Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 2:15 p.m. for up to 15 minutes to make some final remarks on this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate took further steps to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without the fundamental checks and balances that so many of us believe are needed. To bring us back to first principles, I read aloud the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And to remind us of the broad, bipartisan support for amending the PATRIOT Act all over this country, I read the eight statewide resolutions that have passed in the last few years expressing concerns about the PATRIOT Act. I also read some of the nearly 400 local resolutions that have passed--the four resolutions from my own State of Wisconsin. Today I want to continue by reading some additional items to take my colleagues back to how hard we fought in November and December to stop the flawed conference report, and how many Americans wanted us to do better than we have done this week. Let me start with a few editorials. The resolutions passed by State and city governments that I read here on the floor yesterday are not the only way by which Americans have expressed their concerns about the PATRIOT Act. The Fourth Estate has weighed in too, with many newspapers running editorials or columns criticizing the PATRIOT Act's effect on Americans' freedom. And not just a few newspapers, but dozens and dozens, from all across the United States. From major national newspapers to small, local newspapers. Papers in big cities and small towns. All concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act. I am going to read just a few representative editorials. From the Orlando Sentinel, August 17, 2005; headline: Fighting the terrorists. Our position: Patriot Act changes need to be tough but protect against abuse of power. The U.S. House and Senate have taken different approaches to renewing the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism law that otherwise would expire at year's end. The Senate's more thoughtful, bipartisan approach deserves to prevail when members begin meeting next month to reconcile their competing proposals. The House proposal leaves the Patriot Act's expanded surveillance and law-enforcement powers largely intact. It does not accommodate legitimate concerns raised by both liberals and conservatives about inadequate checks on those powers. The Senate proposal, passed unanimously, includes what Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter called ``responsible changes to safeguard civil liberties.'' It would continue to let the government obtain secret court orders to seize medical, financial, library and other records, but only records tied to suspected terrorists or spies, or people in contact with them. It would require the government to notify targets of secret search warrants after seven days, though a judge could extend that deadline. Also under the Senate proposal, two of the most controversial Patriot Act provisions--to seize records secretly and conduct roving wiretaps--would expire in 2009 unless renewed. That would encourage Congress to re-evaluate those provisions in four years. The Senate proposal would not stop the government from using the powers in the Patriot Act to go after terrorists. But its changes would better protect ordinary Americans from possible abuse of those powers. Next, The Los Angeles Times; editorial, ``Checks on the Patriot Act,'' from November 21, 2005. The Patriot Act, a 4-year-old federal law that gave investigators unprecedented power to search for and chase terrorists, is a case study in bad lawmaking. Angry and anxious to respond to the atrocities of 9/11, Congress hastily approved a measure that exposed an indeterminable number of Americans to unreasonable searches and intrusive snooping for the sake of the war on terror. The law provided few of the legal system's usual checks to protect against investigators abusing the new capabilities. The measure eventually generated outrage on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as from corporations, libraries and retailers forced to report secretly on the activities of employees and customers. Nevertheless, in their haste to wrap up business before the Thanksgiving recess, lawmakers were poised last week to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which is due to expire at the end of the year, with only minor changes. That was the outcome sought by the White House and its allies in the House. A bipartisan group of six senators stopped the bill, however, by threatening a filibuster. They demanded that House and Senate negotiators produce a reauthorization bill with more of the safeguards that the Senate had approved earlier this year. The senators' demands are modest, recognizing that law enforcement agencies do need enhanced powers to battle elusive and technologically sophisticated groups of terrorists. But the public also needs to be able to review how those powers have been used. And people need more assurance that the information vacuumed up by their government is actually connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. In particular, the bill should do away with the automatic, permanent gag orders that allow investigators to hide forever their demands for records from banks, libraries, doctors and other sources. And the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act should be extended for a much shorter period than the seven years suggested by House and Senate conferees. When Congress approved the Patriot Act, it put its trust in prosecutors and investigators to use their expanded powers responsibly. It now appears that trust was misplaced. Authorities have gone on a snooping frenzy since 2001, issuing more than 30,000 secret demands for records per year, according to the Washington Post. And unless the law is changed, no one will ever know whether those records should have been gathered, or what has been done with them. Americans want to trust their government. It is their government's foundation, its system of checks and balances, that enables that trust. Now, from The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, entitled, ``True patriots: Some in Congress won't let terror limit freedom,'' from November 30, 2005. Long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the so-called Patriot Act that was passed in reaction and fear, a man with stellar patriotic credentials who championed the cause of liberty had words of wisdom for his fellow Americans: ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' What Benjamin Franklin said in his own day remains a telling commentary for our time. Indeed, these words could have been written specifically about the Patriot Act, which went too far in trying to accomplish a legitimate goal: to remove some of the bureaucratic and legal barriers that stood in the way of hunting down terrorists. But increasing government power while decreasing judicial oversight was a troubling exercise in a free country, and Congress realized as much when it passed the Patriot Act, including sunset provisions that could be considered in calmer days. That time has come and plenty of true patriots have stood up and offered suggestions that would make the Patriot Act more respectful of civil liberties and the American ideal of freedom. This is one issue that provides common ground for liberals and conservatives. When a government has the power to search a suspect's premises without his knowledge and can retrieve personal business and library records of people without showing any connection to terrorism, then the alarms that go up are for Americans regardless of party. That is why, for example, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, the scourge of President Clinton, finds himself on the same side of the fight as the American Civil Liberties Union. Despite the bipartisan qualms about reauthorizing the Patriot Act without proper amendment, the Bush administration has not been sympathetic. Trust us, it says implicitly. But because paranoia animates policy for this White House, the use of the Patriot Act is bound to go too far and impinge on basic civil liberties. This is an administration, after all, that feels threatened when Sen. John McCain and others want to outlaw torture. Sadly, ordinary Americans can't naively trust their freedom to such hands. The Patriot Act needs to have reasonable checks and balances written into it. Of the two bills to reauthorize the act, the Senate version accomplishes this better than the House measure. A tentative agreement has been reached on reconciling the bills, but principled opposition remains. Six senators--three Republicans (Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) and three Democrats (Richard Durbin of Illinois, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Ken Salazar of Colorado)--have emerged to resist accepting a version of the Patriot Act that doesn't meet their legitimate concerns. This isn't about being pro-terror but pro-American. It is possible to keep essential liberty and obtain safety. For Americans to deserve both, the true patriots on Capitol Hill need support. From the New York Times, just recently, on February 11, 2006, entitled, ``Another Cave-In on the Patriot Act.'' The Patriot Act has been one of the few issues on which Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties protections were added. But key members of the Senate have now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect Americans against improper secret searches. When the Patriot Act was passed after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress made some of its most far-reaching provisions temporary so it would be able to reconsider them later on. Those provisions were set to expire last December, but Congress agreed to a very short extension so greater civil liberties protections could be added. This week, four key Republican senators--later backed by two Democrats--said that they had agreed to a deal with the White House. It is one that does little to protect Americans from government invasions of their privacy. One of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act is the ``gag order'' imposed by Section 215, which prohibits anyone holding financial, medical and other private records of ordinary Americans from saying anything when the government issues a subpoena for those records. That means that a person whose records are being taken, and whose privacy is being invaded, has no way to know about the subpoena and no way to challenge it. Rather than removing this gag order, the deal keeps it in place for a full year--too long for Americans to wait to learn that the government is spying on them. Even after a year, someone holding such records would have to meet an exceedingly high standard to get the gag order lifted. It is not clear that this change has much value at all. The compromise also fails to address another problem with Section 215: it lets the government go on fishing expeditions, spying on Americans with no connection to terrorism or foreign powers. The act should require the government, in order to get a subpoena, to show that there is a connection between the information it is seeking and a terrorist or a spy. But the deal would allow subpoenas in instances when there are reasonable grounds for simply believing that information is relevant to a terrorism investigation. That is an extremely low bar. One of the most well-publicized objections to the Patriot Act is the fact that it allows the government to issue national security letters, an extremely broad investigative tool, to libraries, forcing them to turn over their patrons' Internet records. The wording of the compromise is unclear. If it actually says that national security letters cannot be used to get Internet records from libraries, that would be an improvement, but it is not clear that it does. In late December, it looked as if there was bipartisan interest in the Senate for changing the worst Patriot Act provisions and standing up for Americans' privacy rights. Now the hope of making the needed improvements has faded considerably. Clearly the PATRIOT Act touched a nerve, and has continued to do so for 4 years now. While I support a strong fight against terrorism, we cannot sacrifice our citizens' basic liberties in that fight. To do so would weaken this country. Next I want to turn back to some PATRIOT Act resolutions. It was not just State and city governments that passed resolutions these past several years. Colleges and universities across the United States have become actively involved in the PATRIOT Act debate as well. Across the country, 53 resolutions have been passed on 44 campuses advocating for substantial changes to the PATRIOT to protect the civil liberties of the American people. From Mt. Holyoke, a small private all-women's liberal arts school in South Hadley, MA, to the University of Texas at Austin, one of the largest public universities in the United States, students and faculties alike are coming together to pass these resolutions. Resolutions have been passed on college campuses in states from California to Kentucky. I will now read a few of these campus resolutions. A resolution concerning the protection of students' civil rights in the wake of the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. University of Texas at Austin Student Government WHEREAS: The United States Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act; Public Law 107-56) on October 25, 2001, championed by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft; WHEREAS: The 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights establishes: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 2. WHEREAS: According to Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman's Austin City Council resolution regarding the PATRIOT Act, ``fundamental rights granted by the United States Constitution are threatened by actions taken at the Federal level, notably by passage of certain sections of the `U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,' other acts and executive orders which, among other things: Grant potential unchecked powers to the Attorney General and the U.S. Secretary of State to designate legal domestic groups as ``terrorist organizations'' by overly broad definitions, and implying restrictions to Constitutionally protect First Amendment rights of speech and assembly by reference, such as political advocacy or the practice of a religion; while lifting administrative regulations on covert, surveillance counter-intelligence operations; Violate the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution through the expansion of the government's ability to wiretap telephones, monitor e-mail communications, survey medical, financial and student records, and secretly enter homes and offices without customary administrative oversight or without showing probable cause; Give law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library records, and prohibits librarians from informing patrons of monitoring or information requests; Violate the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in establishing secret military tribunals, and in subjecting citizens and non citizens to indefinite detention without being allowed an attorney, without