[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Pages S727-S731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   FISA SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the following measure, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA 
     PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     relating to access to business records, individual terrorists 
     as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until 
     December 8, 2011.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute 
amendment is agreed to, and there will be 30 minutes equally divided 
for debate prior to a vote.
  The amendment (No. 90) was agreed to, as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 


       This Act may be cited as the ``FISA Sunsets Extension Act 
     of 2011''.


       (a) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C. 
     1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is 
     amended by striking ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``May 
     27, 2011''.
       (b) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
     2004.--Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 
     Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking 
     ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``May 27, 2011''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to vote on a 
3-month extension of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I will 
support this extension because it gives the Senate time to properly 
consider this critically important legislation. But before I support 
any additional extensions of the PATRIOT Act, I believe we should have 
an honest discussion about changes and reforms that are necessary to 
protect the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. It is worth 
taking a moment to reflect on the history of the PATRIOT Act.
  The PATRIOT Act was passed almost 10 years ago after the 9/11 
terrorist attack. Ground Zero was still burning when President Bush 
asked Congress to give him new authority to fight terrorism. Congress 
responded, passing the PATRIOT Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 
including my own. It was a unique moment in our history.
  But even then, many were concerned that the PATRIOT Act might go too 
far when it came to our constitutional rights and freedoms. As a 
result, we

[[Page S728]]

