[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13636-S13644]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2520
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the next few moments I will be
addressing an issue that affects potentially thousands of people today
who are without therapy or who have debilitating diseases, and then
begin a brief discussion on what is called the cord blood bill.
The bill, broadly supported in a bipartisan way, has widespread
support in the Senate, as well as in the House of Representatives.
As my colleagues know, we plan to take up and debate the policy and
issues related to Federal support and oversight for embryonic stem cell
research early next year.
And I look forward to what I know will be a full debate on the
science and ethics surrounding this important research.
Today, I ask consent to move forward with bipartisan legislation to
encourage a technology that is producing cures and saving lives now.
This legislation is needed now.
Every day, patients young and old die waiting for transplants of
hematopoetic cells because they can't find a suitable match.
Diseases like leukemia, sickle cell anemia, and as many as 70 other
blood and genetic diseases have been helped or cured by Cord blood
transplants.
[[Page S13637]]
Cord blood is a healthy byproduct of normal pregnancies, and is
harvested from the placenta after the baby is safely delivered.
The placental byproducts yield blood cells that are genetically
immature, but have the remarkable ability to help recreate blood cells
in patients who have diseases that traditionally have only helped
through bone marrow transplants.
This bill provides for the creation of a public inventory of 150,000
units of cord blood which is estimated to provide well matched
transplants for 80-90 percent of the population in need.
These are units that can be available in days, not months, with a
success rate in patients as high as 80-90 percent, as compared with 40-
50 percent with traditional bone marrow transplants.
Because the cells are initially less mature and more pliable there is
less chance of rejection, and therefore fewer complications.
In fact, over 7,000 cord blood transplants have been successfully
done here in this country, and around the world.
Leukemia is a devastating blood disease that has been treated by
traditional bone marrow transplants.
Unfortunately, although there is a large group of potential bone
marrow donors in the United States and Europe, testing, harvesting and
transplanting bone marrow cells can take often months, with less
dependable success.
Although this is important technology, cord blood transplants may
provide an alternative that has already shown to be faster, safer, and
potentially reach a larger group of patients affected with leukemia.
Nonmalignant blood conditions such a Sickle cell and Fanconi's anemia
are also devastating to those affected by the disease.
Sickle cell anemia affects as many as 50,000 African Americans, while
many more are carries of the disease. Although very few unrelated cord
blood transplants have occurred, the success has been staggering--
Sickle cell anemia can be cured.
Krabbe's disease is a genetic disease that affects only 1 in 100,000,
but as many as 1 in 125 Americans are carriers of the genetic
deficiency.
To date more than a dozen patients have had a cord blood transplant
and have been cured of the disease.
Passage of this bill is especially important for minorities. For
example, African American patients have the lowest success rate in
getting a transplant from an unrelated bone marrow donor.
A long time member of my staff, Cornell Wedge, experienced this first
hand. His brother, Robert Wedge Sr., was diagnosed with leukemia and in
spite of sibling typing and numerous bone marrow drives aimed at
increasing minority donation, his brother passed away still waiting for
a match.
While tragic, this is not uncommon.
It can take months to properly screen, match, test and retest
potential donors of traditional bone marrow transplant recipients.
Once we establish and collect a national cord blood inventory, we can
significantly increase the chance of every individual in need to obtain
a nit for transplantation. Furthermore, because of the relative
immaturity of cord blood, rejection of the transplants are fewer and
less severe.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Hatch, Burr, Ensign,
Brownback, Dodd and Reed for spearheadng the effort to produce a
bipartisan bill with broad support.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2520 with overwhelming
bipartisan support.
Furthermore, Chairman Enzi and others in the Senate have worked in a
bipartisan manner to achieve the compromise language represented in the
bill as reported out of committee.
I'm told the House will move quickly on this bill as soon as the
Senate completes action.
There is no question that this issue enjoys broad bipartisan support
in the Senate.
We have a responsibility to authorize this program and provide
appropriate guidance regarding the establishment of the program.
I will let my colleagues discuss the specifics of the legislation,
but I must ask, how can we deny any longer the many patients waiting
today to find that match?
Indeed, the patients don't understand.
This is literally a matter of life and death.
Proverbs 27:3 says ``Do not withhold good from those who deserve it
when it is in your power to act.'' It is within our power to act.'' And
I hope we do.
We have a responsibility in this body to authorize this program and
provide appropriate guidance so we can establish this program and get
it up and running. There may be several of my colleagues who want to
comment on the specifics of the program.
I will ask consent at this point and hope that we do get agreement
and then further comments can be made.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 256, H.R. 2520, the cord blood bill. I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
first pay my respects to Senator Frist and his leadership. He has been
a leader in this area. He knows it well. We served on the same
committee together when our leader came here to the Senate. I also
commend Senator Frist for his leadership on the stem cell issue, a very
courageous stand.
I want to make it very clear that I support the cord blood bill. I am
a cosponsor of it. What's more, I joined with Senator Specter 2 years
ago to create the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program, and as
our leader said, we included $10 million for that purpose in the fiscal
year 2004 Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. We have
been funding that program ever since. When I say I want this bill to
pass, I have a record to back that up.
But I have said for months that we should consider the cord blood
bill at the same time that we take up H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act. That is what the House of Representatives did. On May
24, the House approved both bills. We have been waiting in the Senate
to do the same thing. Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Hatch,
Feinstein, Kennedy, and Smith all agree. Let's have up-or-down votes on
cord blood and H.R. 810, as the House did. The House did them together.
Then we can send them to the President.
We keep hearing that we want to bring up H.R. 810. In fact, I pay my
respects to the leader for his very courageous speech. On July 29, our
leader said he would vote for the bill. But we just can't seem to bring
it up on the Senate floor. Members keep coming up with new bills to try
to confuse things. They want to vote on 5 or 6 or 7 bills, some of
which have nothing to do with stem cells or cord blood. I understand
there is a lot of pressure on Senators to take up the cord blood bill
before the end of the year. I have no problem with that, but under one
condition--that we also take up H.R. 810.
