[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7656-7671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        PATRIOT SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011--Motion to Proceed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1038, 
which the clerk will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 1038) to extend expiring 
     provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
     Act of 2005 and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 until June 1, 2015, and for other 
     purposes.


                                schedule

  Mr. REID. Madam President, following any leader remarks, the Senate 
will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1038, the 
PATRIOT Act extension, postcloture. There will be a joint meeting of 
Congress at 11 a.m. with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Senators 
should gather in the Senate Chamber at 10:30 to proceed over to the 
House at about 10:40. We will proceed there as a body.


  Measures Placed on the Calendar--S. 1050, S.J. Res. 13, S.J. Res. 14

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I understand there are three measures at 
the desk due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the titles of 
the bills for a second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1050) to modify the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 and to require judicial review of 
     National Security Letters and Suspicious Activity Reports to 
     prevent unreasonable searches, and for other purposes.
       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) declaring that a state of 
     war exists between the Government of Libya and the Government 
     and the people of the United States, and making provision to 
     prosecute the same.
       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 14) declaring that the 
     President has exceeded his authority under the War Powers 
     Resolution as it pertains to the ongoing military engagement 
     in Libya.

  Mr. REID. I would object to any further proceedings with respect to 
these bills en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will 
be placed on the calendar.


                   recognition of the minority leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


             prime minister netanyahu's address to congress

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later this morning Israeli Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint meeting of Congress.
  His remarks come at a time of great unrest and instability in the 
Middle East. So we are all eager to hear his perspective on how our two 
countries can work together to further our shared interests. Israel is, 
of course, a great friend and an ally to the United States, and the 
Prime Minister should be reassured that Israel will not be alone during 
this time of uncertainty. He should return home knowing that at a time 
when the Middle East is awash in instability, his relationship with the 
Congress is strong. We always welcome the Prime Minister to Washington. 
We are happy to be able to host him today.


                            lack of a budget

  Sometime before the end of this week, Democrats in the Senate will 
have wrapped up their efforts for the current work period and flown 
home for the Memorial Day recess. So it is not too early to ask what 
they have accomplished over the past several weeks. More specifically, 
what have they done about a looming fiscal crisis in the 6 weeks since 
one of the cochairs of the President's debt commission called it the 
most predictable crisis in history?
  Well, the short answer is not much. Six weeks after the Democratic 
cochairman of the President's own debt commission told us that our 
Nation's deficits and debt are like a cancer that threatens to destroy 
America from within, and nearly a year after the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff declared our debt to be the single biggest threat to 
our national security, Democrats are ready to call it a work period--
after producing no budget, after offering no plan, and with no plan in 
sight.
  Why?
  Well, evidently Democrats have decided that avoiding this crisis 
helps them in the next election. That is why they plan to vote against 
every budget plan that comes to the floor this week, including the 
President's.
  Democrats are apparently operating under the assumption that if they 
are

[[Page 7657]]

on the record opposing everything, it helps them politically. So, in 
other words, we might not leave here this week with a solution to our 
nation's looming debt crisis, but Democrats are pretty confident they 
will leave with some good material for campaign ads.
  Here is how the senior Senator from New York put it yesterday in a 
moment of candor:
  ``To put other budgets out there is not the point,'' he said, ``This 
issue will have staying power and be a defining issue for 2012.''
  They are not even pretending to put principle over politics here. 
According to Senator Schumer, their focus is on an election that is 
still almost 2 years away.
  Well, my suggestion is that Democrats start thinking about putting 
their names on something other than an attack ad. They could start with 
a budget. How about that?
  Right now, America is on pace to spend about $1.6 trillion more than 
it takes in this year. That is three times the biggest deficit we ever 
had before President Obama took office.
  The President's plan is to keep deficits like this in place for years 
to come.
  That is the scenario Admiral Mullen and Erskine Bowles are worried 
about.
  Meanwhile, entitlement spending is growing faster than inflation, 
meaning sooner or later these programs will either consume all the 
money we have or these programs are forced to change.
  Members of the President's own Cabinet admitted this last week when 
they signed a report showing that Medicare is running out of money and 
urging prompt reform of the program.
  So the question is not whether these programs need reform, the 
question is how it is done.
  Do we do it now, together, or do we wait until we are absolutely 
forced to do it? There is no other choice.
  Congressman Ryan has shown a lot of courage by proposing a budget 
that would tackle a big part of the problem. Democrats are showing none 
by ignoring our problems altogether. This is the contrast Americans 
will see in the Senate this week.
  Republicans will vote on several possible approaches to our fiscal 
crisis this week, including the Ryan plan.
  Democrats will vote against every one.
  We will also have a vote on the President's budget, which Democrats 
also plan to oppose.
  They say they prefer the ideas the President outlined in a speech he 
gave last month. Well, unfortunately, we can't vote on a speech. But if 
that is what it takes to get Democrats engaged in this debate, maybe we 
should revisit the rules.
  More than 2 years have passed since Democrats have produced a budget 
of their own. This is a complete and total abdication of their 
responsibilities as a majority party. And there is no excuse for it.
  Every year, Congress appropriates nearly $100 million to support the 
Office of Management and Budget. This money supports a staff of 529 
people. OMB's job is to put together a budget. Why exactly haven't they 
been able to turn the President's speech into a budget we can vote on? 
They have had 6 weeks to do it. What is the problem?
  If Democrats can't get 529 people to put some numbers together based 
on the budget plan the President outlined in his speech, then they have 
problems over there. Either that or Democrats are just looking for 
excuses so they don't have to vote for anything of their own. And they 
had rather put together political ads than a solution to this crisis. 
And this is inexcusable.
  We have an obligation to our country to come up with a plan. 
Democrats are officially abdicating that responsibility this week. But 
Americans will remember. As the crisis approached, Democrats did 
nothing.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, every one of us in the Senate knows America 
continues to face threats of terrorism. Our allies know this, as well. 
The President's dogged pursuit and success earlier this month against 
Osama bin Laden does not mean we can become complacent or less 
vigilant. We must remain vigilant and ensure the men and women of our 
law enforcement and intelligence agencies have all the appropriate 
tools necessary to protect our Nation and the American people. But as 
every Vermonter knows, tools are only useful if they are regularly 
checked and maintained. Otherwise they become blunt instruments that 
can do harm, rather than accomplish the job.
  Congress recognized this basic notion in 2001, when we first wrote 
the USA PATRIOT Act. I worked with the then-Republican House majority 
leader, Dick Armey to include sunsets on certain surveillance 
authorities in the bill. Even though we had vastly different political 
philosophies, we both agreed we had to have sunset provisions. In 2006, 
when Congress reauthorized the USA PATRIOT Act, I worked to ensure that 
certain sunsets were renewed, and added audits on the use of powers 
with the potential to unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of 
Americans. We should not give a blank check to anybody--whether it is a 
Republican or Democratic administration. We are, after all, Americans 
who believe in our individual liberties.
  Having granted the Government broad authority to gather vast amounts 
of information about the daily lives of Americans, I wanted to do what 
we could to ensure that unfettered information gathering did not occur 
at the expense of Americans' basic constitutional rights and civil 
liberties. The sunsets and audits provide Congress an opportunity to 
examine whether the PATRIOT Act tools are being used appropriately, and 
if not, to sharpen, refine, or restrain those tools accordingly.
  The audits we added in 2005 or 2006 proved to be very helpful because 
they identified that there were abuses in the way the PATRIOT Act was 
being used, specifically with respect to national security letters and 
the use of ``exigent letters.'' Without this oversight, we probably 
never would have found out about those abuses. But we found out about 
them and we worked with the FBI to correct those matters.
  That brings us to today. The Senate has the opportunity to reexamine 
and redefine key PATRIOT Act provisions, and I think we should take 
that opportunity to make improvements to our current law. That is why I 
have led the Senate Judiciary Committee to diligently consider these 
matters through a series of hearings and meetings. The committee 
responded by reporting improvements, both last year and again this 
year, through bipartisan legislation. They are good measures, and we 
have worked to ensure that they would not compromise the effectiveness 
of our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities. In fact, much of 
the language was derived after consultation with the administration, 
including the intelligence community.
  The Attorney General and others have repeatedly assured us that the 
measures to enhance oversight and accountability--such as audits and 
public reporting--would not sacrifice ``the operational effectiveness 
and flexibility needed to protect our citizens from terrorism'' or 
undermine ``the collection of vital foreign intelligence and 
counterintelligence information.''
  In fact, the Attorney General has consistently said the bill passed 
out by the Senate Judiciary Committee struck ``a good balance'' by 
extending the PATRIOT Act authorities while adding accountability and 
civil liberties protections. For additional detail and legislative 
history, I refer Senators to the Senate report on the bill reported by 
the Senate Judiciary Committee this year, Senate Report No. 112-13.
  I ask unanimous consent that a December 9, 2010, letter from the 
Attorney General to me making these points

[[Page 7658]]

be printed in the Record, along with a February 19, 2010, letter from 
the Director of National Intelligence to House leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Unfortunately, the bill now before the Senate merely 
extends the expiring authorities to June 1, 2015. Regrettably, these 
authorities have not been refined since 2006. If that remains the case 
through the extensions that are contemplated by this bill, it will 
amount to 9 years of this law without any legislative improvement. I 
think most of us understand that we can do better. The amendment I have 
filed seeks to change that by improving the PATRIOT Act.
  I appreciate the efforts made by the majority leader to craft a 
compromise. I am sorry that the Republican leadership in Congress has 
insisted on an extension of authorities without any improvements. The 
amendment I have filed and wish to offer along with Senators Paul, 
Cardin, Bingaman, Coons, Shaheen, Wyden, Franken, Gillibrand, Harkin, 
Durbin, Merkley, Boxer, and Akaka, makes significant improvements to 
current law, promotes transparency, and expands privacy and civil 
liberties safeguards.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a sectional analysis of the amendment 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. LEAHY. One of the improvements Congress should make is to repair 
a constitutional infirmity in the current law. Three years ago, in Doe 
v. Mukasey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that 
the nondisclosure provision of the statute authorizing issuance of 
national security letters was constitutionally defective. If we do not 
make a change, that constitutionally defective part of the national 
security letter provision would remain. As part of the comprehensive 
set of reforms in the bill reported favorably by the Judiciary 
Committee, I proposed a simple statutory fix that would enable the FBI 
to obtain the information it needs, while addressing the constitutional 
concerns. In fact, this proposal has never been controversial. In fact, 
during the last Congress, Senator Sessions and Senator Bond, the 
ranking Republicans on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence 
Committees, cosponsored a bill incorporating the very legislative 
remedy I proposed.
  This is a straightforward matter that needs to be fixed. The 
underlying bill does not fix the problem; our amendment would. I trust 
Senators would not want to proceed to vote on an unconstitutional law, 
one that violates our fundamental charter as a nation and, of course, 
the liberty of all Americans. No one who claims to honor the 
Constitution should proceed in so cavalier a manner. If we are to 
restore the constitutional underpinning of the NSL authority, the 
Senate should adopt this needed improvement.
  I am also troubled by the refusal of the Republican leadership to 
agree on periodic audits on the use by the government of PATRIOT Act 
surveillance authorities. When I speak of the Republican position, I 
want to mention that this is not uniform within the Republican Party, 
as there are many Republicans who believe we should have these audits. 
Basic transparency and accountability are vital to ensuring that the 
government does not overstep its legal authority. We grant many 
authorities to our government, but we should do so with the confidence 
that if the Government oversteps its authority, Congress has the power 
to bring it back in line. In fact, it is only because of the audits 
that were mandated by the 2006 PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill that 
the American public became aware of some of the abuses and misuses of 
the national security letters, which were significant.
  Without that public accountability and congressional oversight, the 
FBI would not have made improvements to its system of tracking NSL 
issuance. Because of those audits, we are more confident today that FBI 
agents are following proper procedures for obtaining private 
information about Americans--rather than improperly using ``exigent 
letters'' to circumvent the rules, or using Post-it Notes to keep track 
of records. Yet the underlying bill omits audits and public reporting; 
our amendment includes important audit requirements and public 
reporting to provide accountability and protect Americans' rights.
  No one can seriously contend that audits by the inspector general of 
past operations present any operational concerns to law enforcement or 
intelligence gathering. Audits do not interfere; they provide 
accountability and ensure that government follows the rules.
  Mr. President, you and I and 98 other Members of this body have to 
follow the rules. Certainly, those in law enforcement should have to 
follow the rules, as well. These audits have been demonstrated to be 
vital oversight tools, and they should be incorporated into the law. 
The language in our amendment is the product of more than a year and a 
half of extensive negotiations with Republicans and Democrats, the 
intelligence community, the Department of Justice. This year, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee bill won the support of Senator Lee. Last 
Congress, a virtually identical bill received the votes of Senators Kyl 
and Cornyn and was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
to the Senate. The bipartisan amendment we seek to offer is a 
reasonable package of reforms that preserves the ability of the 
government to use the PATRIOT Act surveillance tools, while promoting 
transparency, accountability, and oversight.
  I have often said that the Senate should not shirk its duty to 
reexamine carefully and critically the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. 
We should consider ways to improve the law consistent with our core 
constitutional principles. That is what I have tried to do. That is 
what Vermonters expect. I intend to vigilantly guard Americans' privacy 
and civil liberties, while doing all I can to keep all Americans 
secure. That is what we expect in Vermont, and I must assume that is 
what we expect in the other 49 States. Without a single improvement or 
reform, without even a word that recognizes the importance of 
protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of 
Americans, the underlying bill represents a missed opportunity. Let us 
provide our law enforcement and intelligence professionals with the 
tools they need and give these professionals the security and certainty 
they need to protect our Nation. But let us also at the same time 
faithfully perform our duty to protect the constitutional principles 
and civil liberties upon which this Nation was founded and on which the 
American people depend.
  The vast majority of the 300 million Americans in this great country 
are law-abiding, honest men and women. We should protect against 
arbitrarily lumping them all into the category of potential 
lawbreakers, or enabling the government to search homes or businesses 
without proper reason. We fought a revolution in this country to stop 
that from happening, and it is no different today.
  One of the things that has kept us so strong as a nation is our 
ability to protect the individual rights of all Americans. We can go 
after the lawbreakers, just as we got Osama bin Laden, while at the 
same time protecting the principles of our country. We must not let the 
terrorists win by compromising our own rights and liberties in this 
country. The terrorists who seek to harm us would certainly take away 
from all of us--women and men alike--the constitutional rights we hold 
dear. We must not allow that.
  The American people expect us both to protect our rights and to keep 
us safe, and I believe our amendment does just that. That is why I hope 
all Senators will support the Leahy-Paul amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2010.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: This responds to your letter of March 
     17, 2010, which asked the Department of Justice to consider 
     implementing administratively certain enhanced civil 
     liberties protections that were included

