the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i rise to speak in opposition -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. udall: thank you, madam

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the patriot act incorporated in s. 1038. i have to tell you, i find reauthorization especially troubling since we have waited until the last minute and are now being told that we must rush this bill through the senate of the united states. there are a number of the patriot act provisions that are permanent, and they remain in place to give our intelligence community important tools to fight terrorism, but there are three controversial provisions that we're debating, commonly known as roving wiretap, lone wolf and business records. and i have to tell you, at least from my point of view, and there are senators who agree with me, they are ripe for abuse and they threaten americans' constitutional freedoms. as i start my remarks, at the

onset, i want to state that i firmly believe, as we all do, that terrorism is a serious threat to our great country of the united states, and we have to be focused like no other time in our history in seeking to protect our people, the american people. i sit on the senate armed services committee and the senate intelligence committee, and on those two committees, much of my attention is centered on keeping americans safe, both here and abroad, and i recognize that despite osama bin laden's death -- and we all celebrate because justice was delivered -- we still live in a world where terrorism is a serious threat to our country, our economy and to the american lives. our government does need the appropriate surveillance and antiterrorism tools to achieve these important goals. indeed, many of the patriot act's provisions which i support have made our nation safer, since those devastating attacks on that day we'll always remember on 9/11, we know that for a fact, but the problem we

confront today is that there are three provisions that we're debating that fail to strike the right balance between keeping us safe while protecting the privacy rights of coloradans and all americans. instead, these three provisions are far too susceptible to abuse i the federal government even in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism. i don't say this lightly, but my concerns about some of these provisions have only grown since i've been briefed on their interpretation and their implementation as a member of the intelligence committee. let me share some examples. currently the intelligence community can place wide-ranging wiretaps on americans without even identifying the target or the location of such surveillance. that's one concern. my second concern: the intelligence community has target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations. and a third concern that i have is they can collect business records on law-abiding americans who have no connection to

terrorism. we ought to be able to at least agree that the source of investigation under the patriot act should have a terrorist-related focus. if we can't limit investigations to terrorism, my concern is, where do they end? is there no amount of information that our government can collect that should be off limits? i know coloradans are demanding that we at least place commonsense limits on government investigations and link data collection to terrorist-related activities. if we pass this bill, mr. president, to extend the patriot act to 2015, it would mean that for four more years, the federal government will continue to have unrestrained access to private information about americans who have no connection to terrorism, with little to no accountability as to how these powers are used. and, again, i want to go to this. we all agree the intelligence

community needs effective tools, but we must provide those fools in way that protects the constitutional freedoms of our people and lives up to the standard of transparency that democracy demands. the three controversial provisions that i've mentioned can be much-better balanced to protect our people. yet it seems to me that many of my colleagues -- many of our colleagues oppose any changes, and by making the patriot act provisions i've outlined permanent, we would be in effect preventing debate on them ever again. to travel that path would be to threaten constitutional and civil liberty liberties that we hold dear in this country. that's not the right path. mr. president, let me be clear. i do not oppose the reauthorization of these three provisions of the patriot act, but i do aim to provide forward some commonsense reforms that will allow us to strike an

important balance between keeping our nation safe on the one hand while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. and toward that goal, i've worked side by side with my colleagues in coming up with commonsense fixes that could receive bipartisan support. one example -- senator wyden from oregon has filed an amendment which i've cosponsored that would require that the department of justice disclose to congress the efficiently legal interpretation of the -- the official legal interpretation of the provisions of the patriot act. while i believe that our intelligence practices should be kept secret, i do not believe in a the government's official flchtion these laws should be kept secret. i've also filed my own amendments to address some of the problems i see with the three expiring provisions. the first amendment i've filed is bipartisan, with senator paul of kentucky who is on the floor and senator wyden who has joined us as well.

our amendment would modify the roving wiretap authority under section 206 of the patriot act. specifically, our bipartisan amendment will require intelligence agencies to identify either the target or place to be wiretapped. they currently do not have to do so. and i believe that when seeking to collect intelligence, law enforcement should at least have to identify who is being targeted. i've also filed an amendment to address the so-called lone wolf provision, which currently allows the government to conduct wiretap surveillance on individuals even when that person has no connection to a government or a terrorist organization. this amendment would simply require that should the intelligence community use the lone wolf provision, that congress simply be notified. again, a safeguard that is not in place as we stand here today. without safeguards like that, how do we in this body conduct our constitutional duties of oversight?

finally, i was joined by senator wyden in filing an amendment designed to narrow the scope of business record materials that can be collected under section 215 of the patriot act. this amendment would still allow law enforcement to use the patriot act to obtain such records but would require these entities to demonstrate that the records are in some way connected to terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. right now, mr. president, law enforcement can currently obtain any kind of records. in fact, the patriot act's only limitation states that such information has to be related to any tangible thing. that's right. as long as these business records are related to any "tangible thing" the u.s. government can require businesses to turn over information on all of their cuss americas whether or not there's any link to terrorism. mr. paul: would my colleague yield for a question, very briefly -- mr. wyden: would my colleague

