[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 22 (Monday, February 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1495-S1498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2271, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2271) to clarify that individuals who receive
FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that
individuals who receive national security letters are not
required to disclose the name of their attorney, that
libraries are not wire or electronic communication service
providers unless they provide specific services, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
Frist amendment No. 2895, to establish the enactment date
of the Act.
Frist amendment No. 2896 (to amendment No. 2895), of a
perfecting nature.
PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, as we begin the debate and discussion
on the USA PATRIOT Act, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture to cut
off debate tomorrow when the vote is scheduled at 2:30, and then
proceed to pass the PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the
President shortly after September 11, 2001, to provide additional tools
for law enforcement, and it was reviewed extensively by the Committee
on the Judiciary, which I chair, last year; and the Judiciary Committee
came out with a unanimous report, with all 18 members on the committee
concurring in the final product.
We considered this a unique, if not remarkable event, considering
that our Judiciary Committee has people at all positions on the
political spectrum. So to have unanimous agreement was, we thought,
quite an accomplishment. When the matter came to the floor of the
Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent, which again was unique, if
not remarkable, in that on a matter as complex and controversial as the
PATRIOT Act all of the Senators were in agreement that it should be
enacted.
We then went to conference with the House of Representatives and, as
expected, the House had different views than what the Senate had in
mind. But we worked through in a collegial way with Chairman
Sensenbrenner and others on the House side and came to a conference
report which we submitted to the Senate.
We fell short of having enough votes to impose cloture when
objections were reached to a number of provisions which had been
included in the conference report.
There have since been some changes made in the legislation which is
pending before the Senate. I compliment my colleagues, Senator Sununu,
Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, who is presiding today, and Senator
Hagel, for a number of additions which led those four Republican
Senators who had not voted for cloture to find the PATRIOT Act
acceptable, taking the conference report and making these additions.
It is our expectation that there will be a number of Democrats, I
think most of whom oppose cloture, so we have an expectation of
receiving 60 votes tomorrow to be able to move the bill ahead.
The changes which were made as a result of these modifications
provide for explicit judicial review of a section 215 nondisclosure
order, a provision to remove from the conference report the requirement
that a person inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom
disclosure was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal
assistance with respect to a national security letter, and an
additional provision to clarify current law that libraries that have
been functioning in their traditional roles, including providing
Internet access, are not subject to section 2709 national security
letters.
These changes were, in my opinion, not major but helpful in the sense
they have satisfied a number of Senators, I think, and are very
constructive and enable us to move forward, which I expect will enable
us to obtain cloture.
With the revised bill which is now before the Senate for a cloture
vote tomorrow, it is my hope my colleagues will cut off debate, invoke
cloture, and let us move ahead to the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It is
not a bill to my precise satisfaction, but in the Congress of the
united States, we reach accommodations and we reach compromises. My
preference would have been to have the Senate bill enacted, but there
were significant concessions made on both sides, especially by the
House of Representatives, in agreeing to a 4-year sunset provision.
What I intend to do tomorrow is to propose additional legislation in
this field which would take the current bill with the improvements made
by Senator Sununu and his group and add a number of additional
safeguards on civil liberties which will improve the bill even further,
in my opinion, and to consider that on additional legislation in the
Senate.
In so doing, I fully realize we will have to go through the
legislative process. We will have hearings in the Judiciary Committee.
We will make this the subject of oversight on what the law enforcement
officials, specifically the FBI, will be doing, and we will ultimately,
hopefully, report out of the Judiciary Committee a bill with the
provisions which I am now about to enumerate which will, if successful
in conference and to be signed by the President into law, return the
bill to its form which passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously last
year and passed the Senate unanimously.
The provisions in the bill which I will introduce tomorrow--I wanted
to give my colleagues notice of what I intend to do--would be a
provision, first, on the notice on search warrants to require that the
target receive notification of the execution of a delayed notice search
warrant within 7 days as the Senate-passed PATRIOT Act provided. The
conference report provides for notice within 30 days, which was a
significant compromise when the House of Representatives moved from 180
days to 30 days and the Senate moved from 7 days to 30 days, but it
continues to be my view that the 7-day requirement is the best
requirement.
The bill will further provide that section 215 will have the Senate-
passed three-part test which will require a statement of facts
accompanying an application to show that the records sought, first,
pertained to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, second,
relevant to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who
is the subject of an authorized investigation, or three, pertain to an
individual in contact with a suspected agent of a foreign power.
I will put in the Record a memo detailing the differences between the
Senate bill and the House bill and the conference report.
This provision goes to the heart of strenuous objections raised by
people who filibustered the bill who objected to a fourth provision
which gave the judge discretion to allow for a court order if there
were a terrorism investigation involved generally which did not have
one of this three-part test.
