{13:02:46 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. FIRST, MR. PRESIDENT,
           ONE OF THE MAJOR ITEMS THAT OF COURSE WE'LL BE TAKING UP PRIOR
           TO THE END OF THE YEAR IS THE ISSUE OF THE RENEWAL OF THE
 SO-CALLED U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT. THERE WAS QUITE AN EFFORT IN THE
           LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IN THE SENATE TO TRY TO FIX THE PROBLEMS
           WITH THE PATRIOT ACT THAT LED ME TO VOTE AGAINST IT ORIGINALLY.
           IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME OBVIOUSLY AFTER 9/11, 2001, AND

{13:03:17} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE BILL GOT THROUGH IN A VERY ACCELERATED BASIS AND A NUMBER
           OF US IDENTIFIED SERIOUS PROBLEMS WHICH OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T
           HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY NOTICE AT THE TIME. BUT THE SITUATION
           NOW HAS CHANGED. WE'VE HAD YEARS TO LOOK AT THIS AND THANKFULLY
           THE UNITED STATES SENATE REALLY WORKED TOGETHER TO DO ITS JOB
 ON THIS BILL. IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND IN THE SENATE AS A
           WHOLE, WE PASSED CHANGES IN THE U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT ALONG WITH
           DOING THE RENEWAL OF THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE SCHEDULED TO

{13:03:48} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 SUNSET AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE. PEOPLE
           FROM VERY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES CAME TOGETHER AND SAID LOOK,
 LET'S GET THIS RIGHT, LET'S MAKE SURE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS
           THE POWERS AND THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER THE TERRORIST NETWORK
           BUT LET'S DO AT THE SAME TIME WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE
           CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE RIGHTS OF ABSOLUTELY LAW-ABIDING
 AMERICANS. SADLY ENOUGH, THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DID JUST THE
           REVERSE. THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IGNORED THE WILL OF THE
 SENATE. THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DID NOT MAKE THE CHANGES IN

{13:04:19} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           CRITICAL AREAS SUCH AS THE LIBRARY RECORDS AND BUSINESS
           RECORDS, THE SO-CALLED SNEAK-AND-PEEK SEARCHES, AND THE
           NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER AREAS THAT WERE ESSENTIAL TO REACHING
 THE CHANGES THAT WERE AGREED TO IN THE SENATE. NOW, I DIDN'T
           EVEN THINK THE SENATE VERSION DID AS MUCH TO PROTECT CIVIL
           LIBERTIES AND THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS AS WE SHOULD
           HAVE BUT IT WAS A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. REGRETTABLY, THE
           CONFERENCE REPORT IS NOTHING OF THE KIND. AND SO I WOULD JOIN
           SENATOR SUNUNU, WHO SPOKE ELOQUENTLY OUT HERE ABOUT THIS

{13:04:49} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           EARLIER TODAY, IN SAYING THAT THIS DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE BEFORE
           THE SENATE, THIS CONFERENCE REPORT IS UNACCEPTABLE IN ITS
           CURRENT FO FORM. THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO
           THE DRAWING BOARD AND MAKE THE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED AND THE
           CHANGES ARE VERY EASY TO FIND. THEY WERE CONTAINED IN THE
           UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED VERSION IN THE SENATE WHICH EVERY SINGLE
           MEMBER OF THIS BODY VOTED FOR. CLEARLY THERE, WILL BE MUCH MORE
           TO SAY ABOUT THIS AS THE WEEK GOES ON BUT WE ARE PREPARED TO
           USE WHATEVER MEANS WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE UNDER THE SENATE RULES

{13:05:19} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           TO TRY PREVENT THIS CONFERENCE REPORT FROM BECOMING LAW IN ITS
 CURRENT FORM.