put an insurance policy in the law, a sunset clause on the PATRIOT 
Act's most controversial provisions. I believe that was a thoughtful 
move on the part of the Senate and the House. We knew that we were in a 
very emotional state because of the dramatic loss of life and fear that 
followed after the attacks on 9/11. We wanted to reflect on some of the 
changes and authority given to the government at a later time.
  I voted for the PATRIOT Act, but I soon realized it gave too much 
power to the government in some areas, without judicial and 
Congressional oversight. So 2 years after the PATRIOT Act became law, I 
led a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the SAFE Act, 
legislation to reform the PATRIOT Act. The SAFE Act was supported not 
only by the American Civil Liberties Union but also by the American 
Conservative Union and Gun Owners of America. It was an extraordinary 
coalition. Progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans came 
together across the partisan divide, with the understanding that 
Americans believed we can be both safe and free. We wanted to retain 
the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act but place some reasonable limits 
on those powers within the bounds of the Constitution.
  In 2005, the first time Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act, some 
reforms of the SAFE Act were included in the bill. Many were not. So 
there are still significant provisions in the PATRIOT Act which cause 
concern to this Senator. The FBI is still permitted to obtain a John 
Doe roving wiretap that does not identify the person or the phone that 
will be wiretapped.
  In other words, the FBI can obtain a wiretap without telling a court 
who they want to wiretap or where they want the place the wiretap 
itself. In garden-variety criminal cases, the FBI is still permitted to 
conduct what is known as sneak-and-peek searches of a home without 
notifying the homeowner about the search until some later time.
  We now know the vast majority of sneak-and-peek searches take place 
in cases that do not involve terrorism in any way. A national security 
letter, or NSL, is a form of administrative subpoena issued by the FBI. 
We often hear NSLs compared to grand jury subpoenas. But unlike a grand 
jury subpoena, a national security letter is issued without the 
approval of a grand jury or even a prosecutor. And unlike the grand 
jury subpoena, the recipient of a national security letter is subject 
to a gag order at the FBI's discretion.
  The PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the FBI's authority to NSLs. An NSL 
now allows the FBI to obtain sensitive personal information about 
innocent Americans, including library records, medical records, gun 
records, and phone records, even when there is no connection whatsoever 
to a suspected terrorist or spy.
  The Justice Department's inspector general concluded that this 
standard ``can be easily satisfied.'' This could lead to government 
fishing expeditions that target, unfortunately, innocent Americans.
  For years we have been told there is no reason to be concerned about 
this broad grant of power to the FBI. In 2003, Attorney General 
Ashcroft testified to the Judiciary Committee that librarians who 
raised concern about the PATRIOT Act were ``hysterics,'' in the 
Attorney General's words, and ``the Department of Justice has neither 
the staffing, the time, nor the inclination to monitor the reading 
habits of Americans.''
  But we now know, many years later, the FBI has, in fact, issued 
national security letters for the library records of innocent 
Americans. For years we were told the FBI was not abusing this broad 
grant of power. But in 2007, the Justice Department's own inspector 
general concluded the FBI was guilty of ``widespread and serious 
misuse'' of the national security letter authority, and failed to 
report those abuses to Congress and a White House oversight board.
  The inspector general reported that the number of NSL requests had 
increased exponentially from about 8,500 the year before the enactment 
of the PATRIOT Act to an average of more than 47,000 per year, and that 
even these numbers were significantly understated due to flaws in the 
FBI database.
  I believe America can be both safe and free. We can retain the 
expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act but place some reasonable limit on 
them within our Constitution. I will support this extension so we have 
time to produce legislation of which we can all be proud. I know the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee is on the floor to speak. I want to 
close by saluting him. I think he has taken a very professional 
approach. He has been completely open to this discussion of the 
provisions of this bill, and the offering of amendments. I plan to work 
with him and other members of the committee in good faith. I think this 
3-month extension will give us time to expand the debate on this 
important constitutional issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois for his comments.
  In less than 2 weeks, the current short-term extension of three 
authorities authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. I thank the 
two leaders for working to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to 
consider the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and to do so 
in a way that ensures that these authorities do not lapse while the 
Republican majority in the House and new Senators consider these 
  The bill I introduced on January 26, and that the Judiciary Committee 
is scheduled to consider this week, is based on the bill the Judiciary 
Committee considered and passed with a bipartisan majority last 
  It includes additional adjustments made at Senator Kyl's suggestion 
after the committee reported the bill in 2009. I will urge the 
Judiciary Committee to report that legislation again, and I will urge 
the Senate to consider and pass the improvements to the USA PATRIOT Act 
that we have proposed, during this short, additional 90-day extension.
  The original USA PATRIOT Act included important sunsets that were 
supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe that the sunsets 
suggested by Dick Armey back in 2001 have been a good thing. I have 
tried to conduct aggressive oversight of USA PATRIOT Act surveillance 
authorities since the bill was originally enacted in 2001. The sunsets 
have been helpful in that process. Accordingly, I do not support 
permanent extension of these surveillance authorities.
  Nor do I support undercutting important oversight and government 
accountability with respect to these intelligence gathering tools. 
Instead, I support strengthening oversight while providing the 
intelligence community the certainty it needs to protect national 
  The bill I hope we will consider before May 27 would give the 
intelligence community the certainty it needs by extending these 
expiring authorities while also strengthening congressional and 
judicial oversight. This legislation is the result of bipartisan 
negotiations 2 years ago. It had the strong support of the 
  The House bill we are amending was not the product of bipartisan 
agreement, or even an open debate in the House. It would extend the 
PATRIOT Act without improvement for the rest of the year. That is too 
little for too long.
  I do not begrudge our friends in the House time to do their work, and 
for the new Republican majority to seek additional time to consider the 
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. But it should not take a year 
to pass improvements to these provisions. Importantly, we should not 
extend this debate into an election year and risk that some will play 
politics with our national security.
  With the 90-day extension that the leaders have proposed, we will be 
able to consider the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 and 
improve authorities that are otherwise set to expire.
  Our bill can promote transparency and expand privacy and civil 
liberties safeguards in the law. It will increase judicial oversight of 
government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans.
  I hope that ours is a package of reforms that all Americans can 
support. A bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee 
voted in favor of

[[Page S729]]

it in the last Congress, including Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. 
Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the 
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
  When Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but 
instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February 
28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were 
implemented administratively by the Department of Justice.
  It is my hope that during this short extension Congress will pass the 
USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps 
forward that the Attorney General has taken to implement parts of our 
legislative proposal administratively.
  We can ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency 
that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never 
written into the statute.
  In addition, we will have the opportunity to enact the parts of the 
bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they 
require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new 
sunset on National Security Letters.
  Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a 
judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section 
215 order for business records. The government does not need this 
presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the 
presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior 
  We can preserve the authorities that give law enforcement the tools 
it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that 
inspectors general, Congress, and the public maintain vigilant 
oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used 
properly and within constitutional bounds.
  I urge all Senators to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 and 
then to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. I want to thank the majority leader for agreeing to allow a 
debate on this important legislation. We will have time to amend it in 
the next 3 months, discuss it fully.
  When the PATRIOT Act was passed in the first place, it was passed in 
a hurry, without committee hearings, and in a climate of fear and anger 
after 9/11. Congress was sensitive to the fact that the fourth 
amendment was being abridged. That is why these legislative proposals 
were sunset. It was not just so we could pass them by unanimous consent 
without voting. It was done so we could review how well we are doing 
with these, and whether we are abridging the freedoms guaranteed under 
the fourth amendment.
  There are a couple of things that bother me about the PATRIOT Act. 
No. 1, the national security letters. These have been mentioned 
previously, and I think the points are well taken. Some try to argue, 
oh, these are simply subpoenas so you can do anything you want. I think 
they are searches of private records and should be reviewed by a judge. 
But even if you argue that they were subpoenas, if you have a subpoena, 
your lawyer is allowed to make a motion to quash your subpoena, your 
lawyer is allowed to represent you.
  In the craziness after 9/11, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was 
actually illegal to consult an attorney. If you were given a national 
security letter saying you were being investigated, you could go to 
jail for 5 years by telling your attorney. It is still in the law that 
you can go to jail for 5 years if you tell others. This is being done 
against U.S. citizens.

