[Congressional Record: February 15, 2011 (Senate)]
[Page S727-S731]
FISA SUNSETS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the following measure, which the clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 514) to extend expiring provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
relating to access to business records, individual terrorists
as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until
December 8, 2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute
amendment is agreed to, and there will be 30 minutes equally divided
for debate prior to a vote.
The amendment (No. 90) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``FISA Sunsets Extension Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUNSETS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACCESS
TO BUSINESS RECORDS, INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS
AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS, AND ROVING WIRETAPS.
(a) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005.--Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 50 U.S.C.
1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is
amended by striking ``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``May
27, 2011''.
(b) Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004.--Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118
Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking
``February 28, 2011'' and inserting ``May 27, 2011''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in a few minutes we are going to vote on a
3-month extension of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I will
support this extension because it gives the Senate time to properly
consider this critically important legislation. But before I support
any additional extensions of the PATRIOT Act, I believe we should have
an honest discussion about changes and reforms that are necessary to
protect the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. It is worth
taking a moment to reflect on the history of the PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act was passed almost 10 years ago after the 9/11
terrorist attack. Ground Zero was still burning when President Bush
asked Congress to give him new authority to fight terrorism. Congress
responded, passing the PATRIOT Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote,
including my own. It was a unique moment in our history.
But even then, many were concerned that the PATRIOT Act might go too
far when it came to our constitutional rights and freedoms. As a
result, we
[[Page S728]]
put an insurance policy in the law, a sunset clause on the PATRIOT
Act's most controversial provisions. I believe that was a thoughtful
move on the part of the Senate and the House. We knew that we were in a
very emotional state because of the dramatic loss of life and fear that
followed after the attacks on 9/11. We wanted to reflect on some of the
changes and authority given to the government at a later time.
I voted for the PATRIOT Act, but I soon realized it gave too much
power to the government in some areas, without judicial and
Congressional oversight. So 2 years after the PATRIOT Act became law, I
led a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the SAFE Act,
legislation to reform the PATRIOT Act. The SAFE Act was supported not
only by the American Civil Liberties Union but also by the American
Conservative Union and Gun Owners of America. It was an extraordinary
coalition. Progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans came
together across the partisan divide, with the understanding that
Americans believed we can be both safe and free. We wanted to retain
the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act but place some reasonable limits
on those powers within the bounds of the Constitution.
In 2005, the first time Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act, some
reforms of the SAFE Act were included in the bill. Many were not. So
there are still significant provisions in the PATRIOT Act which cause
concern to this Senator. The FBI is still permitted to obtain a John
Doe roving wiretap that does not identify the person or the phone that
will be wiretapped.
In other words, the FBI can obtain a wiretap without telling a court
who they want to wiretap or where they want the place the wiretap
itself. In garden-variety criminal cases, the FBI is still permitted to
conduct what is known as sneak-and-peek searches of a home without
notifying the homeowner about the search until some later time.
We now know the vast majority of sneak-and-peek searches take place
in cases that do not involve terrorism in any way. A national security
letter, or NSL, is a form of administrative subpoena issued by the FBI.
We often hear NSLs compared to grand jury subpoenas. But unlike a grand
jury subpoena, a national security letter is issued without the
approval of a grand jury or even a prosecutor. And unlike the grand
jury subpoena, the recipient of a national security letter is subject
to a gag order at the FBI's discretion.
The PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the FBI's authority to NSLs. An NSL
now allows the FBI to obtain sensitive personal information about
innocent Americans, including library records, medical records, gun
records, and phone records, even when there is no connection whatsoever
to a suspected terrorist or spy.
The Justice Department's inspector general concluded that this
standard ``can be easily satisfied.'' This could lead to government
fishing expeditions that target, unfortunately, innocent Americans.
For years we have been told there is no reason to be concerned about
this broad grant of power to the FBI. In 2003, Attorney General
Ashcroft testified to the Judiciary Committee that librarians who
raised concern about the PATRIOT Act were ``hysterics,'' in the
Attorney General's words, and ``the Department of Justice has neither
the staffing, the time, nor the inclination to monitor the reading
habits of Americans.''
But we now know, many years later, the FBI has, in fact, issued
national security letters for the library records of innocent
Americans. For years we were told the FBI was not abusing this broad
grant of power. But in 2007, the Justice Department's own inspector
general concluded the FBI was guilty of ``widespread and serious
misuse'' of the national security letter authority, and failed to
report those abuses to Congress and a White House oversight board.