[[Page 7659]]

     in S. 1692, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act, as 
     reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
       In my letter of November 9, 2009, I expressed strong 
     support on behalf of the Department for the bill as reported, 
     which would reauthorize several important Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities while 
     enhancing protections for civil liberties and privacy in the 
     exercise of these essential national security tools.
       The bill would reauthorize section 206 of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act, which provides authority for roving surveillance of 
     targets who take steps that thwart FISA surveillance; section 
     215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority to 
     compel production of business records and other tangible 
     things with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Court (the FISA Court); and section 6001 of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which 
     provides authority to target with FISA searches or 
     surveillance non-United States persons who engage in 
     international terrorist activities but are not necessarily 
     associated with an identified terrorist group. Earlier this 
     year, Congress acted to extend the expiring authorities until 
     February 28, 2011. As that date approaches, I strongly urge 
     that Congress again take action to ensure that these 
     provisions remain in force.
       Assuming these authorities are reauthorized, the Department 
     has determined that many of the privacy and civil liberties 
     provisions of S. 1692 can be implemented without legislation. 
     Indeed, in a number of instances, we have already taken steps 
     to do so. I am confident that these measures will enhance 
     standards, oversight, and accountability, especially with 
     respect to how information about U.S. persons is retained and 
     disseminated, without sacrificing the operational 
     effectiveness and flexibility needed to protect our citizens 
     from terrorism and facilitate the collection of vital foreign 
     intelligence and counterintelligence information.


                       National Security Letters

       Your letter seeks our response regarding several matters 
     related to National Security Letters (NSLs): notification to 
     recipients of NSLs of their opportunity to contest the 
     nondisclosure requirement; issuance of procedures related to 
     the collection, use and storage of information obtained in 
     response to NSLs; retention of a statement of specific facts 
     that the information sought is relevant to an authorized 
     investigation; and increased public reporting on the use of 
     NSLs.
       You will be pleased to know that as of February 2009, all 
     NSLs are required to include a notice that informs recipients 
     of the opportunity to contest the nondisclosure requirement 
     through the government initiated judicial review. In most 
     cases, this notice is automatically generated by the NSL 
     subsystem. Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide 
     (DIOG) 11.9.3.E. The FBI also will ensure that in any case in 
     which a recipient challenges a nondisclosure order, the 
     recipient is notified when compliance with the order is no 
     longer required. Thus far, there have been only four 
     challenges to the non-disclosure requirement, and in two of 
     the challenges, the FBI permitted the recipient to disclose 
     the fact that an NSL was received. If and when the volume of 
     such requests becomes sufficiently large that solutions 
     beyond ``one-off' notifications are required, the FBI will 
     develop appropriate policies and procedures to notify the 
     recipient when non-disclosure is no longer required.
       I also am pleased to report that I approved Procedures for 
     the Collection, Use and Storage of Information Derived from. 
     National Security Letters on October 1, 2010, and these 
     procedures have been provided to the Judiciary and 
     Intelligence Committees. The FBI's current practice is 
     consistent with the procedures and the FBI is working on 
     formal policy to implement them. In addition, DOJ and ODNI 
     will shortly complete work on a joint report to Congress on 
     NSL ``minimization'' as required by the PATRIOT 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005.
       As to the information retained internally in connection 
     with the issuance of NSLs, it is current policy for the FBI 
     to retain a statement of specific facts showing that the 
     information sought through NSLs is relevant to an authorized 
     investigation. DIOG Sec. 11.9.3.C.
       The Department appreciates the desire of the Committee for 
     enhanced public reporting on the use of NSLs. Accordingly, 
     although the FBI cannot provide information regarding 
     subcategories of NSLs in a public setting, it will continue 
     to report publicly the aggregate numbers of NSLs on an annual 
     basis and will evaluate whether any additional information 
     can be publicly reported.


                           Section 215 Orders

       Your letter also raises a number of matters related to 
     section 215 orders. You seek assurances that the government 
     will not rely on the conclusive presumption in section 215 
     and will present the FISA Court with a complete statement of 
     facts sufficient to show relevance of the tangible things 
     requested to an authorized investigation. It is current FBI 
     practice to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Court with a complete statement of facts to support issuance 
     of an order. The FBI is reviewing the DIOG to determine 
     whether changes need to be made to reflect this practice. 
     With respect to section 215 records that contain bookseller 
     records, or are from a library and contain personally 
     identifiable information about a patron of the library, we 
     are prepared to require a statement of specific and 
     articulable facts as would have been required under S. 1692, 
     and to notify Congress should it become necessary to change 
     that practice.
       You ask the Department to issue policy guidance providing 
     that certifications accompanying applications for section 215 
     nondisclosure orders must include an appropriately thorough 
     statement of facts that sets forth the need for 
     nondisclosure. I am pleased to report that this is current 
     FBI practice, and the FBI is reviewing the DIOG to determine 
     whether revisions should be made to reflect this practice.
       You also ask the Department to institute guidelines to 
     require court-approved minimization procedures for section 
     215 orders and pen register and trap and trace (PR/TT) 
     devices. Minimization procedures are already required by 
     statute in relation to section 215 orders. 50 USC 
     1861(b)(2)(B). The proposal to extend this requirement to PR/
     TT orders is intended to apply only to certain intelligence 
     collection activities. Procedures governing these operations 
     are currently in effect, having been proposed by the 
     government and approved by the FISA Court.
       Finally, you ask the Department to consider providing an 
     annual unclassified report on the use of FISA authorities and 
     the impact on privacy of United States persons. I believe 
     that providing greater transparency regarding the U.S. 
     government's exercise of FISA authorities is an important 
     objective, and will show the care taken by officials to 
     implement and comply with constitutional and statutory 
     requirements to protect the privacy of United States persons. 
     Although the Department has concerns that there may be little 
     additional information that can be provided in an 
     unclassified format and that such unclassified information 
     could be unintentionally misleading, we are prepared to work 
     with the committee and our partners in the Intelligence 
     Community to determine whether there is a way to overcome 
     these difficulties and make additional information publicly 
     available regarding the use of these authorities.
       Taken together, I believe these measures will advance the 
     goals of S. 1692 by enhancing the privacy and civil liberties 
     our citizens enjoy without compromising our ability to keep 
     our nation safe and secure.
       I hope this information is helpful. The Department stands 
     ready to work with Congress to ensure that the expiring FISA 
     authorities are reauthorized in a timely way.
           Sincerely,
                                              Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                                February 19, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: Over the past 
     several months, Congress has been considering the 
     reauthorization of three important provisions of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which are scheduled to 
     expire on February 28, 2010: section 206 of the USA PATRIOT 
     Act, which provides authority for roving surveillance of 
     targets who take steps to thwart FISA surveillance; section 
     215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority to 
     compel production of business records and other tangible 
     things with the approval of the FISA court; and section 6001 
     of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 
     which provides authority to target with FISA surveillance 
     non-United States persons who engage in international 
     terrorist activities but are not necessarily associated with 
     an identified terrorist group. National security requires 
     that these provisions reauthorized before they expire.
       As discussed in the Attorney General's November 9, 2009 
     letter, we believe that S. 1692. the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset 
     Extension Act, as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     strikes the right balance by both reauthorizing these 
     essential national security tools and enhancing statutory 
     protections for civil liberties and privacy in the exercise 
     of these and related authorities. We were very pleased that 
     the bill received bipartisan support in the Committee.
       Since the bill was reported, we have negotiated a number of 
     specific changes with the sponsors of the bill which we 
     support including in the final version of this legislation. 
     Among these are several provisions derived from the bills 
     reported by the House Judiciary Committee and introduced by 
     House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman 
     Silvestre Reyes in November.
       We strongly support the prompt consideration of USA PATRIOT 
     Act reauthorization legislation based on S. 1692, together 
     with the changes to which our staffs have informally agreed. 
     However, if Congress is unable to complete work on this 
     measure before these authorities expire, it is imperative 
     that Congress pass a temporary extension of sufficient length 
     to ensure that there is no disruption to the availability of 
     these vital tools in the fight against terrorists.