yield for a question, very briefly? mr. udall: yes. mr. wyden: it seems to me you have laid out the case as to why there needs to be a thoughtful debate about the patriot act and what's necessary to strike this key balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting our libtds. i'm interested in what my colleague thinks about the proposition of how you have a thoughtful debate on these issues when there is secret law, where in effect the interpretation of the law, as it stands today, is kept secret? so here we're, united states senators, on the floor -- and i've had colleagues of both political parties wanting to participate in this. certainly, if you're an american, you're in oregon or colorado, you want to be part of this discussion. but yet the executive branch keeps secret how they are interpreting the law. what's your sense about how we have a thoughtful debate if that

continues? mr. udall: the senator from or has put his finger on why this is so important not only to the debate here and not rush these provisions to the house because of a deadline that i think we could push back. we could, as you know, extend the patriot act in its present form for a number of other days or a number of weeks in order to get this right. but the senator from oregon makes the powerful point that the law shouldn't be classified as far as its interpretation goes. of course we can protect sources and methods and operations, as we well should. both of us serve on the intelligence committee. we're privy to some in fact that should be kept classified. but we've come to the floor to make this case because of what we've learned on the expwel generals committee. -- the intelligence committee. i thank the senator for his question. i look forward to his comments in a few minutes. the senator from oregon, in effect, points out that threes

just a few of the reform ideas that we could debate. but without further debate on any of these issues, this or any other administration can abuse the patriot act and could actually deny us, as members of congress, whether in this congress or future congresses, the opportunity to fulfill our oversight responsibilities on behalf of the american people. mr. president, when i voted against the original passage of the patriot act in 2001, and i plan to vote against the reauthorization of these expiring provisions this week unless we implement some reforms that will sensibly restrain these overly broad provisions. simply put, again to make the point that the senator from oregon made so importantly, i believe that congress is granting powers to the executive branch that lead to abuse and frankly shield the executive branch from accountability. there have been ten years since we first passed this law and there's been very little

opportunity to improve the law. and i just resist this rush to again rubber stamp policies that threaten the very liberty that we hold dear. i recently supported short-term extensions of the expiring provisions before us, as a bridge to take time to debate and amend the patriot act and its controversial provisions. but we were notified a few days ago that we would be voting on a four-year extension of these expiring provisions. and that's just not the way to ensure that americans -- that we're diligently considering these important public decisions. in federalist 51, james madison, who we venerate, who was the author of many of the documents that structure and in which we organize and operate our democracy, he wrote -- quote -- "in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty

lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself." the bill before us does not live up to that standard. and i believe it seriously risks the constitutional freedoms of our people. we need to strike a better balance between giving our national security and law enforcement officials the tools necessary to keep us safe while not damaging the very constitution we have sworn to support and defend. by passing an unamended reauthorization, we are ensuring that americans will live with the status quo for four more long years. and i believe this bill may well be a lost opportunity to improve the balance between our security and our civil liberties. that's not the result that our founding fathers envisioned, and it's not a result that our constituents want. and for these reasons, if the patriot act provisions are not

amended, i plan to vote "no" on the motion to invoke cloture and on passage of s. 1038. before i yield the floor, mr. president, i want to make one last historical reference. ben franklin, one of our founding fathers, said compellingly and presciently, he said, "a society that would sacrifice essential liberties for short-term security deserves neither." i think that's the question before us. there is a way forward. there is a way to keep the patriot act in place to protect our national security, but also to protect our essential libertied. but in order to do that, we have to have a chance to debate and pass thee important amendments. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, before my colleague leaves the chairnlings i just want to tell him what a welcome addition he has been to the intelligence committee. i have served on a committee for ten years. we've had excellent chairs, first senator roberts, then

senator rockefeller, senator feinstein, so we continue to try to look for bipartisan support in trying to strike that balance between collective security and individual liberty, and i'm struck both by the clarity of your statement and the fact that those who are going to vote on these amendments and the american people who are listening in tonight really ought to be able to get in a straightforward, easy-to-access fashion how the executive branch is currently interpreting the patriot act. i mean, the fact of the matter is, law professors give assignments to their students to write analyses of the patriot act, the congressional research service actually has an analysis out, but it's not possible to get the official interpretation of how the u.s. government frames this law for the

operations that are so essential for our country. so you have laid it out very well, and it is a pleasure to serve with you on the intelligence committee. mr. president, let me try to sum up what this issue has come down to to me. these are dangerous times. if you go into the intelligence committee several times a week, as senator udall and i do, you come away with the indisputable judgment that there are threats to the we will-being o well-beis country that that are people who do not wish our citizens well. so in these dangerous time, the sources and methods of our antiterror operations absolutely must be kept secret. that is fundamental to the work of the intelligence community, keeping the sources and methods of those who serve us so

gallantly secret and ensure that they are as safe as possible. but while we protect those sources and methods, the laws that authorize them should not be kept secret from the american people. and that, mr. president, is what this is all about. it is whether or not the laws that authorize the operations that are so essential, that have been passed by the congress, that their interpretation should be kept secret from the american people. i call it "secret law," mr. president, and i want to say to this body, "yes," we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our democracy. it will undermine the confidence that the american people have in our intelligence operations. and you might recall, it was only a few years ago during the

bush administration where they secretly reinterpreted the war rantly wiretapping statute to say that it was possible to wiretap our people without a warrant. when it came out, it took years to sort that out. the executive branch and the congress working together. i don't want to see that happen again. mr. president, so that is why i have joined senators udall in these amendments, hope that we can get bipartisan support for what we're trying to do, and especially -- especially -- ensure that the official interpretation of the patriot act, an important intelligence statutes, that that is made public to the american people, and i think it can be done in a way without jeopardizing our sources and message outesources. now, one of the reasons that senator udall and i and others feel so strongly about this is that this is the time -- and i think senator udall touched on