My view is that the three-part test is decisively preferable,
although I do think in the spirit of compromise on our bicameral
legislation, having the discretion of the judge to authorize the order
if he found it warranted in light of the terrorism investigation was
acceptable. This is preferable, and this will be included in the new
bill to be introduced.
A third change will provide for judicial review of national security
letters to eliminate the conclusive presumption in the conference
report on the national security letter provision. The bill removes the
ability of the Government to prevent judicial review of the
nondisclosure requirement if it certifies in good faith that
``disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or
interfere with diplomatic relations.''
This provision in the conference report was identical with what
passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously and was adopted unanimously
by the Senate. Those who have objected to this conclusive presumption
say it was overlooked and that on further consideration they objected
to it.
Upon additional analysis, it is my view this conclusive presumption
is better out of the report, which gives the court the discretion to
allow for the judicial review of these national security letters.
[[Page S1496]]
A fourth provision involves judicial review of the section 215 order
nondisclosure requirement and it eliminates the mandatory 1-year
waiting period for judicial review of nondisclosure requirement on 215
orders. The additions by Senator Sununu and his colleagues provide for
a 1-year waiting period. My own view is it is preferable there not be a
waiting period at all, that the court have the discretion to enter the
orders immediately if it finds cause to do so.
The fifth provision of the legislation which I intend to introduce
tomorrow adds a 4-year sunset to the national security letter with
authorities created in the conference report so that the bill provides
that on December 31, 2009, the law governing national security letters
will be returned to what it was in February of the year 2006.
Here again we have a situation where the PATRIOT Act did not deal
with national security letters, but this, again, is a tightening up of
the bill to provide additional safeguards for civil liberties.
So what we have here, in essence, is the Senate bill which passed the
committee unanimously and the Senate unanimously was then modified by a
conference report which, to repeat--I don't like to do it, but it is
worth a summary--I found acceptable; not as good as the Senate bill but
acceptable. Then we have these three provisions added by Senator Sununu
and his group--again giving them credit--which has made it acceptable
to those four Republican Senators and I believe enough Democrats to get
the 60 votes, perhaps additional votes, to be able to submit the bill
to the House of Representatives for its consideration and, hopefully,
ultimate passage to be signed by the President, which is an acceptable
bill; again, not as good as the Senate bill but acceptable.
I want my colleagues who oppose the bill in the form submitted for
cloture tomorrow to know that if the issue is not concluded, I will be
introducing legislation which will bring back the original Senate bill
with some additional improvements, and between now and tomorrow, we
will be soliciting cosponsors to see if others will choose to support
this bill which, as I say, returns the essentials of the Senate bill
with some improvements. The commitment is made in my capacity as
chairman that we will proceed to have oversight hearings, that the
Director of the FBI is due in on March 29. He will be questioned about
these specific provisions, asked for justification for the more
restrictive provisions which are in the conference report, plus the
provisions by Senator Sununu and his colleagues, and there will be
continuing oversight in the interim.
We will have hearings on the legislation which I intend to introduce
tomorrow, looking toward the prospect of ultimately passing it, if it
is passed by the Senate and if it is submitted to the House in
conference and that turns out to be the bicameral will of the two
bodies.
I do believe that where we are now with the conference report and the
additions, we have an acceptable bill--not as good as it could be--and
we will attempt to perfect it even more as I have outlined.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation which I intend
to introduce tomorrow be printed in the Record so my colleagues can see
it, together with the memorandum which I described in the course of my
discussion.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. __
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REASONABLE PERIOD FOR DELAY.
Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``7 days''.
SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
LETTERS.
(a) FISA.--Subsection (f) of section 501 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is
amended by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the
following:
``(2)(A) A person receiving an order under this section may
challenge the legality of that order, including any
prohibition on disclosure, by filing a petition with the pool
established by section 103(e)(1).
``(B) The presiding judge shall immediately assign a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the judges
serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1).
``(C)(i) Not later than 72 hours after the assignment of a
petition under subparagraph (B), the assigned judge shall
conduct an initial review of the petition.
``(ii) If the assigned judge determines under clause (i)
that--
``(I) the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge shall
immediately deny the petition and affirm the order; or
``(II) the petition is not frivolous, the assigned judge
shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with the
procedures established pursuant to section 103(e)(2).
``(D)(i) The assigned judge may modify or set aside the
order only if the judge finds that there is no reason to
believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of
the United States, interfere with a criminal,
counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation,
interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or
physical safety of any person. If the judge does not modify
or set aside the order, the judge shall immediately affirm
the order and order the recipient to comply therewith. The
assigned judge shall promptly provide a written statement for
the record of the reasons for any determination under this
paragraph.
