[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28806-28835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005--
                      CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield up to 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee for yielding. Let me also thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. I thought he gave a thoughtful overview of the progression 
of time and thought that has gone into the conference report that is 
before the Senate at this moment.
  Of all that we do this year that is lasting beyond tomorrow, clearly 
the PATRIOT Act is one of those pieces of legislation. I say that 
because it deals with fundamental constitutional rights in this 
country. At the same time, it deals with our right to protect ourselves 
against foreign interests that might intrude upon our shores.
  The chairman has said so well, it is a very precarious balancing act 
between the right of the free citizen and a civil society that is 
protected by law. That is what we as Senators are about at this moment. 
That is what I have always been about, along with my colleagues. That 
is why some of us joined well over a year and a half ago to say that 
when it came time to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, here were some 
provisions that stepped us back toward the right of free citizens to be 
protected by their Government, in fact, against their Government's law 
enforcement capability; while at the same time not hand-tying the 
ability of law enforcement and intelligence to come together to review, 
to investigate, and to determine whether someone's acts were terrorist 
in nature and might put free citizens of our country in jeopardy.
  I cannot, nor will I, vote for cloture today because I am here to 
defend what the Senate has already done so well in such a bipartisan 
and in such a thoughtful way. We will not adjourn this session of this 
Congress without a PATRIOT Act in place, whether it is the 3-month 
extension we offered or whether it is the chairman, as he said, and the 
ranking member sitting down with the House to once again shape, in 
limited ways, those areas we think are critically necessary to make 
sure the balance the chairman so clearly spoke to is adhered to within 
a reauthorized PATRIOT Act.
  So I would urge my colleagues' calmness and sensitivity to the 
fundamental civil liberties of our country, as we worked so hard to 
balance them against our country's and our Constitution's and our 
Government's primary responsibility; and that is to keep us safe and 
secure in a free environment.
  I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have only had 2\1/2\ hours of debate on 
this major matter. We have very little time. I yield up to 3 minutes to 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America deserves laws that protect both 
their security and their civil liberties. This conference report does 
not. After years of doubt about the PATRIOT Act, this morning Americans 
woke up to more startling reports. For the past 3 years, the 
administration has been eavesdropping on hundreds of calls without 
warrants or oversights. These are the newspapers: ``Bush Authorized 
Domestic Spying.'' ``Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.''
  Well, the administration is not responding to the article, but they 
tell us: Trust us. We follow the law. Give me a break. Across the 
country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore.
  This administration feels it is above the law, and the American 
people and our Constitution pay the price. There is no accountability. 
There is no oversight. The President continues to ignore history.
  In the 1970s, Big Brother spied on its citizens, and the American 
people stood up and said ``no.'' President Nixon's program, the 
COINTELPRO, allowed broad spying on law-abiding American citizens. We 
stopped Big Brother then by establishing the FISA court to ensure 
proper oversight and protections. Now this administration believes it 
is above even those protections. This is Big Brother run amok. With 
these new developments, we must take a step back and not rush the 
PATRIOT Act, further risking our civil protections.
  The entire world is watching to see how we strike the balance between 
intelligence gathering and the Constitution. We cannot protect our 
borders if we do not protect our ideals. We need a bipartisan consensus 
that protects both our security and our liberty while restoring the 
public trust.
  Our country is at a new low. Not since Watergate has there been such 
a lack of openness and honesty in our Government. Americans deserve 
better. The leaking of a CIA agent's identity is the prime example. The 
President promised he would clean house of anyone in the White House 
who had anything to do with the leak in the Plame case or the coverup. 
It has been suggested that the President himself may know the identity 
of the source, and I urge him to set the record straight.
  The President needs to answer three questions: One, what did he know 
and when did he know it? Two, did he tell the special prosecutor, 
Fitzgerald, the whole story? And, three, who else knows the facts? 
Cheney? Gonzales? Ashcroft? If Novak knew and the President knew, then 
the American people should know, too.
  Mr. President, answer these questions.
  In the last few days, we have heard a lot about whether America will 
be safer if the Senate approves the PATRIOT Act conference report this 
week.
  Let's set the record straight--our national security will not be 3 
jeopardized--at all--if existing laws stay in place for 3 more months. 
These surveillance methods will expire only if the Republican 
leadership refuses to negotiate--even with Members of their own party.
  We have unfinished business on the table. The conference report fails 
to do all we can to improve intelligence-gathering capabilities and 
legislative oversight.
  Americans deserve a law that protects both their security and their 
liberties, and this bill does not.
  We need to preserve the basic powers created by the PATRIOT Act, but 
we also need to improve the safeguards

[[Page 28807]]

that are indispensable to our democracy. Civil liberty protections are 
a continuing source of our country's strength--not just fringe benefits 
to be abandoned in time of crisis.
  We all agree on the need for law enforcement and intelligence 
officers to have strong powers to investigate terrorism, to prevent 
future attacks, and improve information-sharing between Federal, State 
and local law enforcement.
  In the wake of the tragic events on September 11, Congress, the 
administration, and the country faced the urgent need to do everything 
possible to strengthen our national security and counterterrorism 
efforts, and the original PATRIOT Act was our response to that need.
  Even at that time, many of us had concerns about whether the law went 
too far. In November 2001, Nancy Talanian and a small group of 
neighbors in western Massachusetts came together to launch the Bill of 
Rights Defense Committee--what has now become a nationwide movement to 
protect the Bill of Rights.
  This small Massachusetts group encouraged similar community 
discussions across the country. Seven States and hundreds of local 
governments engaged in vigorous public debate on the scope of the 
PATRIOT Act. As of this week, 400 resolutions have been passed.
  These efforts can't be casually dismissed because the administration 
claims there have not been any ``verified abuses'' of the PATRIOT Act.
  The Republican leadership tells us that time has run out and this 
legislation must be passed without further debate. We are told that 
enough oversight has taken place.
  But it took 2 years--2 years--for the Department of Justice to 
respond to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the use 
of the PATRIOT Act tools. We didn't receive the significant written 
answers until after the committee approved its bill.
  We then learned that the Federal Government has only reported three 
instances in which a U.S. person was informed of a search because there 
was no national security interest in keeping it secret. Only three 
times has the Attorney General notified a United States person that 
they have been searched.
  Yet we read more newspaper stories about FBI mistakes. The FBI says 
it averages about 10 mistakes a year. As a result of litigation, the 
FBI has admitted publicly that unauthorized electronic surveillance has 
gone on for months before mistakes were caught.
  Now, I don't doubt that the FBI is trying to do a good job--but how 
many mistakes does it take to count as an abuse?
  This administration tells us to disregard such mistakes because the 
information is being collected only about individuals linked to 
terrorism. Clearly, that is not the case.
  I know personally about mistakes in the war on terror. Not long ago. 
I was on the no-fly list, and had to make a number of calls to clear up 
the resulting confusion.
  Countless others have had a similar experience. I received a letter 
from a man in California. He had gone to the airport with his family to 
begin a vacation to Disneyland. Arriving at the airport, they 
encountered an unexpected surprise. His nephew, Liam Collins--at that 
time just 7 years old--was on the government's no-fly list. Seven years 
old and on the no-fly list.
  Liam and his family convinced airport officials it was a ``mistake.'' 
Liam made it to Disneyland but he sent me a picture about his 
experience--which had become a memorable part of the trip.
  Since then, Liam hasn't traveled by plane, so no one knows whether 
the ``mistake'' has been fixed.
  What about other mistakes? The Justice Department tells us that the 
so-called libraries provision has never even been used to search a 
library.
  That may be just a clever way of saying that it is happening in a 
different way. In 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft told Congress that 
``national security letters'' would be the better tool for library 
searches anyway.
  Maybe Ashcroft was right. The so-called libraries provision has only 
been used 35 times--but over 30,000 national security letters have been 
issued, according to the Washington Post. The public doesn't know if 
that number is accurate, because the administration refuses to confirm 
it.
  The conference report will require public reporting on the use. It 
will also require the Inspector General to audit their use.
  But under these authorities, the Government is not required to obtain 
a court order. Your local library has no clear right to challenge 
demands for computer records in court. For consumers, there is zero 
protection--much less notice--if your records are taken by mistake. The 
recipient of a national security letter is barred forever from talking 
about it--even if the need for secrecy no longer exists.
  On these national security letters, the conference report has two 
major shortcomings. One of the most glaring omissions is the failure to 
include a sunset provision for national security letters, which would 
be consistent and logical given the new reporting and auditing 
provisions contained in the conference report. Without doubt, it is 
more meaningful to have a sunset on a provision used 30,000 times than 
one that is used 35 times.
  What we anticipated 4 years ago is abundantly clear now: 4-year 
sunsets are the only means to ensure adequate congressional oversight 
of controversial law enforcement and counter-
terrorism activities.
  In addition, recipients of these orders should have a meaningful 
right to judicial review. The administration's acquiescence in giving 
recipients the right to consult an attorney is not a meaningful 
concession. The Justice Department has already taken that position in 
litigation. The conference report does not advance civil liberties on 
that point. In fact, it makes it harder to win in court. Under the 
conference report, banks, phone companies, and libraries challenging 
these authorities will have to overcome an even higher threshold in 
court, and companies may have to turn over records even where there is 
not even an individualized suspicion of terrorism.
  The Federal Government should focus on whether the country is doing 
enough to protect citizens from another terrorist attack, and is 
providing adequate safeguards to protect fundamental civil liberties.
  What Americans want and deserve is responsible legislation. Our 
Senate bill included the necessary assistance for law enforcement, 
while maintaining fundamental protections in accord with the Bill of 
Rights. As a result, it received unanimous approval of the entire 
Senate.
  At the first and only meeting of this conference, I urged my 
colleagues to support the Senate bill, keeping in mind the 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which made clear 
that the executive branch has the burden of proof to justify why a 
particular governmental power should be retained--and Congress has the 
responsibility to see that adequate guidelines and oversight are made 
available.
  On the two most contentious surveillance methods, the executive 
branch has failed to meet the 9/11 Commissioners' burden of proof--much 
less the burden of persuasion. The American people are not convinced 
that these methods achieve the right balance between our national 
security and protection of our civil liberties.
  This conference report, however, failed to meet the 9/11 
Commissioners' recommendations. It is especially alarming that the 
Commissioners' report card gave five failing grades in key areas of 
need. Obviously, America is not as safe as it should be.
  Snooping on library computers is no substitute for strong and 
effective steps to prevent terrorist attacks.
  With this conference report, some harsh provisions were deleted, but 
other abusive provisions were added. Debate about extraneous provisions 
took priority over improvements in the core provisions. It appears that 
the PATRIOT Act can't get better without also getting worse.
  The administration wants to get this bill done--but the American 
people want it done right.

[[Page 28808]]

  I urge my colleagues to join in supporting our bipartisan bill to 
extend the deadline for the expiring provisions for another 90 days. 
With a March 31 deadline, we can deal responsibly with the major issues 
still on the table. Serious concerns about the standards and oversight 
of the most contentious surveillance methods can and must be addressed.
  Our Senate bill contained fundamental protections in accord with the 
Bill of Rights. It passed with our unanimous support, and it is 
disappointing that this conference report fails to do the same.
  We need an effective strategy to win the war on terror, a strategy 
that strengthens terrorism laws that work, corrects laws and policies 
that don't, and protects the rights and privacy of all law-abiding 
Americans.
  The entire country is watching to see how we strike the balance 
between national security and the Constitution. We are very close to 
agreement on this bill. Let's take the necessary time to reach a 
bipartisan consensus that protects both our security and our liberty, 
and restores the public trust in Congress as an institution.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to speak about 
the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. While this agreement 
does not give everyone all that they want, it is the result of lengthy, 
difficult negotiations. It represents a reasonable compromise for all 
parties involved, and it extends tools important to our national 
security, while enhancing civil liberties protections.
  It has been more than 4 years since the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months since that day, the 
American people have braced themselves for the possibility of another 
terrorist attack on our homeland.
  After all, we know all too well that al-Qaida is a stealthy, 
sophisticated, and patient enemy, and its leadership is motivated to 
launch another devastating attack on American citizens and soil.
  Outside the United States, al-Qaida and its affiliates have continued 
to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous attacks, spanning the 
globe from Pakistan to Bali, Spain to London.
  It is precisely because al-Qaida is so aggressive, so motivated, and 
so demonstrably hostile to America that I am grateful that, to date, 
they still have not successfully launched another attack on our soil. 
There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost: the 
brave men and women of our Armed Forces. They are fighting the 
terrorist abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. Also, our 
efforts to strengthen antiterrorism and law enforcement tools through 
the USA PATRIOT Act has had much to do with this record of success and 
peace to date.
  This diligence that has kept us safe at home must continue. The war 
on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the 
protection of civil rights and civil liberties. That is why I am 
disappointed when we witness false reports and scare tactics about 
phantom civil rights violations. Such reports and tactics serve no 
legitimate cause--but they do a grave disservice to the American 
people. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn 
about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly. Congress works 
hard to strike both a careful and wise balance between national 
security and civil liberties. While this is not always easy, we do so 
with the best interests of our Nation in mind--and we do so in a manner 
that is both honest and in good faith. This conference report strikes a 
careful balance by both preserving the provisions that have made 
America safer since 9/11 and increasing congressional and judicial 
oversight--which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the 
law enforcement tools endanger civil liberties.
  Many who oppose this agreement do so because of concerns that law 
enforcement will abuse these tools. While a legitimate concern, it 
simply has not been borne out by facts. First, the reports issued by 
the Department of Justice's independent inspector general have 
repeatedly found no systematic abuses of any of the provisions of 
Patriot. Second, these provisions are carried out by professional and 
dedicated law enforcement officers in a way that respects the rights of 
all Americans.
  It has been said that time is a great healer. And, as time goes by, 
the shock we all felt following the 9/11 attacks has abated, somewhat. 
But as we recall those terrible memories, we are reminded of the 
institutional failures of our Government that failed to prevent the 
attacks. And we as a Nation, and the Congress in particular, vowed to 
tear down the walls that prevented information sharing, and to enact 
other tools vital to defending this country. It is clear that the 
PATRIOT Act has played a significant role in this process, as it has 
been instrumental in dismantling terrorist cells from New York to 
Oregon.
  The failure to pass this conference report will cause these critical 
tools to lapse. It will weaken our country by reverting to September 
10th-era tools. We cannot allow that to happen. We are living in 
profoundly different times. There are obviously deep feelings about the 
PATRIOT Act from all quarters. I and others support the PATRIOT Act and 
have been vocal about making these provisions permanent. Because not 
everyone agrees with this view, negotiations and compromises took place 
to reach an agreement that achieves the dual goals of continuing these 
critical authorities and enhancing congressional and judicial 
oversight.
  Some have proposed that we pass a 3-month extension to continue 
working on the reauthorization. I oppose that. The Congress placed a 
December 31, 2005, deadline for a reason. The President, the Attorney 
General and the House support this agreement. We should vote on this 
agreement, and I intend to vote for cloture and will support the 
conference report.
  However, if we are searching for alternatives, I propose the Senate 
take up and immediately pass legislation that I cosponsored last 
Congress which would strike all of the sunsets contained in the PATRIOT 
Act. This would eliminate the deadline we face, those in the House and 
those in the Senate can offer what they consider improving legislation 
and work to move it through the regular legislative process. That way, 
none of the vital authorities will be allowed to lapse and any changes 
that majority of the Congress supports will be implemented through the 
regular order.
  Beyond this proposal, I want to discuss some of the specific items 
addressed by the conference report and try to explain why I think this 
report should be supported, beginning with sunsets.
  I have stated that I oppose sunsets for this important legislation. I 
believe that our intelligence and law enforcement officials should 
never again be left wondering whether the Congress will manage to agree 
to reauthorize the tools that protect our Nation.
  But realizing that there are those who feel that these sunsets are 
important to the negotiations, I choose to support the sunsets, even 
though if we were going to have sunsets I would have preferred the 10-
year sunsets included in the House-passed version. This conference 
report retains 4-year sunsets for two of the most controversial PATRIOT 
Act provisions, the multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps and the business 
records provision.
  It also includes a sunset for the ``Lone Wolf'' provision added to 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by last year's Intelligence 
Reform Act. This guarantees the Congress will review these provisions 
and continue to conduct rigorous oversight.
  Senator Specter and others on the conference attempted to address 
civil liberty concerns in many ways, for example, dealing with the 
delayed search warrant provision. As my colleagues know, this section 
is not to sunset. Nevertheless, recognizing the sensitivity to this 
provision certain Members had, the conference report requires the 
Government to now give notice of any search under this provision within 
30 days of its execution, unless the facts justify a later date 
certain.

[[Page 28809]]

  Although the 30-day period is a few weeks longer than the 7-day time 
limit contained in the original Senate bill, it is considerably shorter 
than the 180 days permitted under the House bill. The conference report 
allows for extensions but only ``upon an updated showing of the need 
for further delay.'' Also, it limits any extensions to 90 days or less, 
unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay.
  It also adds new public reporting on the use of delayed notice 
warrants, so that Congress and the American people will be better 
informed about the use of this provision.
  My time is short today, but I want to briefly mention other civil 
liberties protections Chairman Specter negotiated. The report made 
explicit the ability of recipients of NSL letters and 215 orders to 
seek judicial review. Significantly, on both of these authorities, the 
conference report requires the inspector general to conduct two audits 
of these authorities, one audit covering 2002 through 2004; another 
covering 2005-2006. And, in recognition of concerns about NSLs, the 
conference report adds a new ``sunshine'' provision. Namely, it 
requires annual public reporting on NSLs, including the aggregate 
``number of requests made by the Department of Justice.''
  Additionally, this report gives the Senate Judiciary Committees 
access to significant FISA reporting currently provided to the 
Intelligence Committee. It also includes a provision cosponsored by 
Senators Specter and Leahy requiring that rules and procedures of the 
FISA court be supplied to Congress. It further creates new reporting 
requirements to Congress for the use of emergency authorities under 
FISA and requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures of 
communications information made under Section 212 of the PATRIOT Act. 
And finally, it retains a modified version of the data-mining report 
contained in the House-passed bill which will require the Department of 
Justice to submit a report to Congress on the Department's data-mining 
activities.
  I also want to mention another provision contained in the conference 
report because it is based on legislation that I introduced in the 
Senate. The Narco-Terrorism Prevention Act confronts the new reality 
and very real danger of the deadly mix of drug trafficking and 
terrorism.
  Terrorists, like the old organized crime syndicates from the past, 
have recognized that illegal drug trafficking is a valuable source of 
financing and another way to threaten our country.
  My State is experiencing the collateral effects of a drug war being 
carried out by modern day narco-terrorists in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. 
News reports have described an ongoing battle between rival drug 
cartels over drug smuggling routes from Mexico into the United States. 
These organizations assassinate police officers and other government 
officials in a clear attempt to force the local government to allow 
these organizations to carry on their illegal activity, unimpeded. Our 
government needs every available tool at its disposal to combat this 
activity.
  This new provision makes it a Federal crime designed to punish the 
trafficking of controlled substances which are intended to benefit a 
foreign terrorist organization or any one else planning a terrorist 
attack. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone convicted. 
Importantly, it provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction which allows 
law enforcement to reach beyond our borders to arrest and deter those 
who intend to carry out a crime of this nature.
  Mr. President, I have opposed changing the core provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act and have opposed any increase in the burdens for terrorism 
or national security investigations or on terrorism or national 
security investigators because they should have the same tools 
available to them as do ordinary criminal investigators.
  We must remain vigilant, and we must make sure that evidentiary 
hurdles do not creep back into the law in terrorism and national 
security investigations. We should avoid moving back to a pre-9/11 
mindset. I believe that the package before us today continues the 
reforms we have made in the post-9/11 period, and I intend to vote in 
favor of this package.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, since the beginning of our country's 
history, Americans have recognized the vital importance of balancing 
the safety and security of our people with the need to uphold civil 
liberties in our society. There have been times when the Congress has 
succeeded in achieving this fine balance, and there have been times 
when the Congress has failed to do so.
  In 2001, I supported the passage of the PATRIOT Act because I 
believed the legislation that emerged from the conference between the 
House and the Senate had achieved this goal. However, this legislation 
has since been used for purposes beyond what we had envisioned 4 years 
ago, and that troubles me. As a result, I have cosponsored the Security 
and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act, which would modify the law.
  I was pleased to support the legislation to reauthorize the PATRIOT 
Act as it unanimously passed the Senate earlier this year. This version 
reflected many of the important changes contained in the SAFE Act. It 
would have restored the balance between security and civil liberties, 
while the House version would further tilt the balance away from civil 
liberties. I was hopeful the final conference report on this 
legislation would reflect the Senate version, but unfortunately, this 
is not the case.
  This conference report falls short in restoring the balance between 
security and civil liberties, and therefore I cannot in good conscience 
support its passage. The conference report falls short because the 
legislation contains no sunset for controversial provisions like 
``sneak and peek'' warrants; the legislation's standard for being able 
to obtain records is only mere relevance, rather than requiring an 
actual connection with a spy or terrorist; the legislation makes it 
nearly impossible to obtain a meaningful judicial review of production 
orders and the gag orders that accompany them; and the legislation 
allows for a disturbing lack of notice to individuals whose records are 
obtained under the law.
  In short, this legislation fails to restore the critical balance 
between security and civil liberties, a balance that I believe all 
Americans consider a vital part of our democracy.
  Therefore, I will oppose limiting debate on the conference report and 
final passage of the conference report in its current form. Given that 
the end of the session is fast approaching, we should pass a short-term 
extension of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions, as advanced by 
Senators Leahy, Sununu and others, to allow this conference report to 
be improved and ultimately strike the proper balance.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I raise my strong concerns about news 
reports regarding the administration's blatant disregard for American's 
privacy rights and civil liberties. I am shocked by the recent 
revelation that President Bush secretly authorized the National 
Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United 
States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without court-
approved warrants. I am equally appalled by the Pentagon's dismal 
enforcement of guidelines that reuire deleting information on American 
citizens from a counterterrorism database within 3 months if they pose 
no security threats.
  Government agencies are not following important rules and procedures 
designed to protect the American people. Just this summer, the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report at my 
request which found that agencies are not following privacy laws 
designed to protect personal information in Federal data mining 
systems. Considering that there are nearly 200 data mining systems in 
the Federal Government, these actions pose real threats to Americans' 
privacy.
  Merely having policies and safeguards in place does nothing if 
agencies are not following the law. As such, I cannot vote to renew 
some of the most troublesome PATRIOT Act provisions that threaten civil 
liberties, including the Government's far-reaching powers to obtain 
personal, medical, library,