[[Page 7660]]

       As was previously noted in a September 14 letter from the 
     Department of Justice to Senator Patrick Leahy, the business 
     records authority has been used to support important and 
     highly sensitive intelligence collection operations, of which 
     both Senate and House leadership, as well as Members of the 
     Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and their staffs are 
     aware. We can provide additional information to Members 
     concerning these and related operations in a classified 
     setting.
       Finally, we remain committed to working with Congress to 
     examine additional ways to enhance protection for civil 
     liberties and privacy consistent with effective use of these 
     important authorities.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that 
     there is no objection to this letter from the perspective of 
     the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.
     Dennis C. Blair.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

  Section-By-Section Summary of SA334 to S.1038 the Leahy-Paul-Cardin-
 Bingaman-Coons-Shaheen-Wyden-Franken-Gillibrand-Harkin-Durbin-Merkley-
                    Boxer-Akaka Amendment (HEN11338)

       This amendment adds the following sections at the end of 
     S.1038:
     Section 3. Additional Sunsets.
       This section establishes a new sunset of December 31, 2013, 
     on the use of NSLs. This section also changes the sunset 
     dates for provisions under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 
     (Pub. L. No. 110-261) from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 
     2013. This section also makes conforming amendments to FISA 
     and other applicable laws consistent with the sunsets.
     Section 4. Orders for Access to Certain Business Records and 
         Tangible Things.
       This section modifies the standard for obtaining a court 
     order for tangible things under FISA. Current law requires 
     the Government to submit a statement of facts showing 
     reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought 
     are relevant to an authorized investigation. However, current 
     law states that the tangible things sought are presumptively 
     relevant if the Government shows that they pertain to (a) a 
     foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, (b) the 
     activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the 
     subject of such an authorized investigation, or (c) an 
     individual in contact with, or known to, an agent of a 
     foreign power who is the subject of such authorized 
     investigation. This section removes the presumption of 
     relevance described above. It requires the Government to 
     provide a statement of the facts and circumstances relied 
     upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that 
     the tangible things sought are relevant. This ensures that 
     the Government is presenting a thorough statement of facts to 
     the court and strengthens judicial oversight. The Department 
     of Justice has indicated that it does not rely on this 
     presumption, and that its current practice is to provide the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court with a complete 
     statement of facts to support issuance of an order.
       Section 3(a)(2)(A) alters certain requirements with respect 
     to applications made pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1861. These 
     changes are not intended to affect or restrict any activities 
     approved by the FISA court under existing statutory 
     authorities. Rather, this provision is intended to ensure 
     that in applications made pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1861, the 
     Government must submit a statement of the facts it relies on 
     to support its belief that the items or information sought 
     are relevant to an authorized investigation and that such 
     relevance is not to be presumed based on the presence of 
     certain factors.
       To obtain bookseller records or library records that 
     contain personally identifiable information, the Government 
     must provide a statement of facts showing reasonable grounds 
     to believe the tangible things are relevant to an authorized 
     investigation and pertain to (a) an agent of a foreign power, 
     (b) the activities of a suspected agent, or (c) an individual 
     in contact with or known to a suspected agent of foreign 
     power subject to the investigation. ``Bookseller records'' 
     are defined as meaning any transactional records reflecting 
     the purchase or rental of books, journals, or magazines, 
     whether in digital or print form. The Department of Justice 
     has already agreed to implement this requirement 
     administratively.
       This section also requires court review of minimization 
     procedures. Finally, this section includes transition 
     procedures to ensure that any order in effect at the time of 
     enactment remains in effect until the expiration of the 
     order.
     Section 5. Orders for Pen Registers and Trap and Trace 
         Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes.
       Under current law, in order to obtain a FISA pen/trap, the 
     Government must certify that the information sought is merely 
     foreign intelligence information or is relevant to an 
     investigation to protect against terrorism. The bill modifies 
     the standard for obtaining a pen/trap to require the 
     Government to provide a statement of the facts and 
     circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the 
     applicant's belief that the information likely to be obtained 
     is relevant. This ensures that the Government is presenting a 
     thorough statement of facts to the court and strengthens 
     judicial oversight.
       Section 4(a)(2)(A) alters certain requirements with respect 
     to applications made pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1842. These 
     changes are not intended to affect or restrict any activities 
     approved by the FISA court under existing statutory 
     authorities. Rather, this provision is intended to ensure 
     that in applications made pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1842, the 
     Government must submit a statement of the facts it relies on 
     to support its belief that the items or information sought 
     are relevant to an authorized investigation.
       This section also requires minimization procedures, which 
     are not required under current law, and makes those 
     procedures subject to court review. Section 4(b) governs 
     procedures for minimization of the retention and 
     dissemination of information obtained pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 
     1842 where appropriate in exceptional circumstances. This 
     provision is intended to provide a statutory footing for the 
     existing practice whereby specialized minimization procedures 
     are implemented in certain limited circumstances under FISA 
     court authorization and oversight.
       Finally, this section includes transition procedures to 
     ensure that any order in effect at the time of enactment 
     remains in effect until the expiration of the order.
     Section 6. Limitations on Disclosure of National Security 
         Letters.
       This section authorizes the Government to prohibit 
     disclosure of the receipt of an NSL (there are four different 
     statutes that authorize NSLs) where a high level official 
     certifies that disclosure may result in danger to the 
     national security, interference with an investigation, or 
     danger to the life or safety of a person. The FBI has stated 
     that its current practice is to require such a certification 
     to include an appropriately thorough statement of facts 
     setting forth the need for nondisclosure.
       The recipient of an NSL nondisclosure order may challenge 
     the nondisclosure at any time by notifying the Government of 
     a desire to not comply. Section 7 (below) details the process 
     for doing so.
     Section 7. Judicial Review of FISA Orders and NSL 
         Nondisclosure Orders.
       This section allows the recipient of a section 215 order 
     for tangible things to challenge the order itself and any 
     nondisclosure order associated with it. Current law requires 
     a recipient to wait a year before challenging a nondisclosure 
     order. This section repeals that one-year mandated delay 
     before a recipient of an order for tangible things can 
     challenge such a nondisclosure order in court. It also 
     repeals a provision added to the law in 2006 stating that a 
     conclusive presumption in favor of the Government shall apply 
     where a high level official certifies that disclosure of the 
     order for tangible things would endanger national security or 
     interfere with diplomatic relations.
       This section also corrects the constitutional defects in 
     the issuance of nondisclosure orders on NSLs as found by the 
     Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 
     861 (2d Cir. 2008), and adopts the concepts suggested by that 
     court for a constitutionally sound process. Id. at 883-84. 
     The bill allows the recipient of an NSL with a nondisclosure 
     order to notify the Government at any time that it wishes to 
     challenge the nondisclosure order. The Government then has 30 
     days to seek a court order in Federal district court to 
     compel compliance with the nondisclosure order. The court has 
     authority to set the terms of a nondisclosure order as 
     appropriate to the circumstances, but must afford substantial 
     weight to the Government's argument in favor of 
     nondisclosure.
       According to current Department of Justice policy, all NSLs 
     must include a notice that informs recipients of the 
     opportunity to contest the nondisclosure requirement through 
     the Government-initiated judicial review. This section states 
     that the government's application for an NSL nondisclosure 
     order may be filed either in the district within which the 
     authorized investigation is conducted or in the jurisdiction 
     where the recipient's business is located. This option will 
     ease the burden on the recipient in challenging the 
     nondisclosure order.
       This section requires the Government to notify any entity 
     that challenges a nondisclosure order when the need for 
     nondisclosure is terminated. The Department of Justice agreed 
     to implement this measure administratively in December 2010; 
     therefore, this section will codify current practice.
       The bill also requires FISA court approval of minimization 
     procedures in relation to the issuance of a section 215 order 
     for production of tangible things, similar to the court 
     approval required for other FISA authorities such as 
     wiretaps, physical searches, and pen register and trap and 
     trace devices.
     Section 8. Certification for Access to Telephone Toll and 
         Transactional Records.
       This section codifies current FBI practice in issuing an 
     NSL, and augments oversight and transparency. Current law 
     requires only that an official certify that the information 
     requested in the NSL is relevant to, or sought for, an 
     authorized investigation to

[[Page 7661]]

     protect against international terrorism or clandestine 
     intelligence activities, or for a law enforcement 
     investigation, counterintelligence inquiry, or security 
     determination. This section adds a requirement that the FBI 
     retain a written statement of specific facts showing that 
     there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information 
     sought is relevant to such an authorized investigation. This 
     statement of specific facts will not be included in the NSL 
     itself, but will be available for internal review and Office 
     of Inspector General audits. The Department of Justice has 
     stated that it is current policy for the FBI to retain a 
     statement of specific facts showing the information sought 
     through NSLs is relevant to an authorized investigation.
     Section 9. Public Reporting on National Security Letters.
       This section requires reporting of aggregate numbers based 
     upon the total number of all NSLs issued each year, as 
     opposed to by individual NSL. This section ensures that the 
     FBI can keep an accurate record of the information it must 
     disclose by allowing it to report both on persons who are the 
     subject of an authorized national security investigation, and 
     on individuals who have been in contact with or otherwise 
     directly linked to the subject of an authorized national 
     security investigation.
     Section 10. Public Reporting on the Foreign Intelligence 
         Surveillance Act.
       This section requires that the Government produce an annual 
     unclassified report on how the authorities under FISA are 
     used, including their impact on the privacy of United States 
     persons. This report shall be easily accessible on the 
     Internet.
     Section 11. Audits.
       This section requires the DOJ Office of Inspector General 
     to conduct audits of the use of three surveillance tools: 1) 
     orders for tangible things under section 215 of the 2001 
     Patriot Act, or section 501 of FISA; 2) pen registers and 
     trap and trace devices under section 402 of FISA; and 3) the 
     use of NSLs. The audits will cover the years 2007 through 
     2013. The scope of such audits includes a comprehensive 
     analysis of the effectiveness and use of the investigative 
     authorities provided to the Government, including any 
     improper or illegal use of such authorities. This section 
     also requires the Inspectors General of the Intelligence 
     Community to submit separate reports that also review these 
     three provisions. The audits covering the years 2007-2009 
     must be completed by March 31, 2012. The audits for the years 
     2010-2011 must be completed by March, 31, 2013. The audits 
     for the years 2012-2013 must be completed by March, 31, 2015. 
     These due dates ensure that Congress will have time to fully 
     consider the findings of the audits prior to the June 1, 2015 
     sunsets in the underlying bill.
     Section 12. Delayed Notice Search Warrants.
       Current law requires notification of a delayed notice 
     search warrant within 30 days. This section requires 
     notification of a delayed notice search warrant within seven 
     days, or a longer period if justified.
     Section 13. NSL Procedures.
       Current law does not require minimization procedures be 
     established, but on October 1, 2010, the Attorney General 
     adopted procedures concerning the collection, use, and 
     storage of information obtained in response to NSLs. This 
     section requires that the Attorney General periodically 
     review, and revise as necessary, those procedures, and to 
     give due consideration to the privacy interests of 
     individuals and the need to protect national security. If the 
     Attorney General makes any significant changes to these NSL 
     procedures, the Attorney General is required under this 
     section to notify Congress, and to submit a copy of the 
     changes.
     Section 14. Severability.
       This section includes a severability clause that will 
     ensure that in the event any part of the bill or any 
     amendment to the bill is found to be unconstitutional the 
     remainder of the bill will not be affected.
     Section 15. Offset.
       This section includes a $9,000,000 offset from the 
     Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund for any direct 
     spending that could be incurred by the provisions of the 
     bill.
     Section 16. Electronic Surveillance.
       This section is intended to amend the FISA wiretap statute 
     (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(1)(A)) so as to require law enforcement to 
     identify ``with particularity'' the target of a wiretap 
     request under FISA. The Department of Justice has testified 
     that, in applications to the FISA court for ``roving'' 
     wiretaps, it must provide the court sufficient detail to 
     identify the target with particularity.
     Section 17. Effective Date.
       This section includes an effective date of 120 days from 
     the date of enactment for the statutory revisions made by 
     this legislation to take effect. This period of time will 
     provide the Government an appropriate amount of time to 
     implement the new procedures required by the legislation.

  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the 
PATRIOT Act, and then do I have to have consent to do anything else 
other than that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak about 
two issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee on the PATRIOT Act and to state I am on an amendment Senator 
Leahy has authored which has bipartisan support. I think Senator 
Leahy's amendment puts a couple of checks and balances in this bill 
that I think are essential. But I hope we do not have delays because 
delays would cause trouble for law enforcement people and for the work 
we are doing to make sure we continue making progress against those who 
would harm this country.
  I fully agree with the statements we have the balance of security and 
liberty, and I think the Leahy amendment goes a long way toward that. 
But, again, we need to give law enforcement the tools they need.