``(ii) If the judge denies a petition to modify or set
aside a nondisclosure order, the recipient of such order
shall be precluded for a period of 1 year from filing another
such petition with respect to such nondisclosure order.
``(3) A petition for review of a decision to affirm,
modify, or set aside an order, including any prohibition on
disclosure, by the United States or any person receiving such
order shall be to the court of review established under
section 103(b), which shall have jurisdiction to consider
such petitions. The court of review shall provide for the
record a written statement of the reasons for its decision
and, on petition of the United States or any person receiving
such order for writ of certiorari, the record shall be
transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have
jurisdiction to review such decision.''.
(b) Judicial Review of National Security Letters.--Section
3511(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``If, at the time of the
petition,'' and all that follows through the end of the
paragraph; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``If the recertification
that disclosure may'' and all that follows through ``made in
bad faith.''.
SEC. 3. FACTUAL BASIS FOR REQUESTED ORDER.
Section 501(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)(A)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(A) a statement of facts showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other
things sought--
``(i) are relevant to an authorized investigation (other
than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with
subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information
not concerning a United States person or to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities; and
``(ii) either--
``(I) pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power;
``(II) are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent
of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized
investigation; or
``(III) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known
to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; and''.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER SUNSET.
Section 102 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199, 109th Congress, 2d
Session) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Other Sunsets.--
``(1) In general.--Effective December 31, 2009, the
following provisions are amended so that they read as they
read on February 27, 2006:
``(A) Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code.
``(B) Sections 626 and 627 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(15 U.S.C. 1681u, 1681v).
``(C) Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act
(12 U.S.C. 3414).
``(2) Exception.--With respect to any particular foreign
intelligence investigation that began before the date on
which the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) cease to
have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or
potential offense that began or occurred before the date on
which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions
shall continue in effect.''.
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Amendments to provisions of law made by this Act are to
such provisions, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Improvement
and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199, 109th Congress,
2d Session) and by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (S. 2271, 109th
Congress, 2d Session).
____
To: Senator Specter
From: SJC Crime Unit
Subject: Amendments to PATRIOT Act Authorities
Date: February 27, 2006
Per your request, your staff has drafted a stand alone bill
that will address the most significant outstanding concerns
of Senator Feingold, Senator Leahy and yourself (as well as
the other proponents of the SAFE Act) regarding the PATRIOT
Act Reauthorization Conference Report. The bill is based, in
part, on the amendments that Senator Feingold attempted to
introduce during the PATRIOT Act debates of the week of
February 13, 2006. Your bill will accomplish the following:
[[Page S1497]]
Delayed Notice Search Warrants: Requires that the target
receive notification of the execution of a delayed notice
search warrant within 7 days, as did the Senate passed
PATRIOT Act. The Conference Report provides for notice within
30 days as a compromise with the House, which passed an 180-
day delay in its bill.
Section 215: Implements the Senate-passed ``three-part
test'' to obtain a section 215 order. Thus, the bill will
require the statement of facts accompanying an application to
show that the records sought: (1) pertain to a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power; (2) are relevant to the
activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the
subject of an authorized investigation, or (3) pertain to an
individual in contact with a suspected agent of a foreign
power. A memo detailing the differences between the Senate
bill, the House bill, and the Conference Report is attached.
Judicial Review of National Security Letters: Eliminates
the ``conclusive presumption'' in the Conference Report's NSL
provision. The bill removes the ability of the government to
prevent judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement if
it certifies, in good faith, that ``disclosure may endanger
the national security of the United States or interfere with
diplomatic relations.''
Judicial Review of Section 215 order nondisclosure
requirement: Eliminates the conclusive presumption and the
mandatory one-year waiting period for judicial review of the
non-disclosure requirement on 215 orders.
Sunsets on National Security Letters: Adds a four-year
sunset to the National Security Letter authorities created in
the Conference Report. Thus, the bill provides that on
December 31, 2009, the law governing NSL's will be returned
to what it was in February 2006.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any Senator on the
floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and to voice my support for the
PATRIOT Act.
I also want to take a few moments to compliment my colleagues,
Senator Sununu and Senator Craig, for their very hard work over the
course of these last few weeks making these amendments possible.
I also want to recognize Senators Hagel, Durbin, Salazar, and
Feingold for the bipartisan approach which we were able to take in
addressing this issue.