[[Page 28810]]

and business records or coduct ``sneak-and-peek'' searches, without 
ensuring that meaningful checks and balances are in place.
  I want to assure the people of Hawaii and all Americans that I am 
working on legislation to strengthen Federal privacy laws.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
closing off debate on the PATRIOT Act conference report as it has come 
back to the Senate.
  The events of September 11 demonstrated various deficiencies in our 
understanding of the terrorist threat and our capabilities in terms of 
combating terrorism. In response, Congress acted decisively and passed 
the PATRIOT Act to ensure that our Government has all the tools 
necessary to protect the American people. I supported that legislation.
  The PATRIOT Act, as originally enacted, was 342 pages long and 
contained 10 titles and 116 sections. The bill improved our laws with 
regard to international money laundering, terrorism financing, 
intelligence gathering, surveillance, cooperation between law 
enforcement and intelligence authorities, and strengthened our criminal 
laws relating to terrorism. The vast majority of these provisions are 
not expiring. They remain the law of the land. Indeed, only 16 of the 
most controversial sections in the bill contained sunset provisions.
  Congress recognized that we were extending to law enforcement and 
intelligence authorities expansive new surveillance powers and that it 
was important to go back and look at how these powers have been used 
and whether we needed to make any changes in the law to ensure that 
Americans' civil liberties are protected. While I support the 
reauthorization of these expiring provisions, I believe that there are 
changes that need to be made to address some of the problematic 
provisions.
  Let me be clear. I support giving law enforcement the tools necessary 
to aggressively fight terrorism but believe that modest modifications 
are required to ensure that we protect constitutional rights and 
properly balance civil liberties with national security concerns. To 
this end, in July the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that 
would reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with important safeguards in place to 
protect the rights of Americans. Although this bill wasn't perfect, it 
struck a reasonable balance between giving law enforcement the tools 
they need and protecting civil liberties.
  When the PATRIOT Act was originally passed in 2001, Congress provided 
that some of the controversial provisions, such as section 215 which 
allows the Government access to library and medical records, would 
expire in 2006.
  One example of where the current version of the bill falls short is 
with regard to section 215, the so-called library provision which 
allows the Government to obtain sensitive personal records, including 
library, business, and medical records, of Americans by merely saying 
that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. This provides the 
Government almost unfettered authority to look at the personal records 
of Americans. Under the Senate-passed bill, the Government would have 
to demonstrate that the person whose records they are seeking has some 
connection to a suspected terrorist or spy.
  In particular, the Government would have to show that, No. 1, the 
records pertain to a suspected terrorist or a spy; or No. 2, that the 
records pertain to an individual in contact with a suspected terrorist 
or a spy; or No. 3, that the records are relevant to the activities of 
a suspected terrorist or spy. It is reasonable to require that if the 
Government is going to look at the private records of Americans without 
a traditional warrant that the Government show at a minimum that the 
request for records has some connection to a terrorist and isn't just 
part of a fishing expedition.
  In addition, when a person receives a section 215 order requesting 
medical records or library records, the person who receives this 
request is subject to an automatic and permanent gag order that 
prevents them from speaking about the order or challenging the gag 
order in court. Similar restrictions on challenging gag orders have 
been found to be unconstitutional and a violation of the first 
amendment.
  Another section of the bill that is of great concern relates to 
national security letters, or NSLs. These requests for documents are 
similar to section 215 orders except that they do not require any court 
approval at all. Although a section 215 order needs to be approved by 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a NSL is simply issued by 
the FBI, without any judicial review, to a business to obtain certain 
records, such as financial records, that it believes are relevant to a 
terrorism or intelligence investigation.
  The conference report does allow a NSL recipient to challenge the NSL 
in court, but it also stipulates that regardless of whether there are 
national security concerns, all of the Government's submissions are 
secret and cannot be shared with the person challenging the order. And 
to be clear, the business being denied knowledge of the ``governmental 
submissions'' is not the target of the investigation but the recipient 
of the order for the requested documents.
  Also the recipient of the NSL is subject to an automatic gag order. 
Although the gag order can be challenged in court, the only way to 
prevail is to demonstrate that the Government is acting in bad faith, a 
burden that is almost impossible to prove.
  I also have concerns about other aspects of the conference report, 
such as the ``sneak and peek'' provision which allows law enforcement 
to search homes without notifying individuals of the search for an 
extended period of time.
  This bill has profound implications on the constitutional rights of 
Americans, and I strongly believe that we shouldn't be hastily 
approving a bill that falls short of adequately protecting civil 
liberties.
  Simply reauthorizing the most controversial provisions and saying 
that we will take another look at the bill in 4 years when the new 
sunset provisions expire is not the appropriate way to deal with this 
issue. It has been 4 years since the bill was enacted and it is time 
that Congress addresses the substantive problems with the act.
  The Senate has demonstrated that it is prepared to reauthorize all of 
the expiring provisions, and there is no need to pass this version of 
the bill in its flawed form. I agree with Senator Leahy that we should 
temporarily extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress more 
time to work out the remaining issues in a thoughtful way. It is my 
hope that a solution can be reached that reflects the commonsense 
improvements that were included in the Senate-passed version of the 
bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Combat 
Meth Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Combat Meth Act because 
it addresses a problem that impacts every aspect of our society. I was 
excited when the Combat Meth Act was included as part of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriation bill this year, and I was extremely 
disappointed that it wasn't included in the final conference report. 
Though Senator Leahy requested that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic 
Act be presented to the Senate as a freestanding bill, it is 
unfortunately included at the end of the PATRIOT Act.
  So much has been said on the PATRIOT Act's civil liberty provisions, 
yet little has been said about the very important section of the 
conference report, the Combat Meth Act.
  The methamphetamine problem in this country needs attention. 
Methamphetamine abuse has increased dramatically in recent years, 
reaching all comers of the United States. It is a very large problem in 
the State of Montana.
  That is why I was pleased when the Senate gave methamphetamine the 
attention it deserved. And we worked together to produce a bipartisan 
bill.
  The Senate Combat Meth Act provided greater regulations for 
methamphetamine, just what law enforcement officers asked us for. The 
Senate bill focused on regulation, monitoring, treatment, and 
prevention.
  The conference report does not provide the same provisions we 
negotiated

[[Page 28811]]

in the Senate for the Combat Meth Act. Though I support the ideas 
behind many sections of the conference report, including the 
restrictions on the allowable quantity purchasable, the requirement for 
over-the-counter medicines containing pseudoephedrine to be sold by a 
licensed pharmacist, and the establishment of a log book for these 
products, I still do not believe we have done enough to solve the 
methamphetamine problem.
  In addition, the conference report changed the drug kingpin statute 
and lowered the eligibility thresholds for death sentences and 
mandatory life sentences. This is not what we need most. We need to 
work more on prevention.
  Though I voted to oppose cloture on the PATRIOT Act, I support the 
Combat Meth Act and the need for legislation on this important issue. 
We must help solve the methamphetamine problem. Law enforcement 
officers depend on us. Methamphetamine addicts depend on us. And 
children of methamphetamine users depend on us to work together to 
bring this piece of legislation to the floor again.
  I will work with my colleagues to make sure methamphetamine is a high 
priority issue when we come back after the New Year.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in the wake of the September 11 
terrorist attacks, this body came together--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--around the shared goal of preventing a similar tragedy from ever 
occurring again on our soil. Toward this end, Congress worked in a 
bipartisan manner to pass the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
legislation that expanded many of our laws, providing our Government 
and law enforcement with the tools needed to ably combat these threats. 
We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our 
fight against terrorism. And because there is no greater responsibility 
that we bear as Members of this body than ensuring the safety of our 
citizens, I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and supported 
its reauthorization when the Senate considered its bill earlier this 
year.
  But even in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, 
Congress recognized that in its haste to give law enforcement these 
expanded powers, there was a risk that this new authority was coming at 
the expense of constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. And so 
in the wisdom of both Republican and Democratic legislators, several 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act included 4-year sunsets, allowing 
Congress the opportunity to revisit whether the PATRIOT Act strikes the 
proper balance between securing our safety and ensuring our freedom.
  I have very serious concerns that the current PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization conference report, which was negotiated largely without 
the input of Democrats, does not do enough to strike this proper 
balance. I believe that we can be both safe and free. The conference 
report falls well short of achieving that goal. I am hopeful that 
bipartisan negotiations can result in a compromise bill like the one 
agreed to in the Senate in July, a bill which did a far better job of 
protecting our civil liberties.
  The current conference report fails in many respects.
  Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement in domestic 
intelligence investigations nearly limitless power to obtain all types 
of personal records, including business, library, and medical records. 
Under current law, the Government merely needs to demonstrate that the 
records it seeks are ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. Upon 
such a showing, a secret court is required to issue the order. This is 
an extremely lenient standard, one that for the first time gives the 
Government almost unchecked access to the sensitive personal 
information of innocent Americans. To compound matters, the third 
parties--business, libraries, hospitals, and the like--who are 
recipients of these orders are subject to an automatic gag order. They 
cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for these records, 
including the person whose documents the Government is seeking.
  Given its broad scope, this provision has tremendous potential for 
abuse. Innocent Americans should not be subjected to these possible 
intrusions when adequate safeguards can be written into the law, ones 
that would not sacrifice the utility of these orders as a law 
enforcement tool. Americans should not have to hope that the Government 
will demonstrate self-restraint in its exercise of this power, nor 
should they fear that their personal records will be part of a 
Government fishing expedition.
  The Senate bill, which I supported, not only required the Government 
to meet a higher standard before issuing these orders, it also gave 
recipients of a FISA order an explicit and meaningful right to 
challenge these orders and their accompanying gag orders in court. The 
conference report sadly retains a variation of the current law's 
exceptionally lenient standard of review, a standard that effectively 
turns the courts into little more than a rubberstamp. Further, the 
conference report does not give the recipient of a FISA order any 
express right at all to seek meaningful judicial review of its gag 
order. Quite simply, the conference report places inadequate checks on 
these orders.
  Another failure of the conference report was exposed in an article 
appearing in the Sunday, November 6, 2005 edition of The Washington 
Post, which brought to light a very troubling practice by the FBI that 
underscores the importance of adopting proper safeguards.
  National security letters, NSLs, are administrative subpoenas that 
allow the FBI to obtain sensitive information about ordinary Americans 
in national security cases. NSLs are issued by FBI agents without the 
authorization or approval of a judge, grand jury or prosecutor. While 
the FBI has long employed NSLs, the PATRIOT Act greatly expanded their 
scope, significantly lowering the standard for their issuance. The 
result has been, according to The Washington Post, a ``hundredfold 
increase'' in their use, with the FBI annually issuing thousands of 
NSLs demanding private information about ordinary Americans not 
necessarily suspected of any crime. These records include financial, 
library, credit card, telephone, Internet service provider, and e-mail 
records as well as customer transaction information. These NSLs are 
governed by strict gag orders that prevent companies from telling their 
customers that their records were given to the FBI.
  As this description suggests, NSLs are very similar to section 215 
FISA orders but with one very critical difference--NSLs do not require 
the Government to get any court approval whatsoever. While NSLs can be 
an important tool in our fight against terrorism, their unfettered and 
unchecked use makes them susceptible to abuse that infringes upon the 
privacy of innocent people. The Senate version of the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization bill created important checks on the power to issue and 
enforce NSLs--protections absent from the conference report--without 
hindering the effectiveness of this law enforcement tool.
  Other sections of the conference report give rise to additional 
concerns. The conference report would give law enforcement the free-
wheeling power to impose roving ``John Doe'' wiretaps without the 
safeguards needed to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary 
surveillance, casting aside important checks on this power that were 
included in the Senate bill. The report would also give the FBI the 
right to enter and search a home or business without providing notice 
to the owner of the residence or business for a month or longer after 
the search. And the conference report contains a provision that 
seriously curtails the habeas corpus rights of prisoners to challenge 
their convictions in court. This provision was in neither the House nor 
Senate bills, and there has been practically no debate on the merits of 
this change.
  Apart from the serious civil liberties concerns, perhaps the greatest 
shortcoming of the conference report is its failure to incorporate a 
threat-and-risk-based formula for the allocation of critical homeland 
security funds to our

[[Page 28812]]

local communities, States, and first responders. This deficiency was 
emphasized just last week by the former 9/11 Commission, which issued a 
blistering indictment of our homeland security failures.
  As I said earlier, I have long maintained that protecting the 
security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important 
responsibility I bear as a Senator. To that end, I believe that to 
truly make America safe, we need to carefully allocate our homeland 
security resources. We need to make sure that the money gets to where 
it is needed, that our American cities and States living under the 
greatest threat receive the funding they need to protect themselves. 
Unfortunately, up until now, a substantial portion of our homeland 
security money has been allocated according to congressionally mandated 
formulas that bear little relation to need and risk.
  Our resources should be dedicated to addressing our most glaring 
weaknesses. During their negotiations, I encouraged my House and Senate 
colleagues considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill to account 
for this reality in our homeland security funding. I have maintained--
as the former 9/11 Commission reiterated in its report last week--that 
lawmakers should cease playing politics with the allocation of our 
limited resources by promoting distribution formulas that ignore risk 
and threat. The Commission's report card was a condemnation of this 
administration and the Congress, both of whom have demonstrated far too 
little urgency in enacting the reforms needed to properly secure our 
homeland and fight the war on terror.
  The former 9/11 Commission sent a clear, discernible message to the 
entire Nation last week--reform is needed at all levels of Government. 
The failure to incorporate in the PATRIOT Act conference report a much-
needed threat-based formula for the allocation of homeland security 
funds is a major shortcoming and needs to be corrected.
  As I noted at the outset, apart from these concerns, the PATRIOT Act 
contains provisions that provide law enforcement with important tools 
in the war on terror. Because we cannot afford to be without these 
tools, I am supporting bipartisan legislation that will extend the 
sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. Just because we 
are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have 
to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. This extension will 
preserve the current state of the law on a temporary basis, giving 
those working on the bill the opportunity to craft a compromise that 
both safeguards our liberty and gives our law enforcement the 
capabilities they need to effectively combat and investigate terrorist 
threats. I am also hopeful that during this 3-month extension, those 
working on the reauthorization bill will heed the call of the former 9/
11 Commission and include provisions that mandate the distribution of 
homeland security funds on the basis of threat and risk.
  While we all recognize the importance of equipping our law 
enforcement with the tools they need to effectively combat terrorism, 
we also must ensure that those tools are administered in a manner that 
does not unnecessarily restrict the freedom and liberty that are the 
hallmark of American life. Like all Americans, I am troubled by recent 
reports that the President signed an order in 2002 that authorized the 
National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying on U.S. citizens 
and foreign nationals in the United States, despite legal prohibitions 
against such activity. Likewise, I am disturbed by recent reports that 
the Department of Defense is maintaining a database in order to monitor 
the activity of peaceful antiwar groups. The balance between the urgent 
goal of combating terrorism and the safeguarding of our most 
fundamental constitutional freedoms is not always an easy one to draw. 
However, they are not incompatible, and unbridled and unchecked 
executive power is not the answer.
  I believe the conference report falls short of this goal, and I am 
hopeful that with more time, those negotiating these provisions will 
find the proper balance.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to state for the record that I 
am disappointed we were not able to pass a version of the PATRIOT Act 
today. My vote against cloture should not be viewed as a vote against 
the PATRIOT Act. It should be seen as a vote for balance.
  I think most Americans want legislation that keeps us safer from the 
threat of terrorism, but they also want their civil liberties 
protected. The version of the PATRIOT Act, which passed the Senate 
earlier this year with my support, struck that balance. Unfortunately, 
the conference report we have before us today does not. This conference 
report is invasive and vague. It takes focus off of preventing 
terrorism instead permitting government fishing expeditions that invade 
the privacy of all Americans.
  My vote against cloture should not be seen as a parliamentary move to 
kill this bill. I am voting today to allow conferees more time to get 
it right. I join my colleagues in a bipartisan push to extend the 
current PATRIOT Act 3 months so that the problems that brought this 
bill down can be resolved. It is my hope that the distinguished 
majority leader allows us to move forward with a vote on this 
extension.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, let me agree with Senators who have 
spoken out very sharply in opposition to the disclosures in the press 
this morning about ``President Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without 
Courts.'' That is wrong, clearly and categorically wrong.
  If you read some of the fine print, there are some indications that 
there were some level heads within the executive branch. If you get 
down into the fine print--it takes a lot of reading beyond page 1 and 
the other headlines--this appears:

       [I]n mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by 
     national security officials, government lawyers and a judge 
     prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the 
     program and revamp it.

  Later the article says:

       Several national security officials say the powers granted 
     the N.S.A. by President Bush go far beyond the expanded 
     counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA 
     PATRIOT Act. . . .

  There is no doubt that this is inappropriate. The chief judge of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court stepped in and said: Don't 
provide this court with any information you got this way to get a 
warrant. Just don't do it.
  So if you read the fine print, there were some parts of the system 
which were working. But it is inexcusable to have spying on people in 
the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law, 
beyond any question. And I can tell you that this will be a matter for 
oversight by the Judiciary Committee as soon as we can get to it in the 
new year--a very high priority item.
  I might add, by way of addendum, that on a morning when we come to 
have a vote on the PATRIOT Act, it is a little disconcerting to see 
these headlines. It is not very good publicity with a broad brush as to 
what the Government is doing. The editorials are frequently published 
on the day the Senate is to vote. Somebody suggested that the news 
story, which had been held back by more than a year, was timed as well. 
I certainly would not want to suggest that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields back.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  As was indicated by Senator Craig, this is not a last-minute effort 
to derail a piece of legislation. These are concerns that began with 
the introduction of the SAFE Act nearly 2 years ago and our goal was 
and still is to make improvements to the PATRIOT

[[Page 28813]]

Act, and to ensure that it better protects civil liberties without 
undermining law enforcement's ability to do their job in terrorist 
investigations.
  I met with the Attorney General after he was confirmed. I know 
Senator Craig and others did the same thing. I spoke to senior White 
House staff not weeks, or months, but as long as a year ago and 
underscored the importance of sitting down and working through the 
legislation. I made very specific recommendations in just a few key 
areas of the PATRIOT Act and indicated that we could come to an 
agreement on a strong bipartisan bill.
  I heard effectively nothing in response to that request. Moreover, 
even after all of our requests, no substantive material has been 
provided to argue how our specific changes would weaken or undermine 
law enforcement's ability to do its job in pursuing terrorists. A 
standard should be to put in place which will protect civil liberties 
no matter who holds the power in the executive, the legislative or the 
judicial branches.
  So we are here today with a conference report that has many 
shortcomings, including a 215 standard that is too broad and could 
potentially be abused. There is no reason why we cannot clarify it to 
assure a connection to a specific spy or a terrorist. The conference 
report also has no meaningful judicial review of national security 
letters. Specifically there is a gag order requirement on national 
security letters that can only be overturned by a showing of bad faith 
on the part of the Federal Government. This is a requirement that will 
never be met by any individual or small business.
  There is no judicial review explicit of the 215 gag order in the 
bill. This section requires that all evidence from the recipient of a 
215 order is kept, even if that evidence is unclassified. It requires 
that if you are the target of one of these orders you must identify any 
lawyer you speak with to the FBI. To the best of my knowledge, this is 
a provision that exists nowhere else in law and could have a chilling 
effect on the individual's right to counsel. But more importantly it is 
unclear how eliminating this provision, and allowing one who receives a 
215 warrant or national security letter to have the same right to 
counsel as anyone who is served with a normal subpoena undermines our 
ability to fight terrorism. We should not be afraid of a judicial 
review or setting the appropriate standards of evidence. We need to be 
mindful of Ben Franklin's words over 200 years ago: Those who would 
give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security 
deserve neither liberty nor security.
  We could pass a 6-month extension or take up the Senate bill which is 
on the calender and still respect important freedoms. We need to be 
more vigilant and we can do better.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield up to 3 minutes to another member 
of the conference, the distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. President, when this bill left the Senate, under the leadership 
of Senators Specter and Leahy, we had a balanced bill with provisions 
which protected both our security and our liberty. We are all very much 
in their debt for the bill that left the Senate a few months ago. But 
what now has come back to the Senate is a bill which contains 
provisions which could sweep into the net of a fishing expedition the 
most private records of innocent Americans. The conference report 
amends section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This is one of many examples, 
and 3 minutes only allows one example. Section 215 permits the 
Government to seek court orders, to compel the production of any 
tangible thing, including library and medical records, in foreign 
intelligence investigations. Under the new provision, the Government 
need not describe, much less identify, a particular person to whom the 
records relate. The PATRIOT Act's standard in the conference report 
fails to narrow the scope of records that the Government can subpoena 
to less than the entire universe of records of people who, for 
instance, patronize the library or visit a doctor's office.
  One example of that: The Government could seek all of a doctor's 
records, if it has an allegation that some unidentified patient of the 
doctor was sending money to an organization in the Middle East that was 
being looked at as part of a foreign intelligence investigation and the 
government thought that reviewing all of the records of that doctor 
might help identify that unidentified person.
  Therefore, the Government argues, all of that doctor's records are 
relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation.
  The same thing with library records; all of a library's records would 
be subject to being turned over to the Government if the Government has 
an allegation that somebody, one unidentified person, is using that 
library for some purpose; for instance, its computer, to have access to 
some organization in the Middle East that is involved in a terrorist 
organization. Everybody's library records would be swept into that net.
  When this bill left the Senate, it had protective provisions against 
that. There had to be a showing, not just of relevance to a foreign 
intelligence investigation, there had to be a showing that the records 
sought were relevant and either pertained to a foreign power or an 
agent of a foreign power, were relevant to the activities of a 
suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized 
investigation, or pertained to an individual in contact with or known 
to be a suspected agent. In other words, the order had to be linked to 
some identifiable individual or suspected agent. Those protections are 
missing.
  This is not the first time that Congress has addressed this issue. 
For instance, the Internal Revenue Code places limitations on what it 
calls ``John Doe'' summons for the production of certain taxpayer 
records.
  Under 26 U.S.C. 2709 any summons which:

       Does not identify the person with respect to whose 
     liability the summons is issued may be served only after a 
     court proceeding in which the Secretary establishes that--
       (1) the summons relates to the investigation of a 
     particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons,
       (2) there is a reasonable basis for believing that such 
     person or group or class of persons may fail or may have 
     failed to comply with any provision of any internal revenue 
     law, and
       (3) the information sought to be obtained from the 
     examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of 
     the person or persons with respect to whose liability the 
     summons is issued) is not readily available from other 
     sources.