  Many people argue for this saying: Oh, it is just foreign terrorists. 
National security letters have been written on 200,000 individuals and 
over 50 percent of them from the United States in the last 10 years.
  In addition to the national security letters, this act expanded the 
use of what are called suspicious activity reports, where they snoop in 
your bank records. Not only does the government snoop in your bank 
records, they force the banks to do snooping for you. Two million 
records have been gone through, and we say: Well, are we getting 
terrorists? Yes; we are probably getting terrorists. But were we 
capturing terrorists under FISA when we had a judge's review? Yes. It 
was very rare that FISA ever turned down a warrant. But we just gave 
up. We blankly gave up the idea of judicial review.
  This was a big deal. John Adams said this was the spark that got the 
Revolution going. When James Otis was talking about writs of assistance 
in the 1760s, the King was granting writs of assistance through his 
soldiers. Now we have essentially government agents, akin to soldiers, 
writing warrants.
  It is ripe for abuse. Even the FBI, when they did their own internal 
investigation of the national security letters--they reviewed 1,000 of 
these national security letters, and they found that 10 percent of them 
were in error.
  The other thing, for those who say: Oh, this is just a subpoena. It 
is just your bank records. No big deal, they should be weary of this: 
People have gone through the FISA Court and been turned down under 
section 215 and not gotten a warrant and they have done an end-around 
and gotten national security letters.
  I think it is something so basic to our constitutional Republic. I 
tell people on and on, I am a big defender of the second amendment. But 
you cannot have the second amendment unless you defend the first 
amendment. You cannot have the second amendment unless you defend the 
fourth amendment.
  We need to defend the right to be free of search and seizure. People 
need to look back and say: Did the FISA Court work? The FISA Court 
rarely turned anything down as far as getting warrants. But at the very 
least, there was independent judicial review, which is a very important 
part of our historical jurisprudence and I think should be guarded and 
  I think, in the fear after 9/11, we did not debate these things 
fully. We should have a debate. There is a wide range of people on both 
the left and the right who do believe in civil liberties. I think it is 
time we do review these. I will stand in the next several months and 
try to promote this discussion. I think it is a good time to review and 
revisit the PATRIOT Act.
  I will vote against the extension of the PATRIOT Act because I do not 
think it is doing full justice to the fourth amendment, and I think it 
is very important we have judicial review before we allow government to 
investigate and search our private lives.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chair of 
the Intelligence Committee of the Senate and also as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, so I have been part of the PATRIOT Act and the 
FISA Act discussions.
  Let me clear up one thing for the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky: Nothing in what is before us today affects national security 
letter sections of the act. Let me repeat that because I have heard 
this presented on the floor, I have seen it in editorials in the 
newspapers, and nothing in what is on the floor today affects the NSL 
sections--of which there are several in various statutes--of the 
  There are three specific sections that are affected, and I will get 
to them in a moment.
  Let me begin by saying I support the Reid-McConnell amendment to H.R. 
514. Let me point out that last Wednesday the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, Janet Napolitano, testified before the House Homeland 
Security Committee, and here is what she said:

       In some ways, the threat today may be at its most 
     heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago.