{13:26:48 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
 

{13:26:50 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
           LEAVES THE FLOOR, I WOULD REQUEST THAT HE BE AVAILABLE TO
           DISCUSS SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PATRIOT ACT. AND I SEE
           HIM REMAINING ON THE FLOOR, SO PERMIT ME AT THIS TIME TO TAKE
           UP A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES WHICH THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN HAS
           RAISED, APPROPRIATELY PUTTING MY QUESTION TO THE CHAIR, AS OUR
           RULES REQUIRE. AND THEN ASK HIM FOR RESPONSES.
 

{13:27:24 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 

{13:27:28 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN HAS RAISED AN ISSUE ON
           THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESUMPTION
           WHICH ARISES WHEN A HIGH-RANKING GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL, SUCH AS
           THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, ASSISTANT
           ATTORNEY GENERAL, HEAD OF THE F.B.I., OR HEAD OF THE
           DEPARTMENTS MAKING THE REQUEST CERTIFIES THAT THERE IS A

{13:28:05} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OR AN ISSUE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
           AND THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WHICH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
           RANKING MEMBER, THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT, SENATOR LEAHY, HAS
 RAISED EARLIER. AND THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN IS WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE
           CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION, WHICH IS PRESENT IN THE CONFERENCE

{13:28:35} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           REPORT, IS NOT AS TIGHT AS THE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION WHICH WAS
           PRESENT IN THE SENATE BILL WHICH PRAFD UNANIMOUSLY FROM THE --
           PASSED UNANIMOUSLY FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF WHICH THE
           SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN IS A MEMBER AND WENT BY UNANIMOUS
           CONSENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE WITHOUT
 OBJECTION BY THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. AND I REFER
           SPECIFICALLY TO THE PROVISION IN THE SENATE BILL WHICH SAYS --

{13:29:08} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           QUOTE -- "IN REVIEWING A NONDISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT, THE
           CERTIFICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE DISCLOSURE MAY
           ENDANGER THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR
           INTERFERE WITH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS SHALL BE TREATED AS
           CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CERTIFICATION WAS
 MADE IN BAD FAITH." NOW, THAT LANGUAGE IS SUBSTANTIALLY
           REPEATED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT, EXCEPT THAT THE CONFERENCE
           REPORT MAKES IT TOUGHER ON THE GOVERNMENTAL CERTIFICATION ABOUT

{13:29:40} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 REQUIRING THE HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIAL TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATION.
           NOW I QUOTE FROM THE CONFERENCE REPORT WHICH SAYS -- QUOTE --
           "IF AT THE TIME OF THE PETITION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPUTY
           ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE DIRECTOR
           OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OR IN THE CASE OF A
           REQUEST BY A DEPARTMENT AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN
{END OF CH:   109th SENATE, FIRST SESSION 2005/12/13 TIME: 13-30 , Tue.}

< A>{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

 
           KWREULT --" AND NOW WE COME TO THE CRUCIAL LANGUAGE CONTINUING
           THE QUOTE -- "CERTIFIES THAT DISCLOSURE MAY ENDANGER THE
           NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR INTERFERE WITH
           DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, SUCH CERTIFICATIONS SHALL BE TREATED AS
           CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CERTIFICATION WAS
 MADE IN BAD FAITH."u MY QUESTIONS TO THE SENATOR OF WISCONSIN
 ARE THE OBVIOUS ONES. NUMBER ONE, WAS HE AWARE THAT THE

{13:30:37} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           CONFERENCE REPORT HAS THE'D CL PROVISION -- IDENTICAL
           PROVISION, EXCEPT MORE RESTRENGTHTIVE, AND IF SO, WHY DOES HE
           NOW OBJECT TO THIS PROVISION IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT WHEN HE
           APPROVED IT IN COMMITTEE AND RAISED NO OBJECTION ON THE FLOOR?