  Some kind of narrowing language should be included in the Patriot Act 
for 215 orders. Without it, the PATRIOT Act authorizes the rankest kind 
of fishing expedition.
  In addition to the problem with the standard for issuing 215 order, a 
gag order can be imposed by the FBI to prevent the library from telling 
people that their records were turned over. That means innocent 
Americans might never know that the government was looking into their 
reading habits or medical records. Further, while some argue that the 
recipient of a gag order could challenge that gag order in court, the 
conference report is not at all clear on this point. During staff 
negotiations, language that would have clarified the right to challenge 
a gag order was rejected. The idea of a permanent, unreviewable 
restraint on the First Amendment rights of American citizens is deeply 
troubling.
  To add insult to injury, if the library wanted to seek legal advice, 
this conference report requires the library to tell the government who 
it had consulted even if the lawyer consulted had turned down the case.
  The conference report is similarly flawed in its treatment of 
National Security Letters or NSLs. NSLs compel phone companies and 
banks, for example, to turn over certain customer records. The 
government can issue an NSL without going to court. And, like 215 court 
orders, NSLs can be issued without identifying anyone in particular 
that the government suspects is a terrorist or spy. Again, the 
government does not have to show any connection between the records 
sought and a person who the government thinks is

[[Page 28814]]

a terrorist or spy. And like 215 orders, the government can impose a 
gag order on the recipient of an NSL.
  While the conference report does permit recipients of NSLs to 
challenge gag orders in court, it severely constrains the court's 
discretion to review the gag order, potentially rendering the review 
meaningless. Under the conference report, if the Attorney General or 
another specified senior official certifies that disclosure may 
endanger national security or harm diplomatic relations, the court may 
modify or set it aside it only if it finds ``bad faith'' on behalf of 
the government.
  And, like 215 court orders, if the recipient of an NSL wanted to seek 
legal advice before turning over records, the conference report would 
require the recipient to tell the government who they had consulted.
  Also troubling about the NSL authority is that there is no 
requirement that the government destroy records acquired with an NSL 
that are irrelevant to the investigation under which they've been 
gathered. These are records that relate to innocent Americans. The 
government should be required to destroy them if they contain no 
relevant material.
  I outlined many of my concerns in a December 7th letter to the 
Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'd ask 
consent that a copy of that letter be placed in the record.
  As I and my fellow Senate Democratic conferees said in a December 8th 
letter to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 
the conference report falls short of what the American people have 
every reason to expect Congress to achieve in defending their rights 
while advancing their security. Congress should not rush ahead to enact 
flawed legislation to meet a deadline that is within our power to 
extend. We owe it to the American people to get this right. If three 
more months are needed to make this an acceptable bill, then we should 
take and prudently use that time.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated 
December 7, 2005.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2005.
     Senator Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Specter: The USA PATRIOT Act responded to the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11th by giving law enforcement 
     agencies important new tools to use in combating terrorism. 
     However, as I said when the Senate passed the bill, the 
     PATRIOT Act is not perfect. The bill's sunset provisions give 
     us the opportunity to revisit the law so we can both protect 
     national security and the civil liberties of American 
     citizens.
       As we have discussed, I am troubled that, in some important 
     areas, the most recent draft of the conference report fails 
     to achieve that goal. Some of my concerns are described 
     below.
       Standard for 215 court orders--The bill passed by the 
     Senate achieved a reasonable middle ground between the 
     standard that existed prior to the PATRIOT Act and that which 
     the PATRIOT Act established for the FBI to access sensitive 
     records of American citizens with Section 215 orders. These 
     orders can compel things like library records that reveal the 
     reading habits of American citizens and sensitive medical 
     records. While technical changes to the Senate-passed 
     language may be warranted, I am concerned that the draft 
     conference report eliminates the nexus required in the 
     Senate-passed bill between the records sought and the target 
     of an investigation. I believe that the relevance standard, 
     which the conference report would instead establish for 
     access to these records, does not cure the problem.
       Nondisclosure requirements for 215 court orders--The most 
     recent draft conference report permits the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (FBI) to attach nondisclosure requirements to a 
     215 court order but does not permit recipients of such orders 
     to challenge those nondisclosure requirements in court. I am 
     troubled by what could amount to a permanent, unreviewable 
     restraint on the First Amendment rights of American citizens. 
     I am also troubled that, while the draft permits recipients 
     of 215 orders to disclose the receipt of such an order to a 
     lawyer to obtain legal advice, it requires recipients to tell 
     the FBI, if asked, from whom they have sought or plan to seek 
     legal advice on how to respond to the order.
       Nondisclosure requirements for National Security Letters 
     (NSLs)--The most recent draft conference report permits 
     recipients to challenge nondisclosure requirements attached 
     to NSLs. However, under the draft report, the court may only 
     modify or set aside an NSL nondisclosure requirement if there 
     is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger national 
     security, interfere with an investigation, diplomatic 
     relations or endanger the life or physical safety of a 
     person. In addition, if the Attorney General or another 
     specified senior official certifies that disclosure may 
     endanger national security or harm diplomatic relations, the 
     court's discretion to modify or set aside the nondisclosure 
     requirement is virtually eliminated. In addition, like 215 
     orders, the draft permits recipients to disclose the receipt 
     of an NSL to a lawyer to obtain legal advice, but also 
     requires recipients to tell the FBI, if asked, from whom they 
     have sought or plan to seek legal advice on how to respond to 
     the order.
       Destruction of irrelevant NSL records--The latest draft 
     conference report contains no requirement that the government 
     destroy records acquired with an NSL that are irrelevant to 
     the investigation under which they were gathered. The 
     government should be required to ``minimize'' the records of 
     innocent American citizens that are acquired though the 
     issuance of an NSL.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an additional 
5 minutes be given to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to adding 5 minutes to each 
side?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if they need more time, I am glad to 
agree with the distinguished ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, not 
only for yielding time but for his tremendous leadership on this issue. 
I am deeply grateful for it.
  Let me echo what Senator Kennedy said.
  This morning we saw an astounding story in the New York Times. Since 
2002, the Government has been reportedly wiretapping the international 
phone and e-mail conversations of hundreds, even thousands of people 
inside the United States without wiretap orders. If you want to talk 
about abuses, I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of 
power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first getting a court 
order based on some evidence that they are possibly criminals, 
terrorists, or spies. It is truly astonishing to read that this 
administration would go this far beyond the bounds of the statutes and 
the Constitution. We, as an institution, have a duty and the obligation 
to get to the bottom of this.
  I hope this morning's revelation drives home to people that this body 
must be absolutely vigilant in its oversight of Government power. I 
don't want to hear again from the Attorney General or anyone on this 
floor that this Government has shown it can be trusted to use the power 
we give it with restraint and care. This shocking revelation ought to 
send a chill down the spine of every Senator and every American.
  When we look at section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, remember this is the 
section where Attorney General Ashcroft once said that librarians 
concerned about the privacy rights of their patrons were 
``hysterical.'' But then the Attorney General conceded at his 
nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee that some changes 
would be justified. Unfortunately, the administration was not willing 
to make the real changes to that provision that are necessary to 
protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.
  The provisions of the bill related to national security letters are 
also deficient. There is no requirement that the records sought under 
that authority, which doesn't involve a court at all, have some 
connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The judicial review that 
the conference report allows after the fact of the national security 
letter itself and the mandatory gag order is a mirage. After what the 
Times reported

[[Page 28815]]

this morning, no one in this body should be comfortable with a 
government having this kind of unreviewable power.
  This conference report is inadequate, and it should not be passed. I 
believe it will not pass.
  Let me talk, finally, to what happens if the cloture motion fails. Do 
those who oppose the conference report want the PATRIOT Act to expire? 
Of course not. It is false to suggest that we do, and it is shameful to 
threaten that that is what will happen if the Senate does not approve 
this conference report. The only way the PATRIOT Act will expire at the 
end of this year is if the proponents of the conference report in this 
body or the other body block alternative reauthorization bills that can 
easily pass with widespread bipartisan support. Now is not the time for 
brinkmanship or threats. Now is the time to do the right thing for the 
American people and for the constitutional rights and freedoms that 
make our country great.
  I am very proud to be part of a bipartisan coalition working together 
to strengthen protections for civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act. The 
demonstration of bipartisanship on this floor over the last few days 
has been simply remarkable. We have stayed together ever since our 
bill, the SAFE Act, was first introduced. We knew that a time would 
come when we would have to take a stand. Now we have. We are united 
today, as we were then.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is a 
constitutional issue. We can come together to give the Government the 
tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms 
of innocent citizens, and we can do this before the end of this year. 
But first we must keep this inadequate conference report from becoming 
law by voting no on cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield up to 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, once again I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania 
for their leadership on this effort. I wish to take this opportunity to 
once again express my serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act conference 
report that is currently before the Senate.
  As I stated yesterday, as a former attorney general, I am very 
familiar with the needs of the more than 800,000 men and women working 
in law enforcement throughout our country, including those engaged in 
the fight against terrorism. For that reason, I support extending all 
the expiring powers of the USA PATRIOT Act.
  I firmly believe we can extend those powers while at the same time 
providing sufficient checks on those powers to protect America's 
fundamental civil liberties. That is what the bipartisan SAFE Act did. 
That is what the bipartisan, unanimously supported Senate bill did. 
That is what this conference report could have done if it simply 
addressed the modest concerns my colleagues and I laid out in our 
letter to conferees with respect to section 215, national security 
letters, and sneak-and-peek searches.
  Unfortunately, these concerns were not addressed in the conference 
report, and I am left with no choice but to work with my colleagues, 
both Democrats and Republicans, to defeat the bill before us.
  This morning, the Washington Post and New York Times reported that 
President Bush signed an Executive order authorizing the National 
Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant. 
These reports suggest that the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, 
perhaps even thousands, of Americans have been monitored over the past 
3 years without the approval of a judge or even the approval of the 
secret FISA court. These allegations, if true, are deeply troubling. If 
we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties 
protections to be written into our laws, this is the wake-up call.
  The bill before us does not contain the needed protections. We still 
have the time to get it right. Several of my colleagues and I have 
introduced legislation to extend the current PATRIOT Act for 3 months 
so we can get back to the table and make the necessary and vital 
improvements that will protect our rights under our Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against invoking cloture and in favor of 
giving Congress the time it needs to preserve the basic rights and 
freedoms of all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, permit me to interject very briefly just 
to correct some of the misstatements which have been made that crop up 
again and again. This bill is not understood. This bill is not 
understood by Senators who are making representations on the floor 
which are not correct. I don't suggest they are doing it deliberately, 
but they don't know the bill.
  The argument has been made that the recipient of a national security 
letter has to tell the FBI the identity of his lawyer. That is simply 
not true.
  The conference report reads:

       In no circumstance shall a person be required to inform the 
     Director of the FBI or such designee that the person intends 
     to consult an attorney to obtain legal advice or legal 
     assistance.

  The representation is made here again and again that in section 215, 
there does not have to be a connection to a terrorism investigation or 
someone suspected of being a terrorist. The conference report does add 
a provision to the three criteria for foreign power, but the court has 
to make a determination on a factual showing that there is a terrorism 
investigation that does involve foreigners and that records are sought 
from another person, albeit not identified with one of the three 
criteria, in order to carry on the investigation.
  Again and again, the essence of the protection of civil rights 
traditionally has been that you interpose an impartial magistrate 
between the policeman and the citizen, and that protection is given 
under section 215.
  The argument has been made repeatedly that under the national 
security letter, there is no review. That is simply not the case. The 
recipient goes to a lawyer who can challenge the national security 
letter in court and have it quashed, eliminated, dispensed with, on a 
showing that it is unreasonable.
  If you get to the national security issue, then it is different with 
respect to a bad-faith showing. There is judicial review beforehand on 
the very broad term of being unreasonable, which is a hallmark of 
American law in auto accident cases and antitrust cases every time you 
turn around. The reasonable standard is traditional under our law.
  I yield to the Senator from Arizona, who has requested 2 minutes, and 
he can take whatever time he chooses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania on 
a job exceedingly well done in trying to find a way that we can 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, with very emotional feelings on all sides 
of the issue and working through very difficult compromises, especially 
after the conference committee in which it would appear to me--and I 
think even our colleagues who oppose the bill would agree--the end 
result is probably about 80 percent Senate product and about 20 percent 
House product.
  This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, 
no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is now, and it is very 
unfair and unrealistic to expect that either the House of 
Representatives would concede to the Senate position 100 percent or 
that the President would do so after what he has now said. As a result, 
we are going to have an opportunity to vote yes or no.
  One of my colleagues said this is not a partisan issue. If 90-plus 
percent of the Democrats vote against cloture and 90-plus percent of 
the Republicans vote for cloture, it is hard to argue that is not 
partisan. It is true that this should not be a partisan issue, but 
having worked through it to the extent we

[[Page 28816]]

have, and having had the very strong support in the House of 
Representatives with over I think it was 44 Democrats in the House of 
Representatives voting for reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, it seems 
to me that the Senate would do well to also try to act here in a more 
bipartisan way and not to have a partisan vote.
  We need to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. It is the tool for our law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies to help protect us from 
terrorists. Just as we send our men and women into battle with good 
training and equipment, we have to do the same thing with law 
enforcement and our intelligence agencies. If we deny them the key 
tool, the PATRIOT Act, they are not going to be able to do their job to 
protect us. And there is no more time to stretch this out with maybes 
or let's negotiate more, and so on. This act will expire on December 
31. My colleagues either vote yes to reauthorize it or no, not to 
reauthorize it. There is no middle ground.
  I will say this as directly and seriously as I can. I doubt there is 
anyone in this Chamber today who would argue with the proposition that 
we needed to tear down the wall between the law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies. The PATRIOT Act does that. The wall goes right 
back up again on January 1. Is that what we want? God help us if there 
is some kind of terrorist attack when we are not protected by the 
PATRIOT Act and the act could have enabled our law enforcement or our 
intelligence people to help protect us. We will have to answer for that 
if we don't vote to extend the PATRIOT Act.
  I implore my colleagues to put partisanship aside, to consider the 
fact that not everybody can get 100 percent of what they want, to 
recognize that the House of Representatives has made a tremendous 
concession to us, whether you talk about the period of time, the 
section 215 concessions, and, of course, the sunset concessions.
  I found it very difficult myself to sign the conference report 
because, frankly, we had made it so difficult for law enforcement to do 
its job with some of the compromises that were made, but they were made 
in order to achieve a consensus on which we could vote. Now we find 
that consensus in jeopardy.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about 
what they are about to do. If they vote against cloture, they are 
voting to allow the PATRIOT Act to expire. We will not have that tool 
available for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to protect us 
from terrorists. Is that what you want? I daresay the American people 
will hold us accountable if anything happens and we are not able to 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Arizona sits 
down, I wish to ask him a question to further elaborate upon a point he 
has made.
  The President has said that he is not going to sign an extension of 3 
months or, by implication, any extension of time. So if the conference 
report is not adopted so the President can sign it, there will be no 
PATRIOT Act in effect after December 31.
  The Senator from Arizona has talked about the wall.
  The Senator was on the Intelligence Committee the day he came to the 
Senate. He was elected in 1994. I chaired the Intelligence Committee of 
the 104th Congress. He has been on it. He has been on Judiciary. He has 
been a leader on this measure. As the Senator said, he had trouble 
signing the conference report. By the way, I thank him for signing the 
conference report. Without his signature, we could not have filed it.
  As to the other provisions beside the wall, if the PATRIOT Act 
lapses, and there is none, what will the effect be on the fight against 
terrorism?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his remarks. We know 
of two stories that the 9/11 Commission wrote following the 
investigation into what went wrong. What they found was that there was 
not only the wall that separated our intelligence and law enforcement 
officials from being able to speak to each other, but other problems 
with the law that we corrected with the PATRIOT Act. Had the PATRIOT 
Act been in effect prior to 9/11, it is possible that not all of or 
even part of 9/11 would have happened.
  There are two specific stories. One related to Zacarias Moussaoui, 
the other related to two fellows by the name of Hazmi and al Mihdhar. 
These were the fellows who used library computers to verify their 
airline reservations on 9/11. We knew that they were connected--well, 
one agency with the Government knew that they were connected with the 
al-Qaida. The other agency knew that they had tried to come into the 
United States and decided that maybe we should try to find them but had 
no idea how important it was to try to find them. And had we been able 
to be on their tail at this time and find out that they were verifying 
airline reservations on September 11, knowing that they were connected 
to al-Qaida and were up to no good, history might well be different 
than it is today.
  How on Earth we could allow the corrections in the law that we put in 
place as a result of our investigation to lapse is beyond me. The 
terrorists have not stopped their efforts to attack us, and largely we 
have been free from attack because of things such as the PATRIOT Act.
  So the chairman is exactly right. We corrected the errors that were 
brought to our attention that prevented us from doing what needed to be 
done before September 11. That is what this PATRIOT Act conference 
report is all about. The act needs to be reauthorized. Our people need 
that tool to protect us. Why would we allow it to lapse, especially on 
a partisan basis? We need to think very carefully about what we are 
about to do. I hope for the sake of the American people and our 
security that the Senate will act responsibly and ensure that the 
PATRIOT Act will continue to protect us and not allow it to lapse.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I do not question the 
patriotism or the intent to stop terrorists of either those who vote 
for or those who vote against cloture. I hope others would not. If we 
wanted to make this a partisan thing, we could have brought out the 
fact that even under the laws that existed before 9/11, it was this 
administration's Department of Justice that ignored clear warnings and 
evidence that they had, which the 9/11 Commission and others have 
pointed out might well have prevented the terrorist attacks. That could 
have been done with or without the PATRIOT Act.
  All of us rallied behind the administration, even though the attack 
occurred during this administration and the attack occurred even though 
this administration's Department of Justice had information which might 
have stopped the attack.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I want to thank both my colleagues 
from Pennsylvania and from Vermont for their fine efforts on this 
legislation. I went to bed last night unsure of how to vote on this 
legislation. I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. This is a significant improvement over present law. It is 
a significant improvement over the House bill and comes a lot closer to 
the Senate bill than many are giving it credit for. On the other hand, 
even before last night, I had real doubts that we did not correct the 
formula in terms of distributing aid which definitely hurts my State of 
New York. But as I said, I went to bed undecided.
  Today's revelation that the Government listened in on thousands of 
phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has 
greatly influenced my vote. If this Government will discard a law that 
has worked well for

