[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26287-26296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 2052. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the 
Secretary of Energy to carry out a research and development and 
demonstration program to reduce manufacturing and construction costs 
relating to nuclear reactors, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the role 
nuclear energy can play in moving our country toward a more secure 
energy future. For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about 
nuclear power will come as a stark and perhaps unpleasant surprise. But 
I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of 
nuclear power has changed.
  The environmental and energy security challenges that we faced in the 
1970s, when that decade closed in the shadow of Three Mile Island, have 
changed significantly. When my father Mo Udall campaigned for President 
in the New Hampshire primary in 1976--and the Presiding Officer 
remembers that era--and when he was asked about the controversial 
Seabrook nuclear facility, no one had climate change on their list of 
environmental concerns.
  Today, more than 30 years on, we have a less parochial and more 
global view about the challenges of energy security, climate change, 
and the problems associated with carbon-based energy production.
  Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats our 
current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner 
national energy policy. In this regard, clearly, nuclear energy has 
emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic 
energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions.
  A cleaner energy economy will spur innovation in and accelerate the 
shift to clean and domestic energy sources. It will create a new 
industrial sector, employing millions of Americans in the research, 
development, manufacturing, sale, installation and servicing of new 
energy technologies. And it will help reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil from unstable regions of the world.
  Moreover, like it or not, we must address the climate challenge we 
face. My State of Colorado is already seeing the indirect impacts of 
carbon pollution in the form of a devastating bark beetle infestation 
that is killing our forests.
  Looking beyond environmental concerns and as we face perhaps our 
greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, we also need an 
``all of the above'' solution to jump-start our economy. That means 
continuing our development of renewable energy sources such as wind, 
solar, and biomass, as well as traditional energy resources like coal 
and oil, and cleaner fuels like natural gas.
  That also means we should continue to invest in energy efficiency and 
conservation technology. And that means that nuclear energy and new 
nuclear power plants must be a part of the mix.
  As I said earlier, a growing number of skeptics and even opponents of 
nuclear power are taking a second look at this industry. I count myself 
among them, and these are some of the reasons why:
  First, in the last few decades, the performance and safety record of 
nuclear plant operations in the United States has greatly improved. 
Safety is and always must be the No. 1 priority at nuclear facilities. 
There is always more we can do on safety, but the industry has built a 
good record and we should recognize that fact.
  Then there are the environmental benefits to nuclear power. Unlike 
fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants do not emit appreciable amounts of 
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or particulate matter. That 
means they cause less acid rain, as well as fewer asthma complications 
and other health ailments.
  Further, nuclear plants release minimal amounts of carbon pollution. 
In fact, nuclear power plants are one of the few low-carbon, large-
scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today.
  Let me note that carbon-capture and storage technologies at coal and 
natural gas plants could also potentially provide low-carbon baseload 
power at large scales too. And it is very important that we build these 
first commercial CCS plants and do all we can to develop economically 
viable carbon-capture and sequestration technologies.
  I have long been a supporter of renewable energy and energy 
efficiency, and I will continue to be. But the scale of the energy 
changes we must make dictates that we be open to the widest variety of 
energy options, particularly those with domestic potential and those 
with cleaner emissions. In other words, there is no silver bullet that 
will solve all of our energy challenges; we are going to need, in the 
parlance of the West, silver buckshot. Examining all the pros and cons, 
I have come to the view that nuclear energy is a part of that silver 
buckshot.
  I know there are many who remain skeptical of nuclear power, 
including good friends of mine. Nuclear power is not trouble-free. No 
energy source is. I hope we can all agree, however, on our clean energy 
goals: more jobs, greater energy security, and a cleaner environment 
for our children.
  Supporters and opponents of nuclear power share another concern in 
common. Neither knows for sure how much new nuclear plants are going to 
cost. We have a new licensing process that has never been tested. We 
have not ordered a new nuclear plant in three decades. Many nuclear 
technology components, for at least the first wave of nuclear plants, 
will likely be manufactured in other countries, and the future cost of 
construction materials is unknown. These uncertainties, along with 
others, led the National Academy of Sciences to estimate that 
electricity from new nuclear plants would likely cost in the range of 8 
to 13 cents per kilowatt hour, which is a considerable span. Given the 
large potential of nuclear energy, however, we need to build new 
nuclear plants over the next decade.
  This first wave of new plants will go a long way toward telling us 
whether new plants can be built on budget and on schedule in the United 
States. I hope the answers are yes and yes, and that the final cost of 
electricity is at the lower end of the uncertainty range. I say this 
because if nuclear energy is to survive as a viable option, it will 
need to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the long run.
  Some may object to the building of new nuclear plants before we have 
a

[[Page 26288]]