this -- when congress finally should say, we're not just going to keep kicking the can down the road. that's what's been done again and again over the last decade. the patriot act was passed a decade ago during a period of understandable fear, understandable fear, having suffered in our nation the greatest terrorist attack in our history. so the patriot act was born out of those great fears, and it seems to me now is the time to revisit this, revisit it and ensure that a better job is done of striking that balance between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty. unfortunately, every time over the last decade there's been an effort to do just that, to revisit this and strike a better balance, we've had the same, you know, pattern.

we've said we've just got to get it done, got to get it done quickly, and we really doesn't have any time to consider, for example, the thoughtful sessions -- thoughtful ideas that senator udall has mentioned. and i just don't think that it is time now to once again put a real debate on the patriot act off for yet another always distant day. now, there is an irony about what this is all about, and that is that senators are going to want to consider the amendments of senator udall. i see, i believe st. senator pas here -- i believe senator paul is here. there are others that have thought about this. it is hard to have a debate on these specific amendments, whether the leahy amendment, the paul amendment, the udall amendment, the ones we have together, if in fact you can't figure out how the executive

branch is interpreting the law. an open and informed debate on the patriot act requires that we get beyond the fact that the executive branch relies on these secret legal interpretations to support their work, and members of the united states senate try to figure out what those interpretations are. now here are the rules. if a united states senator wants to go to the intelligence committee -- and i think senator udall touched on this -- a united states senator can go there and get a briefing. many members of congress don't have staff members who are cleared for those types of briefings. under senate rules, it is not possible for senators to come down here and discuss what they may have picked up in one of those classified briefings. and i just don't think with respect to the legal interpretation that's what the american people believe we ought

to be doing here. the american people want secret operations protected. they understand what sources and methods are all about and that we have to have secrecy, for example, for those in the intelligence community to get the information we need about sleeper cells and terrorist groups and the threats that we learn about in the intelligence committee. but that is very different in keeping these legal interpretations secret. and in my view, the current situation is simply unacceptable. the american people recognize that their government can better protect national security if it is sometimes allowed to operate in secrecy, and they certainly don't expect the administration and the executive branch to publish every detail about how intelligence is collected. certainly americans never expected george washington to tell them about his plans for observing troop movements at york town. but americans have always

expected their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly understood law. and as voters, they certainly have a right to know how the law is being interpreted so that the american people can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. put it another way, americans know that their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don't believe the government ought to be writing secret law. and the reason why we have felt so strongly about this issue of secret law is that it violates the trust that americans place in their government and it undermines public confidence in government institutions and agencies, make it go harder for them to operate effectively. i was on the intelligence committee, mr. president. i think this is a little before senator udall joined us, when americans were pretty much stunned to learn that the bush

administration had been secretly claiming for years that warrantless wiretapping was legal. my own view was that disclosure significantly undermined the public trust and the department of justice and national intelligence agency. our phones were ringing off the hooks for days when the american people learned about it. and the congress and the executive branch then had to in effect retrench and figure out how to sort it out. i certainly believe that the public is going to be surprised again when they learn about some of the interpretations of the patriot act. and government officials cannot hope to indefinitely prevent the american people from learning the truth. this is going to come out, colleagues. it is going to come out at some point, just as it came out during the bush administration about warrantless wiretapping. it's going to come out. and it is not going to be helpful to the kind of dialogue we want to have with the

american people, an open and honest dialogue with the american people, to just continue this practice of secret law. now the reason that i'm offering or seeking to offer this amendment with senator udall and senator merkley and colleagues with respect to changing the practice of secret law is we have raised this issue numerous times. we've raised it on the senate floor. we have raised it in correspondence, in meetings with senior administration officials. i've been joined in the past by other senators who have talked about it with respect to the problem in the news media. but the problem persists, and the gap between the public's understanding of the patriot act and the government's secret interpretation of the patriot act remains today. and once information has been labeled secret, there is a strong bureaucratic tendency, it almost gets in the bureaucratic

chromosomes to keep it secret and not revisit the original decision. so what senator udall and i and colleagues seek to do is correct this problem. we seek to offer an amendment that states that it is entirely appropriate for particular intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret, but that the laws that authorize these techniques should not be kept secret and should instead be transparent to the public. we seek to offer an amendment that states that u.s. government officials should not secretly reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that is inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws or describe the execution of these laws in a way that misinforms or misleads the public. so under this proposal, the attorney general and director of national intelligence would -- and we note this -- provide a classified report to the congressional intelligence

committees that makes it clear that intelligence collection continues to go forward. and our amendment would simply require the attorney general to publicly lay out the legal basis for the intelligence activities described in the report. the amendment specifically directs the attorney general not to describe specific collection programs or activities, but simply to fully describe the legal interpretations and analyses necessary to understand the government's official interpretation of the law. let me close, mr. president. i see colleagues waiting to speak. that we can have honest and legitimate disagreements about exactly how broad intelligence collection authorities ought to be. and members of the public do not expect to know all of the details about how those authorities are used. but i would hope that each senator would agree that the law itself -- the law itself --