[[Page 28817]]

over 30 years, without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we 
better be certain that we have safeguards on that Government. The 
balance between security and liberty is a delicate one, and there is 
great room for disagreement as to where that ought to come down.
  I do not question the motives of anybody. I tend to be fairly hawkish 
on these types of things, as my colleagues know. But there is one thing 
for sure: there ought to be discussion, there ought to be debate. 
Whenever there is discussion and debate, we usually come out right, and 
that is true on the wiretap law. When J. Edgar Hoover and other leaders 
of the FBI had unchecked power, there were abuses. We put in an 
independent arbiter, a judge. We put in a standard, probable cause, and 
neither the prosecutor community nor the defense community has 
complained.
  So then why, with the flick of a wrist, did this administration 
ignore those laws and listen in on conversations of hundreds of people 
when it would have been so easy to obey the law? Today's revelation 
makes it crystal clear that we have to be very careful, and Senator 
Leahy's suggestion that we renew the present law for 3 months and come 
to an agreement like we did in the Senate that all can live with is 
eminently sensible.
  One final point. My good friend from Arizona and I respect the 
sincerity on this issue. We have written parts of this law together, 
particularly the lone wolf provision. But he says that we will have no 
law if we do not vote for cloture.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, with 30 given on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thirty minutes, I will take that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is out of order. The Senator is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the chair for his generosity.
  If cloture is not invoked and the opportunity to renew this law for 3 
months or 6 months comes before us, and the President vetoes it, it 
will be crystal clear that he is putting politics above safety because 
the bottom line is, the present law is, if anything, tougher than the 
law that is on the books.
  Let us not invoke the threat that the President will not extend the 
PATRIOT Act. It would be a dereliction of his duty as Commander in 
Chief and chief law enforcement officer of this land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been claimed that somehow the so-
called wall between law enforcement and intelligence would go back up 
if the PATRIOT Act expires. That is not true. Even if the relevant 
change made by the PATRIOT Act expired, there would be no legal barrier 
to information-sharing, and no wall would go back up, because FISA as 
it existed pre-PATRIOT Act contained no such barrier. So ruled the FISA 
court of review in November 2002 at the request of the government. It 
held that the change we made in the PATRIOT Act to take down the wall 
was not necessary, that FISA never required a wall, and that the 
Department of Justice unnecessarily imposed bureaucratic constraints on 
sharing information. So let us not delude ourselves into thinking that 
somehow the wall goes back up if PATRIOT expires. It does not. It was 
not legally required in the first place.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 48 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield it to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
yielding the time and for his leadership on this issue. I voted for the 
PATRIOT Act. It was a bit of a leap of faith because I was not sure. I 
did not know if we were giving the Government more authority and more 
power than it needed to keep America safe, but I felt, as most 
Americans did, that in light of September 11, we had to do more to make 
America safer.
  The Senator from Vermont, along with the Senator from Utah, came 
together on a bipartisan basis and produced a PATRIOT Act to give the 
Government more tools to fight terrorism. In their wisdom, they 
understood that perhaps we had moved too far and too fast, and they 
said at the end of 4 years we would revisit this law and make sure that 
we had not given up more personal freedom in America than we had to be 
safe, and that is why we are here today.
  In the meantime, I joined with a bipartisan coalition, an interesting 
coalition when one looks at our political spectrum in the Senate. I 
joined with my friend, Larry Craig of Idaho, Senator John Sununu, 
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Russ Feingold, and Senator Ken Salazar 
in a bipartisan coalition that has been working to reform the PATRIOT 
Act for over two years. We studied the PATRIOT Act very carefully and 
came to the conclusion that certain provisions did not contain adequate 
safeguards to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. That is 
why we introduced the SAFE Act.
  It was our efforts together in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 
good leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania as its chairman that 
resulted in a bill that came out of that committee unanimously. It was 
a bipartisan bill that came to the floor to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act 
and passed on the floor by a voice vote. It was not perfect, but it was 
a consensus, bipartisan, compromise bill. Then, sadly, it went into a 
conference committee where the most important safeguards were removed, 
which brings us to this moment in time.
  Let me salute the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has argued this issue 
on its substance. He has not argued it politically. But he has said 
during the course of this debate that there have been no verified 
abuses of the PATRIOT Act. I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, 
it is not the burden of the American people to prove that their rights 
have been violated. That's not how the American legal system works. We 
should build in checks and balances to ensure that abuses do not take 
place in the first instance.
  Moreover, it is difficult to find verified abuses of the PATRIOT Act 
when so many provisions are cloaked in secrecy. In most cases, people 
will never learn that their medical, tax, or gun records have been 
seized. An individual who receives a Section 215 order or a National 
Security Letter is bound by a gag order so he cannot speak out, even if 
he believes his rights have been violated.
  Now today's headlines suggest this administration went beyond the 
pale in authorizing hundreds and perhaps thousands of warrantless 
wiretaps on Americans in the United States. This violates the long-
standing legal requirement that the government must obtain a warrant 
from a court in order to eavesdrop on Americans in the United States.
  If these stories are true, it makes the PATRIOT Act reforms we have 
suggested even more urgent, and additional reforms may be necessary. 
But it is certainly premature to approve this flawed conference report 
before we learn more about these allegations.
  The obvious question is this: Whether or not we pass the PATRIOT Act, 
will the administration argue they have the authority to go forward, 
anyway?
  What we need to do is to defeat cloture, pass a 3-month extension of 
this PATRIOT Act, and move on to make changes to the law that are 
needed to protect our freedom while giving law enforcement the 
authority they need to fight terrorism. We can be both safe and free in 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania has 47 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I shall use it. Another correction. The Senator from 
Illinois incorrectly says I have argued that there have been no abuses 
of the PATRIOT Act. I have never made that

[[Page 28818]]

representation. I don't think you are entitled to credit for not being 
abusive. That is to be expected. If you have not been abusive, don't 
look for credit. That is what you ought to be: not abusive. I have not 
made that argument.
  My arguments have been limited squarely to the threat of terrorism, 
and the balance of civil liberties on an itemized approach, one by one 
by one by one, that this is a balanced bill.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded under the previous 
order.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on leader time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act expires on December 31, but 
the terrorist threat does not. We have a clear choice before us today: 
Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat 
to the days before 9/11, when terrorists slipped through the cracks. 
Advance or retreat? It is as simple as that.
  Some Members of Congress have called for a retreat-and-defeat 
strategy in Iraq, and that is the wrong strategy in Iraq, and it is the 
wrong strategy here at home. A vote against the PATRIOT Act amounts to 
retreat and defeat here at home, against terrorism. To those who still 
harbor concerns with this bill, I have a simple reply: We have more to 
fear from terrorists than this PATRIOT Act compromise.
  The compromise includes more civil liberty safeguards than in current 
law, more congressional oversight, more judicial review. The same 
people who criticize the lack of civil liberties in current law are 
arguing for a 3-month extension. That makes no sense.
  It is time to come together to advance, not retreat, from terrorist 
threats. I urge my colleagues to vote yes, to advance against 
terrorism, to make America safer, and to safeguard our civil liberties.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Conference 
     Report to accompany H.R. 3199: The U.S. PATRIOT Terrorism 
     Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005:
         Chuck Hagel, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Richard Burr, Conrad 
           Burns, Pat Roberts, John Ensign, James Talent, C.S. 
           Bond, Johnny Isakson, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez, John Thune, Jim DeMint, 
           Jeff Sessions, Bill Frist, Arlen Specter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199, the U.S. PATRIOT Terrorism 
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now enter a motion to reconsider the vote 
by which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished 
majority leader. I will make this unanimous-consent request.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 2082

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3-month 
extension of the PATRIOT Act, that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid on the table. And I do that because that would 
keep the PATRIOT Act in existence after December 31.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as I stated earlier this morning and 
yesterday, I oppose a short-term extension of the PATRIOT Act. The 
House opposes such an extension. The President will not sign such an 
extension. Why? Because extending the PATRIOT Act for a short period of 
time simply does not do enough. The same people who criticized the lack 
of civil liberties safeguards in current law are arguing for an 
extension. That does not make sense.
  This compromise we have discussed over the last several days does 
address more civil liberty safeguards than current law, more 
congressional oversight, more judicial review. Thus, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at an interesting point. We have 
seen an enormous amount of work done by the distinguished senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, who has worked in good faith with members on 
both sides of the aisle; and, I might say, it has been done with a 
great deal of work by myself, but also it has been done with a great 
deal of work by those who both supported cloture and opposed cloture.
  Now, one thing that should unite all of us is our opposition to 
terrorism. We would not serve in this body, actually in this building 
that faced a possible devastating terrorist attack, if we did not care 
both for our country and for the Senate and for the Capitol.
  But there are ways of securing our liberties and ways in which it can 
appear we are but, instead, we are taking them away. We saw this 
amazing step in today's news, where Americans are being spied on, not 
through any court order, not through any act of Congress, not with any 
oversight, not with any check and balance, but simply by a stroke of 
the pen of the President, following the advice of the same people in 
the Department of Justice who advised him that torture was legal.
  We have rejected the concept that torture is legal. We should reject 
the concept that we can have Americans spy on Americans with no checks 
and balances in a free and democratic Nation such as ours. What we 
want--and I have written many parts of the PATRIOT Act--and what we 
should have is checks and balances. A democratic nation does not exist 
without them.

[[Page 28819]]

  I would hope Republicans and Democrats would come together, and the 
administration, and find a way to go forward with those things that 
protect America. But ultimately, America is most protected when we have 
the checks and balances that protect our liberties, the liberties we 
fought a Revolution to gain, and fought a Civil War and two World Wars 
to preserve. We can do that. There are cooler heads here. There are 
distinguished Senators from both parties who can bring this about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the PATRIOT Act remains on the floor. I 
switched my vote in order to recommit. So in essence, it is 53 to 47. I 
simply ask that debate continue. Let everybody look at what is in the 
bill. We have had excellent debate the last couple of days. What this 
vote has basically said is that we don't stop debating it. I encourage 
people, especially those who voted against cloture, to take advantage 
of this opportunity to discuss and debate and come forward. We remain 
on the PATRIOT Act, and the vote right now speaks for itself. We accept 
that. But the debate will continue on this very important bill. Again, 
we will not see a short-term extension.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the 
PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I want to make clear 
that this vote was not about whether I support reauthorizing the 
PATRIOT Act--I do. This vote was about whether I thought that the 
significant and unnecessary invasions into the privacy rights of all 
Americans were necessary to protect our national security--I do not.
  Last July, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization bill. I supported that bipartisan, compromise bill. 
Even though it did not contain all the privacy protections I would have 
liked, it took a lot of steps towards improving the problems in the 
PATRIOT Act that have become evidence since its passage. If that bill 
was on the floor today, I would support it.
  But it is not. What we do have on the floor is a conference report 
that fails to address some of the most serious problems with the 
PATRIOT Act. For example, its version of Section 215 allows the 
Government to obtain library, medical, gun records, and other sensitive 
personal information on a mere showing that those records are relevant 
to an authorized intelligence investigation. That is it. Relevance is 
all that is required. The Senate bill, on the other hand would have 
established a three part test to determine whether the records have 
some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This seemingly small 
change will help prevent investigations which invade the privacy of 
American citizens that may have no connection to any suspected 
terrorist or spy. This is an important restriction.
  In addition, unlike the Senate bill the conference report provides no 
mechanism for the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge the 
accompanying automatic, permanent gag order. The FISA, Foreign 
Intelliegence Surveillance Act, court reviews are simply not 
sufficient. They have the power only to review the Government 
application for the underlying Section 215 order. They do not have the 
power to make an individualized determination about whether a gag order 
should accompany it. So the recipient of a Section 215 order is 
automatically silenced forever. How is that fair? How is that 
consistent with our democratic principles?
  The conference report doesn't provide judicial review of National 
Security Letters either. The Senate bill did. Judicial review is one of 
our best checks on unnecessary Government intrusion into individual 
privacy. Why deny it to our citizens?
  Lastly, I would like to mention the problem with the conference 
reports provisions on the so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants. 
Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not include any 
protections against these warrants. Rather than requiring that the 
government notify the target of these warrants within 7 days, as the 
Senate bill did, the conference report requires notification within 30 
days of the search. Thirty days. That is an awfully long time to go 
before learning that you have been the subject of a Government search.
  These are just a few of the problems with the conference report. They 
are the most significant problems. Those in support know that it is 
flawed, but they are creating artificial time pressure to force us to 
approve the bill, flawed as it may be.
  I realize that 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. I 
certainly do not want that to happen. But passing this conference 
report is not the only way to prevent their expiration. That is why I 
have cosponsored legislation to extend those provisions by three months 
to allow us time to fix the problems with the conference report. If 
that effort fails and the PATRIOT Act expires, the blame rests only 
with the White House and leadership that controls the House and the 
Senate. There was and remains a simple, unified way to get this done, 
and they rejected it.
  There is no reason why we cannot be safe and free. The Senate bill 
accomplished this. And, I will keep working with my colleagues in the 
Senate to ensure that whatever legislation we ultimately pass to 
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act also accomplishes this.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate was presented with a false 
choice on the conference report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act. That 
is why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture. There is a better 
way that gives us the time we need to thoughtfully debate some very 
weighty constitutional and civil liberty issues. With 90 percent of the 
PATRIOT Act already permanently authorized, we can and should extend 
the provisions expiring on December 31, 2005, for 3 months.
  Let me be clear, those of us advocating for a 3-month extension 
support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. What we want to do is keep the 
law intact, exactly as it is right now, so that we can more carefully 
debate these important matters without feeling rushed by the impending 
adjournment of this session of Congress.
  Like almost everyone in this Chamber, I voted for the PATRIOT Act 
shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I believed the 
PATRIOT Act would bolster the ability of Federal authorities to conduct 
criminal and intelligence investigations, to bar and expel foreign 
terrorists from the United States, to separate terrorists from their 
sources of financial support, to punish acts of terrorism, and to 
assist victims of the events of September 11. While I had reservations 
about some parts of this legislation, the need to address the obvious 
threat, combined with the fact that many of the more untested 
provisions in the act were set to expire on December 31, 2005, prompted 
me to vote for the bill.
  The provision of greater investigative authority to our Nation's law 
enforcement officials is a matter that raises many issues, most 
particularly, the need to balance Government power and civil liberties. 
Certainly, there is a great onus upon the Department of Justice, DOJ, 
to utilize the awesome authority of the PATRIOT Act in a circumspect 
and cautious manner. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to 
conduct vigorous oversight on the use of the PATRIOT Act's powers and 
to carefully debate any changes to these powers.
  In the spring, in anticipation of the impending need to reauthorize 
the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I cosponsored S. 737, the 
Security and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act of 2005. This thoughtful, 
bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Craig on April 6, 
2005, and seeks to revise and improve--not eliminate--several of the 
more controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including roving 
wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches, and FISA orders for library and 
other personal records.
  Many of the proposed revisions to the PATRIOT Act in S.737 were 
ultimately incorporated in some form into S. 1389, the Senate version 
of the PATRIOT

[[Page 28820]]

Act reauthorization. S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT Act Terrorism Prevention 
Reauthorization Act, passed by unanimous consent in July and the Senate 
immediately appointed conferees so that the House and the Senate could 
begin discussing their very different visions of the reauthorization. 
Unfortunately, the House waited until November to appoint its 
conferees, which in large part is why we are now in the position of 
having very little time to debate and resolve the differences between 
the two bills.
  The Senate's version of the PATRIOT Act attempted to deal with many 
of the civil liberties issues that have come to the fore since the 
passage of the PATRIOT Act. In particular, S. 1389 would require that 
the Department of Justice convince a judge that a person is connected 
to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, 
medical records, or other sensitive information. It would require that 
targets of sneak-and-peek searches are notified within 7 days, instead 
of the undefined delay that is currently permitted under the PATRIOT 
Act. The Senate bill also would prohibit the issuance of ``John Doe'' 
roving wiretaps, which identify neither the person nor the place to be 
put under surveillance.
  Additionally, S. 1389 would give the recipient of an order for 
sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in 
court on the same grounds they could challenge a grand jury subpoena, 
as well as provide a right to challenge the gag order that currently 
prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out 
even if they feel the Government is violating their rights. The 
legislation also requires increased reporting by the DOJ on its use of 
PATRIOT Act powers and sets a 4-year sunset on three provisions 
regarding roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``lone wolf'' 
surveillance.
  Unlike the Senate bill, the House version proposed to permanently 
reauthorize all but two of the expiring provisions--instead it sunsets 
FISA orders for library and other personal records and the roving 
wiretap provision after 10 years--and placed few, if any, limits on 
many of the expanded law enforcement powers in the PATRIOT Act.
  Unfortunately, the conference report has removed or weakened some of 
the most important limits on enhanced investigative powers in the 
Senate bill, particularly those relating to FISA orders for library, 
medical, and other types of business records about people, National 
Security Letters, and notification of sneak-and-peek searches. We need 
to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but we need 
to do so with procedural safeguards like those in the Senate bill.
  The Senate is known as the more contemplative body in Congress for a 
reason, and I think we should take the time we need to truly debate and 
discuss some important civil liberties issues that the conference 
report implicates. For this reason, I have cosponsored Senator Sununu's 
bill, S. 2082, which would extend the expiring provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act until March 31, 2006. I believe that 3 months is enough 
time for us to come back after the holidays and work out the 
differences between the House and Senate versions of the PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment with 
the vote. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is 
important for our country. I wish to say how hard we worked to achieve 
bipartisan support. This bill came up in the Senate for reauthorization 
after 4 years and virtually no serious criticism of the workings of any 
of the provisions in it. There was a generalized view that we should, 
in fact, extend it.
  We discussed it in the Judiciary Committee. Some of us who would like 
to strengthen a few provisions to protect this country from terrorists 
did not make much headway there, but we did achieve one thing: we 
achieved a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee--18 to nothing--to 
report this PATRIOT Act to the floor of the Senate. When it came to the 
floor of the Senate, we discussed it, and it was cleared by this Senate 
unanimously.
  It went to conference. The House had a bill. We discussed it in 
conference. Senator Specter led our conferees. For those who wanted the 
Senate bill to win in toto, they were not perfectly happy. But as 
Senator Specter has said, 80 percent of the bill was the Senate bill. 
Only a few things were given to the House Members out of the 
differences in the two pieces of legislation. It comes back here to be 
voted on. It is blocked from an up-or-down vote so it could be passed 
and made law before it expires at the end of this year.
  A tremendous amount of effort and work has been placed into making 
this a piece of legislation we could all unite behind. We thought we 
did so. We went to conference, and we came out with a bill that is far 
more like the Senate bill than the House bill.
  As someone who served in law enforcement for many years, I urge my 
colleagues to look at the language of the legislation. I don't believe 
there is a single investigative law enforcement technique in this 
legislation that is inconsistent with what we have been doing for 
years. The average county attorney in any city and county in America 
today can issue a subpoena for library records. The average county 
attorney can get medical records on one basis--is it relevant to an 
investigation that office is conducting? They don't have to get prior 
court approval to issue those subpoenas. It is done every day. So there 
has been confusion. I urge my colleagues to think about it.
  With regard to the delayed notice search warrants, this law in not 
one whit changes the standards for a search warrant. You still have to 
have all the proof you have to conduct a search of someone's private 
property or house. You have to have that. It simply says that you could 
delay notice to the terrorist organization about what is going on. That 
is law today.
  As a Federal prosecutor, I have sought approval of a court to delay 
the notification of a drug dealer. I saw a story recently about a Mafia 
investigation in the Northeast. They got a delayed notice warrant under 
basically American common law. There were no legal standards. Whatever 
the judge said about how long you would delay in notifying the bad guys 
is what went on in that case.
  This bill for the first time sets forth statutory standards that must 
be approved. You must prove to the judge that it is important to the 
safety of the country or important to the safety of enforcing the law 
that the notification is delayed. So you don't get that automatically 
just because you ask it; you have to convince a court in advance of 
that.
  The section 215 provisions require FISA court prior judicial 
approval. They require reports made to the Congress. They allow 
objections to be raised.
  I urge my colleagues to go back and think about the vote you just 
cast in favor of this bill and review and see if there is anything that 
occurred in conference that in any way significantly alters or erodes 
the liberties this country has known and loved and is determined to 
protect. I urge my colleagues to do that. If they do, I believe they 
will feel very confident that there is nothing here that goes against 
what we believe is necessary to preserve the liberties with which we 
are familiar. Please do that. If you do, I think you will feel a lot 
better about it.
  I would be glad to discuss any particular point you would raise. As 
we go forward, I hope people will feel comfortable in casting a 
positive vote for this legislation. It is critical that we not allow it 
to expire. We need to do this bill while we are here. But to continue 
to weaken the legislation, as some have asked, for beyond what we 
agreed to in conference is a mistake.