{13:30:52 NSP} (A SENATOR) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
 
 

{13:30:54 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: AS THE SENATOR WELLS KNOW, ON THE FLOOR WE PASSED
 THIS BILL BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. SO THE CONCERNS WE EXPRESSED
 WERE EXPRESSED IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE SENATOR WELL
           KNOWS THAT I HAVE -- I WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE OUTCOME ON THIS
 PROVISION IN THIS SENATE. I FOUGHT HARD TO GET THE CHANGES THAT
           I THOUGHT WE COULD GET, BUT WE DID NOT GET THE CHANGES WE NEED
           WITH REGARD TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS, AND THE
           CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FAILED TIME PROVE THIS PROVISION AS IT
 SHOULD HAVE DONE. THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
           THE SENATE VERSION DID NOT CHANGE THE EXISTING LAW IN THIS

{13:31:26} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 AREA, AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. IT
           DID NOT REACH THE STANDARD THAT A BIPARTISAN GROUP SOUGHT,
           THREE DEMOCRATS AND THREE REPUBLICANS, AS WELL AS OTHER
           COSPONSOR IN THE SAFE ACT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE STANDARD
           THAT I SOUGHT, WHICH IS THE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY OBTAIN RECORDS
 THAT PERTAIN TO A TERRORIST AND SPY. IN ADDITION, MR.
           PRESIDENT, IN ANSWER TO THE SENATOR'S QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN,
           THE AREA AREA OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE GAG RULE IS ALSO
 INADEQUATE. UNDER THE SAFE ACT, WE HAVE MEANINGFUL JUDICIAL

{13:31:57} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           REVIEW OF THE PROS PRO-SESSION OF A NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER
           AND THE GAG RULE. UNDER THE SENATE VERSION, WE HAVE JUDICIAL
           REVIEW AND PROCESS FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND GAG RULE, BUT
           THERE AGAIN DISAPPOINTINGLY, EVEN THE SENATE VERSION OF THE
           BILL FAILED TO CREATE A STANDARD THAT WAS REALISTIC. IT CREATED
 A VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD. SO I WOULD SAY THAT, OF
           COURSE, THE AREAS THAT CAUSED ME TO VOTE FOR THE SENATE BILL
 WERE THE IMPROVEMENT, ESPECIALLY IN SECTION 215 THAT WE HAVE
           LOST THE IMPROVEMENTS ON SNEAK AND PEEK, WHICH WERE LARGELY

{13:32:28} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           PULLED BACK, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ON JOHN DOE WIRETAPS WHICH
 HAVE BEEN PRESERVED IN SOME CASES AND NOT OTHERS. SO THE POINT
           HERE IS THAT I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THIS PORTION, BUT IN LIGHT OF
           SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES IN THE SENATE BILL, I DID WORK, AS
           YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, COOPERATIVELY WITH YOU 20 CREATE A
 DOCUMENT THAT AT LEAST HAD SOME BALANCE. WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW
           IS WE'VE LOST THE POSITIVE CHANGES WE GAINED IN THE SENATE
           BILL, AND WE CONTINUE TO HAVE A VERY INADEQUATE PROVISION
 RELATING TO NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.
 

{13:32:55 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE
           SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN HAS NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. WHEN HE
           TAKES UP THE SAFE ACT, WHICH HE COSPONSORED, SO DID THIS
 SENATOR. I WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PATRIOT
           ACT IN EFFECT AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND I WAS A COSPONSOR OF THE
           SAME BILL THAT THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN AND SENATOR DURBIN

{13:33:26} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           AND OTHERS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT CIVIL LIBERTIES, WHICH I SOUGHT
           TO DO IN THE SENATE BILL AND I SOUGHT TO DO AND I THINK
 SUCCESSFULLY IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT. NOW, WHEN THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN TALKS ABOUT SECTION 215, I'M COMING TO THAT. AND
           I WANT TO ENGAGE HIM IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT SPECIFICALLY. BUT
           LET ME PUT IT ASIDE FOR A MINUTE SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE THAT
 ISSUE. AND WITH RESPECT TO SNEAK AND PEEK, THE DELAYED NOTICE,
           I'M COMING TO THAT, AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE ARE MAJOR VAST