I reserve the right to object. I ask the leader if he would modify
his request to include H.R. 810 in his amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to the
request for a modification, all of these issues are critically
important to promoting the health and welfare of patients as we look to
the future, especially with embryonic stem cells, diseases that occur
today. But it is going to take some while to have the research fully
developed to be able to apply it. I believe it has huge promise, as I
have said on this floor many times. The reason I feel strongly about
separating the bills now is that bill is contentious in the sense that
it is going to take a lot of debate. This is the embryonic stem cell
bill that my distinguished colleague from Iowa refers to. It is going
to take some time that I will give on the floor of the Senate early in
the year and have committed to do so because of its importance. It is
important to address that in order for that research to be amplified.
Much of that research needs to be
[[Page S13638]]
amplified for cures that may occur 5 or 10 years down the road.
The reason I feel strongly, since there is probably unanimous consent
on the substance of this bill, that we should move ahead is that we can
benefit people who are dying today from diseases such as Fanconi's
anemia, diseases such as a whole range of leukemias, childhood leukemia
especially, where cord blood is so particularly powerful, diseases such
as Krabbes, a pretty rare disease for which there is no treatment today
except for the therapy that is applied in terms of cord blood. The
reason I think we can justify, and should justify, separating these
bills is that we all agree on the substance. It is a good bill. The
leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have brought us to the
point that funding has begun. But now is the time to make this registry
available nationwide.
The one problem with cord blood today is that it is powerful. It is
more powerful than a regular bone marrow transplant, but the quantity
that you get out of the placental byproducts has to be accumulated. You
need to accumulate it from several different sources. But you do have
to have a degree of genetic matching. Therefore, the only way to take
advantage of it is to have a national registry where you can go to a
computer and see where it is all over the country. Then you pull it
together to treat a child who is dying from leukemia today. Therefore,
action on this bill will save lives, literally.
We always exaggerate. A lot of people exaggerate the politics about
saving lives in a lot of legislation we do. But I do believe that by
establishing the registry and the communications network, which has not
been done in spite of the funding, we can have a dramatic impact.
Since we have the House bill, we have the bill that we are requesting
today, and I have assurances that the House will deal with it before we
leave in the next 48 hours, we literally can pass a bill that we all
agree upon.
There are a number of other bills. One is the embryonic stem cell
bill. But there is an alternative therapy bill. There are a whole range
of bills that are very important that we need to take up that are going
to take several days on the floor to look at ethical and scientific
issues. We are committed to doing that in the early part of the year.
This is an important topic, and that is why I will object to the
modification because I believe the embryonic stem cell does deserve
more thought than we can possibly give it in the next 48 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request of the majority leader?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, I want to enter into
this discussion. I deeply appreciate the majority leader bringing the
issue up. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Iowa. He and I
have been around this debate for some time. I personally want to bring
up a human cloning ban. That is something I have had in the mill for 4
years. Each session we are getting close. I think it ought to be
included right now and moved forward. Yet I recognize it has some
contentiousness to it, as does my colleague from Iowa raising the
embryonic stem cell issue. It has a contentious debate on it. I have
objections, as a number of my colleagues do, to the use of young human
life for research purposes.
The reason that we should go forward with this type of proposal the
leader is putting forward is there is nobody opposed to cord blood
research in the entire 100 Members here. Everybody supports cord blood
research. It is real cures today. I have two pictures of people who are
being treated right now, have been treated. This is Keone, sickle cell
anemia, cord blood cured. Another one, the next one, Krabbes disease,
3-year-old, cured, cord blood. The problem is, we don't have a big
registry of it around the country. So it is a real hit and miss. Some
people are lucky enough to find it; others don't and die today.
With embryonic stem cell research, the researchers who are the most
supportive of it are looking at decades before we have cures. We are
researching on it today.
We can cure more kids such as Erik Haines today or more will die if
we don't take up what the majority leader is asking for us to do, a
bill for which there is unanimous support. There is not a single person
who does not support a cord blood registry and getting the banking of
it up so more people can live today.
So I hope my colleagues will look at this and say they don't object.
The Senator from Iowa supports the bill; he is one of the sponsors.
Let's let this one through, and next year I would love to have a debate
on embryonic stem cell research. I would love to debate that and have a
debate about cloning. Let's do that and let's have this robust
discussion where we don't have agreement.
But here we can save lives today. I am not going to object. I would,
though, ask that the majority leader's proffer be accepted so we can
save some lives today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Further reserving the right to object, and I will object,
with all due deference to my friend from Kansas, and he is my friend,
these two need to be together as they were in the House. I keep hearing
about we will bring this up and debate stem cells. I didn't come
prepared with pictures. I can show you pictures of people dying today
because they could use stem cell transplants right now. My friend from
Kansas says decades. No. It will be decades if we keep diddling around
and not doing anything. I hear that we will bring it up and debate it.
I have heard that for half a year.
Unless the majority leader can give us a date certain--give us a
date--hopefully before May 24, 2006--if the majority leader can give us
a date before then when we will bring up H.R. 810--if they want to
bring up these other bills, fine, as separate bills, not as amendments
to H.R. 810; bring them up separately and we will debate and vote on
them, fine. I have no problem with that. But unless the majority leader
can give us a date certain and not more of this ``maybe we will debate
it sometime in the future,'' I will object. I reserve the right to
object and I ask the majority leader, can he give us a date certain by
which the Senate will take up H.R. 810 as a freestanding bill without
amendments? If they want to bring up other bills, the cloning bill,
that is fine, too--not as an amendment to H.R. 810, but as a separate
bill. I ask the majority leader, can he give us a date certain by which
this Senate will set aside time to bring up H.R. 810 as a freestanding
bill without amendment, debate it, and vote it up or down?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the case, I think, to be made is whether we
can address this particular bill, where 100 percent of the body is for
it. It will save lives today and tomorrow. There is a whole range of
bills. We have the embryonic stem cell bill and we heard about the
cloning bill. There is the alternative embryonic stem cell bill. We
have about six or seven bills which I have tried to bring to the floor
under a unanimous consent request objected to by the other side, where
we bring each of these bills separately, freestanding, to the floor.
