[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 24 (Wednesday, March 1, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1557-S1561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006--
                               Continued

  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the passage vote, the Senate vote on the motion to proceed to the 
motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199; I further ask consent that if 
the motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate vote immediately on the 
motion to reconsider and, if agreed to, then the Senate vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the conference report.

[[Page S1558]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have been to the floor several times 
in the past few days to try to convince my colleagues that we should 
not be reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act without addressing the legitimate 
concerns of law-abiding Americans across the country. I am under no 
illusions that I will have more success making that argument now than I 
had yesterday, or the week before the recess. And I know that some of 
my colleagues may be wishing I would sit down and stop badgering them 
about this. But the stakes are too high to sit idly by while the Senate 
prepares to disappoint the millions of Americans who have been hoping, 
asking, advocating for years that we fix the PATRIOT Act.
  Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. 
They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor 
and, to quote the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, cosmetic changes to 
the PATRIOT Act, its significance is far greater. This bill is, to 
again quote Senator Specter, the ``cover'' that will allow colleagues 
to support the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in 
December. A vote for the bill introduced by my friend from New 
Hampshire is effectively a vote to perform cosmetic surgery on that 
ugly conference report. Anyone who opposed that conference report 
should oppose S. 2271 because cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when 
we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans 
from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
  So I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position. The White House, 
along with its allies, has tried to make life uncomfortable for some of 
them. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't 
understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck 
in a pre-9/11 mindset. These cynical and baseless attacks come from a 
playbook that the American people are by now very familiar with. Those 
attacks should be rejected, not accommodated. We can fight terrorism 
aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against 
Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have 
when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying 
that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference 
report is flawed. It needs to be fixed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but 
I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents. They are 
watching and they will want to know how a bill that is so trivial on 
its face protects their civil liberties. It doesn't. It should be 
rejected. And the Senate should get down to the serious business of 
legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this month, I joined with a 
majority of Senators in voting to proceed to consideration of S. 2271. 
I said then that the bill made modest improvements over both the 
original PATRIOT Act and the reauthorization proposal produced by the 
House-Senate conference. I said, too, that the bill included one set of 
changes that I strongly opposed, and that I hoped there would be an 
opportunity to make further improvements to the bill, the conference 
report, and the PATRIOT Act.
  Regrettably, no sooner had the Senate voted to proceed to S. 2271 
than the majority leader filled the amendment ``tree'' with sham 
amendments, locking out real amendments that sought to improve the law 
further. An amendment that I filed but was denied the opportunity to 
offer would have corrected one of the most egregious ``police state'' 
provisions regarding gag orders. Senator Feingold also filed but could 
not offer amendments aimed at bringing the conference report more in 
line with the bipartisan reauthorization bill that every Member of the 
Senate approved last year. In light of the abuse perpetrated by the 
