Washington, DC
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - December 20, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for extending the courtesy to me.
I rise today to talk about the U.S. PATRIOT Act. There has been a lot of talk on the subject. With all the smoke and mirrors, let's go to the simple facts.
First, every single Democratic Senator wants to extend the present PATRIOT Act for 3 months. Every single Democratic Senator, in fact, has cosponsored or supports--everyone but one, and Senator Feingold supports--the legislation introduced by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, that extends the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. We also have a number of Republican Senators, led by Senator Sununu of New Hampshire, who also want to extend the act for 3 months. In fact, no Member of the Senate wants the PATRIOT Act to expire. That is why 100 Senators supported a measure to reauthorize the act this summer. It spanned the gap from the most conservative Republican to the most liberal Democrat, which shows the consensus on this very important issue is very achievable.
The simple fact is if we extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, it won't end. So the act's fate is in the President's hands. We say to the President: Extend it, don't end it. It is as simple as that. Let me repeat: Extend it, don't end it. That is our position on the PATRIOT Act.
Lately, based on the comments of some of my friends across the aisle, I feel we are characters in the book ``1984.'' It is vintage Orwellian doublespeak to say when 49 Senators from both parties, a near majority, are eager to extend the PATRIOT Act, that they are causing it to expire. In fact, if either the President or the majority leader of the Senate today were to say they are for extending the act for 3 months, my guess is it would get an overwhelming majority of both parties in the Senate.
These Senators have agreed to extend the PATRIOT Act in its current form so we can take 3 months to get it in better form. On the one hand, I want to give a lot of credit to my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Vermont. Their compromise and the bill before the Senate is an improvement over present law. It is a significant improvement over the House bill. It comes a lot closer to the Senate bill than many of my colleagues even on my side of the aisle, at least in my opinion, are giving it credit for.
I have two principal problems related to the conference report. First and foremost, I have real concerns we did not correct the formula in terms of distributing aid, which hurts my State of New York. We have to give law enforcement not just judicial tools and prosecutorial tools but financial tools, as well. Every day when I ride over the Brooklyn Bridge, whether by car or on my bicycle, I see police cars at either end. New York has an undue burden in terms of security. New York and other places that are at greater risk should get a greater share of the funding. The House bill readjusted the formula, much to the relief of New Yorkers, but the Senate bill did not.
If we took 3 months, we could keep the present PATRIOT Act on the books and make a real attempt to adjust the formula on the basis of need.
Second, the revelations from last week about warrantless wiretapping have also given me pause. If this Government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, for sure we better be certain we have safeguards on that Government. I am extremely troubled the administration, which claims to value strict construction of the laws and Constitution, has used the September 11, 2001, congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to justify secret wiretapping of Americans.
I have not read the whole record, but I daresay the word ``wiretapping'' never came up in that debate. Certainly I, who voted for that resolution, never thought it applied to wiretapping. I don't think anyone else did as well. To say when we authorized the President to use force, that allows him to wiretap American citizens without a warrant is stretching it, to say the least.
The balance between security and liberty is a delicate one. I agree with the President. Most Americans put security first. It has to be. But liberty and privacy, in particular, are very important to Americans, as well. It is very high on the list. Therefore, this Senate and the Government should make every effort to have both security and liberty.
We came very close. The Senate bill, as I said, had a 100-to-0 vote, from the most liberal Democrat to the most conservative Republican. The compromise Senator Specter shepherded through was a good attempt. But in these crucial areas we can do better. If we simply extend the PATRIOT Act--not end it, extend it--we can try to make it better.
I tend to be fairly hawkish on these types of things. However, there is one thing for sure: When you are dealing with the delicate balance between liberty and security, there ought to be discussion. There ought to be debate. The President, whether he be a Democrat or a Republican, should not simply appropriate it to himself to change the law with the flick of a pen. That is what our Nation stands for.