I know the changes that were agreed to do not address all of the
concerns of the Senator from Wisconsin before we went on recess, nor do
they address all of my concerns. But I want to make sure that the
Senator is aware of how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
There are a number of Members within this body who did not share our
opposition to the conference report when it was first reported out, and
there are many, on the hand, who would have liked to have seen the
conference report expand the powers granted to the executive branch
under the PATRIOT Act. That is certainly their prerogative and their
right to advocate that position. It is not a position I agree with,
unless we have adequate safeguards that can be put in place to provide
a reasonable level of judicial oversight.
I want to be clear on a couple of points regarding my earlier
opposition to the conference report.
First, it is not my desire to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety
nor to allow the authorization provided in the 16 provisions we are
considering to expire.
If that was my intent, if that is what I had hoped to do, it would
have been a pretty simple task to object to any language coming out of
the conference--to have objected to the language that unanimously
passed the Senate in July. But that wasn't the case. Those of us who
voiced objection to the earlier draft of the conference report just
didn't say: No, we don't like it. We didn't say that. We didn't say
that we opposed it entirely. We said we offered up the specific
examples of changes to the conference report that we needed to see in
order to support it. It was truly our desire to improve the conference
report--not to kill it.
I commend the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Specter, who was on the floor earlier, for his efforts to represent the
views which we had expressed in conference. The senior Senator from
Pennsylvania clearly hasn't had much time to take a breather lately,
but he was a tough negotiator. He was able to squeeze some additional
changes out of the conferees, most notably the shorter sunshine
timeframe for section 216, roving wiretaps, and the lone-wolf
provision.
Unfortunately, the House and the administration refused to consider
our other concerns.
There have been some who have asked me: You got the sunset
provisions. Wasn't that the primary issue? Why the continued
opposition?
For some, the sunset provisions were the primary issue. But that was
not necessarily the case for our group, and that was not necessarily my
primary concern.
When we introduced the SAFE Act last April--that is the legislation
which was sponsored by Senators Craig and Durbin and cosponsored by
many of us--the SAFE Act did not contain any sunsets. We were prepared
to make permanent each of the 16 provisions in question today.
What we were seeking, instead, was language that would create a level
of judicial review and public disclosure that would head off any
potential abuse and unnecessary infringement on individual freedoms.
Now, it has been said by some that those seeking changes to the
PATRIOT Act have not been able to point to any case of abuse to support
their cause. And that may be the case. But do we have to wait for that
abuse to happen? I would prefer we put safeguards in place now, not
afterwards, safeguards that continue to allow our law enforcement and
intelligence officers to obtain the information they need for the
security of our Nation.
Now, in particular, I was, and I remain, concerned about the presumed
relevance standard under a section 215 order. With the increased power
under the PATRIOT Act to obtain ``any tangible item'' from any entity,
it would also seem appropriate that the government have a greater
responsibility to demonstrate its rationale for seeking those terms.
While the conference report improves upon the current statute py
requiring in most cases some connection or contact with a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power, I am concerned the presumed relevance
language significantly diminishes the judicial oversight the Senate-
passed bill provided.
While I remain concerned about this standard, I am pleased that what
has been agreed to is the explicit judicial review of a section 215 gag
order--a right that previously was not clearly available to recipients.
Now, this does not address all of my section 215 concerns. I do have
more. But it does remain an improvement over the conference report and
over current law.
I was also pleased that language was agreed to that permits a
national security letter to be served on a library only if that library
is acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. I
have noticed some have been critical of the language that is included
in this amendments act, saying: Well, you still have the ability to go
after the libraries. But, again, I will stress, it permits a national
security letter to be served on a library only if that library is
acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. So the
fact they may happen to offer their library patrons the use of the
Internet does not make them a wire or electronic communications service
provider. This language that is incorporated in the amendments act was
part of legislation I had introduced in 2003 in an effort to modify the
PATRIOT Act. I believe it is an important protection for our Nation's
libraries.
I know this is not the last debate we will have on the PATRIOT Act,
nor is it likely the last piece of legislation we will consider on the
subject. Some of the provisions we see--the continued sunset provisions
for section 215, the roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf provision--
assure us of that. But earlier, about a half an hour ago, on the floor,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee came to the floor and spoke of
legislation he will be introducing tomorrow.
As I was listening to the chairman--and I obviously have not looked
at the legislation as of yet, but I understand
[[Page S1498]]
from his comments it is essentially his purpose with this legislation
to go back to the language we had in that legislation that passed
unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed
unanimously out of this body--provisions he has detailed as they relate
to search warrants, the strengthening of section 215, a 4-year sunset
on NSLs, and NSL judicial review. So I will anxiously await the
opportunity to review that legislation Chairman Specter has indicated
just this afternoon will be available to us.