[[Page 28821]]

We don't need to continue to weaken it. If we weaken it so much that it 
is not effective, then it is not a good idea.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to give what I think will 
more than likely be the last speech I give on this great floor, this 
historic floor, in front of this deliberative body. I am grateful for 
your courtesies. It is with bittersweet feeling that I make these 
remarks.
  I have been honored beyond words to be a United States Senator. I 
think all of us know that feeling in our hearts and souls. I will be 
forever grateful to the 9 million New Jerseyans who put their trust in 
me and asked Senator Lautenberg and myself, and others before us, to 
represent their hopes and dreams at this time and in this place.
  In the 229 years of our Republic, fewer than 2,000 men and women have 
come to this floor and represented the voices of the people who elected 
them or selected them in previous times. And like each of my 
predecessors and those to follow, including Congressman Robert 
Menendez, who will be sworn in to fill out my term, we have all been 
sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.
  I now look at the great Senator, Robert Byrd, who has so eloquently 
and so frequently represented the challenge that all of us take on as 
we are sworn in to be Senators to represent and carry forward those 
traditions of our Constitution and to serve the interests of our 
people. So there are really two purposes. I can only hope that the 
people of New Jersey will believe that has been my sole purpose here on 
this floor.
  Now as I take my leave, I guess there will be some folks who will say 
some nice things about me, and they have. That is a little bit 
different than in the last days of the campaign. It reminds me of a 
Jack Benny story. He was giving a presentation and listening to the 
presenter praise him at length. He said, ``I don't deserve this award, 
but I don't deserve diabetes either.'' I will take the compliments and 
the kind remarks. I very much appreciate it.
  I want you to know that I cherish the friendships I have established 
with the men and women here. I admire the debates--I don't always agree 
with all of my colleagues--but I always respect and admire the 
commitments of the men and women who sit on this floor. And I add that 
it is on both sides of the aisle, not just my friends in the Democratic 
Party. Believe me, some of the remarks I have heard in the last few 
days are a little different than they were 6 years ago when I ran for 
my good friend Senator Lautenberg's open seat at that time. Ross Baker 
is a commentator on the national political scene, and he teaches at 
Rutgers. He told one reporter that the people in New Jersey don't know 
Jon Corzine from a cord of wood. Hopefully, we have gotten a little 
farther down the pike than a cord of wood.
  This has been one of the most remarkable experiences anyone could 
ever dream of having. I came here for a clear purpose. I believe in 
American citizenship and the rights we have. We certainly have 
incredible opportunities in this Nation--I have experienced many of 
them--but it comes with responsibilities. To those of us whom much is 
given, much is required. I know that I had no chance to succeed in life 
without the kind of great support I have had from my community, my 
Nation, and my friends. That is why one comes here--to give back, to 
fight for fairness and the opportunity for all.
  Senator Durbin knows of the little town in which I grew up. Like so 
many of you, I have lived the American promise. It is a little town in 
central Illinois called Willy Station, with a population of less than 
50. In fact, there are more cows than people there. My father was a 
corn and soybean farmer. He sold insurance. My mom was a schoolteacher. 
To have a chance to walk on the floor of the Senate and represent the 
interests of a great State that is really entirely different than the 
background from where I came represents the American promise. I believe 
in it, and I believe we have a responsibility to give back.
  Both of my parents were good Republicans, Senator Durbin. My mom 
still is, by the way. I am not sure if she voted for my friend. She had 
big dreams, and so did my father, about how life would serve us.
  I grew up at a time when Adlai Stevenson was Governor and then ran 
for President. Paul Douglas and Paul Simon worked the circuits in 
central Illinois. We had great Democratic Senators who passionately 
stood for economic and social justice for all Americans. We had another 
great Illinois Senator who worked the same circuits, Everett Dirksen. 
Like my parents, he was a Republican, but he also stood up for the 
promise of justice and equality for everyone in America. He believed 
deeply enough in those promises to use his position as leader to help 
pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Lord Byron said, ``Thank God I have done my duty.'' May I 
say to the Senator from New Jersey, he has done his duty. He is a good 
Senator. We will miss you. I will. Thank you for standing up for what 
you believe. Thank you very much. Bless your heart.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, there is not much that means more than 
that coming from a great Senator who has served this Nation so much. 
Thank you.
  I was talking about Senator Dirksen. He actually sat at this desk and 
worked at this desk. So did George Mitchell and a whole host of great 
Americans. It is remarkable what the history of this institution 
presents and the opportunities it affords. It has been a remarkable 
time. I think all of you know that.
  In the last 5 years, it seems as if we have jammed more historic 
moments in than you could ever imagine, with an unprecedented 
Presidential election in 2000, where we all sat in this Chamber and 
confirmed the results of that election. We had a 50/50 Senate, and 
everybody was trying to figure out how it worked. And then, with a 
shift of one vote in the caucus, that changed the control of the 
Senate.
  That dark day on September 11 changed the lives of Americans forever. 
I live in Hoboken, NJ. It looks out almost directly across the river 
where the Twin Towers once stood. New Jersey's heart has never fully 
healed from those losses. It never will. We lost 700 of our citizens. 
We have much to do, and it has stimulated even the debate we have on 
this floor today. There were kids who lost their lives on that day whom 
I coached in soccer when they were growing up in my previous hometown 
of Summit. We still have a lot to do.
  Today, we are challenged with the war against terrorism and debate 
about our constitutional freedoms, which we are talking about today--
the challenge of tradeoffs in security and freedom, and protecting what 
it is that the American Constitution stands for. This is a great 
institution for making sure the rights of our people are represented.
  I came to the Senate to try to use my knowledge and experience to 
help work on some of those problems that are most important to our 
Nation--health care, economic and racial justice, education--there is a 
whole series of those things. I am proud of that progressive agenda. I 
see so many peers and colleagues who fight so hard on those every day.
  Mr. President, 9/11 brought us together regardless of our political 
backgrounds in ways we could never have been imagined. I am proud of 
how our Nation responded and also how the leadership of this great body 
came together and acted, regardless of background or place, in ways I 
don't think any of us could have imagined. I am grateful to all of my 
colleagues for that leadership.
  We also have great people in New Jersey. The Jersey girls, as a lot 
of my colleagues know, have been fighters for making sure we had the 9/
11 Commission, the compensation fund, responses to human needs, as well 
as the strategic intelligence and homeland security needs that the 
American people

[[Page 28822]]

deserve. I am proud of them. I am proud of the work we have all done 
because it encourages us.
  We provided over $350 million to address New Jersey's unique security 
needs after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
  There was an element of unity that I hope we can restore that was 
born in those moments because the challenges are just as great. The 
immediacy is a little different, but there is no reason we can't stand 
together.
  I am proud of the opportunity to be a partner with my chairman, 
Senator Sarbanes, Chris Dodd, and others with regard to helping restore 
investor confidence that was also broken around that time where people 
lost their life savings, where people in the world I had come from had 
taken advantage of other human beings' savings, retirement securities, 
and their jobs. It is not a proud moment for those of us who believe in 
the capitalistic system.
  With the kind of response that came through the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, 
I think we have actually made a major contribution to making sure that 
balance sheets and income statements are what they are, that people can 
have more confidence in our fundamental system. I was honored to be a 
part of the detail and the work that brought that back. We should 
protect it as we go forward.
  There is more to do with our pension system. There are many things 
that are part of our financial structure which is such a fundamental 
defining element of what America is about. We need to make sure they 
have the integrity that was built into the theme of the Sarbanes-Oxley 
reforms.
  I am proud to have represented the Democratic caucus for 2 years in 
the push back against the privatization of Social Security. We had a 
debate on the floor where Senator Santorum, Senator Sununu, Senator 
Durbin, and myself, for a remarkable hour and a half, had dialog among 
Senators. All of those elements of debate are still in play. We need to 
make sure we protect the security of our seniors. I know folks on this 
side of the aisle feel so strongly in winning that battle, and we 
should continue.
  There are many others issues: affordable drug benefits, college 
tuition. Senator Kennedy and others have fought so hard to make sure 
everybody has access to the American promise. I am proud that I had a 
role--an amendment role, a voting role, a sponsorship role--to be a 
part of those agendas. We can do, and have done, a lot to protect our 
environment to make quality of life better.
  Together with my colleagues from New Jersey, we protected people in 
our state from federal changes that would have weakened New Jersey's 
model prescription drug program for seniors and people with 
disabilities.
  We lifted federal home loans mortgage limits to help more New Jersey 
veterans buy their own homes.
  We fought the administration's effort to reduce the availability of 
student loans. We held them off for a year--long enough to enable many 
students to stay in school instead of having to drop out.
  We preserved the unspoiled beauty and critical water supply in the 
New Jersey Highlands.
  And we stopped a plan by the administration that would have paved the 
way for oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore. Because America 
needs a balanced energy plan that invests in conservation and 
alternative energy sources--not oil derricks lining our beaches.
  In the highway bill that passed this year, we increased New Jersey's 
rate of return on the federal highway tax dollar form 90.5 cents to 92 
cents. And we paved the way for the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown 
Corridor.
  There is a lot more to do. I have some challenges that I leave for 
all of my colleagues. Maybe the most important one, and the one I feel 
most passionately about, is the ongoing challenge to man's inhumanity 
to man in Darfur, Sudan. We have lost 300,000 lives, give or take. 
People don't really know the degree to which life has been lost. But we 
need to make sure that we don't revisit Rwanda and other places where 
we have turned our backs on the killing of one man and one woman, one 
at a time.
  There is much to do. I am proud of the efforts that Senator Brownback 
and I have done to make sure this body recognized for the first time 
that genocide was taking place, that there was much to do, that we had 
some financing to sponsor the African Union to do that which would 
bring an end to the rape, the killing, and the pillaging that is going 
on. There is much more to do. Please, please, make sure, whether it is 
in Darfur or other places, that this body speaks out for humanity, 
something I know all of my colleagues carry in their hearts. It is one 
of the great hopes and dreams.
  I know a number of my colleagues--Senator Obama, Senator Durbin, 
Congressman Payne on the other side of this great Capitol, communities 
of faith, concerned citizens--are really committed to these issues, 
particularly as it relates to Darfur. But we should stand up, and we 
should move forward.
  I have a big hope that my colleagues will take the opportunity to 
move on chemical plant security, which is something I have hooted and 
hollered about and bored people to death with over the last 4 years. We 
are so close but yet so far and at such risk. Whether it is rail 
security,--and all of us have a number of other issues--it is painful 
for us to get such low marks in how we have addressed our homeland 
security.
  Now I go to be a Governor of a State where the primary day-to-day 
practice and responsibility is to protect the lives of the people who 
live in these communities. I hope we will move forward in an 
expeditious manner to address some of those items that we all know are 
at great risk.
  There is a lot of progress to be made in a lot of areas. I could go 
on. I am proud of the initiative on kids accounts, which I hope a lot 
of you will get behind. We can change the financial underpinnings and 
knowledge of so many folks. I am proud of this idea. I know there are a 
number of my colleagues who are interested in the idea of giving every 
child who gets a Social Security number a start in life. It is 
implemented in Great Britain. We ought to do it here. There is a real 
hope it can bring about a different opportunity and potential for every 
person.
  And I'm proud of what we've done for financial literacy. It's mind-
boggling to me that we live in a capitalist society, yet our schools 
provide students with few, if any, tools about how to navigate the 
system. We push our kids out into the world and say ``You're on your 
own. Good luck.'' As more financial risk is shifted onto individuals, 
the consequences of bad financial decisions grow more dire. That's why 
I pushed to include basic financial literacy in the No Child Left 
Behind Act to teach young people the basic principles of capitalism and 
responsible money management.
  I will look to this body to come up with answers on health care, 
Medicare, making sure our children are educated appropriately. The 
agenda is large. There are great disappointments, by the way. I close 
with a few of those. It is hard for me to imagine when I came here that 
we were running a couple hundred billion dollars in surpluses, and now 
we have created debt that is greater in the 5 years than was ever 
created in the history of the country. I think we are really in danger 
of going over the precipice on the twin deficits with regard to fiscal 
management of this country. It seems grossly unfair that we are placing 
that burden on future generations the way we are.
  I can tell my colleagues, as it ripples down to our State levels, 
they are going to hear a former Senator hooting and hollering pretty 
high about how we are crowding out and crowding in responsibilities 
that will be very difficult.
  The fact we haven't raised the minimum wage in the years I have been 
in the Senate is hard to imagine. There is a study out this week that 
if you earn the minimum wage, there is not a county in this country 
where someone can afford a one-bedroom apartment. It is time to move on 
some of these issues.
  I know I am preaching to the choir, but it is time to move. We ought 
to ban

[[Page 28823]]

racial profiling. There are a whole host of issues.
  Since I came to the Senate in 2001, the number of uninsured Americans 
has swelled to over 45 million people. We have made some important 
strides in improving access to care for certain populations, but these 
piecemeal attempts to address our health care crisis have fallen far 
short of providing all Americans with quality, affordable health care. 
I would like to see us come together as a nation to guarantee health 
care to each and every American.
  Senator Lautenberg and I would like to see Bruce Springsteen honored, 
too. We think we ought to step up and acknowledge both the poetry and 
the majesty of his fights for the working men and women of this world.
  I wish to thank my colleagues and the people of New Jersey for this 
great opportunity. I leave the Senate with incredible excitement and 
optimism about the future. I am looking forward to my new job in a way 
I cannot even get my mind around half the time because it seems so 
profoundly interesting and applies to the day-to-day lives of folks.
  I have no serious regrets. I have sadness about not being able to 
walk onto this great floor, but I love this place and look forward to 
coming back and working together on those issues that matter.
  I close by especially thanking my colleague, Senator Frank 
Lautenberg, who has just been a gem to work with, and my leaders, Tom 
Daschle and Harry Reid, who have been extraordinary.
  Mr. President, I say to all of my colleagues, they have been great.
  I mentioned Robert Byrd, a giant on this floor.
  I cannot help but remember the man maybe I admired the most here, 
because he had the greatest courage, was Paul Wellstone and his 
incredible fire and commitment to equality and justice in every 
possible way.
  It has been some run. I want to say thanks to my children, who 
supported me, Jennifer, Josh, and Jeffery; an incredible staff who have 
worked hard. I have a list of the names of the staff who have served 
the people of New Jersey with me. I do not think I will read them all, 
but I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
     Current DC and NJ Staff
       Cynthia Alicea, Renee Ashe, Lucas Ballet, Vicky Beyerle, 
     Elizabeth Brinkerhoff, Alison Brosnan, Sandra Caron George, 
     Jason Cassese, Anthony Coley, Gwendolyn Cook, Deborah Curto, 
     Christopher Donnelly, Karin Elkis, Jennifer Friedberg, 
     Michael Goldblatt, Evan Gottesman, Heather H. Howard, Julie 
     Kashen, Vanessa Lawson, Mada Liebman.
       Jose Lozano, Jonathan Luick, Anne Milgram, Jamaal Mobley, 
     Emma Palmer, Dave Parano, Elizabeth Ritter, Keith Roachford, 
     John Santana, Karen Slachetka, James Souder, Ellen Stein, 
     Brooke Stolting, Jason Tuber, Margaret J. Van Tassell, Steven 
     Van Zandt, David Wald, Barbara A. Wallace, Marilyn 
     Washington, Sarah Wetherald, Benjamin Wilensky.
     Former DC and NJ Staff
       Steven Adamske, Arlene Batista, Simon Brandler, Allen 
     Brooks-LaSure, Christine Buteas, Brian Chernoff, James 
     Connell, Amanda Consovoy, Anthony Cruz, Arpan Dasgupta, 
     Marilyn Davis, Lizette DelGado, Kevin Drennan, Erica Farrand, 
     Enrique Fernandez-Roberts, June Fischer, Lauren Garsten, 
     Elizabeth Gilligan, Jessica Goldstein, Hamlet Darius Goore.
       Derrick L. Green, Robert Helland, Roger Hollingsworth, Anne 
     Hubert, Phillip Jackman, Christopher Jones, Grace Kim, Bruce 
     King, Scott Kisch, Jarrod R. Koenig, Allison Kopicki, Mark 
     Layl, Robert Levy, Jonathan Liou, Duncan Loughridge, Jonathan 
     Lovett, Elizabeth Mattson, Shauna McGowan, Patricia E. 
     McGuire, Lena McMahon.
       Hemen Mehta, Francis Meo, Maggie Moran, Michael Pagan, Sara 
     Persky Foulkes, Carlos Polanco, Miguel Rodriguez, Julia 
     Roginsky, Andrew Schwab, Thomas Shea, Amanda Steck, Lauren 
     Sypek, Todd Tomich, Dan Utech, Wilson Bradley Woodhouse, 
     David York, Muneera Zaineldeen.

  Mr. CORZINE. I would not be worth a darn without what they have been 
able to do. I want to say that the staff who works the floor has been 
remarkable. Without Lula Davis' help and people such as Marty and other 
folks who guide us through how we get things done, none of us would be 
in the same place, as well as the Parliamentarians, the clerks, and 
others. I am extraordinarily grateful for their support.
  I would be remiss if I did not mention Jeri Thomson who has been so 
great.
  To all of you and to all of those who go unmentioned but not 
unthought of, let me say thank you. It has been a privilege of a 
lifetime and I look forward to serving the people of the State of New 
Jersey and our great country in the years ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wasn't here when Jon Corzine arrived 
in the Senate 5 years ago in fact, he actually took my place at the 
time. We met to share ideas on an agenda for New Jersey and America and 
I followed his progress closely. I was impressed by what I saw in Jon's 
service in the Senate, where he has earned respect and affection. Jon 
came from great success in the world of finance and industry, but he is 
able to communicate with ordinary people, as well.
  Some people arrive here and immediately head for the headlines. But 
that isn't Jon Corzine's style. Jon is a committed ``workhorse,'' who 
works long hours with high intensity. He doesn't have a lot of flash, 
but he is very effective.
  He came to Washington for one reason: to serve the people of New 
Jersey. Now, with some sorrow on my part, he is leaving us here for the 
same reason: to help New Jersey even more directly.
  Even before the terrorist attacks on 9/11, work had been done to 
strengthen security at our chemical plants. Jon recognized the 
importance of that issue long before most people, so when he arrived 
here in the Senate, he took the ball and ran with it. Jon introduced a 
plan to overhaul security at chemical plants, and many people were 
surprised when he got it unanimously approved in committee. But those 
who know Jon Corzine weren't surprised. Even when that bill was blocked 
by lobbyists, Jon didn't give up. He has continued to fight to make our 
chemical plants safer. He has raised awareness of the problem, which I 
will take up once again, because we are at risk across this Nation from 
the most horrible devastation to our people and communities.
  Jon Corzine carried an agenda here that was so appropriate for New 
Jersey that he established a place for himself in the history of the 
State even before he becomes Governor.
  I wasn't a Member of the Senate on that fateful day of September 11, 
2001, when my State lost almost 700 people. But I knew we would have a 
strong advocate in Jon Corzine. And we did. Jon listened to the 
families who had lost loved ones, and he knew they deserved answers. So 
he fought to establish the 9/11 Commission. I honestly don't think it 
ever would have come to pass without his efforts. He has been a great 
ally in my fight to make New Jersey and our Nation safer by directing 
homeland security resources to where they are most needed.
  By the time I returned to the Senate almost 3 years ago, Jon had 
earned a reputation as a hard worker who cares more about getting 
results than getting credit. People had learned that when you talk to 
Jon Corzine, he really listens. They had learned that he isn't in love 
with the sound of his own voice. And they had learned that when Jon 
Corzine does speak, he has something to say.
  Three years ago our Nation was rocked by the Enron scandal, and by 
other incidents that undermined public confidence in the integrity of 
major corporations. With his background as the CEO of one of the 
largest financial services firms in the country, Jon realized the 
importance of restoring public trust and confidence. Even though he 
worked mostly behind the scenes on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill the most 
far-reaching corporate reform law since the Great Depression he was 
recognized by the New York Times as the bill's ``primary architect.''
  Sarbanes-Oxley improved business accounting standards, helped restore 
investor confidence, and protected the savings of millions of 
Americans. Jon's name isn't on that bill, but his influence is.
  Jon has been a great teammate for me, working for New Jersey day in 
and

[[Page 28824]]

day out. He has also worked with many of you, on both sides of the 
aisle.
  I know how hard he has worked with Senator Brownback, for instance, 
to stop genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. As a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Jon offered the first Senate resolution to 
classify this horrific situation as ``genocide.'' The passage of this 
bipartisan resolution, coupled with other efforts to increase awareness 
of atrocities in Darfur, prompted then-Secretary of State Colin Powell 
to declare that genocide was in fact occurring. After traveling to 
Sudan personally, Senator Corzine championed a successful bipartisan 
effort to provide $75 million for African Union peacekeeping troops. He 
also introduced a bill establishing sanctions against Sudan, which the 
Senate passed.
  Jon served in the Marine Corps Reserves, and he understands the 
burdens on our men and women in uniform especially the National Guard 
and Reserves, who have provided so many of the troops in Iraq.
  After I served in World War II, I went to college on the G.I. bill. 
Jon Corzine has worked to update the G.I. bill for the 21st century, to 
meet rising education costs. He has fought for better health care for 
veterans and military families. And he sponsored a bill that will help 
90,000 vets buy their own homes. For these reasons and many more, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars gave Jon their Congressional Award in 2004.
  Over the past 3 years I have been proud to call Jon Corzine my friend 
and my colleague. Today, I am equally proud to call him the next 
Governor of my home State of New Jersey. I will miss him here in the 
Senate. But I will take comfort in knowing that he will be leading New 
Jersey in the right direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me 
today in wishing Senator Corzine a fond farewell and great success in 
the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from California had a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, 
I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized when the tributes to 
Senator Corzine have concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my Senate 
colleagues in paying tribute to Jon Corzine, congratulating him on his 
election as Governor of New Jersey, and commending him for his skillful 
service to the people of New Jersey and to the Nation as a Senator.
  For the past 5 years in the Senate, Senator Corzine has stood up for 
working families, for affordable health care, for pension security, and 
on many other challenges. Again and again, he has demonstrated his 
commitment to the fundamental principle of fairness--that government 
should represent the interests of all Americans, regardless of race, 
income, or disability. It has been an honor to work with him.
  Jon is committed to helping others achieve the American Dream. He 
believes very deeply that through hard work and determination, people 
can make better lives for themselves and their families. He believes 
this so deeply, because he has lived it himself.
  Growing up on a small farm in Illinois, Jon dedicated himself to his 
studies and graduated from the University of Illinois. He then joined 
the Marine Corps Reserve and began his impressive career in business 
and banking.
  His talents helped him rise in the business world too--from a bond 
trader at Goldman Sachs to chairman and CEO of the firm.
  Once his hard work and talent helped him reach the pinnacle of his 
profession, Jon decided to give something back by helping all Americans 
achieve their full potential.
  When he came to the Senate in 2001, he made an immediate impact, 
bringing the same talents and commitment in the business world to his 
work for New Jersey and the country.
  We could all see that Jon was a committed and progressive public 
servant, motivated by a strong sense what's right and what's fair.
  Not long after he was elected, the Nation faced a sudden challenge of 
massive corporate fraud, involving Enron, WorldCom, and others. 
Families' pensions were lost. Workers' savings went up in smoke because 
of cooked books and insider deals.
  The administration dragged its feet, but Jon stood up for those 
workers and sent a clear message to those executives that if they 
defraud the American people, they must pay.
  Jon's compassion and invaluable business experience helped persuade 
Congress to pass the most sweeping corporate reforms since the Great 
Depression.
  He brought that same knowledge of the financial markets and 
securities industry and that same sense of fairness to the battle to 
protect Social Security. When others tried to frighten the American 
people into undermining the most important social safety net program 
the Nation has ever had, Jon stood firm, and the so-called reforms were 
not passed.
  I was especially impressed by the way Senator Corzine rose to the 
challenge of 9/11 and rallied the people of New Jersey after the 
terrorist attacks. He was only 9 months into his term, but he stepped 
up and provided real leadership at a time of enormous crisis and 
uncertainty.
  He did his best to ease the grief of the survivor's families, and he 
did everything he could to see that the Federal Government lived up to 
its responsibility to provide relief to those families.
  Month after month, year after year, Jon also insisted that the 9/11 
Commission get answers to their tough questions, no matter how 
entrenched the opposition.
  For 5 years, he has been a driving force to improve homeland 
security, by making sure that our Nation's ports receive the resources 
they need, and by pressing the administration to protect chemical 
plants in New Jersey and across the Nation.
  We will miss Jon's leadership and eloquence here in the Senate. The 
people of New Jersey are fortunate to have him as their new Governor, 
and I know he will continue the outstanding leadership we have all come 
to know and admire. New Jersey is in good hands, and I wish him 
continuing success in the years ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my comments, Senator Stabenow be recognized, then Senator Salazar and 
Senator Reed be recognized. All of us seek to speak about our 
colleague, Senator Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in a few weeks our good friend, Jon Corzine, will 
leave the Senate, where he so effectively represented New Jersey and 
its people over the past 5 years, to become Governor of his State. I 
have been privileged to serve with Senator Corzine on the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to whose work he has brought an 
extraordinary combination of principle, vision, intelligence, and solid 
common sense. I wish to say a few words today about his spectacular 
work on that committee. For a while, I was privileged to serve as 
chairman of the committee, and I can tell you that no chairman could 
have a better fate than to have Jon Corzine as one of his members.
  Prior to entering the U.S. Senate, Jon Corzine spent nearly a quarter 
of a century with Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, 
including five as its chairman and CEO. His long and wide-ranging 
experience in the financial markets made him especially well qualified 
to deal with the issues that came within the Banking Committee's 
jurisdiction. In very short order, it was apparent that whenever Jon 
Corzine's turn in a committee meeting came to put questions to 
witnesses, even the most confident and sophisticated among them 
listened more intently and responded more carefully.
  Senator Corzine's contribution to the accounting reform and investor