Republican leadership, I felt compelled yesterday to oppose cloture on 
the bill and the stifling of meaningful debate.
  Today's vote is a different and more difficult matter. Because the 
Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the 
``police state'' provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. 
This is a big step backward, in my view, from both the conference 
report and existing law.
  At the same time, the bill takes two steps forward. It modifies a 
provision I objected to in the conference report that would have 
required American citizens to tell the FBI before they exercise their 
right as Americans to seek the advice of counsel. Chairman Specter and 
I worked together to correct this provision; Senator Sununu was able to 
improve it further in this bill and I commend his efforts.
  Another significant change provided by the Sununu bill builds upon 
another objection I had and an idea I shared with him to ensure that 
libraries engaged in their customary and traditional activities are not 
subject to national security letters. This is a matter I first raised 
and feel very strongly about. I commend Senator Sununu for the progress 
he was able to make in this regard.
  The bill is intended to clarify that libraries as they traditionally 
and currently function are not electronic service providers, and may 
not be served with NSLs for business records simply because they 
provide Internet access to their patrons. Under this clarification, a 
library may be served with an NSL only if it functions as a true 
internet service provider, as by providing services to persons located 
outside the premises of the library. I expect that this will occur 
rarely or never and that in most if not all cases, the Government will 
need a court order to seize library records for foreign intelligence 
purposes.
  The language I proposed to Senator Sununu in this regard was less 
ambiguous than that to which the Bush-Cheney administration would 
agree. Still, my intent, Senator Sununu's intent and the intent of 
Congress in this regard should be clear. It is to strengthen the 
meaning and ensure proper implementation of this provision that I will 
support this bill. As a supporter I trust my intent will inform those 
charged with implementing the bill and reviewing its proper 
implementation.
  I will continue to work to improve the PATRIOT Act. I will work to 
provide better oversight of the use of national security letters and to 
remove the un-American restraints on meaningful judicial review. I will 
seek to monitor how sensitive personal information from medical files, 
gun stores and libraries are obtained, used, and retained. Today, I 
will join Senators Specter, Sununu, Craig, and others in introducing a 
bill to improve the PATRIOT Act and reauthorization legislation in 
several important respects. While we have made some progress, much is 
left to be done.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today to comment on S. 2271, which I 
anticipate that the Senate will overwhelmingly approve today. I support 
the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference Report, 
with the three amendments negotiated contained in S. 2271. It is long 
past time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, which has been critical 
to our efforts to protect Americans. I support the compromise that has 
allowed this up-or-down vote because I think that the agreement 
maintains the tools necessary to fight terrorism while further 
strengthening safeguards to protect Americans' civil liberties just as 
the conference report itself does.
  The conference report clarifies that the recipient of a section 215 
FISA business records order or a National Security Letter, NSL, may 
disclose receipt to an attorney to seek legal advice or assistance and 
also to those necessary to comply with the request. During House-Senate 
negotiations, provisions were added allowing the government to request 
that the recipient tell the government to whom the recipient had 
disclosed the order or NSL. This provision makes sense because there 
will be times when the Government will need to know everyone who has 
been told about a section 215 order or NSL. For example, if there is a 
leak of the existence of the request, or the recipient's name, that 
leak may need to be investigated. And we know from the criminal 
conviction of Lynne Stewart that, unfortunately, sometimes it is the 
attorneys who are breaking the law.