  In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week, the 
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, wrote that:

       . . . it is impossible to rank--in terms of long-term 
     importance--the numerous, potential threats to the U.S. 
     national security. The United States no longer faces--as in 
     the Cold War--one dominant threat. Rather, it is the 
     multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats--and 
     the actors behind them--that constitute our biggest 

  So it is clear the threat against the United States from terrorism, 
cyber attack, the proliferation of weapons of

[[Page S730]]

mass destruction, and others is at a very high level. Intelligence is 
our best tool in keeping America secure.
  I see this intelligence day after day after day. The Intelligence 
Committee hears testimony week after week after week. I believe all 
members of the Intelligence Committee are behind the Reid-McConnell 
  So that is the framework in which these three expiring provisions 
come before us. Without them, our law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies would lack important tools to protect this Nation. These are 
tools that have been used to great advantage over the past several 
  I cannot speak here of the specific uses of the expiring authorities 
for reasons of classification. The Director of National Intelligence, 
the Director of the FBI, and the Director of the NSA described to 
Members last night how they have been used. Here is what they have told 

       We have seen recent successful disruptions of terrorist 
     plots directed against the United States. Our intelligence 
     and law enforcement personnel were able to disrupt al Qaeda's 
     Najibullah Zazi terrorist plot to attack the New York City 
     subway system. These PATRIOT Act authorities, along with 
     other critical intelligence tools, are essential to our 
     ability to detect and disrupt such plots.

  Let me talk about the three provisions, starting with the business 
records section that is expiring. This authority allows the government 
to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court--a special 
court with judges appointed by the Chief Justice that deals only with 
these matters and meets 24/7. The provision allows the government to 
obtain business records if it gets a warrant from this court.
  The second expiring provision, so-called roving wiretap authority, 
provides the government with needed flexibility in conducting 
electronic surveillance. We all know there are now throwaway cell 
phones. We have found that terrorists have attempted to evade 
surveillance by using these throwaway cell phones and rapidly switching 
cell phones. This tool allows for surveillance on a particular target, 
not the telephone. Again, you need to have that authority given to you, 
much as you would in a criminal wiretap by a court, but in this case by 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Again, the 
surveillance is for foreign intelligence.

  According to FBI Director Bob Mueller, this provision has been used 
more than 190 times since it was authorized in 2001.
  The third section--the final one--is the ``lone wolf'' authority that 
allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage 
in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific 
international terrorist group has not yet been determined.
  This provision was enacted in light of the Zacarias Moussaoui case, 
in which the FBI suspected Moussaoui of engaging in terrorist activity 
and believed at the time it could not obtain a FISA order--in other 
words, a FISA warrant--for lack of definitive connection to a known 
foreign terrorist organization.
  I see Senator Kyl on the floor. He well knows this issue. So this is 
a specific addition that was put in because of the Moussaoui case to 
get at someone who is a ``lone wolf'' who has no known association with 
a terrorist operation.
  These tools have been authorized for several years and have been 
subject to strict scrutiny by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
Court, the Department of Justice, and the Congressional Intelligence 
and Judiciary Committees.
  Members have raised concerns that provisions authorized by the 
PATRIOT Act have been misused. The Judiciary and the Intelligence 
Committees have held numerous hearings on this topic. I believe past 
problems have been addressed, and we will continue to monitor the use 
of these provisions carefully.
  Members have also noted past problems with the use of national 
security letters, and that is what all the discussion so far that I 
have heard on the floor has been. As I have said, the national security 
sections are not at issue at this time. So it is, in a sense, a 
shibboleth to raise them here.
  It is business records, it is lone wolf, and it is roving wiretaps. 
Those are the three sections that expire on the 28th of February.
  So let me be clear: This legislation does not address national 
security letter authorities, as those provisions are not set to expire 
at the end of the month.
  By extending these three provisions until May 27, the Congress can 
appropriately study and I hope enact long-term reauthorizations that 
the intelligence community and law enforcement need to continue to keep 
us safe.
  Let me just say, I see--and cannot go into here--but day after day 
uses of these expiring authorities and have come to believe that being 
able to have good intelligence is what prevents an attack against a New 
York subway or air cargo plane. It is what keeps this homeland safe, 
and it is what allows us to get ahead of a terrorist attack. Without 
them--without them--we put our Nation in jeopardy. I, for one, took an 
oath of office to protect and defend, and I do not intend to be party 
to that. Everything I know indicates that there is jeopardy facing this 
Nation, and these intelligence provisions are necessary to protect our 
  I urge acceptance of the Reid-McConnell legislation.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to agree with the comments made by our 
colleague from California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 
and urge all our colleagues, in the time that will exist between now 
and the time we are able to take up this matter again, to accept her 
invitation to be briefed and to appreciate some of the things that our 
intelligence community goes through in order to try to protect the 
American citizens.
  The points she made are all valid from my service on the Intelligence 
Committee. I am aware of what she has been talking about. I would just 
like to repeat three things. I will not bother to go into all the 
detail because she made the points very well.
  Roving wiretaps--the name does not sound very good--are simply the 
recognition that today you have a lot of throwaway cell phones. It used 
to be you had one telephone hanging up in the kitchen or someplace, so 
when the police got a warrant to tap your telephone, that was the only 
phone you had.
  Now these guys take phones, use them once, throw them away, and then 
get another one or they have access to lots of different phones. It is 
simply a recognition that today people use lots of different phones 
rather than one, and, therefore, the warrant applies to any of the 
phones of a particular individual.
  The ``lone wolf'' terrorist exception Senator Feinstein explained 
very well. I wrote that provision. It applies to people who do not have 
a card in their wallet that says: I belong to al-Qaida or I belong to 
some other terrorist group.
  We understood that in some cases there will be people such as 
Moussaoui who you are not sure are actually affiliated with any 
particular group, but they are still planning a terrorist activity and, 
therefore, you want the ability to check them out.
  Third is the business records. This is the only one there has been 
any controversy about. It allows the government to get a court order to 
obtain business records that are either held or generated by third 
parties. You want to find out, for example, if Mohamed Atta stayed at 
the such and such motel the night before he went to the airport to 
conduct the terrorist attacks of 9/11. That will help to prove the 
chain of evidence to prosecute other people or for us to be able to 
know exactly how that attack occurred. So you go to the motel and say: 
Could we see who checked in last night. That is not a big deal.
  For most agencies of the Federal Government, you do not even have to 
go to court to ask the question. But out of an abundance of caution, 
before the government can actually go to the motel and say: Can we see 
your record, they have to go to court to get approval to do that. So 
the PATRIOT Act actually sets a higher hurdle in trying to get these 
business records in terrorism investigations. In addition to that, 
there are only three top officials at the FBI who are authorized to 
request court orders for the information.