[[Page 28825]]

protection legislation known as Sarbanes-Oxley was invaluable. Along 
with Senator Dodd, who also serves on the committee, Jon Corzine was 
among the first members of the Senate to call for hearings on investor 
protection in the wake of the collapse of Enron Corporation. Those 
hearings took place in February and March of 2002, and Senator Corzine, 
along with others on the committee, Senator Dodd and others, played a 
critical role in shaping the reform legislation enacted 4 months later. 
I have done it before and I wish to again acknowledge the very 
substantial and significant contributions Jon Corzine made in helping 
to shape and develop that legislation. His work was invaluable.
  Consistently in the work of the committee, Jon Corzine played a 
critical role in efforts to strengthen protections for investors in our 
capital markets. BusinessWeek, in fact, noted that his work in this 
area gave him ``an unusually high profile for a junior Senator.''
  His contributions to the work of the committee were by no means 
focused only on these issues. Indeed, he touched virtually every issue 
in the committee's jurisdiction. He has worked vigorously to expand 
housing opportunities and the effectiveness of Federal housing 
programs. He has been a forceful spokesman for full funding for 
critical programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development--
section 8 vouchers, housing for the elderly, improved public housing, 
and other efforts to assist low-income homeowners and renters. It is 
indicative of his commitment, and in his statement here in the Chamber 
only a few minutes ago he again was making reference to how people who 
work at minimum wage can't afford an apartment in county after county 
across the country.
  He led efforts to expand coverage of FHA insurance for multifamily 
housing, something especially relevant in States such as New Jersey 
where inflated housing costs affected previous program ceilings. He 
pressed for energy efficiency requirements in public and assisted 
housing, and he has remained committed to Federal action to assure 
secondary mortgage market liquidity and affordable housing.
  Jon Corzine was an original cosponsor of the legislation to stop 
predatory lending practices and spoke forcefully in the committee's 
deliberation about the harsh and cynical techniques predatory lenders 
used to exploit vulnerable borrowers seeking mortgages and other 
credit. He has been one of the leaders in the Senate in the fight 
against Federal preemption of State consumer protection laws which are 
designed to protect our citizens against these practices.
  He has been among the Senate's most outspoken advocates for public 
and private financial literacy programs to ensure that all Americans of 
all ages and all backgrounds have the skills to grasp the financial 
implications of the often complex credit card loans and other financial 
arrangements they are offered.
  He has obtained Federal funding for financial education programs in 
elementary and secondary schools and was a leader in the ultimately 
successful efforts in 2003 to pass the Financial Literacy and Education 
Improvement Act, which incorporates many of his ideas. For his work on 
this issue, the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy 
named him ``Federal Financial Literacy and Education Legislator of the 
Year.''
  Throughout his tenure, Senator Corzine has been among our most 
articulate advocates for public transportation, whose importance in the 
day-to-day lives of his constituents he knows firsthand since he 
represents the most densely populated State in the Nation. He fought to 
preserve and enhance the Federal transit program as the new surface 
transportation authorization legislation was developed. As a result of 
his efforts, New Jersey will receive nearly $2.5 billion in transit 
formula funds from 2004 through 2009, a 50-percent increase over the 
amount the State received in the predecessor legislation.
  He also succeeded in assuring priority treatment in terms of 
planning, funding, and execution under this new legislation for a new 
commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River. This project, the Trans-
Hudson Midtown Corridor, has been identified as a crucial investment 
for the region's mobility and security. As a result of his efforts, the 
National Transit Institute, which provides training, education, and 
clearinghouse services to support public transportation, will be 
maintained at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
  Senator Corzine was a leader in the effort to develop a Federal 
backstop for terrorism insurance after the attacks of September 11, 
2001. Those attacks left such insurance widely unavailable and put 
businesses and commercial property owners at risk of future losses from 
terrorism without having insurance coverage. He recognized immediately 
this situation would create a drag on economic activity and again 
brought his expertise to bear in helping to develop the Federal 
legislation under which the Federal Government would share the risk of 
future terrorism losses with the industry.
  Senator Corzine was one of the first to recognize the threat that 
identity theft poses both to consumers and to the integrity of the 
Nation's payments system. He has been a leader in the fight for 
safeguards on personal information, on protecting the privacy of our 
citizens.
  Many of these things I have spoken about reflect a common theme, and 
that is Jon Corzine's concern for those left out and left behind. It 
has been a hallmark of his service in the Senate that he has sought to 
bring into the mainstream of American life those who have been left out 
of it. This concern for those, in a sense, who have been forgotten, was 
reflected in his work in the international arena, particularly the 
emphasis he placed on the situation in Darfur. Again and again, Jon 
Corzine took the floor of the Senate to bring to our attention the 
terrible things that were happening there and to push for measures to 
help alleviate that situation.
  Finally, let me say what has distinguished Senator Corzine's service 
in the Senate over and above his many specific accomplishments is the 
dedication and vision and principles that underlie all his work. Before 
coming to the Senate, he spent much of his professional life as an 
investment banker. But he brought to his responsibilities certain 
fundamental convictions about the nature of American society, a hopeful 
and optimistic vision of American life that first took shape as he was 
growing up in a small farming community in central Illinois. It was 
there he has said he learned ``the meaning of hard work and the 
opportunities afforded by a strong education system.''
  Jon Corzine went on to earn his B.A. as Phi Beta Kappa at the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and enlisted in the Marine 
Corps Reserve where he served for 6 years. He attended the University 
of Chicago Business School at night, and not too much later he joined 
Goldman Sachs.
  His many years in the financial markets have not dimmed Jon Corzine's 
vision of America as a nation grounded in opportunity--opportunity for 
a good education, for a decent job, a place to raise one's family and 
someday to retire with dignity, security, and self-respect. He has 
dedicated his efforts to advance programs that can make this vision a 
reality for all his fellow Americans.
  When he announced his candidacy for Governor of New Jersey last 
December, Senator Corzine pledged he would ``fight like crazy to make 
sure that there is a view that government can be a partner in lifting 
up the lives of the rest of America.'' This is surely what he has done 
in the Senate.
  In just 5 short years, notwithstanding his junior status in a body 
that sets a high premium on seniority--when I first came here I was 
very critical of the seniority system, but I have to admit that as time 
has gone by I have come to see the virtues of the system--Jon Corzine 
has had an impressive record of accomplishment. He has demonstrated the 
astute and principled leadership in the Senate that

[[Page 28826]]

will most assuredly make him a distinguished Governor of the State of 
New Jersey in the service of all its people.
  If I may be so bold as to address a word to the people of New Jersey, 
I simply say they have an extraordinary leader about to take over as 
the Governor of their State. I urge them to give Jon Corzine their 
backing and support so he can bring his vision to bear in the State of 
New Jersey.
  When Woodrow Wilson became Governor of the State of New Jersey, he 
introduced a progressive agenda which became the model for the Nation. 
New Jersey went to the very forefront of the 50 States in addressing 
fairness and opportunity for its citizens and enhancing their quality 
of life. I say today, as we bid our dear colleague a fond farewell, Jon 
Corzine can provide that kind of leadership for New Jersey. He can move 
that State to the very forefront of the 50 States and make it a shining 
example of what can be accomplished when all of us pull together in 
order to enhance opportunity for each and every one. I wish him the 
very best as he leaves this body and in the years ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
honoring a man I have come to know as a colleague, a dedicated public 
servant, and a friend.
  Jon Corzine is a shining example of the American dream--of what one 
can accomplish with hard work and the opportunity to obtain a good 
education.
  Growing up in rural Illinois as the son of a corn and soybean farmer 
and a public school teacher, Jon Corzine learned early in life the 
importance of family, responsibility and service to his community.
  These are the values that led him to serve his country as a member of 
the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves--and over the years, his strong values 
have guided his career in both in private industry and public service.
  Jon Corzine started his career on the ground floor of American 
business. And even as he worked hard and achieved extraordinary 
success, he never lost sight of his values.
  When he served as chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman 
Sachs, he led that company from a private partnership to a public 
offering. At the same time, expanded the company's philanthropic 
outreach efforts to better serve people in need.
  He continued that important work here in the U.S. Senate, where he 
used his political power to fight for people without political 
influence. For the last 5 years, he has been a tireless advocate or 
veterans, seniors, students, women, children and families in New Jersey 
and across our Nation.
  Senator Corzine and I were sworn into the Senate on the same day--and 
I served with him on both the Budget Committee and the Banking, Housing 
and Urban Affairs Committee. There, we worked together to preserve 
funding for programs that help our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, veterans health care, and 
education.
  We also worked together to lead the fight to keep the security in 
Social Security.
  His business expertise made him a strong advocate for fiscal 
responsibility. He fought to get the national debt under control so we 
could preserve and create opportunities for our Nation's young people--
rather than saddle them with the burden of our government's debts.
  He has lived the American dream and continues to work hard to ensure 
that others have a chance to live it too.
  Jon Corzine is a thoughtful, hard-working man who worked with his 
colleagues from both sides of the political spectrum to do the right 
thing for the people of New Jersey and this Nation.
  I am honored to have him as a friend and a colleague--and I wish him 
well in his new role as Governor of New Jersey.
  I add my comments, along with my friends and colleagues in the 
Senate, for someone who has become a personal friend, as well as 
someone I admire greatly and that we are going to greatly miss. New 
Jersey is very lucky to have Jon Corzine coming in as Governor of that 
great State.
  Senator Corzine and I have worked together both on the Committee on 
the Budget and on the Committee on Banking. I can say it is true what 
Senator Sarbanes said, that even though he sat at the end of the table 
at the Committee on Banking and we were squeezed in with our staff 
trying to make sure we did not fall off the end of the platform, I 
always knew when the person at the end was about to speak and ask his 
questions, there was going to be silence in the room and tremendous 
respect for what he was going to say and concern about whether they 
would be able to effectively answer his questions, as the witnesses 
were answering various questions concerning finances.
  To watch Senator Corzine work has been to watch an example of what we 
want in public service. To see someone who grew up in a small town--
like I did in Michigan--growing up in a small town, serve his country 
in the Marines, as so many of my colleagues have. I am particularly 
proud of the people on the Democrat side of the aisle who have served 
in public service as it relates to our Armed Services and continue to 
bring that perspective and support today.
  But certainly Senator Corzine is one of them. And to go on to be so 
incredibly successful in business, and then to bring that expertise 
here on behalf of the people of New Jersey to work with all of us I 
think is an example of a tremendously great American success story. I 
am proud to have worked with Senator Corzine and look forward to 
working with him as the Governor of New Jersey.
  I will simply echo my colleagues in saying, when we talk about 
corporate responsibility and accountability, Senator Corzine and his 
expertise has been there. Housing, public transit, homeland security, 
his passion for Social Security, addressing so many different issues 
that are important to people, important to communities, important to 
our democracy, have had the voice of Jon Corzine.
  So I congratulate you on your service. I congratulate the people of 
New Jersey on the public service that is to come. And, mostly, I thank 
Jon Corzine for his generosity of heart and for his willingness to 
invest in so many ways to better the community with his own resources. 
This is someone who has been incredibly generous and caring and smart 
and compassionate and dedicated to the right values that we all care 
about deeply.
  I know he is going to do an outstanding job as Governor and that we 
will all be better off for his public service.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I stand here today to not only say thank 
you but to congratulate the Senator from New Jersey, the Governor-elect 
of New Jersey, Jon Corzine.
  For me, my whole life has been touched by many people who have helped 
me live the American dream. But it is an American dream, too, that has 
come with challenges in dealing with the issues of poverty and in 
dealing with the issues of racism.
  There was a time in my life when I thought anything was possible for 
anyone in America. There was also a time in my life when I thought 
there were limitations placed on myself personally that I could never 
overcome because of the history of racism and the effects of poverty 
within my own life.
  Notwithstanding the fact that I was a proud son of that great 
generation of World War II, soldiers who fought in World War II, and 
steeped in the history of New Mexico and southern Colorado, there were 
many people who, when I decided to seek this position in the Senate, 
thought that it could not be done. There were many people who brought 
up reason after reason why this was not a place where I could serve.
  One of the people who disagreed with those conclusions was Jon 
Corzine. Jon Corzine told me that, yes, it was possible to still 
believe in the American dream, that no matter what your background is 
and no matter what your

[[Page 28827]]

economic circumstance might be, everything is still possible here in 
America. His inspiration and his vision and his leadership contributed 
to my serving today in the Senate.
  When I characterize my friendship with Jon Corzine and look at him as 
a person and as a leader, the words that come to my mind are ``an 
authentic leader.'' He is who he is. He is a very successful 
businessperson, but he is the kind of person whom we ought to have in 
the Senate all of the time; that is, people who care about our Nation 
and the people whom we represent here every day. He has put them and 
our Nation ahead of his own self-interest. That is the legacy that we 
now pass on to New Jersey, the legacy that New Jersey has grabbed for 
itself, as they take him as the next Governor of New Jersey.
  I know he will continue to do great things in New Jersey as the 
Governor of that State, in the same way he has done great things in the 
Senate--those things my colleagues have spoken about on the floor of 
the Senate today.
  I wish him well, and I know his continued leadership is something we 
will continue to see in the days and years ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be here today to say a 
few words about my colleague and friend, Jon Corzine. He has honored 
this Senate and he has honored the people of New Jersey with his 
service.
  I did not know Jon before he came here. I heard about his campaign. I 
heard about his success on Wall Street. I, frankly, must confess, I did 
not know what quite to expect. Having seen the movie ``Wall Street,'' I 
almost thought that Michael Douglas would walk in the door in a $3,000 
suit and with expensive accoutrements.
  Jon surprised us all because he is not like that. He might have found 
his success on Wall Street, but his values were formed in the heartland 
of America and in the U.S. Marine Corps. He believes very deeply in 
values that are important and central to our party and to the people of 
this country: the notion of opportunity for all and the notion that 
this is a community, not just a collection of individuals.
  His service in this body has exemplified those values and made us all 
extraordinarily proud. I served with Jon on the Senate Banking 
Committee. As the chairman and ranking member at various times of the 
Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I was familiar with all of 
Jon's efforts in making real progress on issues of importance to the 
people of New Jersey and the people of this country.
  My friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has pointed out some of 
these, and I would like to, for the Record, amplify again what Jon has 
done.
  The Federal Housing Administration Multifamily Housing Program 
provides insurance to those seeking to build multifamily rental 
housing. The program has played a critical role in the development of 
affordable multifamily rental housing. However, as the cost of building 
new housing has dramatically increased in recent years, Federal 
multifamily mortgage insurance loan limits have failed to keep pace 
with inflation.
  In 2002, Senator Corzine led the way to secure passage of a provision 
to raise FHA multifamily loan limits by indexing them to the annual 
construction cost index to ensure that the program keeps pace with 
inflation.
  In 2003, Senator Corzine further improved the FHA multifamily loan 
program by securing passage of legislation to boost those limits in 
high-cost communities around the country.
  Specifically, his legislation raised the loan limits in high-cost 
areas to 140 percent of the statutory base limit and by 170 percent on 
a project-by-project basis.
  These increases have been vitally important in the construction and 
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing in high-cost States such as 
New Jersey and my own State of Rhode Island where the shortage of 
affordable housing has become a crisis.
  Jon recognizes that at the heart of every family's efforts to educate 
their children, to find work, to hold work, is the need for safe and 
affordable housing. Senator Corzine has been on the vanguard of that 
effort. I salute him for that.
  He has also been particularly concerned about housing for veterans. 
The Veterans' Administration Home Loan Program provides access to home 
financing for veterans who often, because of their time spent serving 
our Nation, have not had the opportunity to build up the credit they 
need to qualify for a conventional mortgage. Senator Corzine's 
legislation to increase veterans' home purchasing power, which became 
law as part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, raised 
the loan limits available under the VA Home Loan Program to allow 
veterans to obtain mortgages of up to $333,700, the same level 
available in the traditional mortgage market.
  Finally, the Senator from New Jersey has been a fierce advocate for 
mass transit funding, not in his home State of New Jersey but across 
this country. He has been particularly effective, though, in helping 
his home State.
  Senator Corzine was instrumental in providing legislation to help 
build a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River as part of the 
recently passed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The language that Senator Corzine 
included will expedite the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River 
and require the Federal Transit Administration to sign a Full Funding 
Grant Agreement with New Jersey Transit that will provide the Federal 
funding needed to complete the tunnel, and in so doing not only will he 
assist the people of New Jersey, but he will assist the economy of this 
Nation, since so much is dependent upon transit access through New 
Jersey to the Eastern Seaboard, Boston, New York and down to 
Washington.
  We all are going to miss Senator Corzine immensely in the Senate, but 
he is going forth now to a mission that is equally important; that is, 
to serve the people of New Jersey as their Governor. I know he will be 
successful. And I know those values of opportunity and community and 
fairness and tolerance and decency that exemplified his service in the 
Senate will mark him as a remarkable Governor for the State of New 
Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, knowing Jon Corzine as I think I do, if he 
had known he was going to have to sit through all these speeches after 
he spoke, he would have come down here a lot later at night, I suspect, 
or certainly waited until we got out of town, because that is the 
nature of this Senator, Governor to be.
  I have listened to my colleagues and I listened to his speech. He 
left us with some important warnings, some important pleas, which I 
hope colleagues will take seriously. I would incorporate into my 
comments about Jon all of the things Senator Sarbanes said. They were a 
wonderful summary of what he did and how he did it, his 
accomplishments.
  He did veterans, and he has been a passionate advocate for public 
transportation. He was instrumental in housing. These are the sorts of 
signal accomplishments you can measure, which he can point to and 
colleagues have, that define the few years he has been here.
  I say a word or two about the things that helped push him in the 
direction of accomplishing those goals. What has always struck me about 
Jon Corzine and the thing that has been singled out in a number of 
comments made by my colleagues is the quality of the person, almost an 
improbable quality when you measure it against the profession he chose 
for so many years.
  Maybe a comment about Wall Street, certainly a comment that I know 
Jon Corzine would articulate any number of different times in different 
ways, that we don't think of people traditionally, with the obvious 
exceptions, a Bob Rubin, some others. Jon Corzine always kept, No. 1, a 
great sense of idealism; No. 2, a very strong moral

