sees some political advantage in doing so. But whether the White House likes it, this will continue to be an issue where both Democrats and Republicans have concerns, and we will continue to work together for changes in the law. I am sure of that. But I will also continue to strongly oppose any reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act that doesn't protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans who have absolutely no connection whatsoever to terrorism.

This deal does not meet that standard. Frankly, Mr. President, it doesn't even come close. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and I, therefore, ask that they oppose even proceeding to this legislation.

I wanted to take some time to lay out the background and context for this ongoing debate over the PATRIOT Act, a debate that will not end with the reauthorization of the 16 provisions that are now set to expire March 10. And I want to discuss my concerns about this reauthorization deal with some specificity.

Mr. President, because I was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001, I want to be very clear from the start. I am not opposed to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. I supported the bipartisan compromise, the reauthorization bill the Senate passed last July without a single Senator objecting. I believe that bill should become law.

The Senate reauthorization bill is not a perfect bill, but it is actually a good bill. If that were the bill we considered back in December or the bill we were considering today, I would be speaking in support of it. In fact, we could have completed the process of reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act months ago if the House had taken up the bill that the Senate approved without any objection from any Senator on either side of the aisle.

I also want to respond to those who argue that any people who are continuing to call for a better reauthorization package want to let the PATRIOT Act expire. That is nonsense. Not a single Member of this body is calling for any provision--not only that the bill should not be reauthorized, but no Senator is calling for even one provision at all to actually expire. There are any number of ways we can reauthorize the act, while amending its most problematic provisions, and I am not prepared to support reauthorization without adequate reform.

Let me also be clear about how this process fell apart at the end of last year and how we ended up having to extend the PATRIOT Act temporarily past the end of 2005. In December, this body, in one of its prouder moments in recent years, refused to let through a badly flawed conference report. A bipartisan group of Senators stood together and demanded further changes. We made very clear what we were asking for. We laid out five issues that needed to be addressed to get our support.

Let me quickly read excerpts from a letter that we sent out explaining our concerns:

The draft conference report would allow the Government to

obtain sensitive personal information on a mere showing of

relevance. This would allow Government fishing expeditions.

As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have

argued, the Government should be required to convince a judge

that the records they are seeking have some connection to a

suspected terrorist or spy.

The draft conference report does not permit the recipient

of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent

gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate

the First Amendment. The recipient of a section 215 order is

entitled to meaningful judicial review of the gag order.

The draft conference report doesn't provide meaningful

judicial review of a national security letter's 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. The recipients of NSLs are

entitled to meaningful judicial review of a gag order.

The draft conference report does not sunset the NSL

authority. In light of recent revelations about possible

abuses of NSLs, the NSL provision should sunset in no more

than four years so that Congress will have an opportunity to

review the use of this power.

The draft conference report requires the Government to

notify the target of a ``sneak and peek'' search no earlier

than 30 days after the search, rather than within seven days,

as the Senate bill provides and as pre-PATRIOT Act judicial

decisions required. The conference report should include a

presumption that notice will be provided within a

significantly shorter period in order to better protect

Fourth Amendment rights. The availability of additional 90-

day extensions means that a shorter initial timeframe should

not be a hardship on the Government.

Those are the key parts of the letter that we sent late last year. Now, you might ask, in this newly announced deal on the PATRIOT Act, have any of these problems been solved? Have any of the five problems identified by the SAFE Act authors been solved?

The answer is simple, Mr. President. The answer is: No, not a single one. Only one of these issues has been even partially addressed by this deal. The White House applied immense pressure and pulled out its usual scare tactics and succeeded in somehow convincing people to accept a deal that makes only a tiny substantive improvement to a bill that was actually rejected in December. This is simply not acceptable.

I want to explain in detail my biggest concerns with the conference report, as modified by S. 2271, the legislation that the majority leader is seeking to take up. First, I want to clear up one frequent misconception. I have never advocated repeal of any portion of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, as I have said repeatedly over the past 4 years, I supported most of that bill. There were many good provisions in that bill. As my colleagues know, the PATRIOT Act did a lot more than expand our surveillance laws. Among other things, it set up a national network to prevent and detect electronic crimes, such as the sabotage of the Nation's financial sector; it established a counterterrorism fund to allow the Justice Department offices, disabled in terrorist attacks, to keep operating; and it changed the money laundering laws to make them more useful in disrupting the financing of terrorist organizations. One section even condemned discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans.

Even some of the act's surveillance sections were reasonable. One provision authorized the FBI to expedite the hiring of translators. Another added terrorism and computer crimes to the list of crimes for which criminal wiretap orders could be sought. And some provisions helped to bring down what has been called frequently ``the wall''--the wall that had been built up between intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Whenever we start debating the PATRIOT Act, we hear a lot of people saying we must reauthorize the PATRIOT Act in order to ensure that the wall doesn't go back up. So let me make it clear. I supported the information-sharing provisions of the PATRIOT Act. One of the key lessons we learned in the wake of September 11 was that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were not sharing information with each other, even where the statutes permitted it.