                              House Budget

  Mr. President, as we look at what is ahead for us this week, it is 
not only the PATRIOT Act, but we also are going to be looking for votes 
on a couple of different budget proposals, and I want to spend some 
time talking about the Republican budget that passed the House that was 
originally authored by Representative Paul Ryan. It sort of got to be 
known as the Ryan budget, but let's be very clear about this: It is no 
longer the Ryan budget. It is the Republican budget.
  This is why I say this. Out of all the Republicans in the House--and 
there are a lot of them over there; they run the place; well over 100--
every one of them voted for this budget except for, and on our side, 
not one Democrat.
  So let's be clear what a budget is. I served on the Budget Committee 
in the House and in the Senate. A budget is a very important document, 
whether you write it in your own home for your own family or you write 
it in the Senate of the United States. Why? Because in a budget you are 
looking at all your resources and what your priorities are.
  If you have an issue with spending--which a lot of us have in our 
homes, as well as having it right here; we know that; and certainly in 
my State--this is when the rubber meets the road and you have to say: 
What is important to us and what is less important?
  The questions you ask when you write a budget around here are: Are 
our children important? The answer is, yes. Is it important we have 
clean air to breathe? For me, absolutely. Should the water be pure? 
Should we make sure the environment is protected? Yes. Should we have a 
transportation system so we can move people and goods in this century 
and be the economic world leader? Yes. That is an investment. We go 
through the budget piece by piece and we decide what is crucial.
  Of course, we need a strong military. Having said that, some of us 
believe it is time to wind down the two wars we are in in Afghanistan 
and Iraq that is costing us $12 billion a month. We can use those funds 
back home and still keep the kind of counterterrorism forces we must 
keep, I believe, in the region and bring that money home.
  There is a lot of talk, a lot of words are thrown around about how to 
balance a budget. I have to say, I was fortunate enough to be here, 
thanks to the good people of my State, during the Clinton years, and we 
had similar issues. What were the issues? We were running in the red. 
We had a deficit, we had a debt, and we had to make sure the economy 
kept growing in a robust fashion. Do you know what we did? We sat 
around and said: These are the investments that are important to us.

[[Page 7662]]

  Today I would argue it is still education, it is infrastructure, it 
is the environment, it is clean energy. Those are what will move us 
forward. Over here are the issues where we look out and say: How can we 
get some revenue? One of the ways is what the Democrats said the other 
day. We said it is time to end corporate welfare for the biggest oil 
companies in the world that are--listen to this--two, three, and four 
on the Fortune 500 and are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse. Can I 
say that one more time? These big multinational oil companies that are 
charging us an arm and a leg are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse 
or a truckdriver or a firefighter in an effective tax rate. That is the 
truth. But yet and still, the power of those special interests looms 
over this Chamber, and we were not able to end that corporate welfare 
and start to reduce this deficit.
  So there are places to go to reduce the deficit. I say, start by 
eliminating corporate welfare for the people who do not need it. Start 
by asking billionaires and multimillionaires to pay their fair share. 
Then we do not have to hurt the people of this country, the great 
middle class of this country, the children. But every day in every way, 
that is what these battles are about.
  So today I want to talk about the Republican budget and just look at 
it from the standpoint of Medicare and look at it from the standpoint 
of seniors and, more specifically, look at it from the standpoint of 
women on Medicare who make up 56 percent of those on Medicare.
  Thank goodness the people in this country are tuning in to this 
debate. They are tuning in. A lot of what we say here just flies over 
the country and no one pays attention. It is complex, it is wonky, and 
the rest. This is an easy one. The Republican budget kills Medicare as 
we know it. Pretty simple. People are asking themselves across this 
Nation: Do they want to kill Medicare as I know it?
  Senator Mikulski, who has just arrived on the Senate floor, has 
organized the women. In the next 5 minutes I will summarize what I said 
and turn to her.
  The Republican budget is a disaster for seniors and for those on 
Medicare. It is worse than a disaster. Newt Gingrich said, 15 years 
ago: Let Medicare wither on the vine. That means starving it. The 
Republican budget just kills it outright. They lost patience with that 
idea. The Republican House-passed budget brings a devastating cost to 
seniors for Medicare.
  Let me show you the cost. Listen to this: The average income of 
senior women in this country in a year is $14,430. The health care cost 
they will have to pay under the Ryan budget is almost all that money, 
$12,500. So the Ryan Republican budget devastates Medicare and says to 
a senior woman, who makes $14,000 a year, that her health care costs 
are going to cost her $12,000.
  What is she going to do with the other $2,000? Well, that would be 
probably, if she is fortunate, maybe 3 months' rent; in California, 1 
month's rent. Then what does she do? Starve? I will tell you what she 
will do. She will not have health coverage.
  This is America under the Republican vision? Going back to the days 
where our senior citizens had no dignity? I just cannot imagine it. I 
cannot imagine it.
  The woman earns $14,000. She is supposed to spend $12,000 on health 
care. Forget it. She is not going to do it. Who in their right mind 
would ask a woman--a senior woman, who worked and played by the rules, 
who more than likely is a widow, who is living off Social Security--who 
in their right mind would ask her to face double--double--the cost of 
health care she now pays? I will give you the answer. House 
Republicans. That is what they voted for. I am not making it up. This 
is what they voted for.
  Now you have people running away from it, running toward it. They do 
not know which way to go on it. But do you know what. When we vote, I 
hope they run far away from this because this is a disaster.
  Let me show you another chart. This Republican budget ends Medicare 
as we know it, and it takes the benefit away from the senior and gives 
it straight to this guy. Who is this guy? He is very happy. Behind him 
is a chart that says: ``Health Care Profits.'' On the other side it 
talks about the CEO of the company and his income. The House Republican 
budget takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to 
the insurance company. Imagine. Do you know what this guy makes, the 
average CEO of a health insurance company? Mr. President, remember, I 
told you the average senior woman makes $14,000 a year. He makes $12.2 
million a year. Oh, hooray for the Republicans. They are taking a 
benefit away from a woman who has lived by the rules, who has raised a 
family and stood by that family, and in her golden years they take away 
her money and they give it to this fat cat over here. It makes me ill. 
But I better watch out because the next thing you know, they will take 
away my health care, and where will I go?
  Profits in these companies are up 41 percent from the previous year. 
Every once in a while a political party stands for something that shows 
who they are, and I think we are seeing it here. They voted to continue 
corporate welfare for the biggest multinational oil companies that are 
just running to the bank, and their CEOs make more than this guy by a 
few million. Now, this week, we are voting on their budget, which gives 
more to the CEO of an insurance company and steals it away from the 
average senior woman.
  The last chart I am going to show is this one: There is a health care 
benefit in place for senior citizens who are on Medicare. By the way, I 
was very disturbed when we voted for it because in that bill, at the 
insistence of the Republicans, we told Medicare they cannot negotiate 
for reasonable drug prices, and that is the way it went down. It was 
very sad.
  Having said that, we have a benefit for senior citizens now. One of 
the leaders in trying to make sure they get their full benefit has been 
Senator Stabenow, who is joining us now in the Chamber.
  So I will close with this: What we did in our health care reform 
budget is to say that seniors will now be covered for basically all of 
their health care costs. The Republican budget cancels that out, and 
they now say seniors have to pay for all of their prescription drugs. 
Even with their insurance, there will be this period of time: the 
uncovered benefit called the doughnut hole. People call it different 
things. That means immediately--if the Republican budget passed now--my 
seniors in California, who are in that category getting help on their 
prescription drugs, 400,000 of them, would have to pay $9,000 more over 
the next decade--$9,000 more--for their prescription drugs.
  Mr. President, I have given you just a bit of the picture of what the 
Ryan budget does. I have just focused on the Medicare piece. That whole 
budget--the Republican budget, started by Ryan, embraced by the 
Republicans--is a disaster for seniors, for women, for children, and it 
is a hot time in the old town tonight for big CEOs of health insurance 
companies. That is what it is, and we should bring it down.
  I am happy to now yield for Senator Mikulski, who will have the time 
in her own right.
  I say to Senator Mikulski, thank you very much for your leadership on 
this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Boxer very much for her steadfast 
stance for American women.
  Today, the Democratic women have come to the floor to talk about the 
terrible impact the Republican budget coming from the House and getting 
started in the Senate has on women.
  After I speak, I will be followed by Senators Stabenow and Shaheen 
and then Senator Blumenthal. Other colleagues want to join us. Senator 
McCaskill is in Missouri, as she should be, with her constituents. 
Senators Feinstein and Klobuchar are chairing hearings.
  But let me get right to my position. You know, the Republicans--we 
are not going to call this the Ryan budget because whether it is the 
Ryan budget,

[[Page 7663]]

the Toomey budget, whatever, it is the wrong budget for America, and it 
continues the radical Republican attack on women they began in H.R. 1. 
They started to attack us by taking away our health care, our family 
planning. Now they are back at it again.
  The Republican budget takes away our health care, and there are no 
ifs, ands, or buts about it. We are not going to put up with it. No 
matter what they try to take away from us, we are not going to let it 
happen.
  What do I mean by that? Well, let's start with Medicare. Medicare is 
the single most important health care program in America for seniors. 
Women are the majority users of Medicare because we live longer.
  When the Republicans want to talk about taking away or changing 
Medicare as we know it, what is it that they mean? They are going to 
take away a guaranteed benefit and convert it into guaranteed profits 
for insurance companies. They talk about a voucher program. It is a 
payment for care that does not go to a senior but goes to an insurance 
company. People believe Medicare should be that they go to the doctors 
they need, get the prescriptions their doctors say they need, and they 
have follow-up and consistent care. No matter what, when the 
Republicans say this is going to give grandma more choice, more choice 
to do what? Be at the mercy of insurance company executives who ever-
shrink benefits package and ever-expand premiums, all of which--
government subsidizes their profits instead of providing a safety net 
so that if you are old and sick in America, you get the care you need, 
choose the doctor you want, and get the prescription drugs necessary. 
Under the Republican budget, Federal dollars turned over to the 
insurance companies will force people to pay more. In my own home 
State, it will mean $6,000 more in health care.
  But they don't stop just at Medicare; they go on to Medicaid. Now, 
``Medicaid'' sounds like a bad word or they have made it sound like a 
bad word, that it is a budget-buster. But, make no mistake, Medicaid 
primarily pays for nursing home bills, nursing home bills for middle-
class Americans who need it to turn to nursing home care for a loved 
one who may have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease. 
You don't go into a nursing home because it is a lifestyle choice; it 
is usually a lifesaving mandate. In order to do that, there is no 
government program to help you, so you have to spend down your life 
savings to qualify for Medicaid, and then Medicaid will help you pay 
for those bills. But under the Republican budget, they are going to 
pull the rug out from anyone who has a loved one in a nursing home.
  Go out and talk to young families who are part of the sandwich 
generation, those who are caring for their aging parents and know they 
have to make sure they can help pay these long-term care costs while 
they are worrying about how to send their kids to college. Once more, 
they are trying to undermine the safety-net protections for middle-
class Americans.
  One thing the Republican plan does--it is a guaranteed bailout for 
insurance companies. Then they even go a step further. And I know my 
colleagues will talk about what the defunding of health care will do. I 
want to talk about the defunding of NIH, the cuts to NIH.
  The National Institutes of Health will also be cut under the 
Republican assault on women. What are they talking about by shrinking 
NIH? When you shrink the National Institutes of Health, that means 
there will be setbacks and delays to find that cure for Alzheimer's, 
that cure for Lou Gehrig's disease, that cure for Parkinson's disease. 
Right now, there are 5.5 million people living with Alzheimer's. It is 
predicted that by the year 2050, 50 million Americans will have 
Alzheimer's. And 1.5 million have Parkinson's disease.
  These are not numbers and statistics; these are families who need 
help. They certainly need Medicare. They might need long-term care. But 
they also need to know their government is on their side. We can have 
races for cures, and we can have walks for the memory programs with the 
Alzheimer's Association. We can't find cures for diseases on private 
philanthropy, and the drug companies aren't investing the way they 
should in finding these new cures. We can't undermine this, whether you 
are cutting Medicare, which women need; Medicaid, which is the safety 
net for nursing home care; and even the research to find the cure for 
these diseases.
  Now, whom does this affect? It affects people at all ages. It affects 
constituents of mine who have worked very hard building automobiles and 
working in steel mills, working in offices, working hard to be good 
patriotic people. It goes to even a former member of our Supreme Court, 
Sandra Day O'Connor, whose husband was gripped by Alzheimer's, and that 
is one of the reasons she stepped down when she did, because she was 
going to take care of him. Alzheimer's is an equal-opportunity disease. 
It hits all incomes and all ZIP Codes. But they are going to take a hit 
because of the Republican budget.
  We are just going to shine a light on this. This is not about a more 
frugal government. This is not about limited government. This is about 
government abandoning its responsibility to the American people. And 
while we are busy promoting democracy over there, let's make sure we 
continue to provide health care right back here in America.
  I now yield the floor for a real champion to women and seniors, my 
colleague, Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal.) The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you so much to our 
dean of the delegation, our dean of the women Senators, who has not 
only been here the longest but has been the strongest advocate, the 
strongest consistent voice for women, for seniors, and for children 
that we have had in our country. We thank you for that and for bringing 
us together and your leadership in giving us the opportunity to come 
and talk about what are very serious ramifications of the budget passed 
by the House of Representatives.
  Let me first start--I want to talk about Medicare because that has 
the biggest impact, but let me say that as we look at the budgets that 
have been proposed by the House, by House Republicans this year, the 
current budget as well as next year's budget that was passed, we are 
seeing attacks on women and children, from prenatal care forward to 
nursing homes at the end of life.
  With my hat on as chair of the Agriculture Committee, we oversee the 
nutrition programs for the country, and I was absolutely appalled that 
the largest cuts that were proposed as we were negotiating the budget 
for this year in the Department of Agriculture was the WIC Program--
Women, Infants and Children--prenatal nutrition for moms who are 
pregnant and healthy foods for moms and babies as they move forward 
through their first year of life and beyond. It is hard to believe that 
would be the No. 1 cut, the largest cut in the Department of 
Agriculture budget, but that was the original proposal from this year. 
Now we go forward and we look at the budget that was actually passed 
for the coming year by the Republican House, and it is really 
astounding when we look at the priorities.
  The Republican budget essentially ends Medicare. It eliminates 
Medicare as we know it. Folks have said to me: Oh, they really do not 
mean that; they really are not going to do that. Yes. They passed that. 
It is not just a proposal someone had; they actually passed it as an 
intact insurance plan.
  Medicare has been a wonderful success story for our country. Social 
Security and Medicare together have been great American success 
stories, lifting a generation of older Americans, the majority of them 
women, out of poverty and allowing them to be healthy longer in life, a 
generation of people, a generation of women, because the majority of 
women--particularly as we look at people of older age, the majority of 
people on Medicare are women.
  I think about my own mom at 85 going strong and the blessing to watch