long-term solution to the question of what to do with nuclear waste. It 
is true we do not have a permanent solution right now. It is also true 
that the answers about the viability, both environmental and political, 
of Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste facility continue to elude us. I 
fully acknowledge that as a Member of the House of Representatives, I 
shared these concerns and voted accordingly. But uncertainty about a 
long-term and permanent solution to waste storage is not a reason to 
halt nuclear power. I am confident that we have the technical 
capabilities and knowledge to safely and responsibly store nuclear 
waste for the required time periods. This is not a technology problem. 
It is a challenge to find a fair and safe path forward, and I support 
the President's intention to appoint a blue ribbon commission to make 
such a recommendation.
  In the meantime, dry cask storage provides a safe, proven option for 
at least 100 years. We have time to get this right, so let us not rush 
into anything out of a false sense of emergency.
  Let me turn to another subject tied to nuclear power production, and 
that is reprocessing. It has been suggested that we should build 
commercial scale facilities in the United States to reprocess our spent 
fuel as France and Japan do. I do not believe that makes sense. Why? 
First, the French system of reprocessing is not a comprehensive waste 
management strategy, and so far the benefits from that approach have 
been fairly marginal. In other words, they have not solved their waste 
challenge with reprocessing. Secondly, we do not need to recycle spent 
nuclear fuel to enable the expansion of nuclear power in the United 
States and elsewhere. Uranium supplies are sufficient to support a 
worldwide expansion of nuclear power during this next century. Third, 
the international proliferation risk associated with reprocessing is a 
concern. The process used in France creates separated plutonium which 
could be diverted for weapons production. I do not want to see 
separated plutonium in any country but especially in those that are 
unfriendly to us. And we are in a weaker position to try and dissuade 
those countries from reprocessing if we are doing it ourselves.
  My conclusion is that a near-term decision to deploy reprocessing 
facilities would be unwise and unnecessary. I do support research into 
advanced proliferation-resistant technologies, though none of those 
will be ready for deployment anytime in the near future. In general, 
our goal should be to keep nuclear power as low-cost and proliferation-
resistant as possible.
  To that end, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill, the Nuclear 
Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009. This bill, which is 
cosponsored by Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, 
authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research into 
modular and small-scale reactors, enhanced proliferation controls, and 
cost-efficient manufacturing.
  We are going to be debating clean energy later this Congress. I know 
several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to see a 
strong nuclear title. I hope we can come to a reasonable compromise 
that advances nuclear power and allows us to finally put a price on 
carbon pollution. That will give the energy sector the certainty it 
needs to begin planning and building our clean energy future and to 
begin creating clean energy jobs.
  Nuclear plants to date provide jobs for thousands of Americans, and 
new plants would provide thousands more. New plants would also generate 
millions in tax revenues for State, local, and Federal governments 
struggling with large deficits from the economic downturn. Nuclear 
power's energy security and environmental benefits have earned this 
industry an important place at the table. It is my hope we can build 
some nuclear plants over the next decade to create jobs and build a 
cleaner, more secure tomorrow.
  I invite all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and me in cosponsoring the Nuclear 
Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009.
  One of my energy fellows, Matt Bowen, is leaving my office to join 
the Department of Energy. I thank Matt for his work in my office, 
including on the bill I am introducing today, and I wish him well at 
the Department of Energy. We have been well served as a country by Matt 
Bowen's patriotism and work ethic.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
  S. 2081. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
accelerate locomotive fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives 
for owners of high polluting locomotives to replace such locomotives 
with newly-built or newly-remanufactured fuel efficient and less 
polluting locomotives; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to describe 
legislation I have introduced that will help businesses, sustain and 
create jobs, spur economic development for a struggling industry and 
benefit the environment.
  The locomotive industry in the U.S. directly employs over 125,000 
people and supports a wide-range of secondary industries which 
contribute to the locomotive manufacturing process through operations 
located around the country. This vital industry has experienced a 
significant decline in business over the past several years, which has 
regrettably resulted in furloughs and layoffs. It is my understanding, 
though, that these circumstances are not due to a lack of demand for 
new locomotives, but rather, yet another symptom of our Nation's weak 
economy and insufficient capital among potential customers.
  Accordingly, I along with my colleague Senator Bob Casey, have 
introduced the Locomotive Fleet Investment and Tax Credit Act of 2009. 
This legislation will provide a tax credit for the acquisition of new 
and newly remanufactured locomotives, including freight, long-haul, 
passenger, and switch locomotives. The tax credit we have proposed is 
substantial but time-limited, so as to have the maximum impact in short 
order. The bill provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the purchase 
cost of a new or newly manufactured locomotive, but stipulates that the 
new locomotives must be placed in service before December 31, 2013, to 
qualify for the credit.
  In addition to the economic impact, the Locomotive Fleet Investment 
and Tax Credit Act will also benefit the environment, as new and newly 
manufactured locomotives are typically more fuel efficient and emit 
fewer harmful pollutants. Moreover, new locomotive models are often 
more reliable and have better safety records. In short, it is in the 
best interest of operators, manufacturers and the general public to 
remove from the rails as many old, outdated rail cars as possible and 
replace them with new locomotives.
  Our economy has suffered through a crisis of historic proportions, 
and though there are early signs of recovery, conditions are still 
grim. On October 2, 2009, the Department of Labor reported that 
national unemployment had risen to 9.8 percent, with the loss of 
260,000 jobs in September and the total loss of 7.2 million jobs since 
the recession began. The rail industry and America's manufacturing base 
has been hard hit by the economic downturn and the Federal Government 
ought to help foster an environment in which these businesses can 
rebound and thrive once again. I am confident that our economy will 
indeed improve, and when it does, it is important that our country 
still has a robust capacity to manufacture locomotives domestically.
  The Locomotive Fleet Investment and Tax Credit Act of 2009 will 
provide a much-needed boost to locomotive manufacturers, sustain and 
create jobs and help establish a safer, environmentally friendlier and 
more reliable rail industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 2095. A bill to amend the National Great Black Americans 
Commemoration Act of 2004 to authorize appropriations through fiscal 
year 2015; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 26289]]


  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the National 
Great Black Americans Commemoration Act. I am proud to sponsor this 
legislation along with Senator Cardin. African Americans have a rich 
history that must be cherished and remembered. This bill will honor 
African American leaders from across the country by helping to preserve 
their names, faces, and stories for generations to come.
  This legislation will provide continued Federal assistance to expand 
exhibits and educational programs at the National Great Blacks in Wax 
Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, MD. Some of the 
memorialized figures are household names, like: Frederick Douglass, Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr., and President Barack Obama. Yet many more are 
unfamiliar, like the 22 African Americans who served in Congress in the 
1800s. It is time we give these pioneers the recognition they deserve.
  Maryland is proud to be home to so many important figures in African 
American history. From the dark days of slavery through the civil 
rights movement, Marylanders have led the way. The brilliant Frederick 
Douglass was the voice of the voiceless in the struggle against 
slavery. The courageous Harriet Tubman delivered 300 slaves to freedom 
on the Underground Railroad. The great Thurgood Marshall, a man who was 
no stranger to the restriction of educational opportunity, successfully 
argued the Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, 
and later became a Supreme Court Justice himself. These three amazing 
individuals were Marylanders.
  It is fitting that the national Great Blacks in Wax Museum and 
Justice Learning Center also calls Baltimore home. The museum and 
learning center is a popular and respected African American history 
museum. Approximately 300,000 people a year from around the country and 
the world visit the museum. Many are school children, who can see 
historical figures come to life in the museum's exhibits. Expansion 
will allow the museum to teach even more visitors about the important 
contributions of African Americans.
  Private donors have contributed too. Now it is time for the Federal 
Government to reaffirm its commitment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Grassley, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. Hagan, and Mrs. Shaheen):
  S. 2129. A bill to authorize the Administrator of General Services to 
convey a parcel of real property in the District of Columbia to provide 
for the establishment of a National Women's History Museum; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the National Women's 
History Museum Act of 2009, a bill that would clear the way to locate a 
long-overdue historical and educational resource in our nation's 
capital city.
  In each of the last three Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier 
versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past 
support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 19 of my 
colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Grassley, Mikulski, Boxer, Feinstein, 
Murray, Snowe, Landrieu Lincoln, Voinovich, Cantwell, Stabenow, 
Murkowski, Pryor, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Hagan, and Sheehan.
  American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in 
government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, 
the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the 
contributions of American women is of long standing.
  A Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history 
concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of 
women's history in the next millennium should include the designation 
of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''
  That report was issued in 1999. A decade later, although Congress has 
commendably made provisions for the National Museum for African 
American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and 
the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no 
institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our 
country's history.
  The proposed legislation calls for no new federal program and no new 
claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services 
Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with 
the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum on a 
tract of land near the Smithsonian Museums located at 12th Street, SW, 
and Independence Avenue, SW.
  The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, non-partisan, 
educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission 
is to research and present the historic contributions that women have 
made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions 
that women have made to the nation in their various roles in family, 
the economy, and society.
  This museum would help ensure that future generations understand what 
we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, 
sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present 
the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, 
founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor, and astronaut Sally Ride.
  That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished 
predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, 
the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major 
political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of 
Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of 
Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and 
enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, 
integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through 
the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that 
would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, 
and urge them to renew that support for this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2149. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on orthotoluidine.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing would 
suspend temporarily, through the end of 2011, the import duty on ortho-
toluidine, a chemical compound used by several U.S. companies in 
manufacturing an important agricultural herbicide used for crops 
including corn, soybeans, peanuts, and cotton. One of the manufacturing 
plants is a facility in Muscatine, IA, that employs 500 workers. Other 
U.S. companies use the compound in manufacturing dyestuffs, pigments, 
optical brighteners, and pharmaceuticals. This legislation is drafted 
and intended for inclusion in the miscellaneous tariff bill being 
assembled by the Committee on Finance.
  Currently, there is only one U.S. manufacturer of orthotoluidine, and 
that company has already announced plans to end production of the 
compound by the end of this year. Manufacturers in the U.S. will soon 
have no choice but to import this ingredient and to pay a duty of 6.5 
percent unless it is suspended. Suspending this duty will help to 
control U.S. production costs, keep jobs at home, and enhance the 
competitiveness of U.S. businesses, workers, farmers, and the 
communities in which they are located.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 2336. A bill to safeguard intelligence collection and enact a fair 
and responsible reauthorization of the 3 expiring provisions of the USA 
PATRIOT Improvements and Reauthorization