That has been objected to by the other side of the aisle. Since that
time, I have committed that we will be addressing these bills early
next year. I cannot give a specific date. I cannot even tell people
what we will be voting on tomorrow morning in this body, given our
schedule. But the commitment is to address these issues in the early
part of next year.
If we don't pass this now, people will be suffering who are waiting
for transplants if they cannot find a suitable match. Yet if we were to
pass this bill with this registry, the registry will put together a
public inventory of 150,000. One person waiting for a transplant that
is lifesaving for otherwise untreatable diseases or treatable by a
traditional bone marrow transplant--we will have 150,000 units then in
a registry where you go to a computer and get a match and that
transplant can take place. You can match as many as 80 or 90 percent of
the people who are waiting today if we had this registry. The neat
thing is that these units are available not within months but days. For
transplants, people usually have to wait months, but this is the sort
of thing where once you have the registry, you wait not months but days
to get the transplant.
One last point is that with these cord blood transplants, outcome is
better
[[Page S13639]]
than with the traditional bone marrow transplants with more mature
cells. Cord blood cells are less mature and less pliable than the more
adult cells for traditional bone marrow transplants.
With that, I am disappointed that we have heard this objection
tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I echo the disappointment of the leader and
will make a couple comments on the debate we have already had. I know
it is not in the leader's power to bring up a bill that is unamendable.
It is possible for the leader--and the leader has made speeches in
support of having the embryonic stem cell--to bring up a bill, but when
it comes before the body, it can be amended any number of ways. So it
is not possible for any leader to be able to give the guarantee that
has been asked for today.
Another important part of this debate is that we don't just have the
100 Senators in this body agreeing that this is important, necessary,
and immediate legislation; we also have the House agreeing that this is
important, necessary, and immediate legislation. This is something for
saving lives now. This isn't a big thing to go into the research area.
This is treatment that is readily available.
We have preconferenced this bill already with the House, so it is not
a matter of debate or discord between the House and the Senate. I am
noticing at this time of the year that there is quite bit of that.
There are more fights between the House and Senate than between the
Republicans and Democrats. I hope we can get all of the debate resolved
that we have before us. This is one that ought to only take a few
minutes, and it could be done yet today and to the President for
signature tomorrow because of the preconferencing we have done. That is
unusual for a bill. If any one of the stem cell bills were able to be
even unanimous consented within this body, we would be able to take it
up as we have a number of bills, such as the pension bill, which was
not easy. To have one come up with absolutely an up-or-down vote isn't
going to happen around here.
I know we were looking forward to the debate. We expected it. Then a
little thing called Katrina happened. The time we would have been
debating that, we were debating lives in a little different manner,
trying to come up with solutions. We still have some of those
outstanding. Time for debate here is a very precious thing,
particularly as we are winding up a session. I appreciate the leader
saying he would definitely bring it up early next year. I know that is
about as strong a commitment as anybody can make around this body.
While we are on this bill, I want to express my support for its
passage, and I want to particularly commend Senator Hatch for his work
on it. In fact, the base bill we worked with was Senator Hatch's bill.
He brought a lot of us along with him on getting an understanding of
what this does and what it could do, and he not only had the experience
with the bill he submitted, but has been working on this in various
stages for years. He has a tremendous body of knowledge he was willing
to share and able to share. That is what brought everybody into the
picture. He worked with Senators Burr, Ensign, Dodd, and Reed to
develop the HELP Committee product that now also the House can support.
I appreciate his efforts, as well as the others within the HELP
Committee, to reach this delicate compromise.
I also thank my colleagues who were critical to legislation, which
would be Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Kyl, and others. They played a
significant role. Given that this is a preconference agreement with the
House, I appreciate the work of Representative C.W. Bill Young and
Chris John, Chairman Joe Barton, and others in the House who have
worked with us to help develop this language, to take the
contentiousness out, to get it to the point where it is now. One of the
unfortunate things with preconferencing and unanimous consent is that
without the wild debate on things, the media normally doesn't pick up
when something significant happens around here.
This is one of those issues that is so critical, and we need to get
it to the people who need it now. We ought not have a contentious
debate just for the sake of getting the word out that we have done it.
This is something the media ought to latch onto, if it gets completed,
and help us get the word out that it has been done and get it into
place.
The compromise we passed out of the HELP Committee in June recognizes
the valuable contributions made by stem cells from both bone marrow and
cord blood. This legislation establishes a sibling cord blood program
in which qualified cord blood banks have the option of providing free
collection and storage of cord blood units for families with an ill
child or parent who could be treated with a cord blood transplant. In
this way, we can ensure that sick children have the best possible
chance to receive a closely matched transplant while still emphasizing
the availability of private cord blood bank donations.
To make it easier for patients to have access to cord blood and bone
marrow, this legislation also requires cord blood and bone marrow
programs to collaborate in providing patient advocacy and case
management services to patients. In this manner, patients can have
access to single point of access to determine the best option for their
transplant.
Additionally, this critical bill requires the Food and Drug
Administration to provide a report on its progress in developing
licensure requirements for cord blood units, given that such
requirements will help improve the quality of units provided to
patients nationwide.
Finally, I wish to mention a new outcomes database included within
the legislation which provides the opportunity for the Health Resources
and Services Administration and other researchers to examine the
clinical benefit of a variety of these therapeutic products, including
bone marrow and cord blood.
All of these critical changes will help improve the quality of care
patients receive each day.
This week, I read about a little boy who benefited from a cord blood
transplant. This little boy was born in December 1999.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Regular order has been called
for. Does the Senator object?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to continue. I
know there are others who want to speak on this briefly, too.
I read about this boy who was born in December 1999. At age 1, he was
diagnosed with a disease causing progressive damage to the brain and
adrenal glands. Left untreated, it would lead to his eventual death.
For this little boy, an unrelated cord blood or bone marrow transplant
was the only known cure for his disease.