[[Page 7664]]

her on Mother's Day be able to play with my two grandchildren--they are 
the most beautiful grandchildren in the world--3-year-old Lily and 1-
year-old Walter, and to have my mother still be healthy because of 
access to health care at age 85, that is a success story. That is a 
gift we have all joined together as a country to give to our families, 
to older Americans, to our parents and grandparents and to future 
generations. That gift would be eliminated, that ability to have 
Medicare, and most of that elimination would be, unfortunately, an 
attack on women.
  Seniors will pay double. The amount they will pay under the plan 
passed by the House is $6,359 more than they currently pay now. Really, 
what does that mean? Well, right now under Medicare, the current system 
in copays and deductibles and so on for the average senior is about 
$6,000, $6,154. Under the Republican plan passed by the House, that 
would double--more than double.
  What does that mean to the average women who is retired? Well, the 
average woman senior has an income of $14,430--$14,430--and under the 
Republican plan her health care costs would be $12,500. I don't know 
about you, Mr. President, but the idea of living on roughly $2,000 for 
the year, for your rent or mortgage or food or clothing or gasoline--
certainly not gasoline, given that the price of gas is impossible. It 
is absolutely impossible. And this is what is coming for the average 
woman who is retired, over age 65, under the plan passed by the House 
of Representatives.
  Now, why would they be doing this? Why would they be doing this? 
Well, unfortunately, it is to continue to allow them to provide tax 
breaks for the wealthiest Americans, those earning over $1 million a 
year, and they add more tax breaks in their budget while they are 
cutting Medicare, and it also protects the special perks for special 
interests such as the oil companies.
  The reality is this: We know there is a huge budget deficit we have 
to tackle. We also understand that people are living longer and there 
is work we need to do around both Medicare and Social Security. We have 
already begun that process in health reform--lengthening the solvency 
of Medicare for a number of years, taking away overpayments for for-
profit insurance companies to save dollars, and focusing on prevention, 
which saves $500 billion over the next 10 years in Medicare, lengthens 
the trust fund, and does not cut benefits to seniors. It does not 
eliminate Medicare. It does not eliminate other insurance plans. It 
strengthens it for the future. That is one way to go.
  But our colleagues in the other House, the Republicans, said: We need 
to balance the budget, so let's start by eliminating Medicare as we 
know it. Let's start there, doubling the cost for the average senior, 
most of whom are women.
  We said: Well, there are a lot of choices about where to start to 
balance the budget. Let's start with the top five oil companies that 
right now are earning the largest corporate profits in history and 
still get taxpayer subsidies, some of which started almost 100 years 
ago when it probably made sense--over 100 years ago--when oil prices 
were $17 a barrel. Now they are over $100 a barrel--the largest 
corporate profits ever. They still get taxpayer subsidies.
  People in my State are scratching their heads as they are paying 
higher prices out of one pocket and, as taxpayers, are subsidizing the 
prices out of the other pocket. Let's start with the billions of 
dollars that are certainly no longer needed by an industry that is 
doing extremely well. Let's take away those taxpayer subsidies as a 
place to start to balance the budget. Let's not start with the tens of 
millions of people who currently get health care through Medicare, most 
of whom are women.
  The Republican plan goes even further because it also attacks and 
dramatically cuts and weakens Medicaid, most of which is for low-income 
seniors in nursing homes, and 77 percent of the people in nursing homes 
or long-term care facilities are women. Again, 77 percent of those in 
nursing homes or long-term care facilities who are using Medicaid to 
help them are women. Again, from prenatal care in the beginning of life 
to what happens to seniors at the end of life, women in nursing homes 
across the board are being attacked on women's health care. That makes 
absolutely no sense.
  Certainly those are not the values I believe in--the values we 
believe in as a country. Certainly those are not the values the people 
in Michigan have. Starting to balance the budget by going back to 
seniors, women, and middle-class families who are already taking hit 
after hit in this economy is not fair. It is certainly not the place I 
am going to vote to start or I know our Democratic majority will start.
  We are going to have an opportunity very soon--in the next day or 
two--to say yes or no about this plan that was passed by the House, the 
plan that eliminates Medicare as we know it and puts an insurance 
company bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Every woman on Medicare 
would be put into a situation where an insurance company bureaucrat 
would, once again, be back between her and her doctor as she tries to 
get the care she needs.
  In my judgment, the Republicans' plan has its priorities upside down. 
Their plan to eliminate Medicare as we know it is good for insurance 
companies, no question about it. Every single woman would have to go 
back to a private insurance company, and then the insurance company 
would get a subsidy at that point. It may be good for insurance 
companies, but it is bad for seniors, for taxpayers, and certainly bad 
for American women.
  I encourage and implore our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to join with us in saying no and supporting Medicare--the great 
American success story that it is--and saying no to the efforts to 
eliminate Medicare as we know it, saying no to the Republican budget, 
which puts insurance company bureaucrats between you and your doctor. 
Let's say yes to other areas where we can reduce the deficit, without 
hurting middle-class families and seniors in this country.
  It is my great pleasure to yield for a champion for women's health 
care and for the State of New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator 
Stabenow, for the great work she has done over a long period of time 
for women and families in her State of Michigan and throughout the 
country. I remember her telling me she got involved in politics in 
order to address a nursing home issue, which disproportionately affects 
women--just as this budget that passed the House disproportionately 
affects women and children. I am pleased to be able to join her on the 
floor, along with my other colleagues.
  I also appreciate Senator Mikulski's leadership in bringing us 
together today.
  There is no doubt that everybody in the Senate--and those who spoke 
today--understands we need to deal with this country's debt and 
deficit. There is no question about that. But the question is, Are we 
going to do that in a way that is fair to everyone? Unfortunately, the 
House Republican plan would disproportionately impact women and, in 
particular, older women.
  Make no mistake about it, the Republican budget that passed the House 
will end Medicare as we know it today. Since women are a majority of 
all Medicare beneficiaries, any radical change to the Medicare system 
will disproportionately affect women, and it will, in the long term, 
hurt so many women in this country. For example, if we take a typical 
senior on Medicare in my home State of New Hampshire, under the House 
Republican plan that senior's out-of-pocket health care costs are going 
to double to $12,000 a year.
  As time goes on, those out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to 
increase. This health care impact on senior women is especially hard 
because, during most women's working years, they earn less than men. 
That is still true today--women earn less than men. Women often work 
part time or leave the workforce while raising families. As a result, 
they have less retirement savings, on average, and lower Social 
Security benefits.

[[Page 7665]]

  So for women who already have earned less, Medicare is a critical 
source of financial security. It keeps many women out of poverty. The 
House-passed Republican budget will end that security for seniors who 
rely on prescription drugs--a real improvement we made when we passed 
the affordable health care plan because we made great progress toward 
closing that doughnut hole and helping seniors with the cost of 
prescription drugs. But what the House Republican plan will do is 
dramatically increase those costs. Again, in New Hampshire, we have 
15,200 seniors who will pay $8.5 million more in just 1 year for their 
medication. Of course, we all know women tend to live longer than men. 
As a result, women represent three-quarters of our most vulnerable 
Medicare beneficiaries--those who are living in nursing homes and 
assisted living or other long-term care facilities.
  When their savings run out--which happens often, given the costs of 
long-term care--seniors must turn to Medicaid to pay their bills. 
However, the House Republican budget would also make radical changes to 
the Medicaid system. So their proposal not only threatens Medicare but 
it threatens long-term care for millions of women who rely on Medicaid.
  The House Republican proposal eliminates the current Medicare system 
and puts private insurance companies in charge of the health benefits 
seniors receive. The Republican plan does nothing to reduce the cost of 
health care. It just shifts that cost of health care onto seniors. What 
is going to happen when we shift the cost to seniors who can no longer 
afford to pay for their health care is that they are going to go to 
emergency rooms, and emergency rooms are not only the most expensive 
care because we would have eliminated the preventive care that is part 
of the new Medicare proposal we passed for health care, but everybody 
who has health insurance winds up paying for those emergency room costs 
that seniors would not be able to afford to pay. So it is a double cost 
shifting--a shifting to seniors for the cost of their health care and a 
shifting of those health care costs to everybody who has insurance.
  The House Republican budget will hurt all seniors, but it will 
especially hurt women because they are the most vulnerable. I hope all 
our colleagues will join us in voting against the House Republican 
budget that is on our desk that we expect to take up this week.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am very pleased and honored to 
join my distinguished colleagues--most recently the occupant of the 
chair--as we pledge to continue to fight to stand for women's health 
care and to fight the devastating cuts that are incorporated in the 
House Republican budget.
  This fight against these cuts is essential not only for the health of 
millions of women across the United States but also for our health care 
system and even for the effort to cut the debt and deficit, which has 
to be one of our most important goals.
  In the end, these cuts are as far from cost-effective as any could 
possibly be. In the end, they will actually raise the cost of health 
care in this country because they will deny millions of women and girls 
preventive health care, which saves money in the long run. Preventive 
health care enables everyone to avoid the most costly consequences--
costly in terms of the pain and suffering and worry and concern that 
comes from failure to diagnose and treat problems earlier rather than 
later.
  Indisputably, preventive and coordinated health care saves money. 
This Republican budget will cost more money. It also will have an 
impact on States, unquestionably. In Connecticut, 114,000 people will 
lose Medicaid if this program is changed into a block grant program, 
and Connecticut will lose $16.1 billion in health care benefits if our 
government in the State of Connecticut will have to shoulder this 
greater financial burden. The same will be true of other States across 
the country that will have to bear more of the costs. Taxpayers at the 
State level will pay those costs.
  Again, that is as far from cost-effective as any program could be. 
The real consequences--the most dramatic and most immediate effect of 
this very misguided and cruel House Republican budget will be on women 
and children predominantly because Medicaid and Medicare serve them 
more than any other part of our population. Medicaid provides, in 
Connecticut, for example, 77 percent of the public funding for family 
planning. Medicaid pays for 35 percent of all the births in the State 
of Connecticut. The burden will fall on them disproportionately, and it 
will have real human consequences for women and children.
  In a very pernicious way, it will also enable and encourage States to 
wage, at their level, the kind of ideological war on women's health we 
have seen, unfortunately and unconscionably, at the Federal level. We 
can already see the beginnings of it. In the State of Indiana, for 
example, they enacted legislation to prohibit Planned Parenthood from 
receiving Medicaid funds to be used for women's health care.
  Think of it--Medicaid money cut completely for family planning, for 
cancer screening, for all kinds of preventive services that constitute 
the bulk of what Planned Parenthood does in Indiana and across the 
country under a law that is not only bad public policy but also 
illegal.
  I thank the administration for recognizing the illegality of this 
law. It has done so in a statement recently issued by the Department of 
Health and Human Services. It has said unequivocally that this Indiana 
law that prohibits Planned Parenthood health centers from receiving 
Federal funds for family planning services under Medicaid and title X 
contravenes Federal law. Now we will ask--and I am circulating a letter 
to my colleagues to this effect--the Federal Government to take action 
that will provide real teeth for this statement and show that similar 
laws now pending in other legislatures, such as Kansas, Oklahoma, and 
elsewhere, will also bring compliance action from the Federal 
Government.
  The fact of the matter is family planning services provided by 
Medicaid are a mandatory benefit under Federal law. Congress created 
this legal program for beneficiaries in 1972, and it was so concerned 
about the availability of family planning services that the Federal 
Government and this Congress required that they cover 90 percent of all 
of the cost of services in this area--an unprecedented incentive and a 
clear signal as to the importance of these services.
  The Indiana law threatens access to vital preventive health care for 
millions of women in that State. Its precedent threatens the same kind 
of family planning and preventive care for millions more women across 
the country. And this body has, in effect, rejected that kind of 
restriction by a vote of 58 to 42 when we had to consider the 
continuing resolution just weeks ago.
  Finally, this ideological war in Indiana is misguided, it is costly 
in dollars and in lives, and it should not be tolerated. Certainly it 
should not be permitted by the kind of approach that is embodied in the 
House Republican budget. I believe the Members of this body will take a 
stand against it and fight the kind of war on women's health care the 
House Republican budget so dramatically reflects.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the devastating 
impact that the House Republican budget would have on seniors, women, 
children, and families nationwide.
  On April 15, 2011, House Republicans passed H. Con. Res. 34, Chairman 
Ryan's budget. Under the guise of entitlement reform and deficit 
reduction, House Republicans would instead ensure that the elderly, the 
poor, pregnant women, and children will be unable to afford health 
care.