[[Page 26290]]

Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I sent to the desk earlier legislation 
that is cosponsored by myself and Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Kit 
Bond. In essence, it reauthorizes certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act 
which expire, if we do not act, on December 31 of this year. It is an 
important matter and I am proud to be working with the distinguished 
chairman of the committee that has oversight over homeland security, 
and Senator Bond, who is the ranking Republican on the Intelligence 
Committee and has worked on these issues for quite a long time.
  I wish to be notified after 10 minutes, if you would, please.
  In recent years, Federal agents have exposed a series of potentially 
devastating terrorist plots across our country. If successful, these 
planned attacks would have caused unthinkable harm and claimed the 
lives of countless Americans. In the years following 9/11, there have 
been constant attempts to strike again on American soil. There could 
have been a dozen 9/11's, perhaps, were it not for the skill and 
courage of those who labor in defense of our country and our 
countrymen, and were it not for the measures passed by this Congress 
that have finally given them the support and the legal and financial 
resources they need to combat the terrorist threat.
  But unless Congress acts, these very measures will soon expire. 
Unless Congress acts, our agents will be stripped of some of the legal 
tools they have used to foil attack after attack on our homeland and to 
avert catastrophe time and again.
  Three of the most critical national security provisions passed by 
this body must be renewed by December 31 of this year. Those provisions 
are found in the USA PATRIOT Act, which has played an essential part 
keeping our families and communities safe for these last 9 years. It at 
last gave the intelligence community the capabilities it needed to 
detect and deter terrorism inside our borders.
  These capabilities have long been used in routine law enforcement, 
but could not be used in national security matters. Why would we not 
pursue terrorists with the same tools we can use to pursue drug dealers 
and mobsters?
  Anyone who has followed the news in recent weeks knows just how vital 
these tools are. Four major terrorist plots have been foiled in the 
last 6 weeks--four in the last 6 weeks.
  Just yesterday, we learned that two Chicago men were charged with 
plotting to attack the facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper 
that printed cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The 
planned attack included weapons and explosives. According to reports, 
one of the men admitted working with a Pakistani group which has been 
designated by our government as a foreign terrorist organization.
  The government recently charged Najibullah Zazi with conspiring to 
use one or more weapons of mass destruction--specifically, explosive 
devices--against persons or property within the United States. The New 
York Times described the government's case against Mr. Zazi as ``a set 
of damning accusations'' that begin ``with explosives training in 
Pakistan followed by purchases of bomb-making materials in Colorado, 
experiments in a hotel room, and a cross-country trip to New York, 
which the authorities feared might have been the target of his 
attack.''
  According to reports, Mr. Zazi was in contact with senior al-Qaida 
operatives, including the leader of al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Attorney 
General Holder has described Zazi's plot as one of the worst since 9/
11.
  In another case, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi stands accused of 
conspiring to set off an explosive attached to a vehicle at the base of 
the 60-story Fountain Place office tower in Dallas, TX. In yet another 
case, Tarek Mehanna was charged with material support of terrorism 
related to a plot to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, assassinate top 
politicians, and gun down shoppers in U.S. malls.
  But these attacks never occurred. They never occurred because we had 
the tools in place to prevent them and because of the untiring agents 
who carry out their noble, often thankless mission day after day. But 
out of an abundance of caution, Congress created a time limit on some 
of these investigative procedures and tools, and in 2006 those 
authorities were renewed because it was clear they were working and 
were needed.
  It is worth noting that even though these authorities had not been 
abused by our hard-working terrorism officials, numerous revisions to 
them were made in 2006. Then, we reauthorized the provisions, while 
also strengthening civil liberties protections. That 2006 legislation 
was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed with 89 
votes, among them our current President, who was a Member of the 
Senate; the Vice President, who was then a Member of the Senate; and 
the Secretary of State, who was then a Member of the Senate.
  The PATRIOT Act is again up for renewal with three critical 
authorities set to expire. While we in the Judiciary Committee have 
been debating whether these expiring PATRIOT Act authorities should be 
approved for another 4 years, our agents are actively working hard to 
protect this country and its people from the constant threat of 
terrorism. Is there anyone in this Chamber who thinks that we should 
make it harder for our national security investigators to catch 
terrorists? Is there anyone here who believes the American people want 
us to make it harder for our investigators to catch terrorists?
  I know Chairman Leahy has worked hard, as we all did, to try to come 
up with a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the Judiciary Committee 
that could attract strong bipartisan support. I commend him for that 
effort. He really worked at that. We worked together at that. However, 
the bill that eventually emerged from the Judiciary Committee does not 
meet the key test for any national security legislation: first, do no 
harm. The bill reported by the committee would make the jobs of our 
national security officials more difficult. The Obama administration 
has raised serious misgivings about the legislation that passed out of 
the committee.
  So, I think we need to make a fresh start. Let's go back and take the 
bill we voted so strongly for before, add the minor things that need to 
be added to it to make it better--to deal with recent court of appeals 
rulings--and then let's move that forward to make sure we get that done 
before the legislation expires on December 31.
  The bill we introduced today represents the best parts of the 
legislation that emerged from the Judiciary Committee, the parts almost 
everyone agreed upon. I will go into some of these details later but 
would just say that I am honored to be able to participate in the 
filing of this legislation with two fine cosponsors, Senators Lieberman 
and Kit Bond.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am very proud to rise today to join with Senator 
Sessions, my friend from Alabama, in introducing this legislation to 
reauthorize provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will expire at the end 
of the year if we do not act. These are critically important 
provisions.
  I was about to say something that may sound odd to say, which is that 
the PATRIOT Act got a bad name, which it did not deserve. It is hard to 
imagine that anything with the name ``patriot'' in it could have gotten 
a bad name. There may have been a lot of reasons for it--
misunderstandings, maybe, frankly, suspicions of the previous 
administration. But on the merits, this legislation was critically 
necessary in the time after September 11. And as Senator Sessions has 
made clear, because of what seems to be an escalating series of threats 
to our homeland security from Islamist extremists using terrorism to 
attack us, these provisions are actually probably more critically 
necessary today than they have been in years past. But they have been 
critically important.
  I say the PATRIOT Act got a bad name because of the three provisions