Unfortunately, the wall was not so much a legal problem as it was a problem of culture. That is not just my conclusion. The report of the 9/11 Commission made that very clear. I am sorry to report we have not made as much progress as we should have in bringing down those very significant cultural barriers to information sharing among our agencies. The 9/11 Commission report card that was issued toward the end of last year gave the Government a ``D'' for information sharing because our agencies' cultures have not changed enough. A statement issued by Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton explained, ``You can change the law, you can change the technology, but you still need to change the culture. You still need to motivate institutions and individuals to share information.'' And so far, apparently, our Government has not met that challenge.

Talking about the importance of information sharing, as administration officials and other supporters of the conference report have done repeatedly, is part of a pattern that started several years ago on this issue of renewing or revising the PATRIOT Act. Rather than engage in a true debate on the controversial parts of the PATRIOT Act, as some in this body have done--to their credit--during this reauthorization process, many proponents of the PATRIOT Act point to the noncontroversial provisions of the act and talk about how important they are. They say this bill must be passed because it reauthorizes those noncontroversial provisions. But, that doesn't advance the debate; it muddies the waters because we all agree that those provisions should be continued.

The point is we don't have to accept bad provisions to make sure the good provisions become law, or continue to be law.

I hope I actually advance the debate. I want to spend some time explaining my specific concerns with the conference report and the deal that was struck to make a few minor changes to it. It is unfortunate the whole Congress could not come together, as the Senate did around the Senate's bipartisan compromise reauthorization bill. In July, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in favor of a reauthorization bill that made meaningful changes to the most controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act to protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.

Shortly thereafter, that bill passed the full Senate by unanimous consent. It was not entirely easy for me to support the Senate bill, which fell short of the improvements contained in the bipartisan SAFE Act. But at the end of the day, the Senate bill actually contained meaningful changes to some of the most problematic provisions in the PATRIOT Act--provisions I have been trying to fix since October 2001-- so I decided to support it. I made it very clear at the time, however, that I viewed the bill as the end point of negotiations, not the beginning. In fact, I specifically warned my colleagues ``that the conference process must not be allowed to dilute the safeguards in this bill.'' Obviously, I meant it, but it appears that people either were not listening or weren't taking me seriously. This conference report, as slightly modified by this deal, unfortunately does not contain many important reforms to the PATRIOT Act we passed in the Senate, so I cannot support it. And I will fight.

I wish to remind my colleagues of the serious problems with the PATRIOT Act which we have been discussing for several years now. Let me start with section 215, the so-called library provision, which has received probably the most public attention of any one of the controversial provisions. I remember when the former Attorney General of the United States called the librarians who were expressing disagreement with this provision ``hysterical.'' What a revelation it was when the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Pennsylvania, opened his questioning of the current Attorney General during his confirmation hearing by expressing concerns about this provision of the PATRIOT Act, section 215. He got the Attorney General to concede that, yes, in fact, this provision probably went a bit too far and could be improved and clarified. And that was really an extraordinary moment. It was a moment that was very slow in coming, and it was long overdue.

I give credit to the Senator from Pennsylvania because it allowed us to start having a real debate on the PATRIOT Act. Credit also has to go to the American people, who stood up, despite the dismissive and derisive comments of Government officials, and said, with loud voices: The PATRIOT Act needs to be changed.

My colleagues know as well as I do that these voices came from the left and the right, from big cities and small towns across America. So far, more than 400 State and local governmental bodies have passed resolutions calling for revisions to the PATRIOT Act. I plan to read some of those resolutions on the floor during this debate, and there are a lot of them. Nearly every one mentions section 215.

Section 215 is at the center of this debate over the PATRIOT Act. It is also one of the provisions that I tried unsuccessfully to amend here on the floor in October of 2001. So it makes sense to start my discussion of the specific problems I have with the conference report with the infamous ``library'' provision.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain secret court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds of business records about people, including not just library records but also medical records and various other types of business records. The PATRIOT Act allowed the Government to obtain these records as long as they were ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. That is all they had to say. That is a very low standard. It didn't require that the records concern someone who was suspected of being a terrorist or spy or even suspected of being connected to a terrorist or a spy. It didn't require any demonstration of how the records would be useful in the investigation. Under section 215, if the Government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism investigation, the secret FISA Court was required to issue the order--no discretion required to issue the order, period. To make matters worse, recipients of these orders are also subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for records.

Some in the administration and even in this body took the position that people shouldn't be able to criticize these provisions until they could come up with a specific example of ``abuse.'' The Attorney General has repeatedly made that same argument, and he did so again in December in an op-ed in the Washington Post when he dismissed concerns about the PATRIOT Act by saying that ``there have been no verified civil liberty abuses in the 4 years of the Act's existence.''

First of all, that has always struck me as a strange argument since 215 orders are issued by a secret court and people who receive them are prohibited by law from discussing them. In other words, the law is designed--it is actually designed--so that it is almost impossible for you to know if abuses have occurred. But even more importantly, the claim about lack of abuse just isn't credible anymore, given what we now know about how this administration views the surveillance laws that this body, this Congress, writes. We now know that for the past 4-plus years, the Government has been wiretapping the international communications of Americans inside the United States without obtaining the wiretap orders required by statute.