[[Page S731]]

  So the point is this: These are the only three provisions that are 
sunsetted and that we have to reauthorize. If people have objections to 
other parts of the act, such as has been expressed here, then their 
argument is not with the reauthorization of these three provisions but 
with the underlying law. In any event, I suppose they will have plenty 
of time to raise those questions when we debate this further in the 
next couple of months.

  I urge my colleagues to support this short-term extension. In the 
meantime, prior to the rest of the debate we will have to check with 
the folks at the Intelligence Committee who can answer any questions 
colleagues may have about how this act is intended to operate and then 
check with the FBI and other law enforcement officials to see how it 
works in its operation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, Montanans sent me to the U.S. Senate to 
bring accountability to this body, to make responsible decisions, and 
to protect America and the freedoms we all enjoy. I took the oath of 
office to defend the Constitution.

  That is why I am going to vote against the PATRIOT Act. I encourage 
others to follow suit. I have never liked the PATRIOT Act. I still 
  Like REAL ID, the PATRIOT Act invades the privacy of law-abiding 
citizens. And it tramples on our Constitutional rights.
  We need to find a balance--making our country more secure and giving 
our troops, law enforcement and intelligence agents the tools necessary 
to get the job done. But we have to do it without invading the privacy 
of law-abiding Americans.
  This extension doesn't address any of those concerns. It simply puts 
off the debate we need to have for another day.
  There are some really troubling aspects that are not addressed by the 
extension of this law: Roving wiretaps which allow surveillance of a 
``type of person,'' instead of a particular person, over multiple phone 
lines. That is a slippery slope to eroding our constitutional 
protection against government searches; Using the reasonable grounds of 
suspicion standard to require libraries and businesses to report to the 
government about what American citizens buy or borrow.
  We don't have to sacrifice our privacy and lose control of our 
personal information in order to be secure. And we should never give up 
our constitutional rights.
  Voting for the PATRIOT Act is the wrong way to go. We have got a lot 
of smart people in this body. We can develop the policies we need to 
fight terrorists without compromising our constitutional civil 
liberties. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against extending 
this law today and in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think all time has either been yielded 
back or all time is up, so 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily 
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                               YEAS -- 86

     Brown (MA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Udall (CO)


     Brown (OH)
     Udall (NM)

                             NOT VOTING--2

  The bill (H.R. 514), as amended, was passed.

                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am necessarily absent for the vote 
today on legislation to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, H.R. 514. If I were able to attend 
these vote sessions, I would have supported the bill to extend expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, H.R. 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.