[[Page 7666]]

  The House Republican budget essentially ends the important 
entitlement programs Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, all while 
72 percent of the budget cuts go to fund tax cuts for the rich. The 
budget claims $1.5 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already savings that will happen. If 
you discount those savings, the House Republican budget cuts $4.3 
trillion over 10 years, while spending $4.2 trillion on tax cuts for 
the wealthy, resulting in only $100 billion in deficit reduction. To be 
blunt, House Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs 
of the poor, the elderly, and our children while rewarding the wealthy.
  This budget changes Medicaid from a State-Federal matching program 
that can adjust to changes in unemployment, poverty, or aging of the 
population, to a capped amount of Federal funds per State--a block 
grant. The budget also repeals the health reform law.
  Medicaid is the health insurance program for low-income or disabled 
individuals and families, many of whom are parents in working families. 
This is not a population who can easily access health insurance 
elsewhere if their benefits are cut.
  If Medicaid was converted to a block grant and the health reform law 
repealed, California stands to lose an estimated $147.8 billion over 
the next decade--$87.7 billion through Federal investments in Medi-Cal 
and $60.1 billion from the Medicaid expansion in health reform. Under 
the House Republican budget, California would see a 31-percent 
reduction in Federal dollars over the first 10 years, and by 2021 there 
would likely be a 41-percent cut in Medicaid enrollment. Mr. President, 
7.2 million Medicaid beneficiaries in California could see either 
reduced benefits or increased out-of-pocket costs, and at least 2 
million poor Californians could be kicked off the program.
  Low-income pregnant women who depend on Medicaid as a key source of 
health coverage could be dropped from the program. By converting 
Medicaid into a block grant, House Republicans would inevitably force 
States to drop coverage or change eligibility levels, and many more 
babies could be at risk. Without Medicaid, pregnant women who rely on 
the program would likely be uninsured and forgo critical prenatal care. 
This is a serious concern for the health of both the mother and the 
baby. Babies born to mothers who do not receive prenatal care are three 
times as likely to be born at a low birth weight and five times more 
likely to die. A block grant could also result in States dropping 
coverage for children who need it the most, such as those receiving 
special needs care.
  In California alone, Medicaid care for seniors and the disabled, 
including nursing home care, would be slashed by almost $54 billion 
over 10 years.
  This budget hurts women, it hurts children, and it hurts the elderly.
  The House Republican budget also eliminates Medicare as we know it. 
Instead of a guaranteed set of health benefits, seniors would receive 
roughly $8,000 to purchase insurance on the private market. This sounds 
good, but the bottom line is that it won't cover the costs. Our current 
Medicare Program has been more effective than the private insurance 
market at keeping costs down. This means that for an equivalent package 
of benefits in 2022, under this budget, health care costs for an 
average 65-year-old will be 40 percent higher. Because the $8,000 will 
be insufficient to cover the increased cost of care, annual costs the 
seniors pay out of their own pocket for health care will more than 
double in 2022, from an estimated $6,150 to $12,500. Essentially, 
seniors would be getting less money to purchase more expensive care. In 
2010, half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes less than $21,000. 
You can see the problem.
  Furthermore, the House GOP budget would repeal the health reform law. 
Repealing the health reform law would reopen the drug-coverage Medicare 
drug-coverage gap or doughnut hole, that is closed in health reform. 
This gap forced beneficiaries to pay 100 percent of their drug costs 
after they exceeded an initial coverage limit. Over 381,000 California 
seniors are in this coverage gap. House Republicans want these seniors 
to have to pay $214 million more for prescriptions next year and $4.3 
billion more in 2030.
  Furthermore, there would no longer be free annual wellness exams 
under Medicare, meaning over 106,000 Californians could pay over $11.1 
million more for annual wellness visits in 2012.
  Repealing the health reform law also hurts women. Women in Medicare 
would no longer receive free mammograms--an important measure to find 
breast cancer early.
  Because of the new health care reform law, in 2014, insurance 
companies will no longer be able to discriminate based on preexisting 
health conditions and will no longer be able to charge different 
premiums for women and men. House Republicans want insurance companies 
to get back in the driver's seat and be able to charge higher rates 
based on gender and deny coverage to people with preexisting 
conditions. About 80 percent of Americans age 65 and older have at 
least one chronic health condition, meaning it would be more difficult 
for them to find insurance coverage. Under this budget, pregnancy would 
once again be considered a preexisting condition. We all know how 
difficult it is to get coverage. It is a travesty to deny health 
insurance to women for this reason.
  With these and other benefits in the law, women make great strides 
toward equality in the insurance market. But House Republicans want to 
eliminate these strides.
  The House Republican budget also targets a critical nutrition program 
for low-income families. It would cut $127 billion, or 20 percent, to 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in the next 10 
years alone. In my State alone, 3.7 million individuals are expected to 
receive food stamps in 2012. Under the House Republican budget, 
California would lose over $10 billion in food stamp benefits over the 
next 10 years. As a result, families would see their benefits cut. Low-
income families, with average salaries of $28,000 a year, would see 
their benefits cut by $147 a month.
  The continued assault on health care for the poor, the elderly, 
women, and children is astounding to me. We need to look carefully at 
our spending and we need to make cuts, and I believe we need to include 
entitlement programs in the discussion. But changes to these programs 
and any cuts we make have to be carefully crafted to ensure that the 
most vulnerable populations receive the least amount of harm. The House 
Republican budget does not follow this philosophy; instead, it attacks 
the poor and elderly in the guise of deficit reduction.
  I will be voting against this budget when it comes before the full 
Senate for a vote.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to the proposed reauthorization of the expiring provisions 
of the PATRIOT Act incorporated in S. 1038. I have to tell you, I find 
reauthorization especially troubling since we have waited until the 
last minute and are now being told we must rush this bill through the 
Senate of the United States.
  There are a number of PATRIOT Act provisions that are permanent, and 
they remain in place to give our intelligence community important tools 
to fight terrorism. But there are three controversial provisions we are 
debating, commonly known as roving wiretap, lone wolf, and business 
records. I have to tell you, at least from my point of view--and I 
think there are other Senators here who agree with me--they are ripe 
for abuse, and they threaten Americans' constitutional freedoms.
  As I start my remarks at the onset, I want to state that I firmly 
believe, as

[[Page 7667]]