If we want to talk about abuses, I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power than to violate the law by eavesdropping on American citizens without first getting a court order based on some evidence, some evidence that they are possibly criminals or terrorists or spies. So I don't want to hear again from the Attorney General or anyone on this floor that this Government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care.

The Government should not have those kinds of broad, intrusive powers in section 215--not this Government, not any government. The American people shouldn't have to live with a poorly drafted provision which clearly allows for the records of innocent Americans to be searched and just hope that the Government uses it with restraint. A government of laws doesn't require its citizens to rely on the good will and good faith of those who have these powers, especially when adequate safeguards could easily be written into the law--easily be written into the law--without compromising their usefulness as a law enforcement or antiterrorist tool.

After lengthy and difficult negotiations, the Judiciary Committee came up with language that achieved that goal. It would require the Government to convince a judge that a person has some connection to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their sensitive records. When I say ``some connection,'' that is what I mean. The Senate bill's standard is the following: No. 1, that the records pertain to a terrorist or spy; No. 2, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with or known to a suspected terrorist or spy; or No. 3, that the records are relevant to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. That is the three-prong test in the Senate bill, and I believe it is more than adequate to give law enforcement the power it needs to conduct investigations while also sufficiently protecting the rights of innocent Americans. It would not limit the types of records the Government could obtain, and it does not go as far to protect law- abiding Americans as I would prefer, but it would make sure the Government cannot go on fishing expeditions into the records of completely innocent people.

The Senate bill would also give recipients of the 215 order an explicit, meaningful right to challenge those orders and the accompanying gag orders in court. These provisions passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously after tough negotiations late into the night, and as anyone familiar with the Judiciary Committee knows, including the Chair, that is no mean feat, to get that done in the Judiciary Committee on any issue.

The conference report did away with this delicate provision. First and most importantly, it does not contain the critical modifications to the standard for section 215 orders. The Senate permits the Government to obtain business records only if it can satisfy one or more of the prongs of the three-prong test I just described. This is a broad standard, and it has a lot of flexibility. But it retains the core protection--the core protection--that the Government cannot go after someone who has no connection whatsoever to a terrorist or spy or their activities.

The conference replaces the three-prong test with a simple relevance standard. It then provides a presumption of relevance that the Government meets one of the three prongs. It is silly to argue that this is adequate protection against a fishing expedition. The only actual requirement in the conference report is that the Government show that those records are just relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation--that is all--just relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. Relevance is a very broad standard that could arguably justify the collection of all kinds of information about all kinds of law-abiding Americans. The three prongs are just examples of how the Government can satisfy the relevance standard. That is not simply a loophole or an exception that swallows the rule; the exception is the rule. The exception basically destroys the meaning of the carefully considered three-prong test we all supported in the Senate.

I will try to make this as straightforward as I can. The Senate bill requires the Government to satisfy one of three tests. Each test requires some connection between the records and a suspected terrorist or spy. But the conference report says that the Government only is required to satisfy a new fourth test, and that test is only relevance and which does not require a connection between the records and a suspect. So the other three tests no longer provide any protections at all.

This issue was perhaps the most significant reason I and others objected to the conference report. So, naturally, the question today is, How was this issue addressed by the White House deal to get the support of some Senators? The answer is, It wasn't. Not one change was made on the standard for obtaining section 215 orders, and that is a grave disappointment. The White House refused to make any changes at all. Not only would it not accept the Senate version of section 215, which no Member of this body objected to back in July, it wouldn't make any change in the conference report on this issue at all.

Another significant problem with the conference report that was rejected back in December is that it does not authorize judicial review of the gag order that comes with a section 215 order. While some have argued that the review by the FISA Court of a Government application for a section 215 order is equivalent to judicial review of the accompanying gag order, that is simply inaccurate. The statute does not give the FISA Court any latitude to make an individualized decision about whether to impose a gag order when it issues a section 215 order. It is required by statute to include a gag order in every section 215 order. That means the gag order is automatic and permanent in every case.

This is a serious deficiency and one which very likely violates the First Amendment. In litigation challenging a similar, permanent, automatic gag rule in a national security letter statute, two courts have found first amendment violations because there is no individualized evaluation of the need for secrecy. I have those decisions here,

and perhaps I will have a chance to read them during this debate.

This question of judicial review of the section 215 gag order is one issue that is actually addressed in some way by the White House deal-- addressed but not solved. Far from it. Under the deal, there is judicial review of section 215 gag orders, but it can only take place after a year has passed, and it can only be successful if the recipient of the section 215 order proves that the Government has acted in bad faith. As many of us have argued in the context of national security letters, that is a virtually impossible standard to meet. What we need is meaningful judicial review of these gag orders, not just the illusion of it.