When he was just 2 years old, because of the disease progression, he
received a cord blood transplant. Two years post-transplant, he is
doing extremely well. He is a healthy, normal little boy. If you met
him, you never would guess what he had been through and what awaited
him without this transplant.
It is for this little boy and others that we are focusing on this
critical legislation right now. Like others, I do think that it is
important for us to discuss the broader issues of stem cells on the
Senate floor. However, it is neither the time nor the place for such a
debate. But we can help people now by passing this legislation which
has broad bipartisan support. You can't get more bipartisan than 100
percent. So I urge my colleagues not to hold up this critical
legislation until that other debate occurs. I urge my colleagues to
think of this little boy and other little boys and adults and people in
between who would benefit from cord blood or bone marrow transplants.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am hopeful that my dear friend and
colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, will withdraw his objection. I
think everybody in this body knows it was only after years of study--a
very sincere study--that I came out for embryonic stem cell research,
as well as cord blood stem cell research.
[[Page S13640]]
I mention to my colleague from Iowa that the majority leader, even
though he was against embryonic stem cell research, has had the courage
to come out for it. Upon reflection and study, he has as great a desire
to pass embryonic stem cell research as I do. So when we get down that
road of being able to help the living with these tremendous maladies we
have, it may be the final answer to health care costs as well. But we
have to start now.
There is a difference. This bill is the cord blood research bill. I
do not know one person in this whole body who is against it. Not one. I
don't know one person in the House of Representatives who is against
it. Not one. And by the way, we have preconferenced this bill. It is
very difficult to preconference bills. But virtually everybody realizes
that if we can pass the cord blood bill, we will go way down the road
of being able to help people with these serious problems, especially
these young children, as mentioned by our distinguished chairman,
Senator Enzi.
I am grateful for all of the people he mentioned in his illustrious
remarks. There have been a lot of people who have worked on this issue.
I think we should take the majority leader's word as a supporter of
embryonic stem cell research that he will bring that bill up for a
debate. There are others who also want to debate their particular
points of view with regard to embryonic stem cell research, but
virtually everybody is for cord blood research.
I believe we should give unanimous consent to immediately call up and
adopt H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act. We should
pass this bill immediately. Patients cannot afford to wait until next
year, their families cannot afford to wait until next year, and we in
the Congress cannot afford to wait until next year.
Passage of this legislation offers us a rare opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of those who either have a serious illness or
have a family member who suffers from a serious illness. I don't think
we should let this opportunity pass. This is the season of the year
when we try to put others before ourselves.
As everyone knows, I have been working on this issue for 3 solid
years and, in fact, with my original cosponsors--Senators Brownback,
Dodd, and Specter--introduced the first bill on this issue in the 108th
Congress. I am pleased that I have introduced legislation with Senators
Dodd, Burr, Ensign, and Reed to put aside our differences and let this
legislation pass once and for all. It is the right thing to do because
it is in the best interest of my fellow citizens.
My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to
create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and
families with access to these lifesaving treatments. I believe H.R.
2520 does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and
cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the
near future.
The integrated system will include not only the international bone
marrow donor registry but also a network of qualified cord blood banks
which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In
addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the
rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells
available for transplant centers for stem cell transplantation. The
establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will
help save the lives of many critically ill Americans.
We need to be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and
physicians by providing a strong future for both bone marrow and cord
blood transplantation in this country.
My personal goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material
available for patient care and research continues to increase in the
coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through
strong Federal support. It is the only way.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and doing everything
possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options
by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood
transplantation in this country.
Mr. President, this is a good bill. I hope my colleague from Iowa
will think this over because this puts us down the road of being able
to get on top of some of the most innovative and important and
remarkable health care processes this country and any country has ever
seen.
If we do not pass this bill in this timeframe and it gets mixed up in
the whole panoply of embryonic stem cell research, it could take at
least another year, maybe 2 years, before we get even cord blood
legislation passed by Congress. Why should patients have to wait
another year or 2 for such a life-saving bill to pass the Congress?
There are many illnesses where cord blood transplantation and
research have already made the difference in people's lives.
I think I have made my point, and I urge my colleagues to pass this
bill as quickly as possible.
It is apparent we are not going to be able to do the cord blood
research because of objection, but I hope that my colleague will
reconsider and allow this to happen before the week is out. I know my
colleague from Iowa is very sincere. He has been one of the leaders on
stem cell research in this country, and he certainly has a right to do
whatever he wants, but I am thinking of the thousands, if not millions,
of people who could benefit from this research if we get it going with
Federal Government help at this time.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act. This bill gives our
national security and law enforcement communities, including the FBI,
the tools they need to fight the war against terrorism, while at the
same time adding new provisions to protect the civil liberties and
privacy that all Americans rightfully expect and cherish.
The first responsibility of our national government is to protect the
citizens of our country from foreign threats.
My fellow citizens of Utah and all of my fellow Americans expect that
the Federal Government will help protect them against terrorist attacks
but to do so in a fashion that does not open the lives of ordinary,
law-abiding Americans to unjustified government intrusion. The PATRIOT
Act protects our citizens by helping to keep us physically safe and
protects our essential civil liberties.
The PATRIOT Act Conference report before us makes permanent 14 of the
16 expiring PATRIOT Act provisions, all of which have proven extremely
useful over the last 4 years in preventing and prosecuting terrorism.
Sometimes lost in the often charged political debate over the PATRIOT
Act is the fact that there is broad, in fact almost universal,
political consensus that each and every one of the major elements of
the PATRIOT Act is essential to protecting the American public.
One hard and true measure of this reality is that there is wide
agreement that 14 of the 16 expiring provisions in the PATRIOT Act
ought to be made permanent. That is what this bill does. Another
measure is that no major component of the PATRIOT Act is being repealed
nor, to my knowledge, is anyone making any serious effort to repeal any
major component of the PATRIOT Act. There is a simple reason for this
simple fact. Overall, the PATRIOT Act is operating well and has not
been abused. The PATRIOT Act is necessary to help protect the American
public from terrorists.