[[Page 26291]]

that our legislation--Senators Sessions, Bond and I--will continue to 
authorize, including the roving wiretap, business records provisions, 
and the so-called lone wolf provision.
  When Senator Sessions goes into these in some detail in a few 
moments, I think anybody coming to the discussion with an open mind 
will see that these are very commonsense provisions. In fact, they are 
provisions that law enforcers in our country have today with regard to 
traditional crimes. And we are taking them and applying them to these 
kinds of investigations regarding terrorist threats against the United 
States of America.
  The Judiciary Committee labored with very good intentions, brought a 
bill out that was a compromise and did get some bipartisan support, I 
gather, which I was pleased about. But it does, as Senator Sessions 
says, make some changes and it puts some pressure on the enforcement of 
these critical provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will weaken them, 
will undermine their effectiveness. And I think we should go for 
everything we can get here which has worked so well for the past years.
  The fact is, we have seen a series--I want to come to this. I want to 
go back because there was mention--I said the PATRIOT Act got a bad 
name. There was a particular focus and concern in the library community 
and advocates for libraries--we all love libraries, and I myself have 
such memories of the role the public library in my hometown of 
Stamford, CT, played in my education--that somehow the government could 
break into libraries through the PATRIOT Act and check on what books 
people were taking out and compromise peoples' freedom of, I guess, 
intellectual pursuit, freedom of interests, if you will.
  There was a lot of concern, a lot of debate back and forth. Finally, 
after some period of time in which the Attorney General refused to 
answer questions about how often that provision of the PATRIOT Act had 
been utilized, the Attorney General actually came forth--I forgot the 
circumstances--and said it had never been utilized, and it was cleaned 
up, and that is not in effect anymore.
  Now a new administration--President Obama, Attorney General Holder--
changed, different parties, in some sense different perspectives, but 
yet the President and the Attorney General took a sensible and I would 
say unbiased look at the challenge they faced from terrorism in this 
country and then looked at the provisions of the PATRIOT Act and said: 
We need it. It is fair. It is constitutional. It does not deprive 
people of rights. And more to the point, it will be critically useful 
in stopping the extremists and the terrorists from depriving people not 
only of their rights here in America but of their lives.
  The PATRIOT Act provisions in question here have been a critical part 
of, I would say, a remarkable, impressive improvement in the capacity 
of the U.S. Government to stop terrorism, this unconventional enemy we 
face which aims to attack and kill Americans and, indeed, to undermine 
if not to defeat our fundamental way of life, our freedom, our values, 
our diversity, our tolerance.
  We have seen, since 9/11, I am proud to say facilitated or encouraged 
by some legislation we passed, the Department of Homeland Security 
created, the 9/11 Commission Report, reforming the intelligence 
community, the Department of National Intelligence.
  Probably one of the great unsung national assets we have, something 
called the National Counterterrorism Center, exists outside of 
Washington. It is a facility in which all of the relevant agencies of 
the Federal Government are there side by side 24/7, 365 days a year 
sharing information, connecting the dots. What did we all say after 9/
11 and after the Commission Report? We had a lot of information in 
different places in the Federal Government; that if it had been brought 
together in one place, I personally think we would have stopped 9/11, 
the murder of 3,000 people on American soil. We did not have it 
together. But now those places exist--NCTC, the National 
Counterterrorism Center; the tremendous work by our intelligence 
community, by our military community, by our law enforcement community, 
working together cooperatively and cooperating with foreign 
intelligence, law enforcement and military communities.
  The FBI has created and beefed up a counterterrorism division that I 
think has become the best in the world. And it is what makes the 
arrests that have occurred, a series of events, the ones Senator 
Sessions mentioned, the Zazi case--Najibullah Zazi, Afghan from birth, 
came here, permanent legal resident--this is the nightmare case--
becomes radicalized, commits himself to Islamist extremism, goes over 
to Pakistan and connects with the highest levels, allegedly, of al-
Qaida, receives training. One presumes--we do not know--he was directed 
or encouraged to do the things he came back here to do and started to 
work to put together, to acquire, according to the indictment, the 
material to explode several bombs in New York City, which would have 
done devastating damage.
  The slightest bit of evidence--I am not compromising anything, but 
you might say metaphorically, Zazi appeared on one screen, a shred of 
evidence about him, and it alarmed some of our law enforcement people, 
and all of the resources of our government--foreign intelligence, 
American intelligence, CIA, DNI, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, 
local law enforcement--came together with that little piece to build a 
picture that helped us to follow him and find him and stop him before 
he was able to do terrible damage in New York City. Do you know what 
else helped with that? The PATRIOT Act. It has helped in so many of 
these cases we stopped. There has been a ring of them this year.
  Earlier, about a month ago in our Homeland Security Committee, 
Senator Collins and I convened a hearing on the state of homegrown 
terrorism and our efforts to stop it. We had the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the 
head of the FBI. As my last question, I kind of said it wide open to 
each of them: Tell me the one thing Congress could do to help you do 
the extraordinary, critically important, life-and-death work you are 
doing to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. You might 
say I was giving them a blank check. Frankly, I thought they would say: 
We need more money for this program or that program.
  When we came to Bob Mueller, the Director of the FBI, he gave a 
simple answer to the question: What is the one thing Congress could do 
to help you continue to do the extraordinary work you and the rest of 
our American team are doing to stop terrorist attacks. Director Mueller 
said: Reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Without it, without those three 
simple provisions--lone wolf, roving wiretaps, and the business record 
provisions--we will not be able to do the job you want us to do.
  This is so critical to our security that we should settle for nothing 
less than exactly the best. The Department of Justice recently 
submitted a letter urging renewal of the expiring PATRIOT Act 
provisions and emphasized the importance of us not doing anything ``to 
undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.'' Despite 
the clear admonition--you might say plea--from the Obama administration 
and the Department of Justice, those who use these tools to keep us 
safe, I am concerned that proposals to impose some new requirements and 
restrictions on the FBI's ability to use these tested, existing PATRIOT 
Act authorities and national security letters will diminish the ability 
of the law enforcement community to protect us from these terrorist 
attacks.
  As an individual Senator from Connecticut, as a Senator privileged to 
serve as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I am proud to 
join with Senators Sessions and Bond in introducing this clean, total 
reauthorization of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and urge my 
colleagues to support swift passage of this simple, proven, and vitally 
important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our intelligence community should never be