I do acknowledge one change made by the White House deal that I do think is an improvement over the conference report. The conference report clarifies that the recipients of both section 215 orders and national security letters, which I will discuss in detail in a moment, can consult an attorney, but it also includes a provision that requires the recipients of these letters to notify the FBI if they consult with the attorney and to identify the attorney to the FBI. Obviously, this could have a significant chilling effect on the right to counsel. The deal struck with the White House makes clear that recipients of section 215 orders in national security letters would not have to tell the FBI if they consult with an attorney. That is an improvement over the conference report but, unfortunately, it is only one relatively minor change.

Let me now turn to a very closely related provision that has finally been getting the attention it deserves: national security letters, or NSLs--an authority that was expanded by section 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. This NSL issue has flown under the radar for years, even though many of us have been trying to bring more public attention to it. I am gratified that we are finally talking about NSLs, in large part due to a lengthy Washington Post story published last year on the use of these authorities.

What are NSLs, and why are they such a concern? Let me spend a little time on this because it is quite important. National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain types of records. So they are similar to section 215 orders, but with one very critical difference: the Government does not need to get any court approval whatsoever to issue them. It doesn't have to go to the FISA Court and make even the most minimal showing. It simply issues the order signed by the special agent in charge of a field office or some other FBI headquarters official.

NSLs can only be used to obtain certain categories of business records, in fairness, while section 215 orders can be used to obtain ``any tangible thing.''

But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.

Just as with section 215, the PATRIOT Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the Government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being, or even of being connected to, terrorists or spies. The Government need only certify that the documents are either sought for or relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. And just as with section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule.

The conference report does little to fix the problems with the national security letter authorities. In fact, it could be argued that it makes the law worse. Let me explain why.

First, the conference report does nothing to fix the standard for issuing an NSL. It leaves in place the breathtakingly broad relevance standard. Now, some have analogized NSLs to grand jury subpoenas, which are issued by grand juries in criminal investigations to obtain records that are relevant to the crime they are investigating. So, the argument goes, what is the big deal if NSLs are also issued under a relevance standard for intelligence investigations?

Two critical differences make that analogy break down very quickly. First of all, the key question is: Relevant to what? In criminal cases, grand juries are investigating specific crimes, the scope of which is explicitly defined in the criminal code. Although the grand jury is quite powerful, the scope of its investigation is limited by the particular crime it is investigating. In sharp contrast, intelligence investigations are, by definition, extremely broad. When you are gathering information in an intelligence investigation, anything could potentially be relevant. Suppose the Government believes a suspected terrorist visited Los Angeles in the last year or so. It might then want to obtain and keep the records of everyone who has stayed in every hotel in L.A., or booked a trip to L.A. through a travel agent, over the past couple years, and it could argue strongly that that information is relevant to a terrorism investigation because it would be useful to run all those names through the terrorist watch list.

I don't have any reason to believe that such broad use of NSLs is happening. But the point is that when you are talking about intelligence investigations, ``relevance'' is a very different concept than in criminal investigations. It is certainly conceivable that NSLs could be used for that kind of broad dragnet in an intelligence investigation. Nothing in current law prevents it. The nature of criminal investigations and intelligence investigations is different, and let's not forget that.

Second, the recipients of grand jury subpoenas are not subject to the automatic secrecy that NSL recipients are. We should not underestimate the power of allowing public disclosure when the Government overreaches. In 2004, Federal officials withdrew a grand jury subpoena issued to Drake University for a list of participants in an antiwar protest because of public revelations about the demand. That could not have happened if the request had been under section 215 or for records available via the NSL authorities.

Unfortunately, there are many other reasons why the conference report does so little good on NSLs. Let's talk next about judicial review. The conference report creates the illusion of judicial review for NSLs, both for the letters themselves and for the accompanying gag rule, but, if you look at the details, it is drafted in a way that makes that review virtually meaningless. With regard to the NSLs themselves, the conference report permits recipients to consult their lawyer and seek judicial review, but it also allows the Government to keep all of its submissions secret and not share them with the challenger, regardless of whether there are national security interests at stake. So you can challenge the order, but you have no way of knowing what the Government is telling the court in response to your challenge. The parties could be arguing about something as garden variety as attorney-client privilege, with no national security issues, and the Government would have the ability to keep its submission secret. That is a serious departure from our usual adversarial process, and it is very disturbing.

The other significant problem with the judicial review provisions is the standard for getting the gag rule overturned. In order to prevail, the recipient has to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith. Again, this is a standard of review that is virtually impossible to meet. So what we have is the illusion of judicial review. When you look behind the words in the statute, you realize it's just a mirage.

Does the White House deal address these problems? It does not. In fact, as I have already discussed, it expands that same very troubling standard of review to judicial review section 215 gag orders.

The modifications to the conference report agreed to by the White House do contain one other purported change to one of the NSL statutes. This modification states that the FBI cannot issue an NSL for transactional and subscriber information about telephone and Internet usage to a library unless

the library is offering ``electronic communication services'' as defined in the statute. But that just restates the existing requirements of the NSL statute, which currently applies only to entities--libraries or otherwise--that provide ``electronic communication services.'' So that provision has no real legal effect whatsoever. Perhaps that explains why the American Library Association issued a statement calling this provision a ``figleaf'' and expressing disappointment that so many Senators have agreed to this deal.

