USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorizaton ACt of 2005--Conference Report--Continued
USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued -- (Senate - December 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I want to thank both my colleagues from Pennsylvania and from Vermont for their fine efforts on this legislation. I went to bed last night unsure of how to vote on this legislation. I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague from Pennsylvania. This is a significant improvement over present law. It is a significant improvement over the House bill and comes a lot closer to the Senate bill than many are giving it credit for. On the other hand, even before last night, I had real doubts that we did not correct the formula in terms of distributing aid which definitely hurts my State of New York. But as I said, I went to bed undecided.
Today's revelation that the Government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote. If this Government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years, without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that Government. The balance between security and liberty is a delicate one, and there is great room for disagreement as to where that ought to come down.
I do not question the motives of anybody. I tend to be fairly hawkish on these types of things, as my colleagues know. But there is one thing for sure: there ought to be discussion, there ought to be debate. Whenever there is discussion and debate, we usually come out right, and that is true on the wiretap law. When J. Edgar Hoover and other leaders of the FBI had unchecked power, there were abuses. We put in an independent arbiter, a judge. We put in a
standard, probable cause, and neither the prosecutor community nor the defense community has complained.
So then why, with the flick of a wrist, did this administration ignore those laws and listen in on conversations of hundreds of people when it would have been so easy to obey the law? Today's revelation makes it crystal clear that we have to be very careful, and Senator Leahy's suggestion that we renew the present law for 3 months and come to an agreement like we did in the Senate that all can live with is eminently sensible.
One final point. My good friend from Arizona and I respect the sincerity on this issue. We have written parts of this law together, particularly the lone wolf provision. But he says that we will have no law if we do not vote for cloture.
I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, with 30 given on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thirty minutes, I will take that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is out of order. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the chair for his generosity.
If cloture is not invoked and the opportunity to renew this law for 3 months or 6 months comes before us, and the President vetoes it, it will be crystal clear that he is putting politics above safety because the bottom line is, the present law is, if anything, tougher than the law that is on the books.
Let us not invoke the threat that the President will not extend the PATRIOT Act. It would be a dereliction of his duty as Commander in Chief and chief law enforcement officer of this land.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/