The inspector general reported that the number of NSL requests had
increased exponentially from about 8,500 the year before the enactment
of the PATRIOT Act to an average of more than 47,000 per year, and that
even these numbers were significantly understated due to flaws in the
FBI database.
I believe America can be both safe and free. We can retain the
expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act but place some reasonable limit on
them within our Constitution. I will support this extension so we have
time to produce legislation of which we can all be proud. I know the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee is on the floor to speak. I want to
close by saluting him. I think he has taken a very professional
approach. He has been completely open to this discussion of the
provisions of this bill, and the offering of amendments. I plan to work
with him and other members of the committee in good faith. I think this
3-month extension will give us time to expand the debate on this
important constitutional issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Illinois for his comments.
In less than 2 weeks, the current short-term extension of three
authorities authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. I thank the
two leaders for working to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to
consider the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and to do so
in a way that ensures that these authorities do not lapse while the
Republican majority in the House and new Senators consider these
measures.
The bill I introduced on January 26, and that the Judiciary Committee
is scheduled to consider this week, is based on the bill the Judiciary
Committee considered and passed with a bipartisan majority last
Congress.
It includes additional adjustments made at Senator Kyl's suggestion
after the committee reported the bill in 2009. I will urge the
Judiciary Committee to report that legislation again, and I will urge
the Senate to consider and pass the improvements to the USA PATRIOT Act
that we have proposed, during this short, additional 90-day extension.
The original USA PATRIOT Act included important sunsets that were
supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe that the sunsets
suggested by Dick Armey back in 2001 have been a good thing. I have
tried to conduct aggressive oversight of USA PATRIOT Act surveillance
authorities since the bill was originally enacted in 2001. The sunsets
have been helpful in that process. Accordingly, I do not support
permanent extension of these surveillance authorities.
Nor do I support undercutting important oversight and government
accountability with respect to these intelligence gathering tools.
Instead, I support strengthening oversight while providing the
intelligence community the certainty it needs to protect national
security.
The bill I hope we will consider before May 27 would give the
intelligence community the certainty it needs by extending these
expiring authorities while also strengthening congressional and
judicial oversight. This legislation is the result of bipartisan
negotiations 2 years ago. It had the strong support of the
administration.
The House bill we are amending was not the product of bipartisan
agreement, or even an open debate in the House. It would extend the
PATRIOT Act without improvement for the rest of the year. That is too
little for too long.
I do not begrudge our friends in the House time to do their work, and
for the new Republican majority to seek additional time to consider the
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. But it should not take a year
to pass improvements to these provisions. Importantly, we should not
extend this debate into an election year and risk that some will play
politics with our national security.
With the 90-day extension that the leaders have proposed, we will be
able to consider the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 and
improve authorities that are otherwise set to expire.
Our bill can promote transparency and expand privacy and civil
liberties safeguards in the law. It will increase judicial oversight of
government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans.
I hope that ours is a package of reforms that all Americans can
support. A bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee
voted in favor of
[[Page S729]]
it in the last Congress, including Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn.
Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
When Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but
instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February
28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were
implemented administratively by the Department of Justice.
It is my hope that during this short extension Congress will pass the
USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps
forward that the Attorney General has taken to implement parts of our
legislative proposal administratively.
We can ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency
that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never
written into the statute.
In addition, we will have the opportunity to enact the parts of the
bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they
require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new
sunset on National Security Letters.
Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a
judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section
215 order for business records. The government does not need this
presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the
presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior
Congress.
We can preserve the authorities that give law enforcement the tools
it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that
inspectors general, Congress, and the public maintain vigilant
oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used
properly and within constitutional bounds.
I urge all Senators to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 and
then to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. I want to thank the majority leader for agreeing to allow a
debate on this important legislation. We will have time to amend it in
the next 3 months, discuss it fully.
When the PATRIOT Act was passed in the first place, it was passed in
a hurry, without committee hearings, and in a climate of fear and anger
after 9/11. Congress was sensitive to the fact that the fourth
amendment was being abridged. That is why these legislative proposals
were sunset. It was not just so we could pass them by unanimous consent
without voting. It was done so we could review how well we are doing
with these, and whether we are abridging the freedoms guaranteed under
the fourth amendment.