I also want to take a moment to address, again, an argument that has been made about the NSL provisions of the conference report. It has been argued that many of the complaints I have about the NSL provisions of the conference report apply equally to the NSL provisions of the Senate bill and therefore, because I supported the Senate bill, by some convoluted theory my complaints are therefore invalid and I should support the conference report.

That just makes no sense. The NSL section of the Senate bill was one of the worst sections of the bill. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. But in the context of the larger package of reforms that were in the Senate bill, including the important changes to section 215 that I talked about earlier and the new time limit on ``sneak and peek'' search warrants that I will talk about in a moment, I was able to accept that NSL section even though I would have preferred additional reforms.

The argument has been made that after supporting a compromise package for its good parts, I guess the idea is I am supposed to accept a conference report that has only the bad parts of the package even though the good parts have been stripped out. That is just nonsense, and every Member of this chamber who has ever agreed to a compromise-- and I must assume that includes every single one of us--knows it.

The other point I want to emphasize here is that the Senate bill was passed before the Post reported about the use of NSLs and the difficulties that the gag rule poses for businesses that feel they are being unfairly burdened by them. At the very least, I would think that a sunset of the NSL authorities would be justified to ensure that Congress has the opportunity to take a close look at such a broad power. But the conferees and the White House refused to make that change. Nor would they budge at all on the absurdly difficult standard of review, the so-called conclusive presumption; in fact, the White House insisted on repeating it in the context of judicial review of section 215 gag orders.

This points out a real problem I have with the White House deal. In our letter in December, my colleagues and I, Democratic and Republican, complained about the unfair standard for judicial review of the gag order in connection to NSLs. So how can the supporters of this deal argue that applying that same standard to challenges to the gag rule for section 215 orders is an improvement? A standard that was unacceptable in December has somehow miraculously been transformed into a meaningful concession. That is just spin. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

I suspect that the NSL power is something that the administration is zealously guarding because it is one area where there is almost no judicial involvement or oversight. It is the last refuge for those who want virtually unlimited Governmental power in intelligence investigations. And that is why the Congress should be very concerned and very insistent on making the reasonable changes we have suggested.

I next want to address ``sneak and peek'' searches. This is another area where the conference report departs from the Senate's compromise language, another area where the White House deal makes no changes whatsoever, and another reason that I must oppose the conference report.

When we debated the PATRIOT Act in December, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania made what seems on the surface to be an appealing argument. He said that the Senate bill requires notice of a sneak and peek search within 7 days of the search, and the House said 180 days. The conference compromised on 30 days. ``That's a good result,'' he says. ``They came down 150 days, we went up only 23. What's wrong with that?''

Let me take a little time to put this issue in context and explain why this isn't just a numbers game--an important constitutional right is at stake.

One of the most fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights is the fourth amendment's guarantee that all citizens have the right to ``be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects'' against ``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' The idea that the Government cannot enter our homes improperly is a bedrock principle for Americans, and rightly so. The fourth amendment has a rich history and includes in its ambit some very important requirements for searches. One is the requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The Constitution specifically requires that a warrant for a search be issued only where there is probable cause and that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the Constitution require that particular description? For one thing, that description becomes a limit on what can be searched or what can be seized. If the magistrate approves a warrant to search someone's home and the police show up at the person's business, that search is not valid. If the warrant authorizes a search at a particular address, and the police take it next door, they have no right to enter that house. But of course, there is no opportunity to point out that the warrant is inadequate unless that warrant is handed to someone at the premises. If there is no one present to receive the warrant, and the search must be carried out immediately, most warrants require that they be left behind at the premises that were searched. Notice of the search is part of the standard Fourth Amendment protection. It's what gives meaning, or maybe we should say ``teeth,'' to the Constitution's requirement of a warrant and a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or items to be seized.

Over the years, the courts have had to deal with Government claims that the circumstances of a particular investigation require a search without notifying the target prior to carrying out the search. In some cases, giving notice would compromise the success of the search by leading to the flight of the suspect or the destruction of evidence. The two leading cases on so-called surreptitious entry, or what have come to be known as ``sneak and peek'' searches, came to very similar conclusions. Notice of criminal search warrants could be delayed but not omitted entirely. Both the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Villegas and the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Freitas held that a sneak and peek warrant must provide that notice of the search will be given within 7 days, unless extended by the court. Listen to what the Freitas court said about such searches:

We take this position because surreptitious searches and

seizures of intangibles strike at the very heart of the

interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. The mere thought

of strangers walking through and visually examining the

center of our privacy interest, our home, arouses our passion

for freedom as does nothing else. That passion, the true

source of the Fourth Amendment, demands that surreptitious

entries be closely circumscribed.

So when defenders of the PATRIOT Act say that sneak and peek searches were commonly approved by courts prior to the PATRIOT Act, they are partially correct. Some courts permitted secret searches in very limited circumstances, but they also recognized the need for prompt notice after the search unless a reason to continue to delay notice was demonstrated. And they specifically said that notice had to occur within 7 en days.

Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act didn't get this part of the balance right. It allowed notice to be delayed for any reasonable length of time. Information provided by the administration about the use of this provision indicates that delays of months at a time are now becoming commonplace. Those are hardly the kind of delays that the courts had been allowing prior to the PATRIOT Act.

The sneak and peek power in the PATRIOT Act caused concern right from the start. And not just because of the lack of a time-limited notice requirement. The PATRIOT Act also broadened the justifications that the Government could give in order to obtain a sneak and peek warrant. It included

what came to be known as the ``catch- all'' provision, which allows the Government to avoid giving notice of a search if it would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation.'' Some think that that justification in some ways swallows the requirement of notice since most investigators would prefer not to give notice of a search and can easily argue that giving notice will hurt the investigation.

That is why it sounds to many like a catch-all provision.

Critics of the sneak and peek provision worked to fix both of the problems when they introduced the SAFE Act. First, in that bill, we tightened the standard for justifying a sneak and peek search to a limited set of circumstances--when advance notice would endanger life or property, or result in flight from prosecution, the intimidation of witnesses, or the destruction of evidence. Second, we required notice within 7 days, with an unlimited number of 21-day extensions if approved by the court.

The Senate bill, as we all know, was a compromise. It kept the catch- all provision as a justification for obtaining a sneak and peek warrant. Those of us who were concerned about that provision agreed to accept it in return for getting the 7-day notice requirement. And we accepted unlimited extensions of up to 90 days at a time. The key thing was prompt notice after the fact, or a court order that continuing to delay notice was justified.

That is the background to the numbers game that the Senator from Pennsylvania and other supporters of the conference report point to. They want credit for walking the House back from its outrageous position of 180 days, but they refuse to recognize that the sneak and peek provision still has the catch-all justification and unlimited 90- day extensions.

Here is the crucial question that they refuse to answer. What possible rationale is there for not requiring the Government to go back to a court within 7 days and demonstrate a need for continued secrecy? Why insist that the Government get 30 days free without getting an extension? Could it be that they think that the courts usually won't agree that continued secrecy is needed after the search is conducted, so they won't get the 90-day extension? If they have to go back to a court at some point, why not go back after 7 days rather than 30? From the point of view of the Government, I don't see the big deal. But from the point of view of someone whose house has been secretly searched, there is a big difference between 1 week and a month with regard to the time you are notified that some one came into your house and you had absolutely no idea about it.

Suppose, for example, that the Government actually searched the wrong house. As I mentioned, that's one of the reasons that notice is a fourth amendment requirement. The innocent owner of the place that had been searched might suspect that someone had broken in, might be living in fear that someone has a key or some other way to enter. Should we make that person wait a month to get an explanation rather than a week? Presumably, if the search revealed nothing, and especially if the Government realized the mistake and does not intend to apply for an extension, it will be no hardship, other than embarrassment, for notice to be given within 7 days.

That is why I'm not persuaded by the numbers game. The Senate bill was already a compromise on this very controversial provision. And there is no good reason not to adopt the Senate's provision. I have pointed this out repeatedly, and no one has ever come forward and explained why the Government can't come back to the court within 7 days of executing the search. Instead, they let the House get away with a negotiating tactic--by starting with 180 days, they can argue that 30 days is a big concession. But it certainly wasn't.

Let me put it to you this way: If the House had passed a provision that allowed for notice to be delayed for 1,000 days, would anyone be boasting about a compromise that requires notice within 100 days, more than 3 months? Would that be a persuasive argument? I don't think so. The House provision of 180 days was arguably worse than current law, which required notice ``within a reasonable time,'' because it creates a presumption that delaying notice for 180 days, 6 months, is reasonable. It was a bargaining ploy. The Senate version was what the courts had required prior to the PATRIOT Act. And it was itself a compromise because it leaves in place the catch-all provision for justifying the warrant in the first place. That is why I believe the conference report on the sneak and peek provision is inadequate and must be opposed. And the fact that this so-called deal with the White House does not address this issue is yet another reason why I see no reason why I, or anyone, should change their position on this.

Let me make one final point about sneak and peek warrants. Don't be fooled for a minute into believing that this power is needed to investigate terrorism or espionage. It's not. Section 213 is a criminal provision that applies in whatever kinds of criminal investigations the Government has undertaken. In fact, most sneak and peek warrants are issued for drug investigations. So why do I say that they aren't needed in terrorism investigations? Because FISA also can apply to those investigations. And FISA search warrants are always executed in secret, and never require notice. If you really don't want to give notice of a search in a terrorism investigation, you can get a FISA warrant. So any argument that limiting the sneak and peek power as we have proposed will interfere with sensitive terrorism investigations is a red herring.