should not be kept secret and that the government should always be open and honest with the american people about what the law means. all that senator udall and i seek to do, and colleagues, is to restore some of that openness and honesty in an area where it is now needed. and i hope that colleagues here on the floor of the senate and in the obama administration will join in that effort. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, on thursday, in a speech on the middle east, president obama said while we believe the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. while the president has since sought to revise or clarify his remarks, it is valuable to remind ourselves what a retreat to the pre-1967 boundaries would

mean for the security of israel. after israel declared independence in 1948, it was invaded by five neighboring armies and an arm cities line was subsequently established in 1949. this line is known as the green line, and while some refer to it as a border, it was never officially recognized as an international border. if israel was forced to retreat to the green line, its pre-1967 boundary, exactly will be only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. such close borders are untenable today and would subject israel's population to great and grave danger. following the six-day war, u.n. security council resolution 242 affirmed israel's right to secure and recognize borders. as robert satlof of the washington institute for near east policy points out, calls for israel to withdraw to those secure and recognized borders

have never been interpreted as being synonymous with the pre- 1967 boundaries. a quick look at a map of israel will explain while these boundaries -- why these boundaries cannot be secure. prime minister netanyahu today in a joint session of congress reminded us that -- quote -- "israel needs unique security arrangements because of its unique size." two-thirds of israel's population and infrastructure lie within 60-mile strip along the mediterranean coastline. tel aviv would only be 11 miles away from a palestinian state with its border as the green line and the bengerien airport, israel's largest and bussiest, would be a mere four miles away. it would only take one rocket fired at the airport for the entire airport to shut down, isolating israel from the rest of the world. with the green line as its border, the dangers to israel come not only because of the short distances between major israeli cities and the palestinian state but also from

the geography of the land. the 60-mile strip along israel's coastline lies below the hilly heights of the west bank. with control of that high terrain, terrorists could easily target and terrorize much of israel's population, just as they have from gaza, but with even more deadly accuracy. when israel unilaterally withdrew from gaza in 2005, israel's leaders had hoped that the palestinians would demonstrate they could live peacefully with israel. instead, hamas assumed power and israelis living in the southern part of israel have had thousands of rockets and mortar attacks directed at them. so far this year, more than 300 rockets and mortars have been fired from gaza, terrorizing countless families in israel. the threats to israel from the palestinian state with its borders of the green line are clearly understood in this context, especially since the palestinian authority president abbas' fatah party has inked an

accord with hamas to form a unity government earlier this month. although welcomed by president abbas, hamas still calls for destruction of the state of israel. the united states designated hamas as a terrorist organization in 1997. it has killed more than 500 innocent civilians, including dozens of americans. the united states does not -- i'm sorry. the united states does not negotiate with terrorists, and we should not expect or ask israel to do so either. instead of calling for negotiations based on boundaries that leave israel vulnerable to attack, the president should have insisted the palestinians prove that they are ready to be responsible and peaceful neighbors. as prime minister netanyahu said, the palestinian authority must choose either peace with israel or peace with hamas. there is no possibility for peace with both. israel's security must come first. any effort to force israel to withdraw to its pre-1967

boundaries, the 1949 arm cities line, would undermine israel's security and threaten the future of any peace talk. in 2004, the senate overwhelmingly passed senate resolution 393 which endorsed u.s. policy for a middle east peace process. in particular, the senate supported a statement that said in light of the realities on the ground, including already existing major israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the arm cities lines of 1949. i believe it's important for the united states to again oppose any plan to force israel to withdraw to those 49 boundaries. borders between israel and a palestinian state should be decided only by israel and palestinian leaders through direct negotiations. borders should not be a preconditioned set for negotiations by the president of the united states or anyone

else. as prime minister netanyahu said today, peace cannot be imposed. since recognizing israel 11 minutes after its founding in 1948, our two countries have worked side by side to advance democracy and peace and stability. israel is our staunchest ally in a volatile part of the world. we cannot now turn our back on israel by forcing it to take a position in negotiations that would endanger its very existence. i oppose any plan or effort to force israel back to those 1949 arm cities lines and encourage my colleagues to work to see that that is not the case. i ask my colleagues to support that position as well. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. reid: i would ask consent that that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we've been working for -- and i've

been working on it for a lot longer than several days -- but several days publicly on process to move forward with the patriot act. we have worked over the last several days to work something out that is i think an excellent compromise. is this bill something that everybody in the senate likes or everybody in the house likes? the answer is no. but we all know how important it is that we continue this legislation. so senator mcconnell and i and speaker boehner have agreed on a way to move forward on this. the alternative is to have a long, long-term extension of this that the house would send us and i think that wouldn't be to anyone's benefit. so we're moving forward on this.

i've tried to do it with the bill that we invoked cloture on yesterday. i've had many conversations with senator paul and others, but principally him, and tried to come up with a process to allow senator paul to offer amendments, and others to offer amendments -- it's not just him. i've been unsuccessful. now, i understand senator paul's exasperation because this is something that is extremely important to him and there was every desire from my perspective and i think this body to have a full, complete debate on the patriot act. but the senate doesn't always work that way and there have been a lot of things that have gotten in the way of this and the time is suddenly upon us.