[[Page S1559]]

  Some Senators expressed concern that these provisions required all 
recipients to identify their attorney in all instances. This was a 
misreading of the language, which would have allowed the government to 
request the names of individuals to whom subsequent disclosure was made 
but did not set out a blanket requirement.
  Other Senators were concerned that this provision could chill a 
recipient's right to counsel. It is clear under the law that the 
constitutional right to counsel would not be implicated or offended by 
the conference report provision. But in a spirit of compromise, the 
Administration agreed to modify the provisions such that they could not 
be used to request the identity of an attorney to whom receipt was 
disclosed. I support this amendment primarily because there is no way 
that the agreed-upon language would preclude the use of a grand jury 
subpoena or other investigative tool in the event of a subsequent leak 
investigation. So the government will still have tools available to 
investigate leaks as the need arises--even if the offending party is 
the recipient's attorney.
  The conference report also makes it clear that the recipient of a 
section 215 FISA business records order can go to court and challenge 
the order. Some Senators raised concerns that under the conference 
report a recipient would have explicit rights to consult an attorney 
about the order and to challenge the order to produce business records, 
but would not have an explicit right to challenge the nondisclosure 
order that accompanies such a production order. I think it is likely 
that a court would entertain a constitutional challenge to the 
nondisclosure requirement, and nothing we say in a statute is going to 
change that one way or another. Moreover, it is important to remember 
that these are court orders--they are reviewed and approved by judges 
before they are served.
  But notwithstanding my confidence that the conference report was 
fully consistent with Americans' civil liberties, the administration 
agreed to a compromise that explicitly authorizes judicial review of a 
section 215 nondisclosure order. I think the agreement is a good 
compromise--it explicitly allows challenges, but does so without 
risking national security. Pursuant to the agreed-upon language, a 
challenge could be brought any time after the first year after the 
judge issued the section 215 order; the challenge could only be brought 
in the FISA Court; and the standard of review would be the same as the 
standard the conference report provides for review of nondisclosure 
orders accompanying NSLs. The delay is perfectly appropriate and 
necessary to preserve valuable personnel resources--these orders are 
approved by judges before issuance, so it makes little sense to allow 
recipients to challenge the non-disclosure requirement only a week or 
even a day after the court issues them.
  Taking the standard of review from the NSL provisions also makes 
sense. Not only did that standard pass both the House and Senate, but 
it affords the appropriate level of deference to the Executive branch's 
judgments on national security and diplomatic relations.
  This standard provides that the FISA Court judge may set aside or 
modify the nondisclosure order 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 or counterterrorism 
investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the 
life or physical safety of any person. If, upon the filing of a 
challenge to the nondisclosure order, the Attorney General, the Deputy 
Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, or the FBI Director 
certifies that disclosure may endanger the national security of the 
United States or interfere with diplomatic relations, the certification 
is conclusive unless made in bad faith.
  Courts have long recognized that national security and diplomatic 
relations fall within the heartland of the executive branch's 
responsibility and expertise, and this standard simply recognizes that 
expertise. By requiring that the certification be made by a Senate-
confirmed official before granting it bad-faith review, the conferees 
added political accountability--and I note that neither the House 
version nor the Senate version had this additional safeguard.
  Finally, some Senators also expressed concern about the applicability 
of national security letters to libraries. This concern has always 
seemed to me to be based on a misunderstanding of the NSL statutes. 
There are several NSL authorities, but each authority only allows the 
government to request a narrow category of records from a narrow set of 
institutions. The statue that is generally in the news allows the FBI 
to request things like customer subscription records from ``wire and 
electronic communication service providers.'' And we have already made 
clear in statute what institutions qualify as ``wire and electronic 
communication service providers.'' The way I read the statute, and the 
way that experts read the statute, the FBI cannot use an NSL to learn 
what books you and I are checking out from the library.
  But the compromise makes it crystal clear that the FBI may serve an 
NSL on a library only if that library is acting as a ``wire or 
electronic communication service provider.'' Just to be clear: we are 
not changing the set of entities that can be subject to NSLs; we are 
merely clarifying that libraries can be subject to NSLs only if they 
perform the functions that make an entity subject to NSLs. I can 
support this language because it does not create a safe haven for 
terrorists in libraries. If it did, I could not support the language.
  It is well past time to pass this report, which passed the House with 
strong bipartisan support. A majority of Americans supports 
reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act, as does a strong bipartisan majority 
of Senators. I support this compromise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Byrd
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The bill (S. 2271), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2271

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional 
     Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``applicable Act'' means the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to extend and modify authorities needed 
     to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.'' (109th 
     Congress, 2d Session).

     SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS.

       Subsection (f) of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861), as amended by the 
     applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f)(1) In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `production order' means an order to produce 
     any tangible thing under this section; and
       ``(B) the term `nondisclosure order' means an order imposed 
     under subsection (d).

[[Page S1560]]