The bill before us renews, for a 4-year period, the remaining 2 of
the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are not made
permanent in this bill. Frankly, many of us think that these two
provisions, section 206--the roving wiretaps, and section 215--the
business records section, also ought to be made permanent. I know of no
serious expert in counterterrorism or law enforcement who is calling
for the repeal of either of these two important provisions or who
believes that they will not be renewed again in 4 years. The fact is
that the main reason that these two provisions have not been made
permanent is not because they are fundamentally deficient. The reason
is that there is an understandable concern shared by virtually everyone
that there ought to be vigilant congressional oversight in the area of
counterterrorism generally, and the PATRIOT Act specifically. Adopting
these two sunset provision merely ensures that Congress will do what it
is doing already--conducting consistent
[[Page S13641]]
and careful oversight of the PATRIOT Act.
I welcome this scrutiny and debate. We need to stay on top of how
this important counterterrorism law is being implemented and enforced.
We need, as we have done in this bill, make any necessary refinements
that will improve the PATRIOT Act. I think the record is clear that
Congress has not shirked its duty when it comes to conducting vigorous
oversight of the PATRIOT Act. I understand that this year alone
Congress has held some 23 hearings on various elements of the PATRIOT
Act and that Department of Justice officials have testified at 18 of
these hearings.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has held literally dozens of hearings
on elements of the PATRIOT Act since it passed it 2001. During the
108th Congress, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee, we held some 30
hearings that touched on aspects of the PATRIOT Act.
Under Senator Specter's capable leadership, the Judiciary Committee
held an additional series of more than a half dozen hearings this year
that focused on the PATRIOT Act and that does not even count
confirmation hearings for senior Department of Justice officials, such
as the Attorney General, at which there have been a substantial number
of questions related to the PATRIOT Act.
This House Judiciary Committee has held a similar comprehensive set
of hearings on the PATRIOT Act.
We have heard from all the major critics of the PATRIOT Act. I think
that the bill before us today shows that we have listened to, and where
appropriate, have responded to the legitimate concerns of the critics.
Frankly, in a number of areas I think we have bent over backwards to
address concerns that were more hypothetical than real. To put a point
on it, as Attorney General Gonzales says in his Washington Post op-ed
published yesterday:
During this important debate, Republicans and Democrats
have discovered that concerns raised about the [PATRIOT's]
act's impact on civil liberties, while sincere, were
unfounded. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses
in the 4 years of the [PATRIOT] Act's existence.
That is a good record by any measure. As with any complex piece of
legislation, we should not be surprised that if one day some
administrative official, intentionally or otherwise, does abuse their
discretion under the statute. Unfortunately, that is only human nature.
But just because someone applies the law in an abusive fashion, it does
not follow that the law needs to be repealed.
I think it is a testament to the professionalism to the men and women
of the FBI--led by its able Director Bob Mueller--and other law
enforcement agencies that, to date, there have been no documented cases
of PATRIOT Act abuse. Let me just say that many critics of the act have
tried their best to make the facts match their critiques but have
failed to marshal any definitive evidence.
We should all understand that the chief reason for the bill's
inclusion of a 4-year sunset of two provisions acts chiefly as a belt
and suspenders approach to help ensure that Congress will continue our
extremely active oversight of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, the House bill
contained a 10-year sunset renewal period for the two provisions that
will not be made permanent.
While it would have been possible to compromise somewhere between the
4-year Senate renewal time period and the 10-year House sunset period,
the conference report--which no Democrat signed--contained the lower
Senate number of 4 years.
It always leaves you a little empty when you make a major compromise
and your colleagues pushing for particular provisions still do not sign
onto the compromise package. Whatever happened to compromise around
here? The PATRIOT Act reauthorization has been through several drafts
as the conference process has taken place. I do not necessarily support
every change that we have made but I have always believed that
compromise is part of the process of legislation.
I think that a fair reading of the record reveals that in the grand
scheme of things the issues that have generated the remaining
disagreement on the PATRIOT Act are relatively minor issues. No one is
talking about repealing any major part of the PATRIOT Act although some
of the outside groups would have you believe that the PATRIOT Act is
somehow un-American and a threat to civil liberties.
Hogwash. I support the efforts of our law enforcement and
intelligence officials in combating terrorism. They continue to fight
terrorists who would wreak havoc and death on America. It seems to me,
and many others, that we should at least give law enforcement the same
tools to investigate and stop terrorists that we give to combat mail
fraud or internet pornography and organized crime. Now that the shock
and pain of 9/11 has begun to fade, I hope we do not go backwards in
our efforts to prevent terrorism. We should not make it tougher for our
law enforcement and intelligence officers to obtain and share
information critical to investigate terrorists than we allow for common
criminals.
Let me specifically address four provisions of the PATRIOT Act that
are often misunderstood at best, and sometimes outright misrepresented
by many in this debate. First, section 206--this is the multipoint or
roving wiretap provision. Section 206 is an essential provision
that addresses the terrorists' use of evolving technology by allowing
law enforcement to obtain a wiretap order that covers the
communications of a specific individual even when that person--whose
name we may not know--changes telephones and locations to evade
interception. We live in a day of relatively cheap and disposable cell
phones, a reality that terrorists make use of each day to avoid
detection.
The PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill requires a full description of a
specific target in both the application and the court order, even if
the target individual's actual identity is unknown. The act also
requires the specific facts be alleged and documented that show how the
target's actions may thwart surveillance efforts. Additionally, the act
requires the FBI to notify the court within 10 days after beginning
surveillance of any new phone. This notice must include the facts and
circumstances that justify the FBI's belief that each new phone is
being used, or is about to be used, by the target.
Second, section 213 of the PATRIOT Act covers delayed notice search
warrants. This may be the most misrepresented provision of the PATRIOT
Act in recent years. Its critics sometimes refer to it pejoratively as
the sneak and peak provision. They suggest that it somehow gives the
FBI carte blanche to rummage through each American home without ever
telling the target individual what is being searched and why. That is
simply not true.
Delayed notification search warrants always involve judicial review.