I have spoken at some length about the provisions of this conference report that trouble me, and the ways in which the deal struck with the White House does not address those problems with the conference report. But to be fair, I should mention one aspect of the conference report that was better than a draft that circulated prior to the final signing of that report. The conference report includes 4-year sunsets on three of the most controversial provisions: roving wiretaps, the so-called ``library'' provision, and the ``lone wolf' provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Previously, the sunsets on these provisions were at 7 years, and it is certainly an improvement to have reduced that number so that Congress can take another look at those provisions sooner.

I also want to acknowledge that the conference report creates new reporting requirements for some PATRIOT Act powers, including new reporting on roving wiretaps, section 215, ``sneak and peek'' search warrants, and national security letters. There are also new requirements that the Inspector General of the Department of Justice conduct audits of the Government's use of national security letters and section 215. In addition, the conference report includes some other useful oversight provisions relating to FISA. It requires that Congress be informed about the FISA Court's rules and procedures and about the use of emergency authorities under FISA, and gives the Senate Judiciary Committee access to certain FISA reporting that currently only goes to the Intelligence Committee. I am also glad to see that it requires the Department of Justice to report to us on its data mining activities.

But adding sunsets and new reporting and oversight requirements only gets you so far. The conference report, as it would be modified by S. 2271, remains deeply flawed. I appreciate sunsets and reporting, and I know that the senior Senator from Pennsylvania worked hard to ensure they were included, but these improvements are not enough. Sunsetting bad law in another 4 years is not good enough. Simply requiring reporting on the Government's use of these overly expansive tools does not ensure that they will not be abused. We must make substantive changes to the law, not just improve oversight. This is our chance, and we cannot let it pass by.

Trust of Government cannot be cannot be demanded or asserted or assumed; it must be earned. And this administration has not earned our trust. It has fought reasonable safeguards for constitutional freedoms every step of the way. It has resisted congressional oversight and often misled the public about its use of the PATRIOT Act. We know now that it has even authorized illegal wiretaps and is making misleading legal arguments to try to justify them. We sunsetted 16 provisions of the original PATRIOT Act precisely so we could revisit them and make necessary changes--to make improvements based on the experience of 4

years with the Act, and with the careful deliberation and debate that, quite frankly, was missing 4 years ago. This process of reauthorization has certainly generated debate, but if we pass the conference report, even with the few White House modifications, in some ways we will have wasted a lot of time and missed our opportunity to finally get it right.

The American people will not be happy with us for missing that chance. They will not accept our explanation that we decided to wait another 4 years before really addressing their concerns. It appears that is now an inevitable outcome. But I am prepared to keep fighting for as long as it takes to get this right. For now, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to this legislation to implement the White House deal. We can do better than these minor cosmetic changes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Alabama joining the debate about the PATRIOT Act. I am going to respond very briefly to his remarks because I know there are other Senators on the floor who wish to speak about other issues, and I will defer to them in a moment.

But the Senator complained that the Senate is enduring another filibuster on this issue. I suppose that is one way to characterize it. What I would characterize it as is those of us who have concerns about this bill are enduring again speech after speech that has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. That is irrelevant to the concerns we have raised about the PATRIOT Act.

Throughout his speech, the Senator from Alabama talked about issues that are not about the concerns we have raised. In fact, again, we are subjected to this idea that somehow those of us who raise these concerns are not concerned about what happened to this Nation on 9/11, that we do not feel exactly as much as the Senator from Alabama the pain and the tragedy of the loss of those 3,000 lives.

Not a single concern I have raised about this bill would have anything to do with this Government's ability to crack down on people who are trying to attack this country. In fact, that is the whole point. All of the changes we seek are to try to make sure we distinguish those who are completely innocent and unrelated to the terrorists from those who, in fact, are involved in espionage or terrorism.

The Senator talks about academic issues. But these are not academic issues. The fact is, when he brings up anything specific, he is changing the subject. He is bringing up noncontroversial issues. He talks about this wall. I talked about this in my speech before: the wall between the CIA and FBI. No Member of this body disputes that wall needed to be taken down. The wall has been taken down. I do not want it to be put back up. That is not in controversy.

And virtually the entire speech by the Senator from Alabama was about specific issues--the Midhar case and the Moussaoui case. All of that part of his speech was about something that is not in controversy. If he wants to offer that as a bill right now to simply continue that provision, he can put me down as a cosponsor. So it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing and what my concerns are at this point.

The Senator says that somehow people are running around saying that the FBI is kicking down people's doors without a warrant. Nobody ever said that. I understand how the sneak-and-peek provisions work. We have been on this issue for a while. We know that in sneak and peek there has to be a warrant.

The question there is not whether there are warrantless searches of people's homes. The question is, when somebody is allowed, through a judicial order and a warrant, to come into somebody's house when they do not get notice of it, how long somebody should have to endure the possibility that their home has been searched and they

do not get notice after the fact that somebody came into their house when they were not there. So again, the argument is entirely unrelated to the concern.

The concerns we have raised are important, but they are limited. I am going to insist in this debate that we debate the concerns that we have put forward.