we all do, that terrorism is a serious threat to our great country, the 
United States, and we have to be focused like no other time in our 
history in seeking to protect our people, the American people.
  I sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. On those two committees, much of my attention 
is centered on keeping Americans safe, both here and abroad. I 
recognize that despite bin Laden's death--which we all celebrate 
because justice was delivered--we still live in a world where terrorism 
is a serious threat to our country, our economy, and to American lives.
  Our government does need the appropriate surveillance and 
antiterrorism tools to achieve these important goals--indeed, many of 
the PATRIOT Act's provisions which I support and have made our Nation 
safer since those devastating attacks on that day we will always 
remember, on 9/11, we know that for a fact. But the problem we confront 
today is there are three provisions we are debating that fail to strike 
the right balance between keeping us safe, while protecting the privacy 
rights of Coloradans and all Americans.
  Instead, these three provisions are far too susceptible to abuse by 
the Federal Government, even in the name of keeping us safe from 
terrorism. I do not say this lightly, but my concerns about some of 
these provisions have only grown since I have been briefed on their 
interpretation and their implementation as a member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Let me share some examples. Currently, the intelligence community can 
place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the 
target or the location of such surveillance. That is one concern. 
Second concern. The intelligence community can target individuals who 
have no connection to terrorist organizations. A third concern I have 
is they can collect business records on law-abiding Americans who have 
no connection to terrorism. We ought to be able to at least agree that 
the source of an investigation under the PATRIOT Act should have a 
terrorist-related focus. If we cannot limit investigations to 
terrorism, my concern is, where do they end? Is there no amount of 
information our government can collect that should be off-limits? I 
know Coloradans are demanding that we at least place commonsense limits 
on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist-
related activities.
  If we pass this bill to extend the PATRIOT Act until 2015, it would 
mean that for 4 more years the Federal Government will continue to have 
unrestrained access to private information about Americans who have no 
connection to terrorism, with little to no accountability as to how 
these powers are used.
  Again, I wish to go back because we all agree the intelligence 
community needs effective tools to combat terrorism. But we must 
provide those tools in a way that protects the constitutional freedoms 
of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency democracy 
demands.
  The three controversial provisions I have mentioned can be much 
better balanced to protect our people. Yet it seems to me that many of 
my colleagues, many of our colleagues, oppose any changes. By making 
the PATRIOT Act provisions I have outlined permanent, we would be, in 
effect, preventing debate on them ever again.
  To travel that path would be to threaten constitutional and civil 
liberties we hold dear in this country. That is not the right path. Let 
me be clear. I do not oppose the reauthorization of these three 
provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but I do aim to bring forward some 
commonsense reforms that will allow us to strike an important balance 
between keeping our Nation safe, on the one hand, while also protecting 
privacy and civil liberties.
  Toward that goal, I have worked side by side with my colleagues in 
coming up with commonsense fixes that could receive bipartisan support. 
Senator Wyden from Oregon has filed an amendment, which I have 
cosponsored, that would require the Department of Justice disclose to 
Congress the official legal interpretation of the provisions of the 
PATRIOT Act. While I believe our intelligence practices should be kept 
secret, I do not believe the government's official interpretation of 
these laws should be kept secret.
  I have also filed my own amendments to address some of the problems I 
see with the three expiring provisions. The first amendment I have 
filed is bipartisan with Senator Paul of Kentucky, who is on the floor, 
and Senator Wyden, who has joined as well. Our amendment would modify 
the roving wiretap authority under section 206 of the PATRIOT Act.
  Specifically, our bipartisan amendment would require intelligence 
agencies to identify either the target or the place to be wiretapped. 
They currently do not have to do so. I believe that when seeking to 
collect intelligence, law enforcement should at least have to identify 
who is being targeted.
  I have also filed an amendment to address the so-called ``lone wolf'' 
provision which currently allows the government to conduct wiretap 
surveillance on individuals, even when that person has no connection to 
a government or a terrorist organization.
  This amendment would simply require that should the intelligence 
community use the ``lone wolf'' provision, that Congress simply be 
notified--again, a safeguard that is not in place as we stand here 
today. Without safeguards like that, how do we in this body conduct our 
constitutional duties of oversight?
  Finally, I was joined by Senator Wyden in filing an amendment 
designed to narrow the scope of business record materials that can be 
collected under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This amendment would 
still allow law enforcement to use the PATRIOT Act to obtain such 
records but would require these entities to demonstrate that the 
records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine 
intelligence activities.
  Right now, law enforcement can currently obtain any kind of records. 
In fact, the PATRIOT Act's only limitation states that such information 
has to be related to any tangible thing. That is right. As long as 
these business records are related to any tangible thing, the U.S. 
Government can require businesses to turn over information on all their 
customers, whether or not there is any link to terrorism.
  Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. It seems to me the Senator has laid out the case for why 
there needs to be a thoughtful debate about the PATRIOT Act and what is 
necessary to strike the key balance between fighting terrorism 
ferociously and protecting our liberties.
  I am interested in what my colleague thinks about the proposition of 
how you have a thoughtful debate on these issues, when there is secret 
law where, in effect, the interpretation of the law, as it stands 
today, is kept secret. So here we are, Senators on the floor, and we 
have colleagues of both political parties wanting to participate. 
Certainly, if you are an American, you are in Oregon or Colorado, you 
are listening in, you want to be part of this discussion. But yet the 
executive branch keeps secret how they are interpreting the law.
  What is the Senator's sense about how we have a thoughtful debate if 
that continues?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Oregon has put his finger on 
why it is so important to have a debate on the floor and not rush these 
provisions to the House because of a deadline that I think we can push 
back. We can, as you know, extend the PATRIOT Act in its present form a 
number of other days or a number of weeks in order to get this right.
  But the Senator from Oregon makes the powerful point that the law 
should not be classified--as far as its interpretation goes. Of course, 
we can protect sources and methods and operations, as we well should. 
Both of us serve on the Intelligence Committee. We are privy to some 
information that should be classified. But we have come to the floor to 
make this case because of what we have learned on the Intelligence 
Committee.

[[Page 7668]]


  Mr. WYDEN. Well said.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Senator for his question. I look 
forward to his comments in a few minutes. The Senator from Oregon, in 
effect, points out that these are just a few of the reform ideas we 
could debate. But without further debate on any of these issues, this 
or any other administration can abuse the PATRIOT Act and could 
actually deny us, as Members of Congress, whether in this Congress or 
future Congresses, the opportunity to fulfill our oversight 
responsibilities on behalf of the American people.
  I voted against the original passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and 
I plan to vote against the reauthorization of the expiring provisions 
this week, unless we implement some reforms that will sensibly restrain 
these overly broad provisions. Simply put--again, to make the point 
that the Senator from Oregon made so importantly--I believe Congress is 
granting powers to the executive branch that lead to abuse and, 
frankly, shield the executive branch from accountability.
  It has been 10 years since we first passed this law, and there has 
been very little opportunity to improve the law. I resist this rush to 
again rubberstamp policies that threaten the very liberty we hold dear. 
I recently supported a short-term extensions of the expiring provisions 
before us as a bridge to take time and debate and amend the PATRIOT Act 
and its controversial provisions.
  But we were notified--unfortunately, a few days ago--that we would be 
voting on a 4-year extension of these expiring provisions. That is not 
the way to assure Americans that we are diligently considering these 
important public decisions.
  In Federalist 51, James Madison, whom we venerate, who was the author 
of many of the documents that structure the way in which we organize 
and operate our democracy, wrote: ``In framing a government which is to 
be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you 
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the 
next place oblige it to control itself.''
  The bill before us does not live up to that standard. I believe it 
seriously risks the constitutional freedoms of our people. We need to 
strike a better balance between giving our national security and law 
enforcement officials the tools necessary to keep us safe, while not 
damaging the very Constitution we have sworn to support and defend.
  By passing an unamended reauthorization, we are assuring that 
Americans will live with the status quo for 4 more long years. I 
believe this bill may well be a lost opportunity to improve the balance 
between our security and our civil liberties. That is not the result 
that our Founding Fathers envisioned, and it is not a result that our 
constituents want.
  For these reasons, if the PATRIOT Act provisions are not amended, I 
plan to vote no on the motion to invoke cloture and on passage of S. 
1038. Before I yield the floor, I wish to make one last historical 
reference.
  Ben Franklin, one of our Founding Fathers, said, compellingly and 
presciently: ``A society that would sacrifice essential liberties for 
short-term security deserves neither.''
  I think that is the question before us. There is a way forward. There 
is a way to keep the PATRIOT Act in place to protect our national 
security but also to protect our essential liberties. But in order to 
do that, we have to have a chance to debate and pass these important 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the Chamber, I 
wished to tell him what a welcome addition he has been to the 
Intelligence Committee. I have served on that committee for 10 years. 
We have had excellent chairs--first, Senator Roberts, then Senator 
Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein.
  So we continue to try to look for bipartisan support for trying to 
strike that balance between collective security and individual liberty. 
I am struck both by the clarity of your statement and the fact that 
those who are going to vote on these amendments and the American people 
who are listening in tonight ought to be able to get, in a 
straightforward, easy-to-access fashion, how the executive branch is 
currently interpreting the PATRIOT Act.
  The fact is, law professors give assignments to their students to 
write analyses of the PATRIOT Act. The Congressional Research Service 
actually has an analysis out. But it is not possible to get the 
official interpretation of how the U.S. Government frames this law as 
far as the operations are so essential for our country. The Senator has 
laid it out very well. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. President, let me sum up with what this issue has come down to, 
to me.
  These are dangerous times. If you go into the Intelligence Committee 
several times a week, as Senator Udall and I do, you come away with the 
indisputable judgment that there are threats to the well-being of this 
country, that there are people who do not wish our citizens well. In 
these dangerous times, the sources and methods of our antiterror 
operations absolutely must be kept secret. That is fundamental to the 
work of the intelligence community--keeping the sources and methods of 
those who serve us so gallantly secret and ensuring that they are as 
safe as possible.
  But while we protect those sources and methods, the laws that 
authorize them should not be kept secret from the American people. That 
is what this is all about--whether the laws that authorize the 
operations that are so essential, which have been passed by the 
Congress--that their interpretation should be kept secret from the 
American people. I call it ``secret law.'' I want to say to this body, 
yes, we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our 
democracy. It will undermine the confidence the American people have in 
our intelligence operations.
  You might recall that it was only a few years ago, during the Bush 
administration, that they secretly reinterpreted the warrantless 
wiretapping statutes to say that it was possible to wiretap our people 
without a warrant. When it came out, it took years to sort that out, 
with the executive branch and the Congress working together. I don't 
want to see that happen again. So that is why I have joined Senator 
Udall in these amendments, and we hope we can get bipartisan support 
for what we are trying to do and especially ensure that the official 
interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, an important intelligent statute, is 
made public to the American people, and I think it can be done in a way 
without jeopardizing our sources and methods.
  One of the reasons Senator Udall, I, and others feel so strongly 
about this is--and Senator Udall touched on this--that this is a time 
when Congress should finally say we are not just going to keep kicking 
the can down the road. That is what has been done again and again over 
the last decade. The PATRIOT Act was passed a decade ago, during a 
period of understandable fear, having suffered in our Nation the 
greatest terrorist attack in our history. So the PATRIOT Act was born 
out of those great fears.
  It seems to me that now is the time to revisit that and ensure that a 
better job is done of striking the balance between fighting terror and 
protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, every time over the last 
decade there has been an effort to do just that--revisit this and 
strike a better balance--we have had the same pattern; we have said we 
just have to get it done quickly and we really don't have any time to 
consider, for example, the thoughtful ideas Senator Udall has 
mentioned. I just don't think it is time now to once again put off a 
real debate on the PATRIOT Act for yet another always-distant day.
  There is an irony about what this is all about, and that is that 
Senators are going to want to consider the amendments of Senator 
Udall--and I believe Senator Paul is here, and others who care strongly 
about this. It is awfully hard to have a thoughtful debate on these 
specific amendments, whether it is the Leahy amendment, the Paul

[[Page 7669]]