mr. president, we have to complete this legislation by midnight on thursday. we cannot let this expire. we cannot let the patriot act expire. i have a responsibility to try to get this bill done as soon as possible, in spite of the fact that some of my senators and some republican senators would rather i did it some other way, at some other time. but i don't have that -- i can't do that. i have to get this done. we know since bin laden was killed that there's been a lot of information discovered from him that he did, and the one thing that's very clear, that he had instructed all of his lieutenants to focus all of

their attention on the united states and its assets. so we can't let this expire, and i'm going to do everything i can to make sure that we -- this does not happen. senator paul and i have tried to work out something. he feels strongly about at least three of his amendments. and i say, even though he and i disagree on a number of things politically, i have found in his time here in the senate as it relates to me to be one of -- he's a very pleasant man with strong, strong feelings, and i have only the highest regard for him. and i'm sorry that i can't make this system we have here in the senate more in keeping with his desires to get things done. but as he will learn over the years that it's always difficult to get what you want in the

senate. it doesn't mean you won't get it but sometimes you have to wait and get it done at some subsequent time. so senator paul has been very upfront with me. he's never hidden a punch or he's said that i feel strongly about a number of these amendments and i'm not going to agree to threat go forward unless i have these amendments. and he's brought his -- he's been very reasonable. he's brought his number down from 11 to three or four and i appreciate that. but, mr. president, the time has come for me to take some action. again, i repeat, i don't have the luxury of waiting for a better time. i would -- i really like would to be able to allow the senator from kentucky to give a few of his stem winding speeches. he does a very, very good job at presenting himself. but in order to expedite what i think is so important to move

the country's intelligence operations -- to make them continue, i should say, i'm going to move to table the pending motion to proceed to s. 1038. following that vote, i'll ask the chair to lay before the senate a message received from the house earlier today. i will then move to concur with an amendment which will be the extension of the patriot act and i will file cloture on that motion. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to table. is there a sufficient second? at this moment, there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or

to change their vote? the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 13, one announced present. the motion to table is agreed to. the majority leader. please move your conversation out of the well. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask the chair to lay before the

senate a message from the house with respect to s. 990. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 990, entitled an act to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes, do pass with an amendment. the presiding officer: the message is laid before the senate. mr. reid: i move to concur on the house amendment to s. 990 with an amendment and i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motions. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 990, with an amendment numbered 347. cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 990, with an amendment numbered 347. signed by 17 senators as follows. reid of nevada --

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 348 to amendment numbered 347. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a motion to refer the house message to the senate small business committee with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to refer the house message to the committee on small business with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 349. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i have an amendment to my instructions, which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 350 to the instructions of the motion to refer. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment to my instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 351 to

amendment numbered 350. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, there will be no more roll call votes tonight. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: h.r. 1893, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund, to amend title 49 united states code to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: without

objection. mr. merkley: thank you. mr. president, i rise to address

the four-year extension of the patriot act and to oppose that extension if the bill is not modified. and i want to take us back to the principles on which our nation was founded, and indeed before our declaration of independence, before our constitution, there was a deep tradition of the right of privacy. and let's take william pitt's declaration in 1763. he said, "the poorest may in his cottage bid his defiance to all the forces of the crowd, the storm may interks the rain may enter, but the king of england may not enter." that is the philosophy embedded in william pitt's declaration of

the sanctity of a man's home that underwrote the principle of the fourth amendment, and that reads as follows: "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." the fourth amendment is powerful protection of personal privacy from the overreach of government. and how does that compare in contrast to the patriot act that is before us?

let me tell you the standard that is in the patriot act for the government to seize your papers, to search your papers, and that standard is simply relevance to an investigation. now, relevance is an investigation? that's the legal standard that was set out in the patriot act? that is a standard that was written to be as broad and low as possible. what does it mean to be relevant to an investigation? it certainly isn't something as strong as probable cause, which is in the fourth amendment. it certainly isn't describing the place to be searched, the persons and things to be seized. indeed, the word "relevant"

doesn't have a foundation of legal tradition that provides any boundaries at all. now, let's take the term "investigation." "investigation" is in the eye of the beholder. i want to look into something. it is an investigation. so what happens to these words in the patriot act in this seskts patriot act -- in this section of the patriot act that addresses the sweeping powers to investigate americans down to the books they check out, their medical records, their private communications? quite simply, there is a process in theory in which a court known as the fisa court makes a determination, but they make the determination upon this standa standard. then this standard is relevant to an investigation. now, the interpretation of that clause is done in secret.

i would defy you to show me a circumstance where a secret interpretation of a very minimal standard is tightened in that secret process. but we don't know, because we're not being told. this is why i support senator wyden's amendment. senator wyden said we shouldn't have secret law, secret interpretation of clauses that may result in the opposite of what we believe is being done, and that is a very important amendment. but that amendment will not be debated on the floor of the senate. now, it won't be debated because a very clear mechanism has just been put -- a very clever mechanism has just been put into play to prevent amendments from being offered and debated on the floor of the senate on the four-year extension of the patriot act. and, quite frankly, i'm very

disturbed by that mechanism, a parliamentary move, in which a house message is brought over and that message -- the regular bill is tabled, that message will then be -- have the regular patriot act put into it as a privileged motion, and it'll be returned to the house, and the effect therein is because the tree has been filled -- which is parliamentary-speak for no amendments will be allowed -- we won't get to debate senator wyden's amendment. and there are a number of senators who have proposed to change this standard this standard "relevant" to an investigation. to make it a legally significant standard, to make sure that it isn't being secretly interpreted to mean almost nothing. but we won't have a debate in this senate over changing that

low and insignificant standard into a meaningful legal standard with teeth in it. that has court cases behind what it means, interpretations that will protect us. now, there is no question that every member of this chamber takes enormous sense of responsibility in the security of our nation. and in that sense, there is significant feeling on every person's part that we need to enable our intelligence services, we need to enable our military to do the necessary work to protect our nation. but that does not mean we should avoid having a debate about whether the patriot act, as written today, without an amendment, rolls over the top of the fourth amendment of the constitution of the united states of america.