I am encouraged, once again, we will be able to look at those areas
where I and others have been very concerned that we have not provided
adequately for that balance between providing our law enforcement the
tools they need while, at the same time, maintaining the individual
liberties we as Americans expect and certainly deserve. So, as I
indicated, I look forward to reviewing that legislation.
But the legislation we are considering today--the conference report--
I believe has made improvements on the original product of the PATRIOT
Act, and so with passage of the additional protections, it is my
intention to vote for cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Republican leadership has made a
mistake and is abusing its power by choking off debate on this
important bill. Regrettably the majority leader has chosen to prevent
any effort to offer amendments to the bill and has effectively stifled
open debate. While I voted to proceed to consideration of the bill, I
do not condone the Republican leadership's current abuse.
I have filed an amendment that would improve the bill by correcting
one of the most egregious ``police state'' provisions regarding gag
orders. The Bush-Cheney administration used the last round of
discussions with Republican Senators to make the gag order provisions
worse, in my view, by forbidding any court challenge for 1 year. The
conference report places no similar restriction on recipients of
national security letters, and there is no justification for its
inclusion here.
In addition, the bill continues and cements into law procedures that,
in my view, unfairly determine legitimate challenges to gag orders. It
allows the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that,
in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may''
interfere with diplomatic relations. Unless the Government is acting in
bad faith, the court must accept the certification as conclusive and
must rule in favor of the Government.
This is the type of provision to which I have never agreed. The
conference report uses identical language in connection with NSL gag
orders, and I resisted it in that context. I agreed with Senator
Sununu, who said in December that it would prevent meaningful judicial
review because NSL recipients would never be able to show bad faith on
the part of the Federal Government. Senator Specter has also been
critical of this provision.
My amendment would have corrected these unnecessary excesses. It
struck both the 1-year waiting period for challenging a gag order and
the ``conclusive presumption'' in favor of the Government. These
changes are simple but they are essential if we are to avoid creating
rigged procedures where the Government always wins, regardless of the
merits.
By its abuse of the rules, the Republican leadership is preventing
any opportunity to correct these matters. That is wrong. The Senate may
have accepted or rejected my effort to remove this un-American
restraint on meaningful judicial review of gag orders, but I should
have had the opportunity to offer it.
In the weeks following 9/11, some of us worked hard in cooperation
with the Bush-Cheney administration on what came to be the USA PATRIOT
Act. I remind the current Republican leadership that even then, in
those extraordinary times, we allowed Senators to offer amendments. We
took difficult votes. I would have liked to have supported some of
those amendments but, in my role as the chair of the Judiciary
Committee, I felt that I could not at that time. But I did not and the
majority leader, Senator Daschle, did not fill the amendment ``tree''
with sham amendments. Instead, we worked out an agreement to proceed
with amendments and votes on those amendments.
In 2001, I fought for time to provide some balance to Attorney
General Ashcroft's demands that the Bush-Cheney administration's
antiterrorism bill be enacted in a week. We worked hard for 6 weeks to
make that bill better and were able to include the sunset provisions
that contributed to reconsideration of several provisions over the last
several months. Last year I worked with Chairman Specter and all the
members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to pass a
reauthorization bill in July. As we proceeded in House-Senate
conference on the measure, the Bush-Cheney administration and
congressional Republicans locked Democratic conferees out of their
deliberations and wrote the final bill. That was wrong.
Last December, working with a bipartisan group of Senators, we were
able to urge reconsideration of that final bill. Senators Sununu and
Craig were able to use that opportunity to make some improvements. I
commend them for what they were able to achieve and hope that my
support for their efforts has been helpful. I wish that along the way
the Bush-Cheney administration had shown interest in working together
to get to the best law we could for the American people.
Since the House-Senate conference was hijacked, I have tried to get
this measure back on the right track. We have been able to achieve some
improvements. I regret that this bill is not better and that the
intransigence of the Bush-Cheney administration has prevented a better
balance and better protections for the American people. Just as I
worked for an opportunity for Senator Sununu to seek improvements to
the conference report, I will now vote against these unfair efforts to
forestall any amendments to this measure. I remain committed to working
to provide the tools that we need to protect the American people. That
includes working to provide the oversight and checks needed on the uses
of Government power and to improve the reauthorization of the PATRIOT
Act.
In light of the abuse being perpetrated by the Republican leadership,
I will vote against their stifling of meaningful debate and their
obstruction of efforts to improve the bill, the conference report and
the PATRIOT Act. I will vote against cloture on the bill without any
opportunity to offer amendments. I urge the Republican leadership to
reconsider its actions and allow a few amendments to be offered to the
bill so that we can seek to improve it before final passage by the
Senate.
Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________