USA Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006

USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to comment on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and to voice my support for the PATRIOT Act.

I also want to take a few moments to compliment my colleagues, Senator SUNUNU and Senator CRAIG, for their very hard work over the course of these last few weeks making these amendments possible.

I also want to recognize Senators HAGEL, DURBIN, SALAZAR, and FEINGOLD for the bipartisan approach which we were able to take in addressing this issue.

I know the changes that were agreed to do not address all of the concerns of the Senator from Wisconsin before we went on recess, nor do they address all of my concerns. But I want to make sure that the Senator is aware of how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue.

There are a number of Members within this body who did not share our opposition to the conference report when it was first reported out, and there are many, on the hand, who would have liked to have seen the conference report expand the powers granted to the executive branch under the PATRIOT Act. That is certainly their prerogative and their right to advocate that position. It is not a position I agree with, unless we have adequate safeguards that can be put in place to provide a reasonable level of judicial oversight.

I want to be clear on a couple of points regarding my earlier opposition to the conference report.

First, it is not my desire to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its entirety nor to allow the authorization provided in the 16 provisions we are considering to expire.

If that was my intent, if that is what I had hoped to do, it would have been a pretty simple task to object to any language coming out of the conference--to have objected to the language that unanimously passed the Senate in July. But that wasn't the case. Those of us who voiced objection to the earlier draft of the conference report just didn't say: No, we don't like it. We didn't say that. We didn't say that we opposed it entirely. We said we offered up the specific examples of changes to the conference report that we needed to see in order to support it. It was truly our desire to improve the conference report--not to kill it.

I commend the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator SPECTER, who was on the floor earlier, for his efforts to represent the views which we had expressed in conference. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania clearly hasn't had much time to take a breather lately, but he was a tough negotiator. He was able to squeeze some additional changes out of the conferees, most notably the shorter sunshine timeframe for section 216, roving wiretaps, and the lone-wolf provision.

Unfortunately, the House and the administration refused to consider our other concerns.

There have been some who have asked me: You got the sunset provisions. Wasn't that the primary issue? Why the continued opposition?

For some, the sunset provisions were the primary issue. But that was not necessarily the case for our group, and that was not necessarily my primary concern.

When we introduced the SAFE Act last April--that is the legislation which was sponsored by Senators CRAIG and DURBIN and cosponsored by many of us--the SAFE Act did not contain any sunsets.

We were prepared to make permanent each of the 16 provisions in question today.

What we were seeking, instead, was language that would create a level of judicial review and public disclosure that would head off any potential abuse and unnecessary infringement on individual freedoms.

Now, it has been said by some that those seeking changes to the PATRIOT Act have not been able to point to any case of abuse to support their cause. And that may be the case. But do we have to wait for that abuse to happen? I would prefer we put safeguards in place now, not afterwards, safeguards that continue to allow our law enforcement and intelligence officers to obtain the information they need for the security of our Nation.

Now, in particular, I was, and I remain, concerned about the presumed relevance standard under a section 215 order. With the increased power under the PATRIOT Act to obtain ``any tangible item'' from any entity, it would also seem appropriate that the government have a greater responsibility to demonstrate its rationale for seeking those terms. While the conference report improves upon the current statute py requiring in most cases some connection or contact with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, I am concerned the presumed relevance language significantly diminishes the judicial oversight the Senate-passed bill provided.

While I remain concerned about this standard, I am pleased that what has been agreed to is the explicit judicial review of a section 215 gag order--a right that previously was not clearly available to recipients. Now, this does not address all of my section 215 concerns. I do have more. But it does remain an improvement over the conference report and over current law.

I was also pleased that language was agreed to that permits a national security letter to be served on a library only if that library is acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. I have noticed some have been critical of the language that is included in this amendments act, saying: Well, you still have the ability to go after the libraries. But, again, I will stress, it permits a national security letter to be served on a library only if that library is acting as a wire or electronic communications service provider. So the fact they may happen to offer their library patrons the use of the Internet does not make them a wire or electronic communications service provider. This language that is incorporated in the amendments act was part of legislation I had introduced in 2003 in an effort to modify the PATRIOT Act. I believe it is an important protection for our Nation's libraries.

I know this is not the last debate we will have on the PATRIOT Act, nor is it likely the last piece of legislation we will consider on the subject. Some of the provisions we see--the continued sunset provisions for section 215, the roving wiretaps, and the lone wolf provision--assure us of that. But earlier, about a half an hour ago, on the floor, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee came to the floor and spoke of legislation he will be introducing tomorrow.

As I was listening to the chairman--and I obviously have not looked at the legislation as of yet, but I understand from his comments it is essentially his purpose with this legislation to go back to the language we had in that legislation that passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and passed unanimously out of this body--provisions he has detailed as they relate to search warrants, the strengthening of section 215, a 4-year sunset on NSLs, and NSL judicial review. So I will anxiously await the opportunity to review that legislation Chairman SPECTER has indicated just this afternoon will be available to us.

I am encouraged, once again, we will be able to look at those areas where I and others have been very concerned that we have not provided adequately for that balance between providing our law enforcement the tools they need while, at the same time, maintaining the individual liberties we as Americans expect and certainly deserve. So, as I indicated, I look forward to reviewing that legislation.

But the legislation we are considering today--the conference report--I believe has made improvements on the original product of the PATRIOT Act, and so with passage of the additional protections, it is my intention to vote for cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/