In fact, delayed notification search warrants are a creature of
judicial creation and first appeared about 20 years ago when judges
agreed that there were some occasions when the interests of justice
made it prudent not to tip-off suspected criminals that their premises
were about to be searched.
Former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, a distinguished career
federal prosecutor, explained at a PATRIOT Act field hearing held in
Salt Lake City last year that he was personally involved in several
investigations of suspected drug dealers in which judges agreed to
allow the FBI to secretly search for drugs before effectuating arrest
warrants in order to be able to bring to justice the greatest number of
those involved in the drug ring.
In the same way that we have used the judicially created and
sanctioned delayed notification search warrants to bring drug dealers
to justice for over 20 years, I am certain that we want to continue to
bring this same technique to bear against suspected terrorists so we
can stop or catch the most senior members of a terrorist cell and to
give us the best chance to understand who is involved, and what they
are plotting to do against us.
Let me repeat again. Under this bill, delayed notification warrants
always require a judge to find that delayed notification is justified.
And what was the big flap over this greatly debated provision?
Not, as some would have it, whether this was an un-American trampling
of rights. No, the debate among conferees
[[Page S13642]]
was whether the initial period for the duration of this special type of
search warrant would be 7 days, which was in the Senate bill, or 180
days, which was in the House bill.
Stop the presses, the conference report contains a decidedly un-
shocking, 30-day compromise time period. And more important than the
presumptive 30-day period contained in the final bill is the fact that
a judge can effectively make the 30 days either shorter or longer
depending on the facts and circumstances of the application before the
court.
The bill permits extensions of the delay period, but only upon an
updated showing of the need for further delay. Also, it limits any
extensions to 90 days or less, unless the facts of the case justify a
longer delay. Moreover, the bill also adds new public reporting on the
use of delayed notice warrants.
Despite all of the exaggerated hoopla over the so-called sneak and
peek provision, I am aware of no member of Congress that has taken the
position that delayed notification search warrants should be eliminated
and I am certainly aware of no information that this provision has ever
been abused in the relatively few times it has been exercised under the
PATRIOT Act during the last 4 years.
If it is constitutional and effective to use delayed notification
warrants against drug dealers and child pornographers--which it is--I
am all for using this tool against suspected terrorists--and that is
what this bill continues to allow.
I doubt many Americans would be for a policy that would mandate that
the FBI to knock on the door and tell every suspected member of al-
Qaida that,
Hi, we are here from the FBI and we would like to see if
you are making a dirty bomb in your basement and please don't
tell your housemates and associates that we have been here
searching your home.
Delayed notification warrants are here to stay and will and should be
used when circumstances justify as determined by a judge.
Third, section 215. Section 215 is often misleadingly called by its
critics as the library records provision. Given the great amount of
discussion this provision has engendered, I would like to first note
for the record that before this authorization bill that the word
library was nowhere to be found in this provision.
I love libraries. I love books. I have nothing but the greatest
respect for librarians and patrons of libraries. Nobody in Congress
would ever sit by and allow the Federal Government to undertake fishing
expeditions to find out who is reading what in libraries.
At the same time, I do not think anyone wants libraries to become
safe havens for terrorist research and other terrorist activities such
as electronic mail communications with computers paid for by American
taxpayers.
Under the new compromise bill, the law for the first time now does
refer to libraries--but only in the most bend over backward sense that
it allows a very limited, select group of senior government officials,
consisting of the FBI Director, the Deputy FBI Director and the
Executive Assistant Director for National Security to authorize the FBI
to seek a court order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
for relevant library, book sales, firearms sales, tax return,
educational or medical records.
This authority may not be further delegated to anyone else in the
FBI. Obviously, this was a compromise that was made in response to the
great concerns that many voiced about library and other sensitive
personal records. I can live with this compromise but since there was
not one documented case of abuse of this provision under existing law,
I just hope we have not unintentionally created a bottleneck in the
system by requiring the personal involvement of the senior-most FBI
officials when local FBI agents might need to act as quick as possible.
There is a good argument to allow this authority to be delegated down
further. I, for one, am uncertain why each of our 78 Senate-confirmed
U.S. attorneys and each of the 56 career FBI Special Agents-in-Charge
of local FBI Field Offices should not have this discretion. We entrust
them with broad responsibility to protect us from a wide range of
crimes each and every day and there seems no reason why we should not
trust them to recommend which applications for business records should
be brought before a judge.
I would remind my colleagues that one of the ways the Unibomber, Ted
Kaczynski, was caught was through a garden-variety search of library
records. I am aware of no complaints that the Unibomber was apprehended
and I hope that no one takes the position that illicit users of
libraries such as the Unibomber should be informed that, by the way,
Mr. Kaczynski, the FBI was in last week comparing your withdrawal
records with the Unibomber's written Manifesto and we thought you would
be interested that they were asking about where you lived.
Section 215, the business records section allows the FBI to seek
court orders--and let me repeat that--to seek court orders--to obtain
business records from third parties in intelligence and terrorism
cases.
The revisions in the law requires applications for orders for
business records to include a statement of facts showing reasonable
grounds to believe that the things sought are relevant to an authorized
investigation to protect against terrorism or espionage.
Prior to this change there was no explicit relevance standard.
Because of concerns that were raised, the relevance standard has now
been codified. The administration supported this change. I support this
change. Some, including my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Sununu,
claim that the relevance standard contained in the bill is too broad.
Let us put this issue in perspective. The relevance standard has been
used for years in the issuance of grand jury subpoenas. All across the
country, dozens of these subpoenas are issued under the general
relevance standard each and every day. For example, grand jury
investigations routinely are conducted in conjunction with records--
business records relevant to the case at hand.
As a matter of fact, in many criminal law contexts, including health
care fraud and sexual exploitation cases, federal investigators--
without prior judicial review--can issue what are called administrative
subpoenas for relevant documents.
I believe that there are over 300 Federal statutes that contain the
type administrative subpoena authority that is not included in either
the current PATRIOT Act or in the reauthorization bill.
In some ways it is more difficult for the Federal Government to
investigate suspected terrorists than it is to investigate Medicare
fraud.