[[Page 26292]]

forced to question whether our priority is protecting America's safety 
or protecting the privacy of terrorists. This bill makes clear to 
intelligence professionals that keeping our Nation safe is their 
highest responsibility and assures they have the tools needed to get 
the job done. That is why I am so pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Lieberman and Sessions, in reauthorizing three FISA 
provisions--lone wolf, wiretap, and section 215--which would otherwise 
expire.
  This legislation we have introduced today, without change, 
reauthorizes these three national vital security tools for 4 more 
years. While I believe each of these tools should be made permanent and 
Congress plays a dangerous game with national security every time we 
impose arbitrary sunsets, it is essential that the community's ability 
to collect lifesaving foreign intelligence should continue unimpeded.
  Our bill also makes conforming changes to the disclosure requirements 
for national security letters in light of the Second Circuit's decision 
last year. These issues are so critical and so urgent to our well-being 
and security as a nation, nothing else will matter, even the current 
health care debate, if we fail in national security.
  I have spoken before on this floor about the need for President Obama 
to make a decision about Afghanistan. I will not repeat those points 
today. But as our military, intelligence, and law enforcement 
professionals defend the United States and its allies in Washington, 
there is an effort afoot to make this fight much harder than it needs 
to be.
  The U.S. PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act were passed overwhelmingly in the aftermath of the 
September 11 terror attacks. For years, terrorism was treated as a law 
enforcement matter.
  Our Nation responded to terrorist attack after terrorist attack, to 
the deaths of our servicemembers and embassy personnel, with 
indictments and arrest warrants. As Congress failed to give our 
intelligence operators the tools they needed to act quickly, our 
terrorist enemies became even more emboldened and determined to strike 
our homeland. September 11 was a wake-up call.
  Our driving mission appropriately, after that, became prevention and 
disruption of terrorist attacks at home against our troops overseas and 
against our allies. That is why the legislation we passed provided the 
necessary tools. In 2005, the PATRIOT Act was reauthorized with minor 
changes, but three FISA provisions remained subject to sunset. Here is 
an opportunity for us to reauthorize these three vital provisions. 
There is little disagreement among people who know that these 
provisions should and must be reauthorized.
  FBI Director Mueller testified before the Judiciary Committee that 
each is important to the FBI's work in national security and criminal 
investigation. But because of the enhanced information sharing rules 
and procedures, other community entities, such as the Counterterrorism 
Center, are often dependent upon information collected under these 
authorities. Their loss would adversely impact their ability to analyze 
and share important national intelligence information. As an example, 
if the FBI obtains a court order under FISA for a roving wiretap 
targeting a terrorist subject in New York, foreign intelligence 
information obtained there may be shared with the CIA, enabling them in 
turn to target associates overseas.
  Events over the past few months underscore the importance of giving 
the FBI and other agencies all the tools and authorities they need to 
stay ahead. From the disrupted terror plots in New York and Colorado to 
those in Illinois, Texas, and North Carolina, we have seen firsthand 
why the FBI must have the flexibility to get the information they need 
as quickly as possible to prevent these attacks.
  The benefit of our intelligence collection authorities, however, does 
not just benefit our own citizens. Just as overseas terror threats may 
impact our safety, threats posed by some within our country do not 
always end here. We learned two men in Chicago were conspiring with 
associates to commit terrorist attacks in Denmark. This case is a good 
example of how FISA authorities can save lives in allied countries. 
There is a belief among some that as long as the intelligence community 
eventually gets the information it needs, time is not of the essence. 
That is not true. Timing was everything, whether it was introducing an 
undercover agent to a target at the right moment or conducting 
surveillance at the right time. No intelligence collector is going to 
say that getting the same information 3 weeks later is good enough.
  I cannot comment on specific tools that were used in foiling all of 
these plots. We know both from public and classified testimony and 
information that the tools provided that we are authorizing today have 
been invaluable to our efforts to stay ahead of the terrorists. As I 
mentioned earlier, the FBI's ability to obtain a roving wiretap under 
FISA will end this year unless Congress acts.
  According to Director Mueller, the FBI has used the authority 140 
times in the past 5 years. The ability to track terrorists even when 
they repeatedly use and dump their cell phones to avoid interception 
is, as Director Mueller testified, ``tremendously important.'' He also 
noted with all the new technology, it is nothing for a target to buy 
four or five cell phones and use them in quick succession. I couldn't 
agree more.
  Our enemies know our laws better than some of us do. They understand 
the hoops and hurdles government must clear to catch up or stay ahead. 
Roving wiretap authority sends a clear message that the time-honored 
trick of frequently changing a cell phone will not work like it used 
to.
  Obtaining a roving wiretap requires, first and foremost, that the FBI 
establish probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign 
power. Some critics of this provision claim it allows the FBI to avoid 
meeting this standard as surveillance moves from phone to phone. That 
is not true. Each wiretap application is approved by a FISA Court 
judge. If a target changes his cell phone and the FBI moves to surveil 
the new phone, the court is notified. All of the protections for U.S. 
person information that apply to any other FISA wiretap also apply to 
roving wiretaps.
  In short, while the authority is a tremendous asset for the FBI, it 
poses no additional civil liberties concerns. It should be renewed.
  On business records, over the past 5 years, a rallying cry against 
these measures has centered on section 215, allowing the FBI to obtain 
business records such as hotel information or travel records upon a 
showing of the requisite burden of proof to a FISA Court judge. We have 
heard time and again the FBI is using this authority to spy on people's 
reading habits at the local library. This is simply highly charged 
rhetoric not supported by facts. While the FBI has used section 215 
more than 250 times in the past 5 years, no library records have been 
obtained. But we do know that terrorists and their associates have used 
library Internet access to communicate with each other and, in the 
appropriate case, the FBI must have the ability to obtain any relevant 
records relating to that usage.
  Congress should not pass any legislation that would allow terrorists 
to use libraries or any other public facility as a safe haven for their 
illegal activities. If we did that, guess where all the terrorists 
would congregate. Do you want them all in your libraries? I don't think 
so.
  The inspector general of the Department of Justice conducted several 
audits of the FBI's use of section 215 and found no abuse of authority. 
These audits also considered the time it takes for the FBI to obtain a 
215 order. The Director has testified that business records sought by 
terrorism investigations by the FBI are ``absolutely essential to 
identifying other persons who may be involved in terrorist 
activities.'' The records obtained under this authority are no 
different from what the FBI could obtain in a criminal investigation 
using grand jury subpoena