       ``(2)(A)(i) A person receiving a production order may 
     challenge the legality of that order by filing a petition 
     with the pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not less than 
     1 year after the date of the issuance of the production 
     order, the recipient of a production order may challenge the 
     nondisclosure order imposed in connection with such 
     production order by filing a petition to modify or set aside 
     such nondisclosure order, consistent with the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), with the pool established by section 
     103(e)(1).
       ``(ii) The presiding judge shall immediately assign a 
     petition under clause (i) to 1 of the judges serving in the 
     pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not later than 72 
     hours after the assignment of such petition, the assigned 
     judge shall conduct an initial review of the petition. If the 
     assigned judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the 
     assigned judge shall immediately deny the petition and affirm 
     the production order or nondisclosure order. If the assigned 
     judge determines the petition is not frivolous, the assigned 
     judge shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with 
     the procedures established under section 103(e)(2).
       ``(iii) The assigned judge shall promptly provide a written 
     statement for the record of the reasons for any determination 
     under this subsection. Upon the request of the Government, 
     any order setting aside a nondisclosure order shall be stayed 
     pending review pursuant to paragraph (3).
       ``(B) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside 
     a production order may grant such petition only if the judge 
     finds that such order does not meet the requirements of this 
     section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not 
     modify or set aside the production order, the judge shall 
     immediately affirm such order, and order the recipient to 
     comply therewith.
       ``(C)(i) A judge considering a petition to modify or set 
     aside a nondisclosure order may grant such petition 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.
       ``(ii) If, upon filing of such a petition, the Attorney 
     General, Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney 
     General, or the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation certifies that disclosure may endanger the 
     national security of the United States or interfere with 
     diplomatic relations, such certification shall be treated as 
     conclusive, unless the judge finds that the certification was 
     made in bad faith.
       ``(iii) 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.
       ``(D) Any production or nondisclosure order not explicitly 
     modified or set aside consistent with this subsection shall 
     remain in full effect.
       ``(3) A petition for review of a decision under paragraph 
     (2) to affirm, modify, or set aside an order by the 
     Government or any person receiving such order shall be made 
     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 by 
     the Government or any person receiving such order for writ of 
     certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the 
     Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have 
     jurisdiction to review such decision.
       ``(4) Judicial proceedings under this subsection shall be 
     concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of 
     proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and 
     statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under 
     security measures established by the Chief Justice of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and 
     the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(5) All petitions under this subsection shall be filed 
     under seal. In any proceedings under this subsection, the 
     court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte 
     and in camera any Government submission, or portions thereof, 
     which may include classified information.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURES.

       (a) FISA.--Subparagraph (C) of section 501(d)(2) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861(d)(2)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under subparagraph 
     (A) or (C) of paragraph (1) shall identify to the Director or 
     such designee the person to whom such disclosure will be made 
     or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the request.''.
       (b) Title 18.--Paragraph (4) of section 2709(c) of title 
     18, United States Code, as amended by the applicable Act, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee 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 the request under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (c) Fair Credit Reporting Act.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 626(d) of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)), as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee 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 the request for the identity of 
     financial institutions or a consumer report respecting any 
     consumer under this section.''.
       (2) Other agencies.--Paragraph (4) of section 627(c) of the 
     Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681v(c)), as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the authorized government agency, 
     any person making or intending to make a disclosure under 
     this section shall identify to the requesting official of the 
     authorized government agency the person to whom such 
     disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was made 
     prior to the request, except that nothing in this section 
     shall require a person to inform the requesting official 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 the request for information under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (d) Right to Financial Privacy Act.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 1114(a)(3) of 
     the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)), as 
     amended by the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) At the request of the authorized Government authority 
     or the Secret Service, any person making or intending to make 
     a disclosure under this section shall identify to the 
     requesting official of the authorized Government authority or 
     the Secret Service the person to whom such disclosure will be 
     made or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the 
     request, except that nothing in this section shall require a 
     person to inform the requesting official of the authorized 
     Government authority or the Secret Service 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 the 
     request for financial records under this subsection.''.
       (2) Federal bureau of investigation.--Clause (iv) of 
     section 1114(a)(5)(D) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(D)), as amended by the applicable Act, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iv) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person 
     making or intending to make a disclosure under this section 
     shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to 
     whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure 
     was made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the Director or such 
     designee 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 the request for financial records 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
       (e) National Security Act of 1947.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 802(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 436(b)), as amended by the applicable Act, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) At the request of the authorized investigative 
     agency, any person making or intending to make a disclosure 
     under this section shall identify to the requesting official 
     of the authorized investigative agency the person to whom 
     such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was 
     made prior to the request, except that nothing in this 
     section shall require a person to inform the requesting 
     official 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 the request under subsection 
     (a).''.

     SEC. 5. PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR LIBRARY PATRONS.

       Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     the applicable Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Libraries.--A library (as that term is defined in 
     section 213(1) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 
     U.S.C. 9122(1)), the services of which include access to the 
     Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or other 
     similar forms of communication in print or digitally by 
     patrons for their use, review, examination, or circulation, 
     is not a wire or electronic communication service provider 
     for purposes of this section, unless the library is providing 
     the services defined in section 2510(15) (`electronic 
     communication service') of this title.''.
       This Act shall become effective immediately upon enactment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S1561]]

  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following votes in this stacked series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________