Finally, Mr. President, I am amused by the Senator talking about how we passed a bill in the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote. You bet we did. The Senator from Alabama voted for it and I voted for it. The whole Senate did not oppose the bill. Now every single thing I have advocated to change in the PATRIOT Act, in terms of the product of this body, is what I am advocating today. The Senator is acting as if those are dangerous provisions. Well, he voted for them. He voted for the stronger standard on 215. He voted for 7 days on the sneak-and-peek provisions. So how can they be dangerous if the Senator from Alabama actually voted for those provisions with me in the Judiciary Committee?

These are not dangerous changes. These are not irresponsible changes. These are not changes that have anything to do with legitimate efforts to try to stop the terrorists.

I so thank the Senator. I always enjoy debating him. He is the one Senator who has come down here and engaged on this today. I appreciate that. But I wish the debate could be about the questions that have arisen having to do with notice issues in sneak and peek, whether there is going to be a stronger provision on national security letters, whether there is going to be a provision on library business records to make sure it is tied to terrorists. The only reason I am doing this has to do with those kinds of provisions, not the issues the Senator from Alabama raised on which I happen to, in large part, agree.

Mr. President, if the Senator is asking me a question, I am happy to respond.

I spoke at some length this morning about this issue which I call the numbers game on the sneak and peek. Of course, the sneak-and-peek provision is not my only concern. There are four or five areas. But I am very concerned about the length of time that somebody does not get notice that the FBI has come into their home without their being aware of it and the idea that somehow, after very careful court decisions said there will be exceptions to the requirements of the fourth amendment for perhaps 7 days--that was the standard in the court decisions upon which these unusual sneak-and-peek provisions were based--then to somehow have it become reasonable to have a whole month, a 30-day period, strikes me as extreme.

The 7-day standard was not picked out of the air. The 7-day standard was based on those court decisions which made the unusual law, in terms of our history as a country in the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures--the 7 days was based on those court decisions. So, yes, 30 days, four times more, is unreasonable.

After the Government has come into somebody's home and they have had 7 days, why is it that they should not have to come back and get permission to do that for a longer period of time? What is the need for the Government to have 30 days to not tell somebody to do that, when you remember that the Senate version you and I both voted for had the 7-day period?

Mr. President, I could say: Gee, it went from 180 to 30. I could tell my constituents in Spooner, WI: Look, the Government is going to come into your home under a special circumstance when you are not around, and it might not have even been the right house, and we are making this exception for 7 days because of emergencies in important situations. You and I both agree in certain circumstances that might occur. But the idea that for a whole month, that for 30 days the Government of the United States of America can come into your home without telling you they have been there, even if they have made a mistake, and they have no responsibility to tell a completely innocent person they made a mistake, to me is serious business.

If the Senator could make a credible argument as to why it is important for the Government to have a whole month after this 7-day period or 3 more weeks after the 7-day period, it would be one thing. But nobody has even made the argument that it is important for the Government to have 30 days to conduct this search. It is essentially an unreasonable period of time. I think it is important. The erring here should be on the side of people's liberty. It should be on the side of people protecting their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures. It should not be: What is the problem here? The Senator should be happy he got something better than the House version. I don't accept that, as somebody who believes the fourth amendment still has meaning.

I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Absolutely.

I yield my time.

Certainly, I had no objection to that.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask to be recognized at the completion of the Senator's speech.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Arkansas.

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

I understand an agreement has been reached to have the cloture vote on the motion to proceed tomorrow morning and then a cloture vote on the bill on that Tuesday after we return from the recess.

I point out the agreement essentially implements the schedule that would have been followed had I required the Senate to go through all the procedural hoops necessary to reach a vote on the White House deal. It, of course, maintains the 60-vote threshold for passing this legislation.

I thank the two leaders for working with me. I have no desire to inconvenience my colleagues or force votes in the middle of the night, as I understand the majority leader was threatening.

I have been trying all day to get an agreement to allow debate and votes on a small number of amendments to this bill. I do not understand what the majority leader is afraid of or concerned about in rejecting this reasonable request. So while I do not object to the agreement that will be propounded in a few minutes, I hope once we are on the bill tomorrow, I will be able to offer amendments and have them voted on.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the Army

Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued commitment to this issue.

While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national priority.

As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to endorse such approaches and such collaborations.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.

Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000 debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and valuing our natural resources.

Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable improvements to the status quo.

Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs, languish like others before it.

The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps' principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.

Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move forward.

To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over $25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should not increase the length of time required for project planning but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.

We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps' water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects.

Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for actual reform is stronger than ever.

My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without wasting taxpayer dollars.

I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of Congress

on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the Army

Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued commitment to this issue.

While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national priority.

As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to endorse such approaches and such collaborations.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.

Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000 debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.

The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and valuing our natural resources.

Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable improvements to the status quo.

Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs, languish like others before it.

The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps' principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.

Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move forward.

To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over $25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should not increase the length of time required for project planning but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.

We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps' water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects.

Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for actual reform is stronger than ever.

My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without wasting taxpayer dollars.

I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of Congress

on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment deserve.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted, during the consideration of S. 2271, H.R. 3199, to Bob Schiff, Lara Flynt, Paul Weinberger, Mary Irvine, and Sumner Slichter.