because we can have both personal privacy and a high standard as set out in the fourth amendment for the seizure of papers and security, those two things are not at war with each other. we have had two centuries in this nation of embracing the twins of personal privacy and security. we've made that work. we can continue to make it wonchwork.so i rise in protest e process that is unfolding on the floor of the senate in which amendments will not be presented and will not be debated. and i rise to say that the fourth amendment matters, that it set a significant standard against unreasonable seizures and searches and that the patriot act, as written, does

not provide a clear implementation of the fourth amendment, a clear protection of the fourth amendment. so i will close by noting that it's been nearly 250 years since william pitt declared that the poorest may in his cottage bid his defiance to all the forces of the crown. the storm may enter, the rain may enter but the king of england may not enter. let us have a debate in this chamber about modifications that protect our security but that hold faith with the principle william pitt annunciated and with the principle we adopted in the 4th amendment to the constitution, that the right of the people against unreasonable seizures and search shall not be

violated. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, last week the chairman of the house budget committee, paul ryan, came to the chicago to speak to the economic club and to articulate his vi the republican vision, on how to reduce our nation's debt. it was an interesting speech because congressman ryan's budget, the republican budget, which passed the house of representatives, has become an object of debate and controver controversy. i know congressman ryan and we served together on the president's deficit commission. i know he is a very thoughtful and learned and sincere individual, but i certainly have to say that his approach to dealing with our budget deficit

is one that i believe falls short of the mark. it would seem to me that if we are serious about our deficit -- and we should be -- we should acknowledge the fact that out of every dollar that we spend in washington, we borrow 40 cents. that is unsustainable and we have to address it. and we should also look at the grim recent reality of our budget. when president william jefferson clinton left office a little over ten years ago and handed the keys to the white house over to president george w. bush, the accumulated net deficit -- debt, i should say, of america was $5 trillion. $5 trillion. eight years later, in the next transfer of power, when president george w. bush transferred power to president obama, america's accumulated net deanet -- net debt had now reacd

a new level of $11 trillion. more than doubled in eight years' period of time. and you ask yourself, how could that occur? well, the answers are fairly obvious. when you wage two wars and don't pay for them, when you cut taxes in the midst of the war -- the first time that has ever happened in our history -- and when you pass programs that are not paid for, it adds to our debt. that's what happened. and so president obama inherited a dramatic increase in the national debt and a very weak economy, lose hups of thousandsf thousands of jobs a month. now wee find we're even deeper in debt, closer to $14 trillion, because of this recession, despite the best efforts of the congress and the president to turn it around. and we know that it has to change. the major creditor of the united states of america is china and it is also our major competitor and those who realities force us to look honestly at this

deficit. i take exception to the approach that the republicans used in their deficit approach -- their deficit reduction. because when i took a look at the congressman ryan's republican budget, i find that at the end of the day, they cut spending, or nominally cut spending by $4 trillion over a ten-year period of time yet only cut $8 billion a year out of the defense budget. the defense budget of the united states is over $500 billion every year. they could only find $ billion a year to cut. not a very serious undertaking. they raised no new revenues to help pay down the debt. while they dramatically cut taxes for the wealthiest people and companies in america. in the name of deficit reduction, the republican budget would cut the top tax rate on the wealthiest individuals and corporations to 25%. the tax policy center estimates

this would reduce tax revenues by $2.9 trillion over the next ten years and virtually all of the tax savings from that change would go to households making an annual income over $200,000 a year. why does a -- what does a multitrillion-dollar tax have to do with deficit reduction? congressman ryan criticize the democrats of engaging in class warfare, as if it is somehow inappropriate to point out that the republican budget provides a massive shift in wealth from the poor and middle class to notices who are better off. warren buff felt, the who is c.e.o. of berkshire hathaway and the seer of omaha, answered that criticism bust a few years ago and he said -- quote -- "there's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making more and winning." and that's what happens with the budget republican. and then there's the issue of

health care, an issue near and dear to every single american. a serious budget plan would address the largest cause of the projected long-term debt for the federal government, health care, by allowing dozens of cost containment provisions in the affordable care act to take effect and then by finding even more to reduce the cost to the system. but the house republican budget plan does just the opposite. it repeals all the cost containment mechanisms which the congressional budget office says in doing will raise the debt of america. then the republican budget goes a step further. it ends medicare and medicaid as we know them. it's programs that serve america. their budget would transform programs that seniors and the poor count on today to provide adequate health insurance into programs that help to cover just some of the cost, leaving the rest of the bills to the families, individuals and state governments. all that the republican budget plan does under the banner of