Leaving aside the wisdom of not allowing administrative subpoena
authority for terrorism investigations, I think it is fair to say that
the revision of section 215 that now contains an explicit relevance
test is strictly in the mainstream of American criminal law.
It is not a new concept to have to go before a judge and convince him
or her that the Government needs certain relevant records, such as
hotel or car rental bills, to investigate potential criminal activity.
If the judge does not think it is a bona fide investigation and is
just a fishing expedition, the judge can deny the request.
The revised version of the PATRIOT Act section 215 requires the
Government to certify that the business records sought are relevant to
an authorized investigation to obtain information not concerning a U.S.
citizen or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
intelligence activities.
Further, the revision to section 215 creates a three-part test that
presumes such information is relevant if it pertains to:
(1) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(2) the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power under
investigation; or
(3) an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of
a foreign power under investigation.
Some have argued that this three part test is not strong enough or
can be circumvented but the judges serving on the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court are neither potted plants nor is there any reason to
believe that they will rubberstamp any application that is placed
before them.
The new language includes additional procedural protections for
section 215 orders including:
[[Page S13643]]
(1) The explicit right for recipients to consult legal counsel and to
seek judicial review;
(2) The requirement that a senior FBI official approve requests for
certain sensitive documents, such as library records;
(3) The use of minimization procedures to limit the retention and
prohibit the dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons;
(4) Audits by the DOJ inspector general; and
(5) Enhanced reporting to Congress and the public on section 215
activities.
These are important protections, not all of which I believe are 100
percent necessary, but all of which I will support in the spirit of
compromise.
Judicial review and approval is still required for every application
for business records under section 215. All of these new provisions are
intended to act to further safeguard against any potential abuse. Some
during this debate have claimed that the new, explicit relevance
standard on section 215 will allow the Government to sweep up the
records of many innocent Americans.
We all share the concern about the Government getting too big for its
britches. None of us would want to be on the wrong end of a misguided
Federal investigation in which some overzealous bureaucrat with
seemingly unlimited resources acted in an arbitrary and unfair way that
could destroy our family's reputation and life savings. But that is not
what the PATRIOT Act sanctions.
There is certainly no evidence that this is how the business records
section of the PATRIOT Act has acted during the last 4 years.
Americans are right to have a healthy skepticism of government. A
large part of what our job as Senators in Washington is to watch over
Government agencies like the FBI and IRS.
Nobody wants Big Brother looking at our neighbor's personal
financial, medical or library records without a very good reason. And
that is exactly what the new protections that we have added to section
215 are intended to do--help make sure that when the Government
investigators want to examine business records, they have a very good
reason for looking at the records.
Let me repeat once again, the very same type of relevance standard
that is being put into place in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has long
been the law of the land when grand juries routinely subpoena records
in connection with many, many types of criminal investigations.
Again, these requests will not be in the hands of some rogue Federal
agent--or an abusive grand jury--judges must decide on the issuance of
a business records order under section 215.
We added additional congressional and public reporting provisions to
help us in our oversight function. Additional audits by DOJ's inspector
general will also act to check potential abuses.
Moreover, the Conference report requires the Justice Department to
promulgate minimization procedures for every section 215 business
record order that will direct the FBI not to retain or disseminate
documents that are obtained incidentally.
The other day my friend, the junior Senator from New Hampshire,
suggested that section 215, as amended, will place an undue burden on
those entities required to produce records. I do not believe this and
neither should you.
The conference report before us says that no section 215 order can be
issued for material that would be beyond the scope of a grand jury
subpoena, and since a grand jury subpoena can be quashed if it is
unreasonable or oppressive, any section 215 application can be set
aside or modified if it is unreasonable or oppressive.
In addition, the conference report expressly allows the recipient of
a section 215 order to challenge an order and permits the judge to set
aside any order found unlawful.
There are well-developed legal tests that can guide the courts to
decide when these requests are, and are not, relevant. As well, judges
are well equipped to know when these requests are, and are not,
reasonable and will rule accordingly.
Fourth, finally, let me address the issue of National Security
Letters or NSLs. National Security Letters allow the FBI to obtain
certain third-party materials in intelligence cases. The bill before us
adds further protections in this area. For example, the bill makes
clear that recipients of such letter are free to disclose the receipt
of this letter to their legal counsel.
I guess we can only hope that suspected terrorists do not share the
same attorney and a whole terrorist cell will not be tipped off.
The bill provides further clarification that these requests may be
challenged in court.
The bill makes clear that reviewing courts may modify or set aside
the request if compliance would be unreasonable, oppressive, or
otherwise unlawful.
The conference report language also permits judicial review of the
nondisclosure requirement that attaches with NSLs.
The revised PATRIOT Act bill fosters congressional oversight by
requiring the DOJ inspector general to conduct audits of the FBI's use
of National Security Letters.
As well, the conference report adds annual public reporting on NSLs.
Some are suddenly now loudly complaining in the last few weeks that the
standard for obtaining an NSL--which is a showing of relevance--is too
low.
Where were the complaints about this standard before now?
National Security Letter and the standards and practices that apply
to them predate the original PATRIOT Act which passed in the fall of
2001 in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
The Senate bill--which was approved unanimously by the Judiciary
Committee and by the full Senate by unanimous consent--did not make any
changes in the standards for the issuance of National Security Letters.
Nor did the House bill.
What is going on here?
It sounds a little like a case of, even if it ain't broke, let's fix
it.
Yet in the spirit of mutual respect and compromise, I am not opposed
trying to improve what is already working well, particularly if changes
are important to many both inside and outside of the Congress. That is
what has been done with respect to NSLs during the House-Senate
Conference process.
As has been referred to repeatedly in this debate, part of the
concern stems from a series of articles that appeared in The Washington
Post that reports that some 30,000 of these letters have been issued in
recent years.
As Senator Specter and others have pointed out, the Department of
Justice is prepared to give any member a classified briefing that sets
the record straight on this topic.
There is scant, if any, evidence that NSLs have been abused.