There are a couple of things that bother me about the PATRIOT Act.
No. 1, the national security letters. These have been mentioned
previously, and I think the points are well taken. Some try to argue,
oh, these are simply subpoenas so you can do anything you want. I think
they are searches of private records and should be reviewed by a judge.
But even if you argue that they were subpoenas, if you have a subpoena,
your lawyer is allowed to make a motion to quash your subpoena, your
lawyer is allowed to represent you.
In the craziness after 9/11, when the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was
actually illegal to consult an attorney. If you were given a national
security letter saying you were being investigated, you could go to
jail for 5 years by telling your attorney. It is still in the law that
you can go to jail for 5 years if you tell others. This is being done
against U.S. citizens.
Many people argue for this saying: Oh, it is just foreign terrorists.
National security letters have been written on 200,000 individuals and
over 50 percent of them from the United States in the last 10 years.
In addition to the national security letters, this act expanded the
use of what are called suspicious activity reports, where they snoop in
your bank records. Not only does the government snoop in your bank
records, they force the banks to do snooping for you. Two million
records have been gone through, and we say: Well, are we getting
terrorists? Yes; we are probably getting terrorists. But were we
capturing terrorists under FISA when we had a judge's review? Yes. It
was very rare that FISA ever turned down a warrant. But we just gave
up. We blankly gave up the idea of judicial review.
This was a big deal. John Adams said this was the spark that got the
Revolution going. When James Otis was talking about writs of assistance
in the 1760s, the King was granting writs of assistance through his
soldiers. Now we have essentially government agents, akin to soldiers,
writing warrants.
It is ripe for abuse. Even the FBI, when they did their own internal
investigation of the national security letters--they reviewed 1,000 of
these national security letters, and they found that 10 percent of them
were in error.
The other thing, for those who say: Oh, this is just a subpoena. It
is just your bank records. No big deal, they should be weary of this:
People have gone through the FISA Court and been turned down under
section 215 and not gotten a warrant and they have done an end-around
and gotten national security letters.
I think it is something so basic to our constitutional Republic. I
tell people on and on, I am a big defender of the second amendment. But
you cannot have the second amendment unless you defend the first
amendment. You cannot have the second amendment unless you defend the
fourth amendment.
We need to defend the right to be free of search and seizure. People
need to look back and say: Did the FISA Court work? The FISA Court
rarely turned anything down as far as getting warrants. But at the very
least, there was independent judicial review, which is a very important
part of our historical jurisprudence and I think should be guarded and
protected.
I think, in the fear after 9/11, we did not debate these things
fully. We should have a debate. There is a wide range of people on both
the left and the right who do believe in civil liberties. I think it is
time we do review these. I will stand in the next several months and
try to promote this discussion. I think it is a good time to review and
revisit the PATRIOT Act.
I will vote against the extension of the PATRIOT Act because I do not
think it is doing full justice to the fourth amendment, and I think it
is very important we have judicial review before we allow government to
investigate and search our private lives.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chair of
the Intelligence Committee of the Senate and also as a member of the
Judiciary Committee, so I have been part of the PATRIOT Act and the
FISA Act discussions.
Let me clear up one thing for the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky: Nothing in what is before us today affects national security
letter sections of the act. Let me repeat that because I have heard
this presented on the floor, I have seen it in editorials in the
newspapers, and nothing in what is on the floor today affects the NSL
sections--of which there are several in various statutes--of the
PATRIOT Act.
There are three specific sections that are affected, and I will get
to them in a moment.
Let me begin by saying I support the Reid-McConnell amendment to H.R.
514. Let me point out that last Wednesday the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Janet Napolitano, testified before the House Homeland
Security Committee, and here is what she said:
In some ways, the threat today may be at its most
heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago.
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee last week, the
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, wrote that:
. . . it is impossible to rank--in terms of long-term
importance--the numerous, potential threats to the U.S.
national security. The United States no longer faces--as in
the Cold War--one dominant threat. Rather, it is the
multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats--and
the actors behind them--that constitute our biggest
challenge.
So it is clear the threat against the United States from terrorism,
cyber attack, the proliferation of weapons of
[[Page S730]]
mass destruction, and others is at a very high level. Intelligence is
our best tool in keeping America secure.