health reform is to shift the cost of health care from american families who are paying taxes to other american families who are paying taxes in the private market t. would do nothing -- private market. it would do nothing to reduce health care costs as a whole. it is fair to ask me at this point, well, if you're going to be a critic of the republican budget, what do you suggest? and i'll tell you what i suggest. i've sat around for four months-plus now with five of my senate colleagues of both political parties working on these ideas. and what i think is the path to a reasonable deficit reduction is one that literally involves shared sacrifice, where every american has to be prepared to step up and accept the reality that things will change. mr. president, there is one demographic reality that overshadows this conversation. since january 1 of this year, every day, 9,000 americans reach the age of 65. that trend will continue for 19

more years. that's the baby-boom generation. if you'll do the math, you'll see a dramatic increase in people under social security and medicare, as those children born immediately after world war ii reach retirement age. that's a reality. what do we do about it? first, we make sure social security can be counted on. social security does not add one penny to our nation's debt. it is a separate fund. it will make every promised payment for another 25 years with a cost-of-living adjustment but then runs into trouble and you'll see a reduction if we don't do something in the 26th year by over20% -- by over 20% for each benefit payment. unacceptable. so we should think in honest terms about what we do today, small changes we can make today in social security which played out over 25 years, like the miracle of compound interest, buy us an even longer life for social security. i think there are ways to do that. there are reasonable ways to do

that. for example, when we passed social security reform in 1983, we said that 90% of wages in america should be subject to social security taxation. over the years by not raising the ceiling on wages that could be taxed for social security, we have fallen behind the 90% standard. i think we're close to 84% now. if we go back to the 90% standard, which i think is reasonable, and raise the eligible income in america for social security deductions up to 90%, it will move us towards solvency -- more solvency for social security. it's money that will not be used to reduce the deficit but will be used to invest in social security. i think that makes sense. there are other things we can do that are reasonable changes. we also have to look at medicare and medicaid and acknowledge the obvious. the cost of health care's going up too fast. we can't keep up with it. neither can state governments, local governments, businesses, or unions or families.

and so the cost containment in health care reform is just the beginning but we need to continue the conversation. and we need spending cuts. let's be very honest about it. we have taken a pretty significant cut in domestic discretionary spending just this year, even more than the bowles and simpson commission envisioned. and there's some risks associated with spending cuts in the midst of a recession. but now we need to ask the defense or military side of discretionary spending to also make some sacrifice. i think one obvious way is to start bringing our troops home from overseas. bring them home from iraq. it is estimated that it costs us $1 million per year for every soldier in the field. for all of the support that goes into training and sustaining and protecting our men and women in uniform, which we must do. but it's an expensive commitme commitment. and as we reduce our troop commitments overseas, the amount of money being spent through the pentagon will be reduced as

well. we need to take a close look at all of the private contractors working for the pentagon. mr. president, we had a hearing of this deficit commission and asked the experts, well, you can tell us how many employees there are at the department of defense -- civilian, military -- how many private contractors are working for our department of defense? and the expert said, i have no idea. i can't even get close to giving you an estimate. but it's a dramatically larger number. we can reduce that spending and we should. the point i'm making is that after we have taken care of the entitlement programs and the spending issues, that isn't enough. we need to talk about revenue. revenue that can be brought into deficit reduction. every year our tax code gives deductions and credits, exclusions and special treatment that account for $1.1 trillion that would otherwise have flowed to the treasury. instead, it is money that isn't paid into taxes and into our

government. we can reduce that tax expenditure and do it in a fair fashion by reforming the tax code in a meaningful way. and, as the bowles-simpson commission suggested, bring down tax rates as part of this conversation. that, to me, is a reasonable approach. it parallels what was done in the bowles-simpson commission, putting everything on the table and reducing our deficit over the next ten years by at least $4 trillion. i think we can do it and we should do it on a bipartisan basis. the republican budget plan unfortunately takes the wrong approach. the house republicans have proposed, among other things, a fundamental change in how we pay for health care. it turns medicaid into a block grant program and it eliminates the affordable health care act. mr. president, one of the sources of pride we all shared was the notion that 30 million americans currently uninsured would have insurance protection

under the affordable health care act. what the republicans do in repealing it is to add to the number of uninsured in america, thus making it clear they have no place to turn in their extreme situations but to medicaid. so on top of eliminating the affordable health care act, adding to the number of uninsured americans, the republican plan then limits the amount of money to spend on medicaid. the net result? more and more people uninsured seeking medicaid help with no funds to pay for their medical treatment. that is not a good vision for the future of america. we had a presentation today at our democratic caucus lunch. the presentation was made by senator kent conrad, the chairman of our budget committee. he and senator stabenow of michigan talked about what the medicare changes would mean in america and what it basically means is the average senior citizen under the republican

budget plan will see their medicare benefits cut and will find their out-of-pocket expenses to maintain current medicare protection double. over $12,000 a year. now, there are many, many seniors, in oregon and illinois and across the nation on fixed incomes. that is not a reasonable alternative. $1,000 a month on medicare insurance premiums. that's the republican budget plan. it is not a reasonable way to deal with our future challenges in health care. mr. president, we'll have a chance to vote this week on the republican budget plan, and it will be interesting to see how many on the other side of the aisle want to support the approaches that i've just described. already, some of them have announced they won't. they think it goes too far. i do, too. i hope on a bipartisan basis we can reject the house republican plan, but then let's come together in a bipartisan fashion and try to find a reasonable way to deal with this deficit.