NSLs can only be used to obtain a very limited range of documents--
mostly financial and communications records. They cannot, as some have
alleged during this debate, be used to acquire medical records.
I said before and will repeat again that the conference document
expressly allows a recipient of a National Security Letter request to
challenge the request in court and have it set aside or modified if a
judge determines it is unreasonable.
You would not know this from the way that some are describing this
provision during this debate.
In fact, the conference report vehicle is actually more protective of
civil liberties than the provision in the Senate bill, which was
approved by unanimous consent earlier this year.
Specifically, the compromise language before us today requires a set
of senior officials, including the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney
General, Assistant Attorney General, or FBI Director to certify that
disclosure will harm national security or diplomatic relations.
The Senate-passed bill gave that level of deference whenever any
unspecified government officials made that certification. By confining
the authority to issue NSLs to the most senior officers in DOJ and the
FBI, the conference report helps ensure that it will be used with
appropriate discretion.
Some are criticizing the so-called gag order provisions of the NSL
procedures that forbid public disclosure of on-going national security
investigations involving NSLs.
But do we really want to let our sworn terrorist enemies know
precisely
[[Page S13644]]
what communication and financial records that we are examining in our
attempts to thwart future terrorist attacks?
I think not. Nor do I think the American public wants a system that
inordinately tips our hand to our enemies.
At the end of the day, I think that the compromises made with respect
to NSLs in this bill should be recognized as a good faith effort to
strengthen the rights of those who have legitimate challenges to the
reasonableness of the governmental request for information.
In the spirit of compromise and in recognition that many citizens
have expressed concerns about this bill and are just now focusing on
the longstanding NSL procedures, I think it appropriate to make these
accommodations so long as we do not unduly burden legitimate law
enforcement needs and longstanding practices.
Let me summarize my position on the PATRIOT Act.
I support the Conference report revisions to the PATRIOT Act,
although I do not favor each and every particular change.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and yes on final passage.
I congratulate the House of Representatives for its leadership in
passing this bill yesterday with a bipartisan vote.
I commend my friend, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, for his leadership
of this conference committee.
I commend my friend, Senator Specter, for his leadership in working
overtime to achieve a broad bipartisan consensus on this bill.
I want also commend all of my fellow conferees, including all of
those Democratic conferees who did not sign the conference report.
These are important issues and I understand and respect that many in
Congress and the American public comes to this debate from different
perspectives. I do not question anyone's patriotism just because they
are raising questions and concerns about this revised version of the
PATRIOT Act. I might question their wisdom and judgment as pertaining
to this particular bill but never the ism.
I hope that it comes time to vote that my colleagues will recognize
that this is a good, compromise bill.
I understand that not everyone will agree with every jot and tittle
of this bill--I certainly do not.
On balance the PATRIOT Act has worked well and we have every reason
to believe that these changes will make the PATRIOT Act work even
better.
This bill is good for Americans and bad news for the terrorists.
That is the way it should be.
I strongly disagree with those who would filibuster the motion to
proceed to this conference report.
Let this body have the same up and down vote that the House held on
Wednesday.
A three-month extension just shows the American public that this body
cannot even do one of those rare and unusual must-do pieces of
legislation in a timely fashion.
As well, no doubt some political pundits will likely interpret a 3-
month punt on the PATRIOT Act as a short-term political defeat for the
administration.
But this is a double edged sword: The American public will not be
pleased if, after they have had the time and opportunity to reflect on
the facts, they come to the conclusion that failure to accomplish a
comprehensive renewal and strengthening of the PATRIOT Act before the
end of this year is interpreted by our enemies as somehow inviting or
even enabling further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
The Senate should vote to send this bill to President Bush's desk.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the Senate and House of
Representatives from the board of directors of the 9/11 Families for a
Secure America be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
9/11 Families for a
Secure America,
Staten Island, NY December 14. 2005.
To the United States Senate and House of Representatives:
The members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America ask you
to vote ``yes'' on the conference report to HR 3199, the
Reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Our families understand that an important reason the 9/11
mass murderers were able to ``succeed'' in their conspiracy
was the existence of ``the wall'' that blocked information
sharing between law enforcement and the intelligence
community. The Patriot Act removed that ``wall'' temporarily
and it is important to now remove it forever so that the next
9/11 killers are not aided by the laws of our own country.
The Conference Report addresses many of the objections
expressed by some Members to HR 3199 as passed by the House,
and is a most reasonable compromise. It is quite apparent
that the remaining objections, expressed by a few Members,
are based upon theoretical possibilities for abuse of civil
liberties. However, the four year history of the Patriot Act
has shown what the Washington Post calls ``little evidence of
abuse, and considerable evidence that the law has facilitated
needed cooperation.''
Thus, the objections of the opponents of HR 3199 are simply
illusions. In contrast, it is not an illusion that nineteen
foreign terrorists took advantage of our government's refusal
to give its law enforcement and intelligence officers the
logical and obvious tools needed to catch the conspirators
prior to September 11, 2001. The result was the murder of our
parents, spouses, children and friends. We are convinced that
the reality of 9/11 outweighs the minor, hypothetical
objections that have been raised.
Some Members may think the final version of HR 3199 not
quite perfect, but defeat of the Patriot Reauthorization
means freedom of operation for terrorists and more needless
deaths of innocent Americans. We think that concern for the
safety of this country demands that these Members compromise
and accept something that may be a little less than what they
view as perfection. Please vote ``yes'' on the conference
report to HR 3199.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors, 9/11 Families for a Secure America:
Bruce DeCell, Sergeant, NYPD (retired), father in law of
Mark Petrocelli, age 29.
Bill Doyle, father of Joseph, age 24, WTC North Tower.
Lynn Faulkner, husband of Lynn, WTC South Tower.
Peter & Jan Gadiel, parents of James, age 23, WTC, North
Tower 103rd floor.
Grace Godshalk, mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC
South Tower 89th floor.
Joan Molinaro, mother of Firefighter Carl Molinaro.
Will Sekzer, detective Sergeant (retired), NYPD, father of
Jason Sekzer, age 31, WTC North Tower 105th floor.
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________