being brought to trial, and without even being charged with a crime; Authorize eavesdropping on confidential communications between lawyers and their clients in federal custody;'' WHEREAS: In the October 1997 edition of Global Issues, available as Vol. 2, No. 4 of the USIA Electronic Journal, then Senator John Ashcroft (R-MI) wrote in an article entitled, ``Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet,'' The FBI wants access to decode, digest and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad--all in the name of national security. . . This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about American's privacy. . . The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights. . . The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications. . . WHEREAS: Eva Poole, President of the Texas Library Association, the oldest and largest organization representing Texas libraries, including university and academic libraries, stated in a personal e-mail by request: The USA PATRIOT Act is just one of several troubling policies that compromise the public's privacy rights. Enhanced surveillance powers permitted under the provisions of the Act license law enforcement officials to peer into Americans' most private reading, research, and communications. Several of the Act's provisions not only violate the privacy and confidentiality rights of those using public libraries, but take no consideration of constitutional checks and balances as it authorizes intelligence agencies to gather information in situations that may be completely unconnected to a potential criminal proceeding. Librarians do not know how the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures have been applied in libraries because the gag order bars individuals from making that information public. Equally troubling is the fact that librarians are not allowed to comment on FBI visits to examine library users' Internet surfing and book-borrowing habits. I oppose any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information. WHEREAS: The Student Governments of the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Barbara, University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Washington, Washington State University, University of Wisconsin and Southern Oregon University have passed resolutions denouncing the USA PATRIOT Act; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin has been, and remains, absolutely committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all of its students and affirms its commitment to embody democracy and to embrace, defend, and uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties granted to students under the United States and Texas Constitutions; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon the Austin Police Department, University of Texas Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task Force to refrain from and, in certain cases, discontinue the surveillance of individuals, groups of individuals, and organizations based solely on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, such as political advocacy or the practice of a religion without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal conduct unrelated to the activity protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Student Government respectfully requests that Dr. Fred Heath, Vice Provost of General Libraries, direct all UT libraries to post in a prominent place within the library a notice as follows: ``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), records of books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. This law also prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been obtained by federal agents. Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.''; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin commits to organizing a forum addressing student privacy concerns consisting of a panel of relevant administrators and community members; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon UTPD to preserve and uphold students' freedom of speech, assembly, association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested to do otherwise in accordance with new federal law, which infringes upon such rights granted to federal or state law enforcement agencies under powers assumed by the USA PATRIOT Act by Executive Order; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin calls upon the Austin City Council to do everything in its power to protect and defend the rights and liberties of University of Texas at Austin students who reside within jurisdiction of the City of Austin. Next: Associated Students of Mount Holyoke College A Resolution Affirming Civil Rights and Liberties in Light of the USA PATRIOT Act WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College has a diverse student and faculty body, including many students from outside the United States, and many students with diverse cultural backgrounds whose contributions to this community are vital to the culture and civic character of Mount Holyoke College; and WHEREAS, the preservation of civil rights and civil liberties is a pillar of American society and is essential to the well-being of any democracy, particularly during times of conflict when such rights and liberties, especially those of immigrants and ethnic minorities, may be threatened, intentionally or unintentionally; and WHEREAS the preservation of civil rights and liberties is essential to the well-being of a democratic society; and WHEREAS, The community of Mount Holyoke College denounces terrorism, and acknowledges that federal, state and local governments have a responsibility to protect the public from terrorist attacks in a rational, deliberative and lawful fashion to ensure that any new security measure enhances public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing upon civil liberties; and WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College as a private institution, is also responsible to protect its community, including all faculty, staff, and students, whether they be residents or non-residents; and WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act; Public Law 107-56) on October 26, 2001; and WHEREAS, some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other related federal orders and measures may pose a threat to the civil rights and civil liberties of all students, staff and faculty at Mount Holyoke College, including natural citizens of the United States, and particularly, but not limited to, those who are of Middle Eastern, Muslim or South Asian descent; by: a. Reducing judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance. b. Expanding the government's power to conduct secret searches without warrant. c. Granting power to the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups, including political and religious groups, as ``terrorist organizations''. d. Granting power to the Attorney General to subject non- citizens to indefinite detention or deportation even if they have not committed a crime. e. Granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) access to sensitive medical, mental health, financial and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime. f. Granting the FBI the power to compel libraries and bookstores to produce circulation or book purchase records of their patrons, and forbidding disclosure that such records have been requested and produced; and WHEREAS, law enforcement and security measures that undermine fundamental constitutional rights do irreparable damage to the American institutions and values of equal justice and freedom that the students staff and faculty of Mount Holyoke College hold dear; and WHEREAS, the Senate of the Associated Students of Mount Holyoke College believes that there is not and need not be conflict between security and the preservation of liberty, and that students of Mount Holyoke College can maintain their privacy and be both safe and free;

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate will conclude a process that began over a year ago by reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. I will have a few closing remarks, but first I want to take this opportunity to thank the extraordinary staff who have worked on this bill for so long. These men and women, on both sides of the aisle, have worked extremely hard, and they deserve to be recognized. Before I yield the floor, I will recognize the staff by name. Mr. President, beginning in November, when we first saw a draft of the conference report, I have spoken at length about the substance of this bill. I hoped that when we started the task of reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act at the beginning of last year, the end product would be something the whole Senate could support. We had a real chance to pass a bill that would both reauthorize the tools to prevent terrorism and fix the provisions that threaten the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans. This conference report, even as amended by the bill incorporating the White House deal that we passed yesterday, falls well short of that goal. And so, of course, I will vote no. Protecting the country from terrorism while also protecting our rights is a challenge for every one of us, particularly in the current political climate, and it is a challenge we all take seriously. I know many Senators who will vote for this reauthorization bill in a few minutes would have preferred to enact the bill we actually passed, without a single objection, in the Senate in July of last year. I appreciate that so many of my colleagues came to recognize the need to take the opportunity presented by the sunset provisions included in the original PATRIOT Act to make changes that would better protect civil liberties than did the law we enacted in haste in October 2001. Nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed we have largely wasted this opportunity to fix the obvious problems with the PATRIOT Act. The reason I spent so much time in the past few days talking about how the public views the PATRIOT Act was to make it clear that this fight was not about one Senator arguing about the details of the law. This fight was about trying to restore the public's trust in our Government. That trust has been severely shaken as the public learned more and more about the PATRIOT Act which we passed with so little debate in 2001 and as the administration resisted congressional oversight efforts and repeatedly politicized the reauthorization process. The revelations about secret, warrantless surveillance last year only confirmed the suspicions of many in our country that the Government is, unfortunately, willing to trample the rule of law and constitutional guarantees in the fight against terrorism. The truth is, the negative reaction to the PATRIOT Act has been overwhelming. Over 400 State and local government bodies passed resolutions pleading with Congress to change the law. Citizens have signed petitions, library associations and campus groups have organized to petition the Congress to act. Numerous editorials have been written urging Congress not to reauthorize the law without adequate protections for civil liberties. These things occurred because Americans across the country recognize that the PATRIOT Act includes provisions that pose a threat to their privacy and to their liberty. These are values--values--that are at the very core of what this country represents and of who we are as a people. In 2001, we were viciously attacked by terrorists who care nothing for American freedoms and American values. We, as a people, came together to fight back, and we are prepared to make great sacrifices to defeat those who would destroy us. But what we will not do, and what we cannot do, is destroy our own freedoms in the process. Without freedom, we are not America. If we do not preserve our liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill. That is why the several Senators who have said, at one time or another during this debate, things such as, ``Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead,'' are wrong about America at the most basic level. It seems they do not understand what America is all about. Theirs is a vision that the Founders of this Nation, who risked everything for freedom, would categorically reject, and so do the American people. Americans want to defeat terrorism, and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper. They want to empower the Government to protect the Nation from terrorists, and they want protections against Government overreaching and Government overreacting. They know it might not be easy, but they expect the Congress to figure out how to do it. They do not want defeatism-- defeatism--on either score. They want both security and liberty. And unless we give them both--and we can, if we try--then we have failed. This fight is not over. The vote today will not assuage the deep and legitimate concerns the public has about the PATRIOT Act. I am convinced that in the end the Government will respond to the people, as it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of the Earth. It has been a particular privilege to work for so long and so closely with the bipartisan group that developed the SAFE Act. Each Senator is supported by dedicated and talented staff, and let me mention a few of them now. For Senator Sununu, Dave Cuzzi. Joe Zogby for Senator Durbin; Brooke Roberts and Lisa McGrath for Senator Craig; Sam Mitchell with Senator Salazar; and Isaac Edwards with Senator Murkowski. Let me also recognize Bruce Cohen, Julie Katzman, and Tara Magner with Senator Leahy; and Chairman Specter's hardworking team--Mike O'Neill, Brett Tolman, and Nick Rossi. Other key staff on the Judiciary Committee include Joe Matal with Senator Kyl; Christine Leonard with Senator Kennedy; Steve Cash for Senator Feinstein; Paul Thompson with Senator DeWine; Reed O'Connor with Senator Cornyn; and Bruce Artim with Senator Hatch; Cindy Hayden with Senator Sessions; Preet Bharara with Senator Schumer; Chad Groover with Senator Grassley; Eric Rosen with Senator Biden; Ajit Pai with Senator Brownback; Mary Chesser with Senator Coburn; Nate Jones with Senator Kohl; and James Galyean with Senator Graham. Staff for a number of Senators not on the committee worked very hard on this bill as well. Let me recognize Brandon Milhorn and Jack Livingston for Senator Roberts; Mike Davidson, who works for Senator Rockefeller; Joe Bryan with Senator Levin; Alex Perkins and John Dickas with Senator Wyden; Steve Taylor with Senator Hagel; Ruchi Bhowmik with Senator Obama; Mirah Horowitz with Senator Kerry; Caryn Compton with Senator Byrd; Eric Buehlmann with Senator Jeffords; and Alan Hicks with Senator Frist. And thanks also to Senator Reid's staffers, Ron Weich and Serena Hoy, and to our Democratic floor staff--Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Gary Myrick, Chris Kang, and Mike Spahn for their help over the past several weeks of this debate. Finally, let me sincerely thank my own tireless and dedicated staff: Mary Irvine, Paul Weinberger, Sumner Slichter, Chuck Stertz, Bob Schiff, Lara Flint, Farhana Khera, Alex Busansky, Sarah Preis, Margaret Whiting, Molly Askin, John Haffner, Bharat Ramamurti, Avery Wentzel, Tracy Jacobson, and Molly McNab. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, every day children across this country learn about the role of their Government and how it is intended to function. I have also collected a handful of textbooks used by children from elementary school up through high school to see what they have to say about the role of Government. In looking at these books, I notice that each of them at different reading levels discuss the Government as a whole, the importance of the Constitution as the foundation of our Government, and the importance of checks and balances and separation of powers. Each of these books, at whatever learning level or reading level, teaches that the Government does not have endless, unchecked powers over the people it is intended to protect. I started my presentation after cloture was invoked by reading the Constitution of the United States. I wish to conclude for now by reading a very brief portion of one of these books. It is entitled ``National Government, a Kids' Guide.'' ``Separation of Powers.'' The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted to make sure that the leaders of the government did not have too much power. The writers spread the power among three separate branches of government that work together to govern the country. This is called separation of powers. The executive branch is lead by the president of the United States. This part of the government is responsible for making sure the laws are carried out, or executed. The legislative branch is made up of the people in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Together, the Senate and the House of Representatives are called the United States Congress. The legislative branch makes the laws. The third branch is the judicial branch, which is led by the Supreme Court. The judges--called justices--of the Supreme Court explain the laws and decide if any laws are not fair. Each branch of the government has its own job to do, but the three branches have to work together. The people who wrote the Constitution were very careful to make sure that each branch of the government could check up on the others. A system called checks and balances keeps different parts of the government from having too much power. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized at 12:30 p.m. today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time and also for his excellent remarks and his comments on this issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we pass a lot of laws in this body, but most of them don't get any public attention. Not so with the PATRIOT Act. Few pieces of legislation have the kind of public understanding and recognition the PATRIOT Act does. The PATRIOT Act has become a rallying cry for those concerned about Government overreaching, grabbing for more power than it needs, using a time of crisis to justify changes in the law it otherwise could not hope to see made. People all over the country want us to take a step back, to reconsider, to fix the PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the strongest evidence of this is that in the past 4 years, more than 400 State and local governments have passed resolutions opposing or objecting to various aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Eight of those government bodies are State legislatures that have already passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act. In April 2003, Hawaii was the first State to adopt a statewide resolution. The next month, in May 2003, Alaska and Vermont passed resolutions. Over the course of 2004 and 2005, we saw three more resolutions in Colorado, Montana, and Maine. Finally, Idaho passed a resolution specifically to support the SAFE Act's amendments to the PATRIOT Act, and recently, on February 16, California passed a resolution on the PATRIOT Act. I will read these resolutions. There are eight such resolutions, Alaska being the first. A resolution: Relating to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the civil liberties, peace, and security of the citizens of our country. Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Alaska: WHEREAS the State of Alaska recognizes the Constitution of the United States as our charter of liberty, and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; and WHEREAS each of Alaska's duly elected public servants has sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Alaska; and WHEREAS the State of Alaska denounces and condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and WHEREAS attacks against Americans such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, have necessitated the crafting of effective laws to protect the public from terrorist attacks; and WHEREAS any new security measures of federal, state, and local government should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of innocent citizens of the State of Alaska and the nation; and WHEREAS certain provisions of the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001'', also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the federal government more liberally to detain and investigate citizens and engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions; BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature supports the government of the United States of America in its campaign against terrorism, and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential rights and liberties of citizens in this country contained in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the policy of the State of Alaska to oppose any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act that would violate the rights and liberties guaranteed equally under the state and federal constitutions; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Alaska state policy, an agency or instrumentality of the State of Alaska, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law, may not (1) initiate, participate in, or assist or cooperate with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention; (2) record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records, and other personal data, even if-- Even if-- authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act; (3) retain such intelligence information; the state Attorney General shall review the intelligence information currently held by the state for its legality and appropriateness under the United States and Alaska Constitutions and permanently dispose of it if there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the state may not, (1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government; (2) collect or maintain information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership, unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct; (3) engage in racial profiling; law enforcement agencies may not use race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin as factors in selecting individuals to subject to investigatory activities except when seeking to apprehend a suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the description of the suspect; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature implores the United States Congress to correct provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures that infringe on civil liberties, and opposes any pending and future federal legislation to the extent it infringes on Americans' civil rights and liberties. Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States; the Honorable Frank Murkowski, Governor of Alaska; and to the Honorable Ted Stevens, and the Honorable Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress. That is the Alaska resolution. California Senate Joint Resolution No. 10--Relative to the USA PATRIOT Act. Approved by the California Senate, introduced by Senator Figueroa. WHEREAS, The State of California recognizes the Constitution of the United States of America as our charter of liberty, and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy; and WHEREAS, The State of California has a distinguished history of safeguarding the freedoms of its residents; and WHEREAS, Each of California's duly elected public servants are sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California; and WHEREAS, The State of California denounces and condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and WHEREAS, Any new security measures of Federal, State, and local governments should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of innocent persons in the State of California and the Nation; and WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the government greater authority to detain and investigate persons and to engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions, including rights of due process, the right to privacy, the right to counsel, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and basic First Amendment freedoms; and WHEREAS, The people of California are concerned that many provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act pose significant threats to constitutional protections; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California jointly, That the State of California supports appropriate and effective measures by the Government of the United States of America and the State of California to combat terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country contained in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and be it further Resolved, That the State of California also urges its congressional delegation to work to repeal any provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that limit or impinge on rights and liberties protected equally by the United States Constitution and the California Constitution and to oppose any pending and future Federal legislation to the extent that it would infringe on Americans' civil rights and liberties; and be it further Resolved, that the State of California will ensure that no State resources be provided for any action that would violate the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of California, including but not limited to, all of the following: (1) Collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership, unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct. (2) Recording, filing, or sharing intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act. (3) Demanding nonconsensual releases of student and faculty records from public schools and institutions of higher learning. (4) Eavesdropping on confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. (5) Engaging in racial profiling that enables law enforcement agencies to use race, religion, ethnicity or national origin as factors in selecting individuals to be subject to investigational activities, except when seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity or national origin is part of the description of the suspect; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the majority leader of the Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress, the Attorney General of the United States, and to all Federal and State law enforcement agencies. Mr. President, that is the second resolution. The third one is from Colorado. Senate Joint Resolution 05-044 concerning the State's commitment to Uphold Constitutional Rights in the Fight Against Terrorism, approved by the Colorado General Assembly. WHEREAS, The State of Colorado is committed to upholding the fundamental and inalienable rights, including the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly and privacy, that are enshrined in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, Colorado's elected public servants have sworn to defend and uphold the Federal and State Constitution; and WHEREAS, The State of Colorado denounces and condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and WHEREAS, The attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and the continuing threat of terrorism underscore the need for strong and effective laws and policy to protect the American public; and WHEREAS, The security measures taken by Federal, State, and local governments should be carefully designed and applied to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of innocent people in the State of Colorado and throughout the Nation; and WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the Federal ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act'', also known as the ``USA PATRIOT Act'', expand the power of the Federal Government to detain and investigate people in the United States and to engage in surveillance activities that may be inconsistent with the rights and liberties guaranteed by the State and Federal constitutions; now, therefore, Be it Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-fifth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein: (1) That the General Assembly supports the Government of the United States in its campaign against terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the expense of the essential civil rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado; (2) That it is the policy of the State of Colorado to oppose any provision or application of the USA PATRIOT Act that would violate the rights and liberties guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions; (3) That, in accordance with the policy of this State, no agency or instrumentality of the State should, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Colorado law: (A) Initiate, participate in, assist, or cooperate with any inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention; (b) Record, file, or share intelligence information concerning any person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records, Internet mail and usage records, and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act; or (c), Retain such intelligence information. (4) That no agency or instrumentality of the State should: (A) collect or maintain information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, organization or business entity, unless the information indirectly relates to an investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject of the information is involved in criminal conduct; or (b) Use race, religion, ethnicity or national origin as factors in selecting individuals to subject to investigatory activities, except with respect to a specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the description of the suspect. (5) The General Assembly urges the United States Congress to amend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures that infringe on civil rights and liberties and imposes the enactment of future Federal legislation that infringes on civil rights and liberties. Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this joint resolution be sent to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States; the Honorable Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the United States; the Honorable Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado; and the members of Colorado's congressional delegation. Now we go to Hawaii's resolution, the first one to pass. Senate Concurrent Resolution Reaffirming the State of Hawaii's Commitment to Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights Approved by the Hawaii State legislature. WHEREAS The Hawaii State legislature is committed to upholding the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights and the Hawaii State Constitution and its Bill of Rights (Article I, Sections 1 through 22); and WHEREAS The State of Hawaii has a distinguished history of safeguarding the freedoms of its residents; and WHEREAS The State of Hawaii is comprised of a diverse and multi-ethnic population, and has experienced firsthand the value of immigration to the American way of life; and WHEREAS The residents of Hawaii during World War II experienced firsthand the dangers of unbalanced pursuit of security without appropriate checks and balances for the protection of basic liberties; and WHEREAS The recent adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act and several executive orders may unconstitutionally authorize the Federal Government to infringe upon fundamental liberties in violation of due process, the right to privacy, the right to counsel, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and basic first amendment freedoms, all of which are guaranteed by the constitutions of Hawaii and the United States; and WHEREAS The citizens of Hawaii are concerned that the actions of the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Justice Department are significant threats to constitutional protections; now, therefore, Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Twenty-second Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2003, the House of Representatives concurring, that the State of Hawaii urges its congressional delegation to work to repeal any sections of the PATRIOT Act or recent executive orders that limit or violate fundamental rights and liberties protected by the constitutions of Hawaii and the United States; and Be It Further Resolved that to the extent legally possible, no State resources--including law enforcement funds and educational administrative resources--may be used for unconstitutional activities, including but not limited to the following under the USA PATRIOT Act: (1) Monitoring political and religious gatherings exercising their First Amendment Rights; (2) Obtaining library records, bookstore records, and Web site activities without proper authorization and without notification; (3) Issuing subpoenas through the United States Attorney's Office without a court's approval or knowledge; (4) Requesting nonconsensual releases of student and faculty records from public schools and institutions of higher learning; and (5) Eavesdropping on confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. Be It Further Resolved that certified copies of this concurrent resolution be transmitted to Hawaii's delegation in the United States Congress. Now Idaho. Stating findings of the Legislature concerning adoption of the SAFE Act to limit certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act in order to protect liberties of citizens of the United States and urging the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States to support the SAFE Act: House Joint Memorial No. 7, approved by the Idaho State legislature. We, memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate in the State of Idaho assembled in the First Regular Session of the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully represent that: WHEREAS, as citizens of the State of Idaho strongly believe that basic civil liberties must be preserved and protected, even as we seek to guard against terrorists and other threats to national security; and WHEREAS, there are some principles of our democracy which are so fundamental to the rights of citizenship that they must be preserved to guard the very liberties we seek to protect; and WHEREAS, legislation known as the SAFE Act has been introduced in the Congress of the United States to adopt amendments to the PATRIOT Act which would address some of the most problematic provisions of that act; and WHEREAS, the SAFE Act amends the PATRIOT Act to modify the provisions regarding the roving wiretaps to require that the identity of the target be given and that the suspect be present during the time when surveillance is conducted; and WHEREAS, the SAFE Act revises provisions governing search warrants to limit the circumstances when the delay of notice may be exercised and to require reports to the Congress when delays of notice are used; and WHEREAS, the SAFE Act requires specific and articulable facts to be given before business records are subject to investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and WHEREAS, the SAFE Act provides that libraries shall not be treated as communication providers subject to providing information and transaction records of library patrons; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that the legislature of the State of Idaho, on behalf of the citizens of Idaho, express support of the efforts of Senator Larry Craig to adopt the SAFE Act, and encourage full support of the Idaho congressional delegation. Now, therefore, be it resolved by members of the First Regular Session of the Fifty-eighth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the Idaho legislature endorses the efforts to amend the PATRIOT Act to ensure that it works well to protect our security, but that it does not unnecessarily compromise essential liberties of the citizens of the United States. We urge the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States to support legislation introduced by Senator Larry Craig, known as the SAFE Act. Mr. President, the Maine Resolution, Joint Resolution Memorializing the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States to Ensure the Protection of Civil Liberties and the Security of the United States Approved by the Maine State Legislature. We, your Memorialists, the Members of the One Hundred and Twenty-first legislature of the State of Maine now assembled in the Second Special Session, most respectfully present the petition of the President of the United States and the United States Congress, as follows. WHEREAS, the State of Maine recognizes that the Constitution of the United States is our charter of liberty and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; and WHEREAS, each of Maine's duly elected public servants have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Maine; and WHEREAS, the State of Maine denounces and condemns all acts of terrorism, wherever occurring; and WHEREAS, attacks against Americans such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001 have necessitated the crafting of effective laws to protect the public from terrorist attacks; and WHEREAS, any new security measures of Federal, State, and local governments should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety, without infringing on the civil liberties and the rights of any citizens in the State of Maine and the Nation; and WHEREAS, matters relating to immigration are primarily Federal in nature; and WHEREAS, certain provisions of the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,'' commonly referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the Federal Government more liberally to detain and investigate citizens and engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our State and Federal Constitutions; now therefore, Be It Resolved: That we, Your Memorialists, on behalf of the people we represent, take this opportunity to inform the President of the United States and the United States Congress that the Maine State Legislature supports the government of the United States of America in its campaign against terrorism and affirms its commitment that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country contained in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights; and be it further Resolved: That the Maine State Legislature urges that the Federal Government to continue to exercise its jurisdiction over immigration matters and encourages the Federal Government to work cooperatively with the States to provide assistance and training to protect our country; and be it further Resolved: That laws passed by the United States Congress to specifically combat the threat of international terrorism should not be used in conducting domestic law enforcement; and be it further Resolved: That the Maine State legislature implores the United States Congress to review the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures that may infringe on civil liberties and ensure any pending and future Federal liberties. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Legislature calls upon our United States Representatives and Senators to monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal actions and, if necessary, repeal those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal measures that may infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the United States Constitution and its amendments; and be it further resolved that official copies of this resolution, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States, the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States; the Honorable John E. Baldacci, Governor or the State of Maine; Richard Cheney, President of the United States Senate; Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and each member of the Maine Congressional Delegation. Mr. President, Montana: A Joint Resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of Montana supporting the Montana Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; encouraging various actions in support of fighting terrorism and protecting civil rights and civil liberties; requesting the Attorney General of Montana to compile and disseminate relevant information regarding actions taken by the Federal Government under the USA PATRIOT Act; and encouraging Montana's congressional delegation to support and ensure the civil rights of all Montanans and citizens of the United States, which includes allowing the USA PATRIOT Act to expire. WHEREAS, the citizens of Montana recognize the Constitution of the United States as our charter of liberty and that the Bill of Rights enshrines the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy; and WHEREAS, each of Montana's duly elected public servants has sworn to defend and uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Montana; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Montana denounce and condemn all acts of terrorism by any entity, wherever the acts occur; and WHEREAS, terrorist attacks against Americans, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, have necessitated the crafting of effective laws to protect citizens of the United States and others from terrorist attacks; and WHEREAS, any new security measures of federal, state, and local governments should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of innocent citizens of Montana and the United States; and WHEREAS, certain provisions of the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001'', also known as the USA PATRIOT Act, allow the federal government to more liberally detain and investigate citizens and to engage in surveillance activities that may violate or offend the rights and liberties guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of Montana: That the 59th Montana Legislature supports the government of the United States in its campaign against terrorism and affirms the commitment of the United States that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country that are protected in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the citizens of Montana to oppose any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act that violates the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Montana Constitution or the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Montana state policy, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Montana law, the 59th Montana Legislature exhorts agents and instrumentalities of this state to not: (1) initiate or participate in or assist or cooperate with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention under the USA PATRIOT Act if the action violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties; (2) record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records, and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act, if the action violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties; or (3) retain any of the intelligence information described in subsections (1) and (2) of this clause if the information violates constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Attorney General of Montana is encouraged to review intelligence information currently held by the state, assess the legality and appropriateness of holding the information under the United States Constitution and Montana Constitution, and permanently dispose of all such information to which there is not attached a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature admonishes every agency and instrumentality of the state to not: (1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters that are the responsibility of the federal government; (2) collect or maintain information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject of the information was, is, or may be involved in criminal conduct; or (3) engage in racial profiling. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that state and local law enforcement agencies should not use race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin as factors in selecting individuals to subject to investigatory activities, except when seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the description of the suspect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature requests: (1) public schools and institutions of higher learning within Montana to provide notice to each individual whose education records have been obtained by law enforcement agents pursuant to section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act; and (2) each public library within Montana to post in a prominent place within the library a notice to library users as follows: ``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), records of the books and other material you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. Federal law prohibits librarians from informing you if records about you have been obtained by federal agents. Questions about the law and policy that allows federal agents to obtain and use information about your activities in this library should be directed to: U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530''. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature encourages the Attorney General of Montana to periodically seek from federal authorities the following information in a form that facilitates an assessment of the effect of federal antiterrorism efforts on the residents of Montana: (1) the name of each resident of Montana who has been arrested or otherwise detained by federal authorities as a result of terrorism investigations since September 11, 2001, the location of each detainee, the circumstances that led to each detention, the charges, if any, lodged against each detainee, and the name of counsel, if any, representing each detainee; (2) the number of search warrants that have been executed in Montana pursuant to section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act and without notice to the subject of the warrant; (3) the extent of electronic surveillance carried out in Montana under powers granted in the USA PATRIOT Act; (4) the extent to which federal authorities monitor political meetings, religious gatherings, or other activities within Montana that are protected by the First Amendment; (5) the number of times that education records have been obtained from public schools and institutions of higher learning in Montana under section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act; (6) the number of times that library records have been obtained from libraries in Montana under section 215 or section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act; and (7) the number of times that records of the books purchased by store patrons from bookstores in Montana have been obtained under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature requests the Attorney General of Montana to compile and transmit to each member of the Legislature, at least once every 6 months, a summary of the information obtained pursuant to the legislative requests made in this resolution and, based on the information and any other relevant information, to include an assessment of the effect of federal antiterrorism efforts on the residents of Montana. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature desires that all public libraries adopt policies that ensure the regular destruction of records, when the records are no longer needed, that may be used to identify the name of a book borrower or the name of any Internet user. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in order to protect intellectual privacy rights, the 59th Montana Legislature advises all persons in local businesses and institutions, particularly booksellers, to refrain whenever possible from keeping records that can be used to identify the name of any purchaser and to regularly destroy sales records maintained by the business or institution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urges the Montana delegation in the United States Congress to: (1) correct provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and other administrative measures that infringe on civil liberties by supporting the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, slated to be reviewed by Congress in 2005, and ultimately allow the USA PATRIOT Act to expire; and (2) support passage of the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003 and the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the 59th Montana Legislature urges the Montana Congressional Delegation to vigorously oppose any pending and all future federal legislation if the legislation infringes on the civil rights and civil liberties of American citizens. Federal legislation that the Montana Congressional Delegation is encouraged to oppose includes but is not limited to the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as Patriot Act II. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send a copy of this resolution to President George W. Bush, the Attorney General of the United States, Governor Brian Schweitzer, Senator Max Baucus, Senator Conrad Burns, and Representative Dennis Rehberg. Mr. President, now we turn to Vermont. Joint resolution strongly urging the President to revise executive orders and policies, and for Congress to amend provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which seriously erode fundamental civil liberties. Approved by: Vermont State Senate. WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, for the first time since the War of 1812, the continental United States was subjected to an attack from abroad when terrorists commandeered four commercial airliners and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and caused significant damage to the Pentagon, and WHEREAS, in response to these tragic and devastating events, which cost nearly 3,000 innocent American lives, Congress adopted the U.S.A. Patriot Act (Public Law 107-56) which is intended to enable the federal government to act more authoritatively in preventing future attacks, and WHEREAS, while the prevention of future terrorist attacks is a critical national priority, it is equally important to preserve the fundamental civil liberties and personal freedoms which were enshrined in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago, and which have been preserved through a constant vigilance and outcry against periodic threats to their existence, and WHEREAS, while sunset review dates were attached to certain provisions, the final bill remains, perhaps, the most severe legislative attack on civil liberties since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s, and WHEREAS, under the auspices of both the U.S.A. Patriot Act and related executive orders, persons from the Middle East and South Asia have been unjustly targeted for interrogation and possible deportation, and WHEREAS, the ability of the Central Intelligence Agency to engage in domestic spying activities, with tragic repercussions, fortunately halted in the 1970s, but is now being revived pursuant to sections 223 and 901 of the Act, and WHEREAS, section 213 greatly lowers the threshold required for a court to issue a search warrant, and WHEREAS, section 216 nearly eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and internet surveillance, and WHEREAS, section 411 gives the U.S. Attorney General extraordinarily broad authority to designate domestic groups as ``terrorist organizations,'' and WHEREAS, both sections 411 and 412 subject noncitizens to indefinite detention or deportation even if they have not committed a crime, and WHEREAS, several sections of the bill, including 215, 218, 358, and 508, permit law enforcement authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial, and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of these types of records, and WHEREAS, there has been an especially strong outcry in Vermont against the ability of federal authorities, under section 215 of the Act, to obtain judicially-issued warrants for library or bookstore patron records based on minimal information, and the accompanying prohibition on librarians and bookstore personnel from revealing any information regarding the request, and WHEREAS, this provision runs directly counter to the intent of the Vermont General Assembly to protect the privacy of a library patron's records as codified in Title 3 Sec. 317(c)(19) of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, and the code of ethics of the American Library Association, and Whereas, both the Fletcher Free Library Commission and the Vermont Library Association have expressed their strongest possible concerns that the U.S.A. Patriot Act undermines constitutionally-guaranteed rights and the privacy of library patrons, and WHEREAS, Congressman Bernard Sanders has announced his intention to sponsor legislation to exempt libraries and booksellers from the disclosure requirements of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and WHEREAS, a number of municipal legislative bodies, including the Burlington City Council, have expressed their deep concerns relative to the U.S.A. Patriot Act's historic degradation of civil liberties, and WHEREAS, the law gravely threatens the civic values, personal freedoms, and rights that constitute the foundation of our national existence, now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the General Assembly strongly urges the President and members of the executive branch to review and revise executive orders and policies which have been adopted since September 11, 2001, and be it further RESOLVED: That the General Assembly strongly urges the United States Congress to revise the U.S.A. Patriot Act in order to restore and protect our nation's fundamental civil liberties, and, in particular, to enact Representative Sanders' proposal to exempt libraries and bookstores from the provisions of the Act, and be it further RESOLVED: That the General Assembly requests that the office of the Vermont Attorney General offer legal support to any public library which is subject to a federal suit or administrative enforcement action for refusing to comply with the provisions of the Act related to library patrons' records, and be it further RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, to each member of the Vermont Congressional Delegation, and to Keith M. Fiels, Executive Director of the American Library Association, in Chicago. There you have it. Those are the eight State government resolutions, but more than 400 total resolutions and ordinances have been passed, the rest by local, city, and county governments. In fact, on December 13, just 3 days before the first cloture vote on the conference report, the town of Coupeville, WA, became the 400th community or State to pass a resolution to reflect its citizens' concerns about the impact of the PATRIOT Act on constitutional rights. And since then four additional communities have passed resolutions, not to mention the California State resolution I just read. Let me read a few of these county and city resolutions. I can do more later. Why don't we begin with the four passed in my State of Wisconsin. Douglas County, this is one of the northern most counties in the State. Resolution by the Douglas County Board of Supervisors, Subject U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, approved by Douglas County Board of Supervisors. WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, recognizes the Constitution of the United States of America to be the supreme law of the land, which all public servants are sworn to uphold, superceding all administrative rules, local ordinances, state statutes and federal laws, and WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, recognizes that the Bill of Rights, as represented in Exhibit H-5-03, embodies the rights of citizenship that have made the United States of America the land of freedom for more than 200 years, and WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, and the United States have benefited greatly through the constitutional rights and liberties afforded their diverse citizenry, in freedom of speech and assembly, equality before the law and the presumption of innocence, access to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and WHEREAS, Douglas County, Wisconsin, affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, and further affirms that any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of our civil rights and liberties, and WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, in an effort to unite and strengthen America, and to combat terrorism, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that the USA Patriot Act weakens the constitutional protections for every United States citizen as follows: (1) First Amendment rights, which guarantee ``freedom of religion, of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,'' are compromised by USA Patriot Act, Sections 802 and 215; (2) Fourth Amendment protections, which guarantee the ``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,'' are compromised by USA Patriot Act Sections 203, 206, 213, and 218; and (3) Fifth Amendment protections of due process and attorney-client confidentiality are compromised. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Douglas County Board of Supervisors expresses deep concern over any compromise of constitutional freedoms which protect civil rights and liberties for all people of the United States. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Douglas County Board of Supervisors affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, but also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism should not be waged at the expense of fundamental civil rights and liberties, and that a threat to one person's constitutional rights is a threat to the rights of all. BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Douglas County Board of Supervisors requests that United States representatives and senators closely monitor implementation of the USA Patriot Act, as well as Executive Orders issued pursuant to the Act, and actively work to repeal those Sections of the USA Patriot Act that threaten the essential civil rights and liberties of all Americans. BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that any enhancement to the USA Patriot Act, such as USA Patriot Act II (aka Domestic Security Act of 2003), be forestalled until such time as enhancements or changes are done in full view of American citizens. BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon passage, a copy of this resolution shall be provided to Governor James Doyle, Senator Robert Jauch, Representative Frank Boyle, each Wisconsin congressional delegate, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and President George W. Bush. Next, a resolution from the northwestern part of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, WI, a resolution of the City of Eau Claire, WI, approved by the Eau Claire City Council. WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire and its citizens being governed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin; and WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire acknowledges that both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions guarantee her citizens freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government for grievances and protection of the rights of the accused; and WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire is home to a diverse population, including citizens of other nations, whose contributions to the community are vital to its charter and function; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eau Claire, while a strong opponent of terrorism and a strong proponent for the safety and security of its citizens, believes that efforts to maintain and enhance public safety and security should not infringe on the essential civil rights and liberties of the people of Eau Claire; and WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire recognizes and honors all those who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and has with gratitude for their supreme sacrifice memorialized those in the Armed Forces who have died in battle to secure and protect these same cherished rights and liberties; and WHEREAS, sections of the USA PATRIOT Act now threaten these fundamental rights and liberties; and WHEREAS, many citizens of Eau Claire, surrounding communities, and other communities across the nation are concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act threatens the civil rights and liberties of citizens of the United States and other nations by so broadly defining ``domestic terrorism'' that any citizens who use direct action to further their political causes are vulnerable to prosecution as ``domestic terrorists'' (Sec. 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act); authorizing federal agents to conduct covert searches of a person's home or office without notice of the execution of a search warrant until after the search has been completed, in some cases up to 90 days later (Sec. 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act); requiring the surrender of ``any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items)'' and without limits as to the parties from whom the seizure of the above-mentioned tangible things can be required (Sec. 