In light of these problems and concerns, let me say again, when it comes to the PATRIOT Act, my position and that of every Member of the Democratic Party in the Senate and a good number of our Republican colleagues is extend it, don't end it.
Why are we talking about ending it if we have so many people who want to extend it? The majority leader has opposed extending the present PATRIOT Act. The President has threatened to veto an extension of the PATRIOT Act.
So here we are, on the brink, with 16 important provisions about to sunset. If that happens, make no mistake about it, it will be because the distinguished Republican leader has allowed it to happen. It will be because the President has allowed it to happen. The choice is not the present compromise or no PATRIOT Act. There are three choices: The present compromise, which does not have enough support in the Senate to pass as of now, with bipartisan opposition, letting it lapse, or extending it for 3 months.
If even in the President's and the majority leader's eyes, they cannot get the first, isn't extending it better than ending it? The choice is in their hands. So if it does happen, if the PATRIOT Act is allowed to sunset, despite unanimous support for its extension in one form or another, I would ask the President to explain why we are without the PATRIOT Act, why he would not allow a bipartisan measure to extend it. It is almost surreal.
Can it be that the majority leader of the Senate, the President of the United States, who at every turn has talked about the importance of security, who has talked about the importance of the sunsetting PATRIOT Act provisions, will force its expiration?
Certainly, they have the option of extending it for 3 months so that disagreements, which I say can be resolved, will be. And if they then persist in opposition to the 3-month extension and complain, it will be similar to the child who killed his parents and then complained that he was an orphan.
So let us all be reasonable for a day, as we approach our citizens' most sacred time of year, and do the mature thing, the logical thing, the right thing.
Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, is it the Senator's position that if the unanimous consent request was amended to be a 1-year extension, the Senator would support that unanimous consent request?
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, it is something I would consider. I think 1 month would be--right now we have support--
Mr. GREGG. One year.
Mr. SCHUMER. I understand. Right now we have support for 3 months. It is something that could probably be negotiated. My point is, we should extend it.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, if there is an orphan on the floor today, or in this city today, I would suggest it is the Senator from New York. As I made the point yesterday, if he wished to get to a vote on the PATRIOT Act it could have occurred. But the Senator from New York would not allow cloture to be invoked. And now the Senator from New York and the leadership of the Democratic Party are coming to the floor claiming that because they would not allow the PATRIOT Act to be voted on, they are prejudiced and that they should not be accused of killing the PATRIOT Act.
Well, obviously they killed the PATRIOT Act when they did not allow it to be voted on. That is a situation such as you referred to, where the individual killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court claiming he was an orphan. So if the Senator does not wish to extend the act for a year, then I would say his statements are Pyrrhic.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. GREGG. First, I am going to object, and then I will yield. But I will not yield on my time. I will yield on the time of the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. There is an objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Under the previous order, the Senator's time has expired, and the Senator from Colorado----
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 minute to respond to my colleague from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. As long as the time comes off the bill on the Democratic side.
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield the minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
The point is, we do have large numbers of people who want to extend the PATRIOT Act, not end it, whether it is 3 months or something more than 3 months. That is the point that I think is salient. I would hope my colleague would support 3 months, as his colleague from New Hampshire--he and his colleague from New Hampshire generally see things the same way--has asked for. But the idea stated by the President and the majority leader, that they would not be for any extension--1 year, 3 months or anything in between--is what is stymieing us here.
The bottom line is very simple. The choice is a simple one. Right now we cannot get the PATRIOT Act through the way the Senator from New Hampshire would like it. There are not enough votes by the rules of the Senate. Do you take your marbles and go home and let it expire or do you try to work out an extension, as opposed to saying: I am upset. I am going to end it. We are urging an extension. Right now, the Senator from New Hampshire, who has led the charge on this--not my colleague who is managing this bill, but the Presiding Officer, Senator Sununu--has suggested 3 months. I, for one, am not locked into a specific time. But I am locked in and very eager to see us extend the act, not kill it, simply because the compromise does not have the votes to prevail.
http://thomas.loc.gov/