[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2412-2413]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 2663, S. 2664, AND S. 2665

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk, and I ask 
for their first reading en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2663) to reform the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission to provide greater protection for children's 
     products, to improve the screening of noncompliant consumer 
     products, to improve the effectiveness of consumer product 
     recall programs, and for other purposes.
       A bill (S. 2664) to extend the provisions of the Protect 
     America Act of 2007.
       A bill (S. 2665) to extend the provisions of the Protect 
     America Act of 2007 until July 1, 2009.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask for the second reading en bloc and 
object to my own request en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say that S. 2663 is a bipartisan 
piece of legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act. We have been 
working for months to get this going. It is my understanding now that 
Senators Pryor and Stevens asked that this matter move forward.
  The other matter related to the FISA bill, we are trying to work 
something out with the House, and hopefully we can get something done 
on that soon.
  Mr. President, tonight I am introducing and beginning the rule XIV 
process on two bills related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. One bill would extend the Protect America Act, the PAA, for 30 
days, while the other would extend that law until July 1, 2009.
  Earlier this year I introduced S. 2556 which would have extended the 
PAA for 30 days, and S. 2257, which would have extended the PAA until 
July 1, 2009. The bills I am introducing tonight would extend the PAA 
for the same periods of time, but they are drafted to take account of 
the fact that the PAA has expired. In addition, they contain a post hoc 
effective date that is intended to eliminate any potentially adverse 
legal effect resulting from the expiration of the PAA.
  My purpose in introducing bills with two different extension lengths 
is to demonstrate once again that I am willing to extend the PAA for as 
long a

[[Page 2413]]

time, or as short a time, as is needed to finalize a strong final bill.
  Now that the House and Senate have both passed bills--H.R. 3773 and 
S. 2248--to strengthen the PAA, the right way to get to a final bill is 
through bipartisan negotiations. Unfortunately, my Republican friends 
appear unwilling to negotiate. We convened two negotiating sessions 
last week, but Republican staff members and administration lawyers 
declined to attend.
  Meanwhile, President Bush says that the expiration of the Protect 
America Act has made America less safe, but he threatened to veto a 
bill extending that law while negotiators work on a final bill. The 
President's position is inexplicable and reckless.
  The bottom line for Senate Democrats is clear: We want to give our 
intelligence professionals all needed tools while protecting the 
privacy of law-abiding Americans. We are willing to extend the Protect 
America Act for as long as it takes to get a final bill.

                          ____________________