[[Page 26293]]

authority. There is rarely any delay in obtaining a grand jury 
subpoena. DOJ should strive to ensure that section 215 court orders are 
obtained in a timely and expedient manner.
  Given the vital information that can be obtained, I have asked the 
DOJ to take steps necessary to minimize future delays. As with roving 
wiretap authority, I believe section 215 has adequate measures already 
built in to ensure that the private interests of U.S. persons are 
protected. I have not heard any reasonable critique of this authority, 
and I believe it should be authorized without changes, without delay.
  The sole expiring provision that has not been used by the FBI is the 
lone wolf definition of an agent of a foreign power, prompting some 
critics to demand its repeal. Under this definition, the FBI can obtain 
a FISA Act search or electronic surveillance against a non-U.S. person 
who is not readily identifiable with a particular foreign power.
  We all should be familiar with the story of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 
9/11 coconspirator who was identified prior to the 9/11 attacks. But 
the FBI could not connect him with a particular terrorist organization 
and, therefore, did not submit a formal request for a FISA search 
order. We know Moussaoui was ultimately convicted in the Eastern 
District of Virginia and is now serving a life sentence for his part in 
the 9/11 conspiracy.
  If FISA had included a lone wolf provision, the FBI could have 
searched his belongings and possibly gained advanced intelligence about 
the 9/11 plot. Once again, Director Mueller has emphasized in his 
recent testimony that the FBI must retain the ability to target an 
individual who cannot be specifically tied to a particular foreign 
power. The Director specifically cited the Moussaoui case as a prime 
example. We should never again take the risk that another Moussaoui 
will be identified by the FBI but escape scrutiny to prevent an attack 
because he could not be tied to a specific terrorist organization.
  I see the ``lone wolf'' provision as a necessary tool that will only 
need to be used in limited circumstances. It is kind of like those ``in 
case of emergency, break glass'' boxes that cover certain fire alarms 
and equipment. We need to keep these tools available for the rare 
situations where they would be needed.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a 
PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill that makes a number of changes to 
section 215 authorities and other national security tools. I believe 
the Judiciary bill is deeply flawed, and I hope my colleagues will 
listen carefully and support our bill instead. There will be ample time 
down the road to lay out in detail all my objections to the Judiciary 
bill, but let me just make a few key points.
  I disagree strongly that there should be a first time ever sunset for 
national security letters. It is irresponsible to risk letting the law 
revert back to pre-9/11 status, where NSLs were largely underutilized 
because the burden of proof and approval levels were too high for an 
investigative tool.
  The so-called abuses that are so often cited were actually related to 
something called exigent letters. Exigent letters are essentially a 
request to third parties, usually phone companies or Internet service 
providers, for immediate access to records, contingent upon a promise 
to provide a grand jury subpoena or a national security letter 
promptly.
  It is important to understand that these exigent letters are not 
national security letters or grand jury subpoenas. While there is 
statutory authority for carriers to voluntarily provide the FBI with 
the contents of the communication if the carrier has a good-faith 
belief that an emergency involving death or serious physical injury 
requires disclosure of the communication without delay, the DOJ IG 
found that these exigent letter requests were issued on a routine, 
rather than an exigent, basis.
  Interestingly, the people relying on the now corrected exigent letter 
problem to justify their proposed restrictions on NSLs are not calling 
for similar restrictions to be placed on grand jury subpoenas. They 
know better than to try that because there would be immediate and 
overwhelming objections from the Department of Justice and nearly every 
U.S. attorney in the country. We cannot go back to pre-9/11 days, when 
national security investigative techniques were significantly more 
difficult to use than ordinary criminal investigative techniques.
  Setting aside the problems with the exigent letters, I have said, 
time and time again, that the errors identified by the DOJ IG were 
almost exclusively administrative. The FBI has acted quickly to correct 
these errors, and we should not respond by hamstringing their 
investigations.
  I also disagree with requiring minimization procedures for both pen 
registers/trap-and-trace devices and NSLs. The FBI has been clear about 
the operational harm that will likely result if minimization procedures 
are required for the type of preliminary data, such as telephone toll 
records, obtained by these tools.
  Aside from the basic problem of how the FBI would even go about 
minimizing this type of information, I do not see why it is necessary. 
We certainly would never impose these types of restrictions on grand 
jury subpoenas or other types of administrative subpoenas.
  Supporters claim we need minimization procedures to protect U.S. 
persons, but they conveniently overlook the fact that the records we 
are talking about here are in the hands of third parties and are not 
entitled to the same type of protections that other information is 
subject to.
  The constitutional protections were discussed in Smith v. Maryland, 
and the Supreme Court held we simply do not have a reasonable 
expectation of privacy with respect to these sorts of third-party 
records.
  Ironically, because the FBI cannot tell from the type of information 
obtained by these tools if someone is a U.S. person, they would 
actually have to do more investigation and be more intrusive before 
figuring out whether the information should be minimized.
  Finally, I have significant concerns about the change the Judiciary 
Committee bill makes to the notification period for sneak-and-peak 
search warrants--down from 30 to 7 days. These warrants, which are 
approved by a court upon a finding of probable cause, are an important 
tool in drug and certain terrorism cases. We know from the FBI--and I 
am sure if we asked the DEA, they would agree--that 7 days is not 
enough time before giving a target notice that a search was carried 
out. In a terrorism investigation, likely involving many overseas 
associates and evidence, it is unreasonable to have to disclose the 
investigation within a week, when other activities connected to that 
may be just beginning to be collected.
  Depending on the type of information recovered from a search, testing 
and analysis may not even be done within 7 days. Are we going to risk 
blowing these investigations because of a random conclusion that 30 
days is too long? I understand the government can ask for more time 
after the 7 days, but we do not have unlimited resources. We should not 
make our law enforcement agencies jump through more hoops when a court 
has already found that a search is proper in the first place.
  I have other concerns about this bill, including the wisdom of a 
separate standard for library records, which I view as an even greater 
invitation for terrorists to use libraries to communicate with each 
other, and new reporting and auditing requirements. I have to wonder 
what additional administrative burdens these requirements will put on 
the FBI at the same time they are trying to focus on preventing and 
disrupting further attacks on our Nation.
  Because of the significant operational concerns raised by the 
Judiciary Committee's bill, I believe that it should not be considered 
by the full Senate until the Intelligence Committee--as a whole--has 
had the opportunity to consider its implications for our national 
security, after hearing from Director Mueller about the impact of this 
entire bill on FBI operations.