[[Page 28828]]

compass that led him to always distinguish between right and wrong; 
and, No. 3, an integrity about the approach to public life that 
willingly disclosed great wealth, willingly submitted himself to 
unbelievable attacks in order to pursue a greater good. Most people 
would shy away from that today. When you talk to people in the private 
sector today about running for office, they are quick to say: Do that? 
Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to subject myself to 
that? Why would I want to put myself through that scrutiny?
  Jon Corzine has always been driven by his sense that there is too 
much missing in governance today, that there is a bigger purpose than 
all of us individually, a noble purpose in what we are trying to 
achieve. He believes unabashedly that Government can be part of the 
solution, that Government actually helps people. And unlike so much of 
the rhetoric of the last years that has attacked everything Government 
does until you have a Katrina, when you understand why you need it, or 
until you see the potholes in the streets and the bridges falling apart 
and you begrudgingly acknowledge you need it, Jon always believes you 
need it proactively. He understands the good it can do.
  Every one of us who has had the privilege of being here for awhile 
was impressed by that passion and moral compass he brought to some of 
the issues. When business people in America were abusing their trust, 
Jon brought this extraordinary credibility to that debate. There are 
huge provisions, as Senator Sarbanes will tell us, and a great deal of 
guidance through that process that came from this freshman Senator.
  Likewise, with respect to Darfur, an issue where the country ought to 
be providing a sense of moral outrage, Jon doggedly and tenaciously 
pursued that issue without grandstanding, without trying to do it in a 
way that was sort of hit and run. He stayed at it and got the Senate 
ultimately to take some measures, though never what we ought to be 
doing, and the country has yet to do what he knows and understands we 
ought to be doing.
  He always has had a sense of right and wrong. The minimum wage, the 
incomprehensibility of us being a country where people can live out 
work values and you can't live, and his sense of injustice at giving a 
tax cut to people such as him who have been blessed with the fruits of 
great wealth, who understand that there is a different set of 
priorities, a sense of outrage that we would be cutting children off of 
Medicaid, and so on down the list.
  I am thrilled, and I know when I was privileged to be in New Jersey, 
I could feel it in the people of New Jersey who obviously were 
inundated with an onslaught of confusing and reprehensible kinds of 
claims in the context of a campaign, which we have seen too much of, 
but he plowed through that, because of that idealism and his sense of 
purpose for the State. Those folks are anticipating the same kind of 
excitement that he said in his comments he will bring to this new 
challenge.
  The people of New Jersey have chosen wisely. They are going to have a 
leader who will do exactly what Senator Sarbanes talked about. He has 
the opportunity to make that State one of the great laboratories in the 
country, to do what we are unsuccessful and unwilling to do too often 
at this moment in our history here in Washington. I almost envy him 
that opportunity to grab the executive reins and go out and do it. He 
is going to be an exceptional Governor. He is going to continue to have 
an impact on what Congress chooses to do because of those priorities 
that he sets in the State.
  There is no question in my mind that our caucus, which has looked to 
him regularly as sort of the resident expert on issues of fiscal, 
trade, Wall Street matters, is going to miss that expertise enormously.
  I thank this Senator for his service to us, to the country, and we 
look forward to the service he will provide as Governor of New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to wish Senator Jon Corzine the 
very best as he goes from service in this body to become the next 
Governor of the State of New Jersey. I have had the privilege of 
serving with Senator Corzine on the Budget Committee. He has been a 
valued member of that committee. He has made an extraordinary 
contribution there, always thoughtful and well informed. Senator 
Corzine is deeply respected by colleagues on both sides. It is fair to 
say that no one on the Senate Budget Committee and no one in this 
Chamber has a better understanding of financial markets or economic 
issues than Senator Jon Corzine.
  On the Budget Committee, Senator Corzine has warned repeatedly of the 
risks of exploding deficits and debt. As someone who has been 
extraordinarily successful in the private sector, and as someone who 
has displayed in the real world a profound understanding of what moves 
markets, Senator Corzine words have weight, especially when he says to 
the members on the committee and here on the Senate floor that we are 
running unacceptable risks as we run up the deficit and debt of the 
United States. Senator Corzine has time after time alerted us to the 
risks to the economy of higher interest rates as a result of burgeoning 
deficits and debt.
  Senator Corzine has told this body and told the country that it is 
unsustainable to double the foreign holdings of our debt in 5 years. It 
is remarkable and terribly unfortunate that in 5 years, we have taken 
the external debt of the United States, which was $1 trillion 5 years 
ago, to $2 trillion today.
  Mr. President, it took, as Senator Corzine has pointed out, 224 years 
to run up a trillion dollars of external debt, and that amount has been 
exceeded in the last 5 years. Senator Corzine has said consistently and 
firmly that these are risks that are being run that have the potential 
to lead to a dramatic increase in interest rates, which would have 
negative consequences--extremely negative consequences for the American 
economy. It would threaten economic growth, and has the potential to 
put us into recession.
  Mr. President, we have been fortunate to have someone of Jon 
Corzine's character and wisdom serving with us in the Senate. I am 
going to miss Senator Corzine very much. He has been such a strong 
member of the Budget Committee--someone to whom we could look for 
expertise that is highly regarded by all Members of this Chamber.
  I know Jon Corzine will do a remarkable job as Governor of the State 
of New Jersey. As he leaves here, we wish him well. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I also want to join with my colleagues in 
paying tribute to our departing Senator from New Jersey, Senator Jon 
Corzine. I met him for the first time when we were both sworn in on 
January 3 of 2001.
  Even before that time, I knew of his success but also his high 
caliber by virtue of the fact that he was cochairman of a great firm, 
Goldman Sachs, whose previous contributions to the U.S. Government 
included John Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State under President 
Reagan, and Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury under President 
Clinton. Senator Corzine followed in that tradition of very successful 
men who could do anything they wanted with their lives for the rest of 
their lives but had chosen to commit themselves to public service.
  It has been an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to serve with 
Senator Corzine these last 5 years, to learn from his own wisdom and 
experience as it relates to so many matters affecting the betterment of 
our country, and then to watch him forego what would have been a safe 
track and a relatively easy reelection next year as a Senator because 
he felt he could be of better service to his fellow citizens from New 
Jersey by acting as their Governor, going through the rigors and 
ordeals of another campaign, a challenging endeavor but where he 
sacrificed himself and his own resources in order to give greater 
service to the people of New Jersey.

[[Page 28829]]

  Our loss in the Senate with his departure will be a gain for his 
fellow citizens from that State as he devotes full time in New Jersey 
to their better interests. I wish him well. We will miss him. He will 
carry out even further the great talents he has and his ability to 
improve his State and our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when the Senate returns in January, we 
unfortunately will be without one of the finest Senators in this body. 
Senator Jon Corzine will be moving to New Jersey to serve as its 
Governor. I want to publicly congratulate Senator Corzine on an 
impressive victory, and congratulate the people of New Jersey for 
making an outstanding choice. Their gain is the Senate's loss.
  Jon Corzine has been an exceptional Senator largely because he is an 
exceptional person. It didn't take Senator Corzine long to demonstrate 
to his colleagues his intelligence and his impressive knowledge of a 
broad range of political and economic issues. But perhaps even more 
important, he quickly convinced members on both sides of the aisle that 
he possessed a genuine decency and humility.
  Jon Corzine surely has one of the most impressive resumes of any 
American anywhere. He has a remarkable record of accomplishment, both 
in business and public service. But success never went to his head. And 
if you are fortunate enough to meet him--no matter who you are or what 
your place in society--you can be sure that Senator Corzine will treat 
you with respect. He is sincere. He listens. And he's humble. Its 
almost impossible not to like Jon Corzine.
  When Senator Corzine came to Washington just 5 years ago, it didn't 
take him long to earn both the admiration and the affection of his 
colleagues. But he wasn't just a nice, smart guy. He also worked on 
behalf of the citizens of New Jersey and the Nation like there was no 
tomorrow. And it didn't take long for him to make his mark.
  Soon after coming to the Senate, Senator Corzine played a critical 
role in efforts to respond to widespread abuses at corporations like 
Enron. At the time, Congress needed someone who understood corporate 
America and who could help find balanced solutions that made sense. Jon 
Corzine stepped to the plate and helped develop one of the most 
important corporate reforms in American history. That legislation, 
known as Sarbanes-Oxley, may not bear his name, but it surely bears his 
mark, and all Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude for his 
contribution.
  Senator Corzine's economic expertise also helped him become a real 
leader on budget and fiscal issues. Since coming to office, he has been 
an outspoken advocate for fiscal responsibility and a leading defender 
of Social Security. In the last Congress, he headed the Senate 
Democratic Task Force on Social Security, where he developed the case 
against privatization long before the issue was in the headlines. 
Democrats stopped the administration's misguided attempt to privatize 
Social Security dead in its tracks this year. Senator Corzine's efforts 
last year laid the groundwork for much of what we were able to 
accomplish.
  Senator Corzine also has taken up another important cause that still 
fails to attract sufficient attention: the genocide in Darfur. After 
prior mass murders abroad, such as the one in Rwanda, many Americans 
looked back with regret at our Nation's failure to act. Yet today, in 
the midst of another terrible genocide, the U.S. response is again 
woefully and tragically inadequate. Jon Corzine has personally gone to 
Darfur and has worked hard to focus the Nation's attention on this 
crisis. It has been a thankless task with no apparent political 
benefits. For his willingness to pursue this moral cause, he deserves 
real credit from every American. It will be incumbent on all of us to 
remain focused on this terrible tragedy after he leaves.
  Another cause of great importance on which Senator Corzine has taken 
the lead is the effort to prevent terrorism at chemical plants. As 
Senator Corzine has told us repeatedly, there are more than 100 
chemical facilities around our Nation where a terrorist attack could 
endanger more than a million people. Unfortunately, security at too 
many of our plants is grossly inadequate. Senator Corzine recognized 
the importance of addressing these security risks now before a 
catastrophe occurs. Each of us has a responsibility to push forward on 
this issue he has pushed so tirelessly.
  I could go on about the many other issues on which Senator Corzine 
has taken a lead from protecting prescription drug benefits of New 
Jersey seniors to promoting financial literacy to preserving our 
environment, blocking cuts in student aid and protecting workers 
against unsafe conditions. In his relatively short time in the Senate, 
Senator Corzine has been one of our most active Senators and he has had 
an impact on a surprisingly broad range of issues.
  I also want to take a moment on behalf of the Senate Democratic 
caucus to publicly thank Senator Corzine for his work in the last 
Congress as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. 
Senator Corzine had a tough Job and was dealt a tough hand. But he 
worked extremely hard, as he always does, and he did an excellent job.
  Let me also express my appreciation to Senator Corzine for selecting 
an outstanding member of Congress to replace him. While we will miss 
Senator Corzine greatly, Bob Menendez is going to be an excellent 
Senator for New Jersey. It is a credit to Senator Corzine to have 
chosen such a talented and committed public servant, who I am confident 
will not only represent New Jersey well but will also help this body 
better represent the great diversity of our Nation.
  Now Senator Corzine moves from Washington to Trenton, where he will 
take on some very difficult challenges. But, nobody should ever 
underestimate Jon Corzine. The people of New Jersey have selected a man 
who not only has extraordinary talent but someone who always give it 
everything he has. I know he will serve them well and I know at the end 
of the day, he will remain what he is today: a kind, humble, and 
principled person who represents the very best of our Nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just left a small farewell party for my 
colleague, Jon Corzine of New Jersey. He is, of course, leaving the 
Senate in a few days to become Governor of the State of New Jersey. 
Congressman Bob Menendez will be appointed to fill his vacancy and 
stand for election in about a year.
  I am going to miss Jon Corzine for a lot of reasons. First, we have a 
lot in common. Jon was born and raised in the small town of Willy 
Station, which is just a few miles away from the bustling metropolis of 
Taylorville in Christian County, IL, just a few miles from where I 
live. I know a little about the Corzine family today, and I sense what 
his upbringing was all about. He grew up on a farm, with a dad who 
raised corn and soybeans. It was not a comfortable and wealthy 
existence, but it was a great upbringing. He was raised in the 
Midwestern tradition of working hard. He started at age 13 with his 
first job. He worked his way through college, going to the University 
of Illinois where he was a walk-on on the basketball team. He has 
assured me time and again he was no superstar. But the fact that he did 
that and served in the Marine Corps and went on to the University of 
Chicago for a master's degree in business tells me he is a person who 
had a good work ethic--not only that but a great deal of talent.
  Jon's career took him to the highest levels in the business world. He 
was a partner at Goldman Sachs at the age of 33. He was cochair and co-
CEO of that investment banking giant at the age of 50. He started there 
fetching coffee for his superiors. He came up not only quickly but the 
right way. When he was first running, I remember reading accounts in 
the New York Times about what kind of a CEO he was. He knew the 
elevator operator's name, and he would go to the mailroom and talk to 
the workers there and try to provide financial assistance so that 
workers could go on to earn a college degree.
  That is the same Jon Corzine I came to know in the Senate, a very 
caring

[[Page 28830]]

and compassionate individual in so many different ways. He would fight 
tooth and nail for things he believed in, and he would also pick causes 
that were not quite that popular and put all of his energy and skill at 
work on them as well.
  I can recall the terrible genocide in Dafur and how he made that his 
issue. Time and again, he came to the floor of the Senate to remind all 
of us about that tiny country on the other side of the world and the 
people being oppressed there. That is Jon Corzine. Time and again, he 
showed us that you could be both financially successful in life and not 
lose your bearings when it came to good moral conduct and good values.
  When I think about his heroes in life, I share many of them. He used 
to talk about Paul Douglas, the first man I worked for in the Senate as 
a college intern. Paul Douglas was from the University of Chicago 
faculty, and he was a person who inspired many of us, not only because 
he worked hard and did his best to speak for the common man, but 
because he was all over the State appreciating the variety of life you 
can find in Illinois. Then, of course, was his successor and protege, 
Paul Simon, whom I was honored to succeed in the Senate, also a friend 
of Jon Corzine's. So we had the Paul Douglas and Paul Simon connection. 
And, of course, the admiration Jon Corzine had for them said it all.
  When I look back at these heroes of Jon Corzine, I realize that we 
have that much in common--our Illinois roots and a lot more. We come 
from the same place. We share many of the same values. We fought on the 
same side of many of the same battles. We share many of the same 
heroes. Like Jon Corzine, I admired Senators Douglas and Simon. I had 
the privilege to know and work with them. Paul Douglas helped design 
Social Security. Jon Corzine helped to save it. Like Paul Douglas, Jon 
Corzine is a brave champion of civil rights, economic justice, and the 
environment. Like Paul Douglas, Jon Corzine is unafraid to speak his 
mind for the good of the country.
  All in all, I am certain that Paul Douglas and Paul Simon would 
approve of the short, though important, Senate career of Jon Corzine. 
They would thank him, as we all do, for fighting hard and well for 
people and values of this great Nation. I will miss Jon Corzine. The 
people of New Jersey have made a wise choice. He will be a good, 
thoughtful, compassionate leader of their great State. I look forward 
to working with him for many years to come for the values that we 
share.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share my thoughts about Jon 
Corzine. He had a great record at Goldman Sachs. I didn't really know 
he was a farm boy. That is something Senator Durbin added to the mix. I 
think I had heard that but had forgotten it. He was successful in the 
financial world in an extraordinary way. He was a marine. Of course, 
every marine I have known has been shaped by that, and I believe 
Senator Zell Miller wrote a book saying that everything he ever needed 
to know he learned in the Marine Corps, or something to that effect.
  Jon Corzine has been an active Member of the Senate. I remember the 
time we spent together in Montgomery, AL, on a civil rights trip. We 
were at the church that Martin Luther King preached in on Dexter 
Avenue, the Dexter Avenue Church. We had a discussion at that time 
about Rosa Parks, whom we have just honored and who recently passed 
away. At that very site, Martin Luther King led the efforts of the bus 
boycott that ended the concept that a person must go to the back of the 
bus because of the color of their skin. Jon Corzine didn't have to go 
to Montgomery, but he was interested in those issues and he believed 
strongly in equality and civil rights.
  Senator Corzine has been a strong advocate for the Democratic Party 
and its principles, heading its campaign committee. We didn't agree on 
those issues, but he was always courteous and professional. I cannot 
remember a single harsh word that we have had. In fact, I cannot 
remember him having a harsh word with any other Senators.
  I have enjoyed the opportunity to know Jon Corzine and to gain 
respect for him. I wish him every success as Governor of the important 
State of New Jersey. That will be a challenge, but he has the gift and 
ability necessary to be successful in that job.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and bid 
farewell to my friend and colleague, Jon Corzine.
  Our world has changed quite drastically since Jon first joined the 
Senate. It has been an honor to work with him on the many issues we 
were forced to confront following the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001. We will miss Jon's leadership and determination on behalf of 
his constituents in New Jersey and the American people.
  While Jon has served in the Senate for a relatively short period of 
time, he leaves an important legacy of leadership on issues ranging 
from protecting our homeland to crafting legislation that stabilized 
our financial markets.
  Rarely in this body does one Senator see the enactment one of their 
first bills introduced as a freshman Member. But Jon did just that when 
he called for mandatory Federal standards to protect our Nation's 
chemical plants and saw that become law.
  When the entire corporate and financial community was rocked by 
pervasive accounting scandals, Jon was instrumental in crafting 
extraordinary changes to accounting oversight that stabilized 
confidence in our markets when they were teetering. He recognized that 
Americans were at risk, and he worked tirelessly on their behalf, a 
legacy that will last well past his last day here in the Capitol.
  Jon also brought to the Senate an appreciation of open and 
accountable Government. He saw security and accountability as going 
hand in hand, a way for citizens to know what their chosen 
representatives are doing to ensure the health and safety of their own 
neighborhoods and communities. He recognized the need to balance the 
ever-changing need for security with the everlasting principles of 
openness that make our democracy the strongest in the world. I was 
pleased to work with him to protect the Freedom of Information Act 
which the current administration has sought to weaken at every turn of 
the road.
  As further testament to Jon's leadership and determination, he will 
certainly be remembered for his work to secure an end to the terrible 
genocide that the world has witnessed in western Sudan. As the ranking 
member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I can personally attest 
that Jon repeatedly brought the reality of this terrible tragedy to the 
attention of all of us. He knew that the solution would not be 
Democratic or Republican. Instead, he reached across the aisle, 
demanded a call for action, and spoke eloquently for those without a 
voice.
  I will miss my friend Jon Corzine here in the Senate. I have enjoyed 
the time we shared working together in this body. Marcelle and I wish 
him all the best as he moves on to the new and exciting challenges that 
await him in Trenton. His service to the American people in the United 
States Senate has been selfless. His departure is a loss for the United 
States Senate but a great gain for the citizens of New Jersey.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my 
colleague, Senator Jon Corzine, who is leaving the Senate and will be 
sworn in as the Governor of New Jersey on January 17, 2006.
  I have greatly appreciated working with Senator Corzine during his 
time in the Senate. We have served together on the Banking, Housing and 
Urban Affairs Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
and the Budget Committee. His depth of knowledge and experience will be 
missed on these committees, and in the Senate as a whole.
  While Senator Corzine will be continuing in public service, he has 
already had a long and distinguished career. After serving in the 
Marine Corps, he received an MBA from the University of Chicago and 
began working in the private sector, rising to be the co-chief 
executive officer at Goldman

[[Page 28831]]

Sachs. He decided to enter public service and was elected to the Senate 
in 2000 where he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of New 
Jersey. In November, Senator Corzine was elected to be Governor of New 
Jersey and I am confident he will continue his outstanding public 
service work in this new position.
  I am very pleased that while he served in the Senate, Senator Corzine 
had the opportunity to visit my home State of South Dakota in 2002 
during my re-election campaign. The trip gave him the opportunity to 
experience the beauty and friendliness of South Dakota, and I know that 
those who met Senator Corzine were very impressed with him and pleased 
that he had visited the State.
  Once again, I would like to thank Senator Corzine for his 
extraordinary service in the Senate and wish him the very best on his 
new challenges and opportunities as Governor of New Jersey.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to say a word or two about our good 
friend Senator Corzine, who will be leaving the Senate to assume the 
governorship of New Jersey.
  What I would like to do--because I have heard a lot about Senator 
Corzine and his background in Illinois today--is to talk about when I 
saw him in action for the first time. It was when the Senate was 
working on the post 9/11 airline relief legislation. A lot of us were 
very troubled about how that ought to be done. We were sympathetic to 
the needs of the airlines after 9/11 but concerned about the very large 
sums of money that were going to be directed to one sector of our 
economy when many of our important economic sectors were hurt after 9/
11; in that period when our country suffered tragically in New York but 
where there were economic ramifications across the country.
  That legislation would not have passed if Senator Corzine, along with 
help from our former colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, had not stepped in 
and figured out how to deal with the financing in a responsible way 
that protected taxpayers while providing some help to the airlines. 
Senator Corzine took out a sharp pencil, using the expertise he had 
acquired in his years at Goldman Sachs and throughout his training in 
finance, and figured out how to make sure there was not a bailout in 
effect for just one sector that would have taxpayers holding the bag 
and was sensitive to the needs of all concerned.
  I was struck, as I watched him deal with that airline legislation, 
how in this individual a combination of compassion, fairness, and 
intelligence worked in a very quiet and dignified way to bring together 
different parties, different Senators who had widely diverse views, and 
tackled an issue of great importance.
  I think that is exactly what he is going to do when he assumes the 
Governorship of New Jersey. He is going to bring exactly that 
combination of fairness, compassion, and brains, always done in a kind 
of low-key, understated way. I believe the people of New Jersey will 
benefit as they have in his service here in the U.S. Senate.
  We hope Governor Corzine will come to Oregon because he has expressed 
an interest in looking at some of our innovative approaches, 
particularly in the area of health care and the environment. We wish 
him well and know he is going to have a very distinguished career as 
the new Governor of New Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the career 
of my colleague Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey. This institution has 
benefited greatly from his presence, and the people of New Jersey can 
be proud that such an energetic and compassionate man will continue to 
serve them as their new Governor.
  Senator Corzine is a man that knows how to be successful, whether as 
a leader in the field of investment banking or as a champion on behalf 
of the interest of working families as a U.S. Senator. His commitment 
to public service is commendable, and he has set a positive example for 
his fellow lawmakers when it comes to establishing the right priorities 
for Government. His philosophy is one of inclusion, which seeks to 
ensure that no American is left out of the enterprise of this great 
Nation.
  I am particularly grateful for Senator Corzine's work on the Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. His was an early voice for 
revamping the laws governing corporate accounting practices, long 
before the events of WorldCom and other accounting scandals destroyed 
the savings of thousands of loyal employees and shareholders, 
tarnishing the reputation of corporate America. Before, during, and 
after the debates that produced the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley corporate 
accountability legislation, Senator Corzine was there with the 
knowledge and energy to provide much needed solutions to a serious 
problem. He has also championed many other inventive policies to tackle 
our Nation's problems, including his ``Kid's Account'' lifetime savings 
plan, his work to protect individuals from identity theft, and his 
initiatives to promote financial literacy for all Americans.
  In addition to finding creative solutions to the financial problems 
that our country faces, Senator Corzine has also been a reliable 
defender of public education, affordable health care and prescription 
drugs, and support for our men and women in uniform. As a member of the 
Senate Budget Committee, he has championed the priorities of everyday, 
working Americans time and again. He consistently opposed the fiscal 
policies that have led our Nation to such a dangerous budget deficit, 
choosing instead to vote for sound economic and social policies that 
would keep America strong and healthy.
  I wish my colleague from New Jersey the best of luck as he enters 
into this new chapter in his public life. His presence will be missed 
but his work on behalf of working Americans will not be forgotten.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great 
Senator and the Governor-elect of New Jersey, Jon Corzine. While 
Senator Corzine has only been in the Senate for 5 short years, he has 
made an indelible mark on our Nation and on his Senate colleagues, 
myself included. I have had the opportunity and pleasure of serving 
with Senator Corzine on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seeing 
firsthand his patriotism, his dedication to our Nation, and his work 
ethic.
  Senator Corzine has been an invaluable resource here in the Senate, 
especially as we confronted the corporate scandals of recent years. 
With his expertise as the former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs, we 
looked to Senator Corzine during the reform process. He stepped up to 
the challenge, helping push through sweeping changes in our Nation's 
corporate governance. I know that he is proud of this accomplishment, 
and our Nation is better for his efforts.
  While Senators come to Washington to represent their States, their 
actions have consequences for every American citizen. America has been 
well served by having Jon Corzine in the Senate and I know that the 
citizens of New Jersey could not have chosen a better man to serve as 
their Governor. He will bring not only his work ethic and intellect, 
but a unique blend of Government and corporate experience to bear on 
the challenges facing New Jersey.
  I have been proud to call Senator Corzine my colleague, and I 
congratulate him on his election. I also want to wish him luck on the 
new responsibilities he takes on and the new challenges he will face. 
Senator Corzine, you will be missed.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in thanking 
the gentleman from New Jersey, Senator Jon Corzine, for his service to 
the people of the Garden State and the rest of our country. My 
colleague and friend brought his extensive experience from corporate 
America to bear on the business that we conduct here, and our country 
greatly benefitted from his expertise.
  I enjoyed working with Senator Corzine during the time when I served 
on the Banking Committee. Under the leadership of Ranking Member 
Sarbanes, we shored up corporate governance through the enactment of 
Sarbanes-Oxley--the influence of which