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act); authorizing the government to install tracking devices on Internet Service Providers which are capable of intercepting all forms of Internet activity, e-mail messages, web page activity and Internet telephone communications whether the client is targeted in an investigation or not (Sec. 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act); allowing searches to take place without probable cause of criminal conduct (Sec 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act); and authorizing the United States Attorney General to detain indefinitely non-citizens on immigration violations and to arrest material witnesses not charged with any crime (Sec 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act). WHEREAS, the City of Eau Claire recognizes that to date some 236 cities, towns, counties and states in the United States of America have passed resolutions, ordinances or ballot initiatives protecting the civil liberties of their residents; Therefore, we the City Council of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, acting in the spirit of liberty, and to preserve those liberties guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Wisconsin, do hereby request that local, state, and federal law enforcement continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and privacy; 1. Rights to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings; and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, detentions and racial profiling; 2. The Wisconsin Congressional delegation actively work for the repeal of those portions of the Act and its extensions, including ``Patriot Act II'' and national security letters, that violate the rights and liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution; and 3. The City Clerk communicate this resolution to all City and County departments and employees, Wisconsin's Congressional delegation, the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, and the President and Attorney General of the United States. Now to the south-central part of the State, our State Capital, Madison, WI, a Resolution to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, approved by the Madison City Council. WHEREAS, the City of Madison recognizes the Constitution of the United States of America to be the supreme law of the land, which all public servants are sworn to uphold, superceding all administrative rules, local ordinances, state statutes and federal laws; WHEREAS, the City of Madison has a long and proud tradition of upholding the free exercise and enjoyment of the inalienable rights granted to all persons by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America; WHEREAS, the City of Madison greatly benefits from the many contributions of its highly diverse population, which includes citizens from around the world, and is vital to our city's unique character; WHEREAS, the City of Madison affirms its strong opposition to terrorism, but also affirms that any efforts to end terrorism not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of the people of Madison, the United States and the World; WHEREAS, the provisions of the USA Patriot Act expands the authority of the federal government to detain and investigate citizens and non-citizens and engage in electronic surveillance of citizens and non- citizens and threatens civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution; WHEREAS, the City of Madison recognizes that such infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of any person, under the color of law, is an abuse of power, a breach of the public trust, a misappropriation of public resources, a violation of civil rights and is beyond the scope of governmental authority; IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the City of Madison remains firmly committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. The City of Madison will completely avoid discrimination in every function of city government, and vigorously uphold the constitutionally protected rights of all persons to peacefully protest and express their political views without any form of governmental interference. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Madison joins communities across the nation in expressing concern that the USA PATRIOT Act threatens civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, and is the policy of the City of Madison, to forbid in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity: 1. Any initiation of, participation in, assistance or cooperation with any inquiry, investigation, surveillance or detention; and 2. The recording, filing and sharing of any intelligence information concerning any person or organization, even if authorized by federal law enforcement, acting under new powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act or Executive Orders. This includes collection and review of library lending and research records, as well as book and video store sales and/ or rental records; and 3. The retention of intelligence information. Information that is currently held shall be thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the City Attorney or other appropriate City official to be designated by the Mayor, for its legality and appropriateness, using the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. Any information that was collected is permanently disposed of if there is no probable cause of criminal activity; and 4. Enforcement of immigration matters, which are entirely the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. No city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship; and 5. Profiling based on race, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, or political values. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that any state or federal law enforcement agencies working within the City of Madison comply with the policies and procedures of the Madison Police Department, and regularly report to the Mayor the extent and manner in which they have acted under the USA PATRIOT Act or new Executive Orders. This includes the names of any detainees held in the Madison area, or any Madison residents detained elsewhere. The Mayor will then publicly report to the Common Council. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk communicate this resolution to all city departments, the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, the President and Attorney General of the United States of America and to call upon our congressional representatives to actively work to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. IT IS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT, this Resolution shall be severable if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this Resolution is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America or the State of Wisconsin. If the applicability thereof to any agency, person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution and applicability thereof to any other agency, person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Finally, our largest city, Milwaukee, WI. Resolution Affirming the Protection of Citizens' Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Approved by: Milwaukee City Council. Whereas, The city of Milwaukee denounces terrorism and acknowledges that Federal, state and local governments have a responsibility to protect the public from terrorist attacks and uphold: 1. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly and privacy, 2. The right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and 3. Protection from unreasonable searches, seizures and detention; and WHEREAS, the members of the Common Council believe that there is no inherent conflict between national security and the preservation of liberty--Americans can be both safe and free; and WHEREAS, Federal, state and local governments should protect the public from terrorist attacks, such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, but should do so in a rational and deliberative fashion in order to ensure that security measures enhance the public safety without impairing constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and WHEREAS, the City of Milwaukee is grateful for the supreme sacrifice of military veterans and law enforcement officers who have died in protecting this country's cherished rights and liberties; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act on October 26, 2001 with little debate, following the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and several Executive Orders, now threaten fundamental rights and liberties, which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin and the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights; the sections of the Act which threaten these human rights and liberties include: Section 213 which permits law enforcement to perform searches with no one present and to delay notification of the search of a citizen's home. Section 215 which permits the FBI Director to seek records from bookstores and libraries including books of patrons based on minimal evidence of wrongdoing and prohibits librarians and bookstore employees from disclosing the fact that they have been ordered to produce such documents. Section 218 which dilutes the ``probable cause'' requirement before conducting secret searches or surveillance to obtain evidence of a crime. Section 215, 218, 358, and 508 which permit law enforcement authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of these types of records; and WHEREAS, the City of Milwaukee has a commitment to uphold the human rights of all persons in Milwaukee and the free exercise and enjoyment of any and all rights and privileges secured by our constitutions and laws of the United States, the State of Wisconsin and the Charter of the City of Milwaukee; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee, that the Common Council expresses its support of protection of citizens' human rights and civil liberties and opposition to those provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that threaten those rights and liberties; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council recognizes the crucial distinctions between: Legal and peaceful demonstrations and protests, which are protected by the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions and laws. Acts of protest involving civil disobedience of minor law infractions such as disorderly conduct. Acts of terrorism, which would involve serious threats or violence, such as kidnapping or serious bodily injury to a civilian population; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council affirms its commitment to uphold civil rights and civil liberties and therefore expresses its opposition to: ( a) investigation of individuals or groups of individuals based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as political advocacy or the practice of religion, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and (b) racial, religious or ethnic profiling; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council calls upon Wisconsin's federal legislators to monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and related federal actions and to actively work for the repeal of those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties as recognized in the U.S. Constitution; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council urges Wisconsin's federal legislators to support and co-sponsor the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003 (SAFE Act) and urges Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to schedule hearings on the SAFE Act; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee opposes any unfunded federal mandates instructing local police to attempt to enforce the complex civil immigration laws of the U.S. to the detriment of their primary law enforcement duties, as articulated by the Boston Police Commissioner: ``turning all police officers into immigration agents . . . will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe as a result''; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee remains committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all people and will uphold the constitutionally protected rights of all people to peacefully express their political views without governmental interference and that officers of the Milwaukee Police Department be trained consistent with the above principles; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Common Council opposes requests by federal authorities that, if granted, would cause agencies of the City of Milwaukee to exercise powers or cooperate in the exercise of powers in violation of any city ordinance or the laws or Constitution of the State of the United States; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That in order to assess the effect of antiterrorism initiatives on the residents of the City of Milwaukee, the Common Council calls upon federal officials to make periodic reports, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City of Milwaukee joins 43 million Americans, 250 communities in 37 states across the nation and the National League of Cities as of February 24, 2004 in expressing concern that existing elements of the USA PATRIOT Act threaten civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, I shared with my colleagues the resolutions of all eight States in this country, all the way from Alaska to Maine, that express deep concerns about provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This was our opportunity to respond to the voices of those legislatures and the people of those States, to their heartfelt concerns about the degradation of their civil liberties. Many of these are not liberal States. Many of these are some of the reddest of the red States, to put it into common parlance, and they are some of the strongest States when it comes to the question of whether someone's library records or business records should be obtainable on no showing whatever-- whatever--that someone is connected either to terrorism or any kind of wrongdoing at all. That is American common sense, whether you are standing in Maine, Wisconsin, or Alaska. I only shared 4 of the 400 resolutions from city councils and county governments that essentially say the same thing. But I did share four from all over my State of Wisconsin where I believe the sentiment is strong that there simply is no reason why we cannot get the balance right, why we can't always err on the side of more government power, where the feeling is that somehow we are capable in this Congress and in this Government and in this country of getting the terrorists and stopping the terrorists, but also protecting the fundamental rights on which this country is founded. It is not just my words. I happen to have been the only person to vote against the original USA PATRIOT Act in this Senate. But what I have begun to share is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of governmental units across this country have passed resolutions by the elected representatives in those communities or in those States, saying, wait, there are problems with the USA PATRIOT Act and they must be fixed. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have consumed 45 minutes of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. When it comes to the conference report on the USA PATRIOT Act, the die has now been cast. The Senate has voted to reconsider the vote against cloture from last December and now has voted to limit debate on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. The rules of the Senate have changed since the days of Jimmy Stewart and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' One Senator, no matter how strongly he or she feels, cannot singlehandedly stop a bill when 60 or more of his or her colleagues are dead set on passing it. So obviously at this point, final passage of the reauthorization bill is now assured. I am disappointed in this result, obviously, but I believe this fight has been worth making and my dedication to changing the PATRIOT Act is as strong now as it has ever been. We have made some progress since October 2001. The public understands the issues better and many of my colleagues do, too. Support for changes to the PATRIOT Act has grown over the years to the point where we actually had no objection in the Senate last year passing a pretty good bill--this was in July of 2005--a bill that made significant improvements to the PATRIOT Act. Then near the end of the year, 46 Senators actually voted to reject a conference report that took several steps backward from that bill. Even a few days ago, I was heartened when the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the foremost proponent of the conference report, actually announced he would essentially take the four amendments I had hoped to offer, the amendments I was denied the right to offer in the Senate, and combine them into a bill he will now seek to move through the Judiciary Committee and enact into law. His bill will have several cosponsors, including me. So even some of the Senators who fought for this reauthorization bill, of course, realize it falls short and will join the fight to try to fix the PATRIOT Act. That is somewhat encouraging, and I thank them for their honesty. I thank them for recognizing that the rights and freedoms of the American people are worth fighting for in the Senate, just as we ask so many of our young people to fight for them overseas. The rules of the Senate provide that debate on this measure is now limited after the vote on cloture we took. But debate is not yet closed. I believe there is still more that needs to be said. In particular, in the time I have remaining, I want to give voice to the millions of Americans who have expressed concern about the PATRIOT Act and have asked repeatedly for it to be changed. There has been an extraordinary outpouring of public sentiment against this law, and that sentiment deserves to be heard on the floor of the Senate. So in a few minutes I am going to read some of the resolutions that have been passed and editorials that have been written and letters that have been sent. In these final hours before the PATRIOT Act is reauthorized, I want my colleagues to hear the voices of the citizens of this country. These voices cannot be stifled by votes taken here. They may have been ultimately defeated by procedural maneuvers in this body over the past few weeks, but their concerns for the liberties and freedoms are real, and they are not going away. We ignore them at our peril. Before I turn to those voices, I want to start with the basic principle. Our Nation's strength comes not only from our mighty and our unmatched military might but from our constitutional system and our reverence for the rule of law. That is what has kept us free for over 2\1/4\ quarter centuries in our history as a nation. Millions of patriotic Americans love this country and support our military men and women in their difficult missions abroad but worry about the fate of our Constitution here at home. Our constitutional freedoms, our American values are what make our country worth fighting for as we strive to defeat the terrorists who threaten us. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are documents we often talk about and less often actually pick up and reread. In light of their central importance to the debate about the PATRIOT Act, I thought it would be worth reading them today. The United States Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America. Article I Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years. Of course, this provision has been amended by the 14th amendment so I will skip that part. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and George three. As per act of November 15, 1941, the apportionment, based on the Sixteenth Census (1940), the Seventeenth Census (1950), and the Eighteenth Census (1960), distribute the 435 seats in the House among the States according to the method of equal proportions. (See Senate Manual section 974). When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. The House of Representative shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senators shall have one Vote. Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the First Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the Second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year; so that one-third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law. Section 1. The Time, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections; Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present be entered on the Journal. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Section 9. The Migration or Importation of Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Article II Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two- thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. In case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--``I do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall, take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article III Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;-- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Article IV Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall, be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to ever State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article V The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Article VI All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Article VII The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. The Bill of Rights, amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. The Conventions of a number of States; having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution: RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.t. Amendment [I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment [II] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment [III] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Mr. President, I am going to read that one again. It is the fourth amendment. More than any other provision I am reading, this is the one that is at the heart of the debate about this USA PATRIOT Act and its provisions, and it is this provision that is particularly violated by the imminent reauthorization of this law: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment [V] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment, or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offenses to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in, any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment [VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment [VII] In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be other- wise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment [VIII] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment [IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have been to the floor several times in the past few days to try to convince my colleagues that we should not be reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act without addressing the legitimate concerns of law-abiding Americans across the country. I am under no illusions that I will have more success making that argument now than I had yesterday, or the week before the recess. And I know that some of my colleagues may be wishing I would sit down and stop badgering them about this. But the stakes are too high to sit idly by while the Senate prepares to disappoint the millions of Americans who have been hoping, asking, advocating for years that we fix the PATRIOT Act. Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor and, to quote the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, its significance is far greater. This bill is, to again quote Senator Specter, the ``cover'' that will allow colleagues to support the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. A vote for the bill introduced by my friend from New Hampshire is effectively a vote to perform cosmetic surgery on that ugly conference report. Anyone who opposed that conference report should oppose S. 2271 because cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers. So I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position. The White House, along with its allies, has tried to make life uncomfortable for some of them. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. These cynical and baseless attacks come from a playbook that the American people are by now very familiar with. Those attacks should be rejected, not accommodated. We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. It needs to be fixed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents. They are watching and they will want to know how a bill that is so trivial on its face protects their civil liberties. It doesn't. It should be rejected. And the Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wish to indicate that I am pleased we could work out a time for the vote tomorrow. I want to be very clear that not only have I not given up any of my rights under the bill, as I understand it, given the rules postcloture, I actually have more time for debate than I otherwise would have to oppose this unwise legislation. In terms of convenience for Members, I am pleased about that. It will be important to continue the debate tomorrow prior to 3 o'clock. I thank the leaders for the ability to achieve that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later today we will have a cloture vote on S. 2271. We should not end debate on this bill, and we should not pass this bill. Doing so will only help implement the deeply flawed deal that was struck with the White House to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without enacting the core civil liberties protections for which so many of us have fought. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. Everybody in this body wants to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Many of the expiring provisions are entirely noncontroversial. But we also need to fix the provisions that went too far, that do not contain the checks and balances necessary to protect our rights and freedoms. This reauthorization process is our chance to get it right, and moving forward with this bill takes us one step closer to wasting that chance. Back in December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act conference report. I think it is clear by now that the deal makes only minor changes to that conference report, which remains as flawed today as it was 2 months ago. The Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the primary proponent of the conference report in this body, was quoted as saying that the changes that the White House agreed to were ``cosmetic.'' And then he said, according to the AP: But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for Senators to change their vote. Since this deal was announced, editorial pages of newspapers also have pointed out how minimal these changes are and have urged Senators not to change their votes. Let me read a few examples. The editorial board of the Roanoke Times in Virginia had this to say on February 11: A compromise that is expected to clear the way for the law's reauthorization is a victory of fear over strength. The ``compromise'' the White House and congressional leaders reached this week on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act is a compromise of the basic freedoms that define this Nation. The Bush administration has made a few minor concessions, enough to give the handful of defiant Senate Republicans and some of their Democratic allies cover to extend the broad antiterrorism bill and claim they have done what they could to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans. They have not. That same day from the New York Times we heard this: The PATRIOT Act has been one of the few issues on which Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties protections were added. But key members of the Senate have now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect Americans against improper secret searches. From my own home State, this is from the Wisconsin State Journal on February 18: In recent weeks, Senators have worked with the White House to produce a compromise. However, the compromise remains far short of what is required to protect Americans' civil liberties. Regrettably, the Senate has backed down from its earlier stand and is poised to pass the inadequate bill. These editorial boards and millions of Americans across the country recognize what everybody in this body already knows: that this deal makes only minor--yes, cosmetic--changes to the conference report that was blocked in December. The deal is woefully inadequate, and let me explain why. I start by reminding my colleagues of the context for this deal. Back in November and December, when so many of us were fighting for improvements to the conference report, we made very clear what we were asking for. We laid out five issues that needed to be addressed to get our support, and I am going to read quickly excerpts from a letter we sent explaining our concerns because I think it will help demonstrate why this deal is so bad and so inadequate. Here are the problems we identified and the changes we asked for several months ago. On section 215, we said: The draft conference report would allow the Government to obtain sensitive personal information on a mere showing of relevance. This would allow Government fishing expeditions. As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have argued, the Government should be required to convince a judge that the records they are seeking have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. Next, we discussed gag orders, both for section 215 orders and national security letters: The draft conference report does not permit the recipient of a section 215 order to challenge its automatic, permanent gag order. Courts have held that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment. The recipient of a section 215 order is entitled to meaningful judicial review of the gag order. The draft conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of an NSL's gag order. It requires the court to accept as conclusive the Government's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the Government is acting in bad faith. The recipients of NSLs are entitled to meaningful judicial review