I see this intelligence day after day after day. The Intelligence
Committee hears testimony week after week after week. I believe all
members of the Intelligence Committee are behind the Reid-McConnell
bill.
So that is the framework in which these three expiring provisions
come before us. Without them, our law enforcement and intelligence
agencies would lack important tools to protect this Nation. These are
tools that have been used to great advantage over the past several
years.
I cannot speak here of the specific uses of the expiring authorities
for reasons of classification. The Director of National Intelligence,
the Director of the FBI, and the Director of the NSA described to
Members last night how they have been used. Here is what they have told
us:
We have seen recent successful disruptions of terrorist
plots directed against the United States. Our intelligence
and law enforcement personnel were able to disrupt al Qaeda's
Najibullah Zazi terrorist plot to attack the New York City
subway system. These PATRIOT Act authorities, along with
other critical intelligence tools, are essential to our
ability to detect and disrupt such plots.
Let me talk about the three provisions, starting with the business
records section that is expiring. This authority allows the government
to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court--a special
court with judges appointed by the Chief Justice that deals only with
these matters and meets 24/7. The provision allows the government to
obtain business records if it gets a warrant from this court.
The second expiring provision, so-called roving wiretap authority,
provides the government with needed flexibility in conducting
electronic surveillance. We all know there are now throwaway cell
phones. We have found that terrorists have attempted to evade
surveillance by using these throwaway cell phones and rapidly switching
cell phones. This tool allows for surveillance on a particular target,
not the telephone. Again, you need to have that authority given to you,
much as you would in a criminal wiretap by a court, but in this case by
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Again, the
surveillance is for foreign intelligence.
According to FBI Director Bob Mueller, this provision has been used
more than 190 times since it was authorized in 2001.
The third section--the final one--is the ``lone wolf'' authority that
allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage
in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific
international terrorist group has not yet been determined.
This provision was enacted in light of the Zacarias Moussaoui case,
in which the FBI suspected Moussaoui of engaging in terrorist activity
and believed at the time it could not obtain a FISA order--in other
words, a FISA warrant--for lack of definitive connection to a known
foreign terrorist organization.
I see Senator Kyl on the floor. He well knows this issue. So this is
a specific addition that was put in because of the Moussaoui case to
get at someone who is a ``lone wolf'' who has no known association with
a terrorist operation.
These tools have been authorized for several years and have been
subject to strict scrutiny by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Court, the Department of Justice, and the Congressional Intelligence
and Judiciary Committees.
Members have raised concerns that provisions authorized by the
PATRIOT Act have been misused. The Judiciary and the Intelligence
Committees have held numerous hearings on this topic. I believe past
problems have been addressed, and we will continue to monitor the use
of these provisions carefully.
Members have also noted past problems with the use of national
security letters, and that is what all the discussion so far that I
have heard on the floor has been. As I have said, the national security
sections are not at issue at this time. So it is, in a sense, a
shibboleth to raise them here.
It is business records, it is lone wolf, and it is roving wiretaps.
Those are the three sections that expire on the 28th of February.
So let me be clear: This legislation does not address national
security letter authorities, as those provisions are not set to expire
at the end of the month.
By extending these three provisions until May 27, the Congress can
appropriately study and I hope enact long-term reauthorizations that
the intelligence community and law enforcement need to continue to keep
us safe.
Let me just say, I see--and cannot go into here--but day after day
uses of these expiring authorities and have come to believe that being
able to have good intelligence is what prevents an attack against a New
York subway or air cargo plane. It is what keeps this homeland safe,
and it is what allows us to get ahead of a terrorist attack. Without
them--without them--we put our Nation in jeopardy. I, for one, took an
oath of office to protect and defend, and I do not intend to be party
to that. Everything I know indicates that there is jeopardy facing this
Nation, and these intelligence provisions are necessary to protect our
homeland.
I urge acceptance of the Reid-McConnell legislation.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to agree with the comments made by our
colleague from California, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
and urge all our colleagues, in the time that will exist between now
and the time we are able to take up this matter again, to accept her
invitation to be briefed and to appreciate some of the things that our
intelligence community goes through in order to try to protect the
American citizens.
The points she made are all valid from my service on the Intelligence
Committee. I am aware of what she has been talking about. I would just
like to repeat three things. I will not bother to go into all the
detail because she made the points very well.