amendment, the Udall amendment, or the ones we have together, if, in 
fact, you cannot figure out how the executive branch is interpreting 
the law.
  An open and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act requires that we get 
beyond the fact that the executive branch relies on the secret legal 
interpretations to support their work, and Members of the Senate try to 
figure out what those interpretations are.
  Here are the rules. If a U.S. Senator wants to go to the Intelligence 
Committee--and I think Senator Udall touched on this--the Senator can 
go there and get a briefing. Many Members of Congress, however, don't 
have staff members who are cleared for those kinds of briefings. Under 
Senate rules, it is not possible for Senators to come down here and 
discuss what they may have picked up in one of those classified 
briefings.
  I just don't think, with respect to the legal interpretation, that is 
what the American people believe we ought to be doing. The American 
people want secret operations protected. They understand what sources 
and methods are all about and that we have to have secrecy, for 
example, for those in the intelligence community to get the information 
we need about sleeper cells and terrorist groups and threats we learn 
about in the Intelligence Committee. But that is very different from 
keeping these legal interpretations secret.
  In my view, the current situation is simply unacceptable. The 
American people recognize that their government can better protect 
national security if it sometimes is allowed to operate in secrecy. 
They certainly don't expect the executive branch to publish every 
detail about how intelligence is collected. Certainly, Americans never 
expected George Washington to tell them about his plans for observing 
troop movement at Yorktown. But Americans have always expected their 
government to operate within the boundaries of publicly understood law. 
As voters, they certainly have a right to know how the law is being 
interpreted so that the American people can ratify or reject decisions 
made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know their 
government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don't 
believe the government ought to be writing secret law.
  The reason we have felt so strongly about this issue of secret law is 
that it violates the trust Americans place in their government and it 
undermines public confidence in government agencies and institutions, 
making it harder to operate effectively. I was on the Intelligence 
Committee, before Senator Udall joined us, when Americans were pretty 
much stunned to learn the Bush administration had been secretly 
claiming for years that warrantless wiretapping was legal. My own view 
was that disclosure significantly undermined the public trust in the 
Department of Justice and our national intelligence agencies. Our 
phones were ringing off the hook for days when the American people 
learned about it. The Congress and executive branch had to retrench and 
figure out how to sort it out.
  I certainly believe the public will be surprised again when they 
learn about some of the interpretations of the PATRIOT Act. Government 
officials cannot hope to indefinitely prevent the American people from 
learning the truth. This is going to come out, colleagues. It is going 
to come out at some point, just as it came out during the Bush 
administration about warrantless wiretapping. It is going to come out. 
It is not going to be helpful to the kind of dialog we want to have 
with the American people, an open and honest dialog, to just continue 
this practice of secret law.
  The reason I am offering or seeking to offer this amendment with 
Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and other colleagues with respect to 
changing the practice of secret law is that we have raised this issue 
numerous times--on the Senate floor, in correspondence, in meetings 
with senior administration officials--and I have been joined in the 
past by other Senators, and we talked about it with respect to the 
problem in the news media. But the problem persists and the gap between 
the public's understanding of the PATRIOT Act and the government's 
secret interpretation of it remains today. Once information has been 
labeled ``secret,'' there is a strong bureaucratic tendency--it almost 
gets in the bureaucratic chromosomes to keep it secret and not revisit 
the original decision.
  So what Senator Udall and I and colleagues seek to do is correct this 
problem. We seek to offer an amendment that states that it is entirely 
appropriate for particular intelligence collection techniques to be 
kept secret but that the laws that authorize these techniques should 
not be kept secret and should instead be transparent to the public. We 
seek to offer an amendment that states that U.S. Government officials 
should not secretly reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner 
that is inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws or 
describe the execution of these laws in a way that misinforms or 
misleads the public.
  So under this proposal, the Attorney General and Director of National 
Intelligence would--and we note this--provide a classified report to 
the congressional intelligence committees. It makes it clear that 
intelligence collection continues to go forward, and our amendment 
would simply require the Attorney General to publicly lay out the legal 
basis for the intelligence activities described in the report. The 
amendment specifically directs the Attorney General not to describe 
specific collection, programs, or activities, but simply to fully 
describe the legal interpretations and analyses necessary to understand 
the government's official interpretation of the law.
  Let me close--I see colleagues waiting to speak--and say that we can 
have honest and legitimate disagreements about exactly how broad 
intelligence collection authorities ought to be, and members of the 
public do not expect to know all of the details about how those 
authorities are used, but I hope each Senator would agree that the law 
itself should not be kept secret and that the government should always 
be open and honest with the American people about what the law means. 
All that Senator Udall and I seek to do, along with other colleagues, 
is to restore some of that openness and honesty in an area where it is 
now needed. I hope colleagues on the floor of the Senate and in the 
Obama administration will join in that effort.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I want to briefly comment on yesterday's 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S.1038, the extension of the 
amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  Unfortunately, yesterday I was attending the funeral of a very close 
family friend who passed away on Friday. However, I wish to express my 
support for the motion to proceed and the extensions themselves. I 
believe these extensions, section 6001 (a) of the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act, and sections 206 and 215 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, continue to provide the right balance between safety and 
individual rights.
  I understand those with concerns about the breadth and scope of this 
law and believe it is important to continue to ask these questions and 
examine the limits and extent of these amendments as well as other 
aspects of the law.
  In the wake of bin Laden's recent killing, the importance and 
significance of our intelligence resources are without question. Our 
intelligence community must have the necessary tools at its disposal to 
protect us from the threat of terrorism. This legislation helps clarify 
what is legal and proper, and I believe strikes a balance between 
prioritizing our safety without trampling individual rights.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate conducted a 
procedural vote on whether it would begin deliberation on S. 1038, the 
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011.
  Due to inclement weather, my flight from Cleveland returned to 
Cleveland, and I was unable to make this vote. However, if I had been 
in attendance, I would have voted ``yea.''
  I have long expressed concerns about the PATRIOT Act, specifically 
about its scope and effectiveness. For too long, Americans have been 
asked to cede their constitutional rights in the

[[Page 7670]]

name of national security. There is no question that our law 
enforcement authorities need the tools to fight terrorism and keep 
Americans safe, but security is not a zero sum game. Indeed, it is 
certainly possible to extend the PATRIOT Act while building in some 
additional checks and balances. But this extension does not include 
them.
  Despite my misgivings about this extension, I believe that it is 
important that the Senate directly address this legislation that is 
important to both our Nation's security and well as our civil 
liberties.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, on May 23, 2011, due to my daughter's 
college graduation, I was absent for vote No. 75, a motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1038, the USA PATRIOT Sunset 
Extension Act of 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, on May 23 the Senate voted 
on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA 
PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, S. 193. I was necessarily 
absent for this vote. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted 
``aye.'' The act will extend sections 206 and 215 of the Patriot Act 
and section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act, IRTPA, for 4 more years before they expire on May 27. The PATRIOT 
Act, with these provisions, has provided vital tools and resources to 
our counterterrorism professionals that have enabled them to disrupt 
dozens of active terrorist plots. By empowering our counterterrorism 
professionals to do their jobs, we can continue to disrupt and prevent 
terrorist attacks in the homeland and abroad. I voted for the 90-day 
extension of these three provisions in February and I look forward to 
voting on final passage of the long-term extension this week.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Israel and Palestine

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, on Thursday, in a speech on the Middle 
East, President Obama said:

       We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be 
     based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that 
     secure and recognized borders are established for both 
     states.

  While the President has since sought to revise or clarify his 
remarks, it is valuable to remind ourselves what a retreat to the pre-
1967 boundaries would mean for the security of Israel.
  After Israel declared independence in 1948, it was invaded by five 
neighboring armies, and an armistice line was subsequently established 
in 1949. This line is known as the Green Line. While some refer to it 
as a border, it was never officially recognized as an international 
border.
  If Israel were forced to retreat to the Green Line--its pre-1967 
boundary--Israel would be only 9 miles wide at its narrowest point. 
Such close borders are untenable today and would subject Israel's 
population to great and grave danger.
  Following the Six Day War, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 
affirmed Israel's right to secure and recognized borders. As Robert 
Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy points out, 
calls for Israel to withdraw to those ``secure and recognized'' borders 
have never been interpreted as being synonymous with the pre-1967 
boundaries. A quick look at a map of Israel will explain why these 
boundaries cannot be secure.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu today, in a joint meeting of Congress, 
reminded us that ``Israel needs unique security arrangements because of 
its unique size.'' Two-thirds of Israel's population and infrastructure 
lies within a 60-mile strip along the Mediterranean coastline. Tel Aviv 
would only be 11 miles away from a Palestinian state with its border as 
the Green Line, and Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's largest and busiest, 
would be a mere 4 miles away. It would only take one rocket fired at 
Ben Gurion for the entire airport to shut down, isolating Israel from 
the rest of the world.
  With the Green Line as its border, the dangers to Israel come not 
only because of the short distances between major Israeli cities and a 
Palestinian state, but also from the geography of the land. The 60-mile 
strip along Israel's coastline lies below the hilly heights of the West 
Bank. With control of the high terrain, terrorists could easily target 
and terrorize much of Israel's population just as they have from Gaza 
but with even more deadly accuracy.
  When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Israel's leaders 
had hoped the Palestinians would demonstrate they could live peacefully 
with Israel. Instead, Hamas assumed power and Israelis living in the 
southern part of Israel have had thousands of rockets and mortar 
attacks directed at them. So far this year, more than 300 rockets and 
mortars have been fired from Gaza, terrorizing countless families in 
Israel.
  The threats to Israel from a Palestinian state with its border as the 
Green Line are clearly understood in this context--especially since 
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party inked an 
accord with Hamas to form a unity government earlier this month. 
Although welcomed by President Abbas, Hamas still calls for the 
destruction of the State of Israel. The United States designated Hamas 
a terrorist organization in 1997. It has killed more than 500 innocent 
civilians, including dozens of Americans.
  The United States does not negotiate with terrorists, and we should 
not expect or ask Israel to do so either. Instead of calling for 
negotiations based on boundaries that leave Israel vulnerable to 
attack, the President should have insisted the Palestinians prove they 
are ready to be responsible and peaceful neighbors. As Prime Minister 
Netanyahu said:

       The Palestinian Authority must choose either peace with 
     Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace 
     with both.

  Israel's security must come first. Any efforts to force Israel to 
withdraw to its pre-1967 boundaries--the 1949 armistice line--would 
undermine Israel's security and threaten the future of any peace talk.
  In 2004, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. Res. 393, which endorsed 
U.S. policy for a Middle East peace process. In particular, the Senate 
supported a statement that said:

       In light of realities on the ground, including already 
     existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic 
     to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will 
     be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

  I believe it is important for the United States to again oppose any 
plan to force Israel to withdraw to those 1949 boundaries. Borders 
between Israel and a Palestinian state should be decided only by Israel 
and Palestinian leaders through direct negotiations. Borders should not 
be a precondition set for negotiations by the President of the United 
States or anyone else. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said today: ``Peace 
cannot be imposed.''
  Since recognizing Israel 11 minutes after its founding in 1948, our 
two countries have worked side by side to advance democracy and peace 
and stability. Israel is our staunchest ally in a volatile part of the 
world. We cannot now turn our backs on Israel by forcing it to take a 
position in negotiations that would endanger its very existence.
  I oppose any plan or effort to force Israel back to those 1949 
armistice lines and encourage my colleagues to work to see that is not 
the case. I ask my colleagues to support that position as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 7671]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been working for several days--I 
have been working on it for a lot longer than several days--but for 
several days publicly on a process to move forward with the PATRIOT 
Act. We have worked over the last several days to work something out 
that is an excellent compromise. Is this bill something everybody in 
the Senate likes or everybody in the House likes? The answer is no. But 
we all know how important it is that we continue this legislation. So 
Senator McConnell and I and Speaker Boehner have agreed on a way to 
move forward.
  The alternative is to have a long long-term extension that the House 
would send us and I don't think that would be to anyone's benefit, so 
we are moving forward. I have tried to do it with the bill that we 
invoked cloture on yesterday. I have had many conversations with 
Senator Paul and others, but principally him, and tried to come up with 
a process to allow Senator Paul to offer amendments--and others to 
offer amendments; it is not just him. I have been unsuccessful.
  I understand Senator Paul's exasperation because this is something 
that is extremely important to him and there was every desire, from my 
perspective and I think that of this body, to have a full and complete 
debate on the PATRIOT Act. But the Senate does not always work that 
way.
  There have been a lot of things that have gotten in the way and the 
time is suddenly upon us. We have to complete this legislation by 
midnight on Thursday. We cannot let the PATRIOT Act expire. I have a 
responsibility to try to get this bill done as soon as possible, in 
spite of the fact that some of my Senators and some Republican Senators 
would rather I did it some other way at some other time. But I can't do 
that. I have to get this done.
  We know, since bin Laden was killed, that there has been a lot of 
information discovered from him about what he did. One thing that is 
very clear is that he had instructed all of his lieutenants to focus 
all of their attention on the United States and its assets. So we 
cannot let this expire and I am going to do everything I can to make 
sure this does not happen.
  Senator Paul and I have tried to work out something. He feels 
strongly about at least three of his amendments. I say, even though he 
and I disagree on a number of things politically, I have found in his 
time here in the Senate, as it relates to me, he is a very pleasant man 
with strong feelings. I have only the highest regard for him and I am 
sorry I cannot make this system we have in the Senate more in keeping 
with his desires to get things done. But as he will learn over the 
years, it is always difficult to get what you want in the Senate. It 
doesn't mean you won't get it, but sometimes you have to wait and get 
it done at some subsequent time.
  Senator Paul has been very upfront with me. He has never hidden a 
punch. He said: I feel strongly about a number of these amendments and 
I am not going to agree to let this go forward unless I have these 
amendments, and he has been very reasonable. He has brought his number 
down from 11 to 3 or 4 and I appreciate that. But the time has come for 
me to take some action.
  Again, I repeat, I do not have the luxury of waiting for a better 
time. However, I would like to be able to allow the Senator from 
Kentucky to give a few of his stem-winding speeches. He does a very 
good job presenting himself. But in order to expedite what I think is 
so important to continue the country's intelligence operations, I am 
going to move to table the pending motion to proceed to S. 1038. 
Following that vote, I am going to ask the Senate to proceed to a 
message received from the House earlier today. I will then move to 
concur with the amendment which will be the extension of the PATRIOT 
Act and I will file cloture on that motion.
  Mr. President, I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. PAUL (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mrs. Landrieu), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Leahy), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--13

     Begich
     Bingaman
     Cantwell
     Heller
     Lee
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blunt
     Carper
     Feinstein
     Hagan
     Hutchison
     Johnson (SD)
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Roberts
     Schumer
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________