of a gag order. We then moved on to national security letters more generally. The draft conference report does not sunset the NSL authority. In light of recent revelations about possible abuses of NSLs, the NSL provision should sunset in no more than 4 years when the Congress will have an opportunity to review the use of this power. Finally, we addressed sneak-and-peek search warrants. The draft conference report requires the Government to notify the target of a sneak-and-peek search no earlier than 30 days after the search rather than within 7 days as the Senate bill provides and as pre-PATRIOT Act judicial decisions required. The conference report should include a presumption that notice will be provided within a significantly shorter period in order to protect fourth amendment rights. The availability of additional 90-day extensions means that a shorter initial timeframe should not be a hardship on the Government. Again, these quotes are from a letter we sent late last year. Now, you might ask, in this newly announced deal on the PATRIOT Act, have any of these five problems been solved? The answer is no, not a single one. Only one of these issues has even been partially addressed by this deal, but it has not been fixed. This deal only makes a few small changes. First, it would permit judicial review of section 215 gag orders, but under conditions that would make it very difficult for anyone to obtain meaningful judicial review. Under the deal, judicial review can only take place after a year has passed, and it can only be successful if the recipient of the section 215 order proves that the Government has acted in bad faith. As many have argued in the context of the national security letters, now that is a virtually impossible standard to meet. We need meaningful judicial review of these gag orders, not just the illusion of it. Second, the deal would specifically allow the Government to serve national security letters on libraries if the library comes within the current requirements of the NSL statute. This is a provision that appears to just restate current law. Even the American Library Association has called it nothing other than a fig leaf. Third, the deal would clarify that people who receive a national security letter or a section 215 order would not have to tell the FBI if they consult with an attorney. Now, this last change is a positive step, but it is only one relatively minor change. So that is what we are left with: one relatively minor improvement. That is nowhere near enough. Ordinarily, when we debate a flawed bill such as this one, we at least have the chance to improve it on the Senate floor by offering amendments, and I have been trying to do just that to make sure we don't miss the opportunity to address the core problem with the PATRIOT Act that so many of us have been fighting to fix. Before the recess, I filed four amendments to S. 2271, but I was prevented from calling them up because the majority leader used the procedural tactic of filling the amendment tree in order to prevent Senators from offering and getting votes on amendments. Using procedural maneuvers like this to prevent the Senate from debating and voting on amendments is an insult to the institution, and it is an insult to every one of my colleagues. We are being told that we have no choice but to accept the deal that a few Members cut with the White House, without being allowed to even try to change a single word. We do have a choice--to oppose cloture on this bill and insist that any deal include meaningful civil liberties protections. I don't know if the majority leader fears that my amendments would actually pass or if he just wants to protect Senators from having to explain why they oppose basic protections for law-abiding Americans, but that should not be how the Senate does its business. Offering, debating, and voting on amendments is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. That is how we are supposed to craft legislation. Trying to ram this deal through without a real amending process is a cynical maneuver that we should all reject, regardless of how we may feel about the merits of the bill. If my colleagues want to vote against my amendments, that is their right. But no one has the right to turn this body into a rubberstamp. Let's take a step back and consider the process that got us here today. As we know, conference reports are not amendable. They come to this body as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Those are the rules, and we all understand them and play by them. In December, we understood that. In December, we just said no. We said no to the PATRIOT Act conference report. Now we have a new bill, the product of a side deal with the White House, that is essentially an amendment to the conference report. It is even drafted that way. Each section of the bill amends the underlying law, as amended by the conference report. That is right. The bill we are considering today amends a law that hasn't even been passed by the Senate, much less signed into law. As I understand it, this bill, should both Houses of Congress pass it, will have to sit on the President's desk unsigned until the President signs the conference report bill into law. The proponents of this deal want to effectively amend the conference report which couldn't pass the Senate in December, even though conference reports are unamendable, and they want to do it by circumventing the regular legislative process with a bill that no one is being allowed to amend, even though the bill did not go through committee, let alone a conference. How is that fair? Why should a handful of members of this body be able to amend an unamendable conference report with a deal struck by the White House, and then prevent the Senate from working its will on that deal? How can one group of Senators amend the conference report but prevent other Senators from trying to do the same thing? How is that possible? The answer is that it is not possible unless the Senate lets it happen. And the vote we will have later today is the vote where we will find out if the Senate will let it happen. I hope even colleagues who may support the deal will oppose such a sham process. It makes no sense to agree to end debate without a guarantee that we will be allowed to actually try to improve the bill, and it is a discourtesy to all Senators, not just me, to try to ram through controversial legislation without the chance to improve it. My amendments are limited and reasonable. I spoke about them at length before the recess, but let me just take a few minutes to explain again what they would do. First, amendment No. 2892 would implement the standard for obtaining section 215 orders that was in the Senate bill that the Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 18 to 0, and that was agreed to in the Senate without objection. This is obviously a very reasonable amendment that every Senator in one way or another has basically supported. It took hard work, but the Judiciary Committee came up with language on section 215 that protects innocent Americans, while also allowing the Government to do what it needs to do to investigate and prevent terrorism. The Senate standard would require the Government to convince a judge that a person has some connection to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their sensitive records. The Senate standard is the following: One, that the records pertain to a terrorist or spy; two, that the records pertain to an individual in contact with or known to a suspected terrorist or spy; or--and I emphasize ``or''--three, that the records are relevant to the activities of a suspected terrorist or spy. That is the standard my amendment would impose. This would not limit the types of records that the Government could obtain, and it does not go as far to protect law-abiding Americans as I might prefer, but it would make sure the Government cannot go on fishing expeditions into the records of innocent people. The conference report did away with this delicate compromise, replacing the three-prong test with a simple and quite broad relevance standard which could arguably justify the collection of all kinds of information about perfectly law-abiding Americans. Of all the concerns that have been raised about the PATRIOT Act since it was passed in 2001, section 215 is the one that has received the most public attention, and rightly so. A reauthorization bill that doesn't fix this provision, in my view, has no credibility. My second amendment is amendment No. 2893, which would ensure the recipients of business records orders under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and also recipients of national security letters can get meaningful judicial review of the gag orders they are subject to. Under the conference report, as modified by the Sununu bill, recipients of these documents would theoretically have the ability to challenge the gag orders in court, but the standard for getting the gag orders overturned would be virtually impossible to meet. In order to prevail in challenging the NSL or section 215 gag order, the recipient would have to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith. There would be what many have called a conclusive presumption that the gag order stands, unless the recipient can prove that the Government acted in bad faith. Again, I simply don't think that anyone could reasonably call this meaningful judicial review. My amendment would eliminate the bad faith showing currently required for overturning both section 215 and NSL gag orders. And it would no longer require recipients of section 215 orders to wait a year before they can challenge the accompanying gag orders, which is actually a new requirement in the Sununu bill. My third amendment, amendment No. 2891, would add to the conference report one additional 4-year sunset provision. It would sunset the national security letter authorities that were expanded by the PATRIOT Act. It would simply add that sunset to the already existing 4-year sunsets that are in the conference report with respect to section 206, section 215, and the so-called lone wolf provision. National security letters, or NSLs, are finally starting to get the attention they deserve. This authority was expanded by sections 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. The issue of NSLs has flown under the radar for years, even though many of us have been trying to bring more public attention to it. National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain kinds of records without any--any--sort of court approval whatsoever. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses such as jewelers, car dealers, travel agents, and even casinos. This is a very broad power. I can think of no reason Congress would not want to place a sunset on these authorities to ensure we have the opportunity to take a close look at them. Finally, my fourth amendment, amendment No. 2894, concerns so-called sneak-and-peek searches, whereby the Government can secretly search people's houses in everyday criminal investigations and not provide notice of the search until afterward. The key issue here is how long the Government should be allowed to wait, at least in most cases, before it notifies individuals that their homes have been searched. The Senate bill said 7 days, 7 days should be the presumption, with the ability to get extensions if necessary, but the conference report does away with that and instead allows a delay of 30 days in most cases. My amendment would restore the key component in the Senate compromise by requiring that subjects of sneak-and-peek searches be notified of the search within 7 days unless a judge grants an extension of that time because there is good reason to still keep the search secret. It makes no other change in the conference report other than changing 30 days to 7 days. Those are my amendments. They are eminently reasonable. They are consistent with provisions that we approved in the Senate last year or they were central to the concerns raised by so many Senators late last year. So these are obviously not extreme ideas, and the Senate should be allowed to vote on these four amendments. All of us have as much right as the Senators who struck a deal with the White House to try to amend the conference report. I am happy to report that the Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, thinks these are reasonable amendments, too. In fact, he thinks they are so reasonable that late yesterday he announced that he is going to combine them into a single bill and introduce it today and try to move it through the Judiciary Committee. That is right. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the chief proponent in this body of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report and of the White House deal the Senate is being asked to ratify, has taken the four amendments I just described and, with a few minor tweaks, he has introduced them as a bill. I must say, I guess I am flattered and, of course, I will support that bill, but there is an alternative to the lengthy and uncertain legislative process that awaits the chairman's new bill, and that is to simply allow the Senate to vote on my amendments this week. The chairman could offer them with me. We could make a pretty powerful team on this issue, maybe. We have the perfect and logical vehicle for these amendments to the PATRIOT Act before us right now. All we need to do is add the chairman's reasonable proposals to this bill and send it to the House, where it would almost certainly pass if the leadership would simply allow it to be voted on. These provisions, most of which come right out of the bill that passed the Senate without objection last July, could become law in a matter of weeks rather than a year or more from now, if ever. My amendments and Senator Specter's bill are simply what the bipartisan group asked for back in December when we blocked the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. Our requests were reasonable then, and they are reasonable now. The only reason we are considering a package that doesn't include them is that the White House played hardball, and the decision was made by some to capitulate. Mr. President, I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify, and I oppose the sham process that the Senate is facing here. We still have not fixed some of the most significant problems of the PATRIOT Act, and if we allow the conference report to go through, the chairman's sincere hopes notwithstanding, I fear that we will lose that chance for at least another 4 years. So I must oppose cloture on this bill, which will allow the deal to go forward. Before I yield the floor, let me ask one more time for unanimous consent to set the pending amendments aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2892, the amendment to modify the standard for section 215 orders.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that objection says it all. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture, not only because this deal is flawed but also because of the tactics being used to prevent votes on reasonable, relevant amendments--reasonable, relevant amendments that would improve the flawed bill we are debating. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.