[[Page 28832]]

has been felt in corporate boardrooms, and even nonprofit boardrooms, 
across America.
  The Senate and the Congress will especially miss the dedication of 
our colleague in the effort to promote economic and financial literacy. 
Senator Corzine has been a stalwart in working with me, and Senators 
Sarbanes, Stabenow, Enzi, Allen, and others, to bring to light the need 
to reverse economic and financial illiteracy in our country.
  Senator Corzine has been an important ally in supporting several of 
my initiatives in this area, including annual efforts to secure and 
increase funding for the Excellence in Economic Education Act for 
grades K through 12; efforts to work on college campuses through the 
College Literacy in Finance and Economics or LIFE Act, S. 468; and 
annual resolutions designating April as the month for highlighting the 
need for financial literacy.
  I have been a proud cosponsor of his initiatives in this area, S. 
923, S. 924, and S. 925. The TANF Financial Education Promotion Act, S. 
923, requires a State to specify how it intends to establish goals and 
take action to promote financial education among parents and caretakers 
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families assistance. The 
Education for Retirement Security Act, S. 924, authorizes grants for 
financial education programs targeted toward mid-life and older 
Americans, including striving to increase financial and retirement 
knowledge and reduce individuals' vulnerability to financial abuse and 
fraud. Finally, the Youth Financial Education Act, S. 925, authorizes 
grants to State educational agencies for the development and 
integration of youth financial education programs for students in 
elementary and secondary schools, as well as a grant to establish and 
operate a national clearinghouse for instructional materials and 
information regarding model financial education programs and best 
practices.
  It is clear that my colleague from New Jersey cares about giving 
people access to additional tools that can help them make decisions 
about credit and debt management, spending and saving, and essential 
choices in a world of limited resources, in addition to helping 
increase their financial acumen so as to avoid being taken in by 
predatory credit offers and unscrupulous marketing. I commend him for 
taking this broad view, and wish him and his family well as he goes on 
to lead the Garden State as its Governor.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to my friend 
and colleague Senator and now Governor-elect Jon Corzine. With his 
election to the Senate in 2000, Jon Corzine has been a source of wisdom 
and a great friend to me and to many of my colleagues.
  Jon Corzine was elected to the Senate after serving as cochairman and 
cochief executive officer of the investment company Goldman Sachs. 
During his time in the Senate, he has focused on serving the State of 
New Jersey, applying his financial expertise to major economic and 
regulatory issues and pushing a forward-looking, progressive agenda.
  Senator Corzine has pursued new safeguards to protect chemical 
facilities against terrorist attack, introduced legislation to improve 
access to education and health care, fought for stronger environmental 
policies, and lead the effort in Congress to crack down on corporate 
abuse.
  The Senate recently adopted Senator Corzine's resolution declaring 
the need for new safeguards at the Nation's vulnerable chemical plants. 
He also secured Federal funding toward the construction of a second 
railroad tunnel underneath the Hudson River, long sought by New 
Jersey's congressional delegation, and won Federal support for a wide 
variety of community and economic development projects throughout the 
State of New Jersey.
  On a more personal note, it has been a great pleasure for me to work 
with such a gifted and dedicated public servant. He has never hesitated 
to put the people of New Jersey and the people of this Nation first. 
The people of New Jersey have made a wise choice in selecting Senator 
Corzine to be the chief executive of their great State. He will take 
the same enthusiasm and professionalism to the Governor's mansion that 
he has exhibited here in the Senate.
  I wish him well in his new responsibilities. I know that he will be a 
benefit to the people of his home State of New Jersey. We will miss his 
passion and insight here in the Senate. But our loss will be the people 
of New Jersey's gain. Farewell and Godspeed.
  Mr LEVIN. Mr. President, although we will miss him greatly in the 
Senate, I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Jon Corzine on 
his election as Governor of New Jersey. It has been a pleasure to serve 
with Jon on the Intelligence Committee and to work with him on issues 
of corporate accountability. He has been a strong and determined leader 
here, and I know he will continue to make the people of New Jersey 
proud in his new position.
  Jon Corzine has led a distinctly American life. He grew up on a 
family farm. He served his country in the Marine Corps Reserves. He had 
extraordinary success in business as a self-made man. And he has 
continued to serve his country in public life, first as a Senator and 
soon as a Governor. Jon loves America and fights for what he believes 
is best for our people.
  In the Senate, Jon has used the financial expertise he gained at 
Goldman Sachs to become a singularly credible voice for corporate 
reform. He was a driving force on the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley 
legislation, which cracked down on corporate abuses such as those that 
led to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. He has been a leader on 
strengthening oversight of the mutual fund industry and on protecting 
the financial privacy of Americans. Jon has also been at the forefront 
of promoting financial literacy, so that Americans can manage their 
personal finances wisely.
  Working with Jon on the Intelligence Committee, I have seen Jon's 
piercing mental acumen and commitment to protecting our country. 
Following the September 11 attacks, which took a heavy toll on his 
State, Jon recognized the weakness of our system of chemical plant 
security. He seized that issue and did not let go. In October, Congress 
finally passed mandatory security requirements at chemical plants based 
on Jon's work. That this necessary improvement in our security will be 
substantially improved is due to his tenacity.
  On every issue, Jon has been outspoken in support of policies that 
benefit working Americans. He has fought for universal health care, for 
expanded student aid, and for full funding for education programs. Jon 
has also been a passionate voice for human rights around the world. 
Just last month, the Senate approved the Darfur Peace and 
Accountability Act, which Jon sponsored with Senator Brownback, to help 
stop the genocide in the Sudan.
  During his short time in the Senate, Jon Corzine has made a big 
impact. His is a unique voice that will be personally missed. I join my 
colleagues in saluting Jon on his election as Governor and in wishing 
him well in his new position.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud today to join in honoring Jon 
Corzine and congratulating him on his outstanding service here in the 
Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with him for 5 years and 
have found him to be a tremendous ally on a number of issues, as well 
as a great friend and colleague.
  This Senate has benefited enormously from his hard work and 
commitment since he came to this body in 2001. I have served with him 
on both the Foreign Relations and the Budget Committees, and I have 
seen him work diligently and effectively, with members from both sides 
of the aisle, and always in the best interests of the American people.
  Senator Corzine has led the effort to stop the ongoing violence in 
Darfur with the bipartisan Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005, 
of which I am a cosponsor. I applaud his efforts in this area, as well 
as his work to reaffirm support for the Convention on the Prevention 
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This is a critically

[[Page 28833]]

important legacy as the world faces the tragedy in Sudan. There has 
never been a more important time for the U.S. to recommit itself to 
ending the crime of genocide, and Senator Corzine has taken a lead role 
in that effort.
  We have also worked together on issues of great concern to us both--
racial profiling and the death penalty. On both these issues, Senator 
Corzine has been a courageous voice for justice and fairness. He has 
been steadfast in his efforts to ban racial profiling, a practice that 
runs contrary to the fundamental American value of equal treatment 
under the law. And he has been just as dedicated in focusing attention 
on the glaring flaws in the administration of capital punishment, and 
in calling for a thorough, nationwide review of the death penalty.
  Finally, I want to say that I am deeply grateful for Senator 
Corzine's support for the amendments I offered during the Senate's 
consideration of the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001. I was proud to 
have his support that night, and I have been proud to work with him as 
a cosponsor of the SAFE Act. I can't think of a better time to thank 
him for his work to protect Americans' freedoms than today, in the 
midst of a fight to make reasonable changes to the PATRIOT Act.
  Jon Corzine has earned the utmost admiration and respect during his 
time in the Senate. I will miss him as a colleague and friend, but I am 
so glad that he will continue to serve the people of New Jersey with 
such dedication and integrity. I have no doubt that he will be an 
outstanding Governor, and that he will continue to be a national leader 
on the issues to which he was so committed in the Senate.
  So today I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Corzine for his 
work in this body. He is a great public servant and a good friend. I 
wish him all the best.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute and 
bid a fond farewell to my colleague and friend Senator Jon S. Corzine 
of New Jersey. Senator Corzine as we know will be leaving the Senate 
next month to serve as New Jersey's Governor, and before he leaves us 
to begin what I can only be certain will be a wildly successful and 
innovative tenure as New Jersey's chief executive, I thought it 
appropriate to take the time to celebrate not only Mr. Corzine's fine 
service in the Senate but his inspiring life story as well.
  In many ways, Jon Corzine's life is an example of the American dream 
fulfilled. Mr. Corzine was born on New Year's Day, 1947, and grew up on 
his family's farm in Willey's Station, IL. His father ran the farm and 
sold insurance; his mother was a public school teacher. Through his own 
hard work and that of his family, Mr. Corzine attended the University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 
1969. After graduating college, Mr. Corzine served his country by 
enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves, and he continued in the 
Reserves until 1975, rising to the rank of sergeant in his infantry 
unit.
  After Senator Corzine's Active Duty was up, he began what would 
become a long and successful career in the finance sector. His first 
job was with the Continental Illinois National Bank in Chicago, where 
he worked as a portfolio analyst. At the same time, Mr. Corzine began 
taking night classes at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of 
Business, where he received his MBA in 1973.
  In 1975, after working briefly at a regional bank in Ohio, Mr. 
Corzine was recruited to go to work for the New York investment firm 
Goldman Sachs as a bond trader, beginning what would be a meteoritic 
rise through the company's ranks. After only 5 years, Mr. Corzine was 
named a partner in the firm. In 1994, Mr. Corzine became both the 
firm's chairman and chief executive officer. Through hard work, Senator 
Corzine rose from his family's farm in rural Illinois to being the 
chief executive officer of a New York investment firm.
  But the story doesn't end there for Mr. Corzine had a very successful 
tenure at the helm of Goldman Sachs. When he took over in 1994, the 
proud and respected firm was in a period of some decline. But Mr. 
Corzine and his team turned the company's fortunes upwards. During his 
5 years as chief executive, Mr. Corzine also oversaw the firm's 
successful transition from a private partnership to a public company.
  While serving as chief executive, Mr. Corzine also demonstrated a 
passion for public service. Under his leadership, Goldman Sachs was a 
strong corporate citizen, expanding its community outreach and 
philanthropic programs. Mr. Corzine also chaired a Presidential 
commission that studied how capital budgeting could be used to increase 
Federal investment in education.
  It is this commitment to public service that I saw Jon Corzine bring 
to his work in the Senate everyday. Elected in 2000 by the people of 
New Jersey, Senator Corzine has been a tireless advocate for corporate 
accountability, helping co-author the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and has 
worked to protect our environment, where he has been a steadfast ally 
in the fights to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge and to tackle climate change. On the international front, 
Senator Corzine has sponsored the Darfur Accountability Act, an act I 
am proud to cosponsor, which seeks to address the terrible genocide 
currently occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan.
  What I will remember most about Senator Corzine's tenure is his 
commitment to strengthening our Nation's homeland security. Having 
worked with Senator Corzine on several homeland security issues, I know 
firsthand that he was determined to do everything in his power to 
protect the American people from another terrorist attack. Senator 
Corzine and I worked together in passing legislation that created the 
9/11 Commission, whose service to the American people we are all well 
aware of. In addition, Senator Corzine has been a leader in legislative 
efforts to increase security at our Nation's chemical plants, which 
remain vulnerable to attack. Senator Corzine crafted strong legislation 
aimed at protecting these facilities, and I remain hopeful that 
Congress will act on this area of great vulnerability. I will continue 
to be inspired by the dedication Senator Corzine applied to this 
critical issue.
  Let me end my statement, Mr. President, by taking the time to thank 
Jon Corzine for his service in the Senate. I wish him, his daughter 
Jennifer, and his two sons, Josh and Jeffrey, nothing but the best for 
the future, and I look forward to seeing the fine things I know he will 
continue to do for the people of New Jersey, now as their Governor. 
Once again, thank you, Jon Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about our 
colleague Senator Jon Corzine, congratulate him on his recent election 
as Governor of New Jersey, and also thank him for his great 
contribution to the Senate and to the entire country during the time he 
served here.
  Jon came to the Senate from a very successful career on Wall Street. 
We are all aware of that. He came here for the best of reasons: his 
desire to make a difference, to improve the situation of average 
Americans in this country, to see that this country pursued an economic 
course that created opportunity and jobs for the people he represented 
in New Jersey and throughout this country.
  On economic issues, I think all of us in the Senate came to believe--
I certainly did--that no one was better able to read the tea leaves 
about what was happening economically in this country, what was 
happening in the various economic statistics which come out each week, 
than Jon Corzine. He could understand the economic circumstance we 
continue to struggle with in this country and the impact it is having 
on the lives of average Americans.
  While he has been here, he has demonstrated a passion for fairness to 
all in our society. He has not been a representative of Wall Street. He 
has been a representative of the great mass of the American people. He 
has looked to raise the standard of living of all Americans and lift 
all boats. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for that passion he has 
brought to this job.

[[Page 28834]]

  I serve as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. We have been very fortunate that Jon has served on 
that committee as well. He has been an active participant in the 
writing of energy legislation, which we passed earlier this year. He 
made a great contribution in that legislation. In short, Jon has had a 
very distinguished career in the Senate. I am confident he will have a 
very distinguished career as Governor of New Jersey and will have a 
very long and successful career in public life.
  Again I congratulate him on his victory. I thank him for his service 
and his friendship, and I look forward to opportunities to work with 
him again in his new capacity as Governor of New Jersey.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to say 
farewell to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Jon S. 
Corzine. In January, he will resign his seat, bound for greener 
pastures. While he will be missed tremendously in this Chamber, I know 
that, as Governor, he will serve the people of New Jersey well.
  Senator Corzine and I were elected to the Senate in the same year, 
and I have since been glad to have his friendship and advice. I would 
also like to say, how fortunate New Jersey has been to be represented 
by Senator Corzine. I am proud of the work that we did together in the 
time we shared in the Senate and am sad to see him go.
  Along with his dedication to building a practical, progressive 
Government, Senator Corzine always brought a fresh and original 
perspective to this body. His previous career as cochairman and CEO at 
Goldman Sachs allowed him the benefit of invaluable experience in 
helping to solve the problems that face our economy and our financial 
sector. His combination of principle and practice, are, more than 
anything, what the Senate will sorely miss.
  Consider Senator Corzine's role in crafting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
2002. His work on this bipartisan legislation helped produce reforms 
that, in the wake of corporate abuse scandals, restored confidence in 
the markets, protected shareholders, and ensured that additional and 
more impartial oversight would act to prevent the damage to our economy 
that might flow from unchecked corporate malfeasance. Senator Corzine 
stood by his principles, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and 
used his expertise to help craft legislation to promote ethics, 
accountability, and economic growth.
  We can also look to Senator Corzine's efforts to end the crisis 
ravaging Darfur, Sudan. I was proud to cosponsor the legislation by 
Senator Corzine and Senator Sam Brownback to expand aid to the African 
Union and provide a framework for tackling the ongoing violence. We can 
all be proud that Senator Corzine was able to help usher the Darfur 
Peace and Accountability Act through the Senate. His dedication to the 
issue and commitment to stopping the genocide is admirable, to say the 
least. Senator Corzine has stood by his values, and worked hard to see 
those values reflected in the work of the Senate, the Congress, and the 
Nation.
  Recently, I joined Senator Corzine in introducing legislation to help 
the victims of sexual assault receive the medical treatment they need 
and deserve. Senator Corzine believes as I do that we have a duty to 
these women; a woman who has already suffered so much should not have 
to worry about whether she will be offered emergency contraception to 
prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Senator Corzine's passion for protecting 
and improving access to health care and medical treatment, and to 
protecting the rights of patients, is truly exemplary.
  Finally, Senator Corzine served New Jersey and his constituents with 
compassion and dedication in the days, weeks, months, and years 
following the attacks on September 11, 2001. New Jersey and New York 
shared in so much grief and loss that day, and Senator Corzine was 
tireless in his commitment to the citizens of New Jersey who bore the 
burden of that loss.
  In the years since, he has remained steadfast in fighting for the 
families of 9/11 and fighting to strengthen our Nation to prevent 
future acts of terrorism. His hard work to secure our Nation's 
vulnerable chemical facilities serves as a noteworthy example. I was 
proud to cosponsor his legislation to safeguard our Nation's chemical 
plants, the Chemical Security Act, and share in his commitment to doing 
all we can to strengthen America's homeland security.
  I would also acknowledge Senator Corzine's tenure at the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee. In his leadership at the DSCC and 
throughout his time in office, Senator Corzine served with honesty, 
integrity, and a passion for improving the lives of all Americans.
  Jon Corzine's absence will long be felt in the Senate, as will his 
good work. He brought his expertise and values to bear on the 
challenges facing our economy, our security, and our country.
  To the great benefit of the citizens of New Jersey, Jon Corzine--
while retiring from the Senate will bring his values, his expertise, 
his passion, and his dedication with him to the Governorship of the 
Garden State. The citizens of New Jersey will no doubt continue to be 
fortunate to have Jon Corzine in their corner.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as Senator Corzine spends his final 
days representing the people of New Jersey in the Senate, I wish to 
spend a few moments speaking about his commitment to human rights and 
the pressing crisis of genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
  I have worked on the issue of war and humanitarian disaster in Sudan 
for several years. But nearly 2 years ago, as the Comprehensive Peace 
Agreement for Sudan was in its final negotiations, we became aware of 
the unfolding crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur. It was 
Senator Corzine who came to me to work together and champion this 
issue. We joined each other on the Senate floor in countless speeches 
showing photos of the anguish in Darfur. We joined each other in seeing 
the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act through the Senate. We joined 
each other to secure funding for the security and humanitarian needs of 
the people.
  I have had the opportunity to work with many Members across party 
lines on human rights and humanitarian issues. I remember partnering 
with Paul Wellstone on the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act. Some 
called us strange bedfellows since we were at opposite ends of the 
political spectrum. But I have learned an important lesson: these 
issues are sufficiently urgent that ideological and partisan 
differences should not be allowed to impede cooperation, especially 
where lives and basic freedoms are at stake. And such has been true in 
the case of Darfur. I have no doubt that Senator Corzine's commitment 
and perseverance to raise this issue to the highest levels has made a 
difference to the people of Darfur. I also saw firsthand his sincere 
compassion and commitment to the suffering of the world when we 
traveled to tsunami-ravaged South Asia together earlier this year.
  I will always consider Senator Corzine an ally and a friend on one of 
the greatest moral issues in foreign policy today. In his absence, I 
will look to my other colleagues to ensure that this crisis is not 
easily forgotten.
  As we close out 2005, I urge my colleagues to secure additional 
funding for the African Union in the Defense Appropriations conference 
and I urge my colleagues in the House to pass the Darfur Peace and 
Accountability Act. Without continued action by the United States and 
the international community, more lives will be lost.
  I would like to take this opportunity to formally and publicly thank 
Senator Corzine for his partnership and his commitment to the people of 
Darfur. I express my very best wishes as he leaves this body to become 
the next Governor of New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I am to be recognized by 
unanimous consent directly following the

[[Page 28835]]

tributes to Senator Corzine. I would like to give my heartfelt thanks 
to the Senator from New Jersey. He has been indeed a good Senator. His 
tenure here has distinguished him. That is clearly recognized by people 
of New Jersey. I believe he is going to be a great Governor for that 
great State.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the very able Senator from California for her 
yielding to allow these tributes to be paid to Senator Corzine. I know 
she has been here quite a while waiting to speak on another issue. It 
was extremely gracious of her to do that. I wanted to recognize that 
and thank her very much.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield for my last word?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mr. CORZINE. I am appreciative of the Senator's gracious and kind 
words as well. I follow with great interest her views and visions on a 
lot of major issues of the day. I know she is going to speak on one of 
the more important ones in a few minutes. I am particularly 
appreciative of her kindness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

                          ____________________