i hope we will use the bowles-simpson commission as a starting point because i think it's a good one. and let's maintain our values, our values as a country that really takes care of the vulnerable which we will always have among us and makes a pledge that our tax code will be progressive so that working families have a fighting chance, and tries to at least share the burden of sacrifice in a reasonable and just manner. those who are better off should pay more. those who are less well off should pay less. i don't think that's an extreme position. i think it's a sensible, humane position. so, mr. president, our debate begins this week on the budget. we have a great challenge ahead of us. i hope that some of the work we did in the deficit commission will help us reach a positive conclusion. i yield and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that the is not proceed to morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes eevment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that the senate proceed to s. res. 197 submit the earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 197, honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of small business concerns in the united states during national small business week which begins on may 15, 201. -- 2011. the presiding officer: is there objection to froaght measure?

without objection. mr. durbin: it is minding we're ready to act on this resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. durbin: mr. president, i no ask that we act on the preamble. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the preamble is adopted. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 198 submitted earlier today.

the presiding officer: clrtd. the clerk: senate resolution 198 congratulating the alaska hockey team and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i understand there is a bill at the desk. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title for the first time. the clerk: s. 1057, a bill to reappeal the volume umetric ethanol tax credit. mr. durbin: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill onl the darks i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the negs legislative

day. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 tea a.m. on wednesday, may 25, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be h reserved for their use later in the day, following any leader, remarks, the senate proceed at that periods of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled with the majority rolcontrollingthe first half, ts controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to condition cur in the house message to accompany s. 990, the legislative vehicle for the patriot act extension. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to concur on to accompany the patriot act extension.

mr. president, if there is to further impis to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

test

house republicans today accused

elizabeth warren of improperly interfering with government efforts to resolve disputes of the mortgage foreclosures. as assistant to the president and treasury department adviser, ms. moran is in charge of setting up the consumer financial protection bureau, part of the 2010 dodd-frank financial regulations law. the exchange took place at a house oversight subcommittee hearing. it's just under three hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. the hearing today, who is watching the watchman, the oversight of the consumer financial protection bureau. the committee is now in order. we make a policy here on the financial -- on the oversight government reform committee to read our mission statement.

we exist to secure to fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them as well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with what shocks to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the bill to proceed. this is the mission of the oversight governor reform committee. i now recognize myself for four minutes for an opening statement. today's oversight hearing underscores the role of the united states congress to scrutinize implementation and enforcement of key provisions of the dodd-frank act. the consumer financial protections bureau, which is the branch out of today's witness, has been hailed by some as a much needed regulatory authority to limit their risk of financial

fraud. yet others, myself included, are skeptical that the bureau's creation, structure and broad discretionary power are warranted. nevertheless, dodd-frank is now all of the land. and in a few short weeks the bureau will become a powerful instrument in the hands of progressive regulators. once fully operational, the bureau will process virtually unchecked discretion to identify financial products and services the director determines to be unfair, deceptive or abusive. to fund and execute this mandate the law has granted the bureau and uncurled budgetary authority free from congressional authorization, and an on acceptable degree of autonomy hidden from congressional oversight. weigel we have yet to hit the data transfer of authority to the bureau, congress has a responsibility to assess and american people have the right to know the designs that professor warren has implemented

in its creation. what controls are being created to protect american people from abusive government power. we demand internal controls companies, what our internal controls governing the bureau. what limits are being set to guard them from administrative overreached. an absence of the normal checks and balances published by the constitution, what guarantees to the american people have the bureau will be irresponsibly, spent wisely and regulate fairly. furthermore, in earlier testimony before the financial services committee here in the house, professor warren asserted that the bureau is, quote, the most constrained and the most accountable agency in government, in def quote. yet the lofty promise of restraint and accountability seems to be backed by the highest appeals threshold and regulatory history. in that same appearance, professor warren testified that the bureau's role in ongoing

mortgage settlement negotiations was limited to, quote, advice. furthermore, one of her staffers e-mail to the press and defined the role in the, quote, device defined by merriam-webster. since her testimony, however, congress receive evidence professor warren and the bureau were deeply involved in the negotiations. the emergence of the below's quote settlement presentation, end of quote and the fact professor warren has been in dozens of meetings with federal and state officials about the settlements raised concerns about the veracity of her earlier testimony. this hearing, however, is not about a confirmation hearing for professor warren or a potential senate race. this hearing is about the mission, policy and structure of the creation and implementation of the bureau. and it's also the need for critical oversight of an agency which has served as oversight authority over the large portions of the american

economy. simply stated, who's watching the watchman? the constitution creates the government to protect the freedom of american people, not one that provides for them. it in powers the people through their elected officials directly accountable to them, not a superclass of administrative eletes, protecting american consumers from abusive institutions and unaccountable authorities is the first priority of this committee and the united states congress. today we will examine whether the key provisions of the dodd-frank act serve this purpose. with that of a yield four minutes to the ranking member mr. quigley of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like any government agency, this new agency needs vigilant oversight from congress and this committee. we should not obstruct from clearing out the intent of the dodd-frank act. millions of americans are still suffering the consequences of the housing and financial crisis. this crisis was caused in large