Roving wiretaps--the name does not sound very good--are simply the
recognition that today you have a lot of throwaway cell phones. It used
to be you had one telephone hanging up in the kitchen or someplace, so
when the police got a warrant to tap your telephone, that was the only
phone you had.
Now these guys take phones, use them once, throw them away, and then
get another one or they have access to lots of different phones. It is
simply a recognition that today people use lots of different phones
rather than one, and, therefore, the warrant applies to any of the
phones of a particular individual.
The ``lone wolf'' terrorist exception Senator Feinstein explained
very well. I wrote that provision. It applies to people who do not have
a card in their wallet that says: I belong to al-Qaida or I belong to
some other terrorist group.
We understood that in some cases there will be people such as
Moussaoui who you are not sure are actually affiliated with any
particular group, but they are still planning a terrorist activity and,
therefore, you want the ability to check them out.
Third is the business records. This is the only one there has been
any controversy about. It allows the government to get a court order to
obtain business records that are either held or generated by third
parties. You want to find out, for example, if Mohamed Atta stayed at
the such and such motel the night before he went to the airport to
conduct the terrorist attacks of 9/11. That will help to prove the
chain of evidence to prosecute other people or for us to be able to
know exactly how that attack occurred. So you go to the motel and say:
Could we see who checked in last night. That is not a big deal.
For most agencies of the Federal Government, you do not even have to
go to court to ask the question. But out of an abundance of caution,
before the government can actually go to the motel and say: Can we see
your record, they have to go to court to get approval to do that. So
the PATRIOT Act actually sets a higher hurdle in trying to get these
business records in terrorism investigations. In addition to that,
there are only three top officials at the FBI who are authorized to
request court orders for the information.
[[Page S731]]
So the point is this: These are the only three provisions that are
sunsetted and that we have to reauthorize. If people have objections to
other parts of the act, such as has been expressed here, then their
argument is not with the reauthorization of these three provisions but
with the underlying law. In any event, I suppose they will have plenty
of time to raise those questions when we debate this further in the
next couple of months.
I urge my colleagues to support this short-term extension. In the
meantime, prior to the rest of the debate we will have to check with
the folks at the Intelligence Committee who can answer any questions
colleagues may have about how this act is intended to operate and then
check with the FBI and other law enforcement officials to see how it
works in its operation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, Montanans sent me to the U.S. Senate to
bring accountability to this body, to make responsible decisions, and
to protect America and the freedoms we all enjoy. I took the oath of
office to defend the Constitution.
That is why I am going to vote against the PATRIOT Act. I encourage
others to follow suit. I have never liked the PATRIOT Act. I still
don't.
Like REAL ID, the PATRIOT Act invades the privacy of law-abiding
citizens. And it tramples on our Constitutional rights.
We need to find a balance--making our country more secure and giving
our troops, law enforcement and intelligence agents the tools necessary
to get the job done. But we have to do it without invading the privacy
of law-abiding Americans.
This extension doesn't address any of those concerns. It simply puts
off the debate we need to have for another day.
There are some really troubling aspects that are not addressed by the
extension of this law: Roving wiretaps which allow surveillance of a
``type of person,'' instead of a particular person, over multiple phone
lines. That is a slippery slope to eroding our constitutional
protection against government searches; Using the reasonable grounds of
suspicion standard to require libraries and businesses to report to the
government about what American citizens buy or borrow.
We don't have to sacrifice our privacy and lose control of our
personal information in order to be secure. And we should never give up
our constitutional rights.
Voting for the PATRIOT Act is the wrong way to go. We have got a lot
of smart people in this body. We can develop the policies we need to
fight terrorists without compromising our constitutional civil
liberties. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against extending
this law today and in the future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think all time has either been yielded
back or all time is up, so I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
committee amendment and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]
YEAS -- 86
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--12
Baucus
Begich
Brown (OH)
Harkin
Lautenberg
Lee
Merkley
Murray
Paul
Sanders
Tester
Udall (NM)
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Pryor
The bill (H.R. 514), as amended, was passed.
Vote Explanation
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am necessarily absent for the vote
today on legislation to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, H.R. 514. If I were able to attend
these vote sessions, I would have supported the bill to extend expiring
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, H.R.
514.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