[[Page 26294]]

  There are many issues about the Judiciary bill--both classified and 
unclassified--that need to be addressed. The best venue in which to do 
that is the Intelligence Committee. Don't forget that three of the five 
crossover members from the Intelligence Committee voted against the 
Judiciary Committee bill. I would hardly call that a ringing 
endorsement. I believe full consideration by the Intelligence Committee 
would greatly improve the measures we will be acting on, on the floor.
  Unfortunately, my efforts to give the Intelligence Committee the 
opportunity to weigh in on the Judiciary bill have thus far been 
unsuccessful. But at the same time, we cannot risk letting these 
crucial authorities lapse. For that reason, I have decided to cosponsor 
the legislation we are introducing today because, under this bill, I 
can categorically state it will have no provision that will have an 
adverse impact on intelligence community activities or operations.
  It is not insignificant, in my opinion, that the bill we are 
introducing today is cosponsored by the chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and 
by me, as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
  Each of these committees has a role to play in safeguarding our 
domestic security. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Sessions, and I 
all understand the stakes in failing to reauthorize these expiring 
provisions are high. The stakes in adding new and flawed provisions or 
creating unreasonable burdens are just as high. It serves no legitimate 
purpose to give the FBI or any other law enforcement or intelligence 
agency tools that are rendered ineffective because Congress imposes 
arbitrary conditions without fully appreciating their ramifications.
  The sponsorship of this legislation is also noteworthy because it 
sends a clear and loud message that giving our law enforcement 
intelligence professionals the authorities and tools they need to keep 
the country safe is not and should not be a partisan issue.
  In the last Congress, we saw firsthand the negative impact of 
partisanship and pandering to extreme special interests. The FISA 
Amendments Act was supported by a strong bipartisan margin out of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee. Unfortunately, as the bill wound its way 
through the Senate and eventually the House, it became a political 
football. As a result, we came too close for comfort to losing the 
intelligence collection authorities we had worked hard to preserve.
  I am hopeful we can avoid similar partisanship and political 
interests to take over what should be a straightforward legislative 
process. The surest way of doing that is to pass the bill we introduce 
today.
  For years, we have hammered away at the notion that there should be 
walls between criminal and national security investigations. We have 
embraced the idea that the same tools that are used to capture drug 
dealers and child molesters should be available to track terrorists and 
spies. While the idea has been generally accepted, the execution has 
been lacking. Our laws still impose unnecessary divisions between 
administrative and grand jury subpoena authority and national security 
letters. Those divisions are exacerbated by the Judiciary Committee 
bill, which imposes new unheard of requirements on national security 
letters and the FISA pen register/trap-and-trace information.
  Over the past 8 years, Congress has placed heavy demands on the FBI 
to be a full participant in the intelligence community. While the 
transportation has not been without some hiccups, they have come a long 
way since the days leading up to 9/11, when the word ``FISA'' was 
foreign to much of the rank and file FBI.
  Now is not the time to saddle them with additional administrative 
burdens or to impose conditions on the use of certain tools so drastic 
they become useless. There are so many current and clear-cut examples 
of domestic terror threats before us. I have to wonder why anyone 
thinks this would be a good time to experiment with the vital 
authorities used to keep us safe.
  The legislation we are introducing today will ensure our intelligence 
and law enforcement professionals can continue doing what they do best, 
without any additional restrictions. Our Nation has been fortunate not 
to have suffered a sequel to the 9/11 attacks. Some may call it luck, 
but much of the credit goes to the dedicated work of our intelligence 
and law enforcement professionals and the availability of these tools 
that we are reauthorizing in this bill.
  We owe our thanks to the personnel who use them. We also owe them the 
recognition that their jobs are as difficult as they are, and we should 
not be taking any steps that will make their profound responsibility to 
protect this country any more difficult. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  I thank my cosponsor and our lead sponsor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond for his thorough 
analysis of the legislation that came out of the Judiciary Committee, 
and for bringing to bear on these great issues his vast experience as 
vice chair of the Intelligence Committee and his commitment to national 
security and protecting this country.
  He and Senator Lieberman represent the best of this body. They have 
the ability to cut through ``flapdoodle'' and to get to the heart of 
matters, and I appreciate so much their leadership.
  Senator Lieberman, the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, 
has been so involved in all of these matters. From the beginning, he 
tried to identify, as the 9/11 Commission did, the deficiencies in our 
system and tried to work toward a new way of doing business--all 
consistent with our great heritages of liberty and civil rights.
  I do think it is important to recognize that when Senator Lieberman 
asked the Director of the FBI: Is there one thing that we can do to 
help you do your job, the Director's answer was: Reauthorize the 
PATRIOT Act.
  The bill we are introducing today represents the best parts of the 
legislation that emerged from the Judiciary Committee--the parts almost 
everyone agreed upon. Our bill renews the three expiring PATRIOT Act 
authorities: the rolling wiretaps authority, the business records 
provision, and the ``lone wolf'' section of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Our bill also fixes a deficiency in 
the procedure for challenging the nondisclosure requirements of a key 
national security tool, the national security letter.
  Section 206, the roving wiretap provision, is a commonsense tool that 
is absolutely necessary in this day and age. It gives our agents the 
ability to monitor a terrorist's phone call, even when he switches 
phones. Director Mueller told the Judiciary Committee this authority 
was extremely important, considering how easy it is for terrorists to 
switch cell phones.
  Without this authority, a terrorist would be able to switch phones 
and defeat any order an investigator might have to wiretap a certain 
telephone. As agents run back and forth to court to get repeated 
permissions to monitor telephone numbers, the suspect is able to avoid 
surveillance.
  Let me note that, in 1986, Congress approved a roving wiretap statute 
for domestic law enforcement. As Senator Bond and Senator Lieberman 
said, so many of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act had already existed 
in the law for regular federal criminal investigations.
  But it did help to create a system where national security matters 
could be handled expeditiously before the FISA Court, a Federal court 
that is experienced in these types of cases. The FISA Court maintains 
confidentiality without the possibility of leaks, and is readily 
advised on all the relevant case law involving terrorism matters.
  So that is how the system works, and I think it is not at all unusual 
what we are proposing to do here in this bill.
  Section 215--which my colleagues have referred to as the business 
records provision--allows agents and other Federal investigators to ask 
the FISA Court for permission to get certain

[[Page 26295]]

business records. Generally, these records would be in the possession 
of third parties, not the individual himself or herself. Examples would 
include records in the possession of a phone company, hotel records, 
bank records, or car rental information. How important is that in a 
terrorism investigation? It can be absolutely critical because, for 
instance, terrorists often use cell phones and rental cars.
  This is the type of information for which people have a diminished 
expectation of privacy. These are not their records, they are the 
rental car company's records. These are not their telephone toll 
records, they are the phone company's records. Everybody at the phone 
company or the car rental agency has access to these records. These 
records are not secret in the same way as something in your desk, in 
your home, or in your car, which would require the use of a search 
warrant to be obtained by law enforcement. That is why subpoenas have 
been issued for these types of records for years. The Drug Enforcement 
Administration can issue administrative subpoenas right now to obtain 
many of these types of records, including bank records and telephone 
toll records. These can be obtained by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration without any court approval at all.
  So I want my colleagues to know that the allegation that the PATRIOT 
Act represents an unprecedented transfer of power to the national 
security investigators who are trying to protect us from terrorist 
attacks is not correct. The way things work in reality is that private 
banks, telephone companies, and motels would be perfectly willing to 
give records to investigators, and indeed they used to do that in days 
past without any subpoena because these records belong to them. But 
lawyers have gotten into it, and these entities have gotten worried. So 
very frequently today hotel chains and other companies expect a 
subpoena before they can turn over records pertaining to their 
customers. That is what section 215 is designed to deal with.
  When investigating terrorism, time can be critical. Section 215 
allows a court to order a company to turn over records in it 
possession. This key information is usually not in the possession of 
person under investigation, but in a third party's possession. Section 
215 merely allows a court to order a business to do what is legally 
permitted to do anyway: help our officials pursue and catch terrorists. 
This is very similar--almost identical--to grand jury subpoena 
authority, which has been used by Federal prosecutors, State 
prosecutors, State attorneys general, county attorneys, and Federal 
investigators routinely for decades. This is not some sort of collapse 
of American freedoms and liberties.
  The ``lone wolf'' section of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 is a commonsense provision we need to continue 
the fight against terrorists in the 21st century. Even though it has 
not been used yet, it is there to defend against a very real 
possibility, like the Moussaoui matter Senator Bond made reference to. 
It deals with the rogue terrorist who is not linked to a larger 
terrorist group, or at least where there is no proof of that link at a 
given time. In the past, the law required that national security 
agencies show a connection between the terrorist and a terrorist group 
or foreign power in order to monitor him. This could cause a problem if 
a terrorist or a foreign agent left a terror group, perhaps because of 
a dispute. Let's say you have a lawful, court-approved wiretap and the 
individual being monitored says on it: You are not aggressive enough. 
You are too timid. I want to blow up this building in Washington, DC; 
you don't. Count me out. I am no longer a part of your group.
  Well, since this suspect would be disconnected from a terrorist 
organization, under previous law he would not subject to key national 
security surveillance techniques. So, you can have a ``lone wolf'' 
under certain circumstances. In the Moussaoui case, investigators were 
not able to get a search warrant for his computer because it was felt 
that there was not sufficient proof that he was connected to a specific 
terrorist organization. This was even though Moussaoui's own activities 
created so much danger that an FBI lawyer went to great lengths to try 
to get approval to get that search warrant, but ultimately failed to do 
so. Had that search warrant been approved and that computer examined, 
many think 9/11 may not have occurred.
  This ``lone wolf'' provision has had bipartisan support in the past. 
It was originally authored by Senator Schumer, our Democratic colleague 
from New York. It is a commonsense way to deal with this very real 
issue and should be reauthorized without delay.
  Finally, our bill fixes the problem found by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Doe v. Mukasey. That case 
addressed the legal standard courts use to review nondisclosure 
requirements: for example, where a motel would be required not to tell 
a terrorist staying there that it has given records to the FBI. The 
Second Circuit held that the legal standard at issue was too 
deferential to the government. Our bill would fix this problem in the 
same manner, almost word for word, as the legislation that emerged from 
the Judiciary Committee in the past few weeks. In other words, we have 
given more protection to civil liberties, as the court suggested.
  So as the recent slew of terrorism arrests makes so painfully clear, 
the threat of violent Islamic extremism is severe and ongoing. We 
cannot afford to let our guard down for a single moment. The threat is 
too great and too real and the stakes too high.
  Our agents risk their lives every day to investigate terrorist plots 
and prevent another attack against the United States. Congress must 
move with the same urgency to reauthorize these lifesaving provisions 
before they expire. I believe this bipartisan bill is basically the 
same bill as we approved before and provides a commonsense and 
noncontroversial path to a timely reauthorization, and I hope my 
colleagues will support it. We simply need to get busy and get this 
work done.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2336

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``USA PATRIOT Reauthorization 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT 
                   SUNSET PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT 
     Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
     177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 
     1862 note) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting 
     ``2013''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 601(a)(1)(D) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1871(a)(1)(D)) is amended by striking ``section 501;'' and 
     inserting ``section 502 or under section 501 pursuant to 
     section 102(b)(2) the USA PATRIOT Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C. 
     1861 note);''.
       (2) Application under section 404 of the fisa amendments 
     act of 2008.--Section 404(b)(4)(A) of the FISA Amendments Act 
     of 2008 (Public Law 110-261; 122 Stat. 2477) is amended by 
     striking the period at the end and inserting ``, except that 
     paragraph (1)(D) of such section 601(a) shall be applied as 
     if it read as follows:
       `(D) access to records under section 502 or under section 
     501 pursuant to section 102(b)(2) the USA PATRIOT Improvement 
     and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 
     U.S.C. 1861 note);'.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF SUNSET RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS 
                   AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6001(b) of the Intelligence Reform 
     and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 50 
     U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Sunset.--
       ``(1) Repeal.--Subparagraph (C) of section 101(b)(1) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801(b)(1)), as added by subsection (a), is repealed 
     effective December 31, 2013.
       ``(2) Transition provision.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 
     subparagraph (C) of section 101(b)(1) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) 
     shall continue to apply after December 31,

[[Page 26296]]

     2013 with respect to any particular foreign intelligence 
     investigation or with respect to any particular offense or 
     potential offense that began or occurred before December 31, 
     2013.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 601(a)(2) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871(a)(2)) 
     is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting 
     ``pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of section 6001 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-458; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note);''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.

       Section 3511(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Nondisclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Notice.--If a recipient of a request or order for a 
     report, records, or other information under section 2709 of 
     this title, section 626 or 627 of the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u and 1681v), section 1114 of the Right to 
     Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414), or section 
     802 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436), 
     wishes to have a court review a nondisclosure requirement 
     imposed in connection with the request or order, the 
     recipient shall notify the Government.
       ``(B) Application.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt of a notification under subparagraph (A), the 
     Government shall apply for an order prohibiting the 
     disclosure of the existence or contents of the relevant 
     request or order. An application under this subparagraph may 
     be filed in the district court of the United States for any 
     district within which the authorized investigation that is 
     the basis for the request or order is being conducted. The 
     applicable nondisclosure requirement shall remain in effect 
     during the pendency of proceedings relating to the 
     requirement.
       ``(C) Consideration.--A district court of the United States 
     that receives an application under subparagraph (B) should 
     rule expeditiously, and shall, subject to paragraph (3), 
     issue a nondisclosure order that includes conditions 
     appropriate to the circumstances.
       ``(2) Application contents.--An application for a 
     nondisclosure order or extension thereof under this 
     subsection shall include a certification from the Attorney 
     General, Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney 
     General, or the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, or in the case of a request by a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government other 
     than the Department of Justice, the head or deputy head of 
     the department, agency, or instrumentality, containing a 
     statement of specific facts indicating that, absent a 
     prohibition of disclosure under this subsection, there may 
     result--
       ``(A) a danger to the national security of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or 
     counterintelligence investigation;
       ``(C) interference with diplomatic relations; or
       ``(D) danger to the life or physical safety of any person.
       ``(3) Standard.--A district court of the United States 
     shall issue a nondisclosure requirement order or extension 
     thereof under this subsection if the court determines, giving 
     substantial weight to the certification under paragraph (2) 
     that there is reason to believe that disclosure of the 
     information subject to the nondisclosure requirement during 
     the applicable time period will result in--
       ``(A) a danger to the national security of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or 
     counterintelligence investigation;
       ``(C) interference with diplomatic relations; or
       ``(D) danger to the life or physical safety of any 
     person.''.

                          ____________________