{13:33:56} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT OVER EXISTING LAW. AND
           WITH RESPECT TO THE ROVING WIRETAPS, I'M COMING TO THAT, TOO.
           FOCUSING FOR JUST A MINUTE, ONE AT A TIME SO THERE CAN BE SOME
           UNDERSTANDING, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED BILL.
           I SPOKE ON IT AT SOME LENGTH YESTERDAY AFTERNOON IN ORDER TO
           APPOINT MY COLLEAGUES WITH IT AND MADE QUITE A NUMBER OF CALLS
           TO MY COLLEAGUES AS FAR AS I CAN GO TO ACQUAINT PEOPLE WITH

{13:34:26} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           WHAT IS IN THIS BILL SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND VOTE ON IT
 WITH AN UNDERSTANDING. BUT COMING BACK TO THE CONCLUSIVE
           PRESUMPTION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER, THE QUESTION THAT
           I POSED TO THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN WAS WHETHER -- MAYBE
           THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS. DOESN'T HE AGREE THAT THE CONFERENCE
           REPORT IS EVEN MORE PROTECTIVE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES THAN THE
 SENATE BILL. THE SECOND QUESTION, DID HE KNOW ABOUT IT, AND IF

{13:34:59} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           ON THIS PROVISION ALONE, PUTTING ASIDE THE OTHERS THAT HE
           REFERRED TO -- 215, SNEAK AND PEEK AND WIRETAP -- WE WANT TO
           COME TO SUNSET, TOO, WHICH IS A JAY GRANTIC IMPROVEMENT, WASN'T
 MENTIONED BY THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. I THINK WHEN WE GET TO
           THAT HE'LL CONCEDE THAT THAT WAS A BIG IMPROVEMENT AND MAYBE HE
           OVERLOOKED IT IN COMMENTING OR AT LEAST ANY COMMENT THAT I
           HEARD HIM MAKE, BUT COMING BACK TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY
           LETTER, WHAT ABOUT MY THREE QUESTIONS, IF I MAY POSE THEM TO

{13:35:30} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.
 

{13:35:32 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: TO THE CHAIRMAN THROUGH MR. PRESIDENT, I DID
           RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WAS AWARE
           OF THE CHANGES THAT OCCURRED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT VIS-A-VIS
 THE SENATE BILL. I CONSIDER THEM TO BE ADEQUATE OR SIGNIFICANT.
           WE ARE STILL SO FAR AWAY FROM THE SAFE ACT WITH REGARD TO THIS
           PROVISION, AND I NOTE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IF CHAIRMAN
           APPARENTLY COSPONSORED THE SAFE ACT AND YET DID NOT OBJECT
           APPARENTLY TO THE SIGNIFICANT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SAFE ACT
 PROVISIONS IN THIS AREA. WHAT WE NEED IN THIS PROVISION ON

{13:36:04} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THESE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS TO PREVENT POTENTIAL ABUSES AS
           WELL AS THE ABUSES THAT MAY WELL BE ALREADY OCCURRING. THE
           "WASHINGTON POST" SUGGESTED SOME 30,000 NATIONAL SECURITY
 LETTERS. WE NEED A CLEAR STANDARD THAT THESE PROVISIONS CAN
           ONLY BE USED WITH RELATIONSHIP TO RECORDS THAT PERTAIN TO A
 TERRORIST OR A SPY. NINTHER THE SENATE VERSION NOR THE VERSION
           IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT ACHIEVES THAT, AND SO YES, I
           ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE SOME LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES, MR. CHAIRMAN,
           BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ACHIEVE WHAT WE NEED TO ACHIEVE WITH
 REGARD TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.
 

{13:36:38 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           >> WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN DOESN'T KNOW
           WHAT I DID IN THE CONFERENCE BECAUSE HE WASN'T A CONFEREE, AND
           THERE'S NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD KNOW.
 

{13:36:46 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: BUT I CAN TELL HIM THAT I FOUGHT VERY HARD FOR A
           LOT OF THESE PROVISIONS, AND I CAN TELL HIM FURTHER THAT I WAS
           NOT PERSUASIVE ENOUGH TO GET 100% OF WHAT I WANTED.
 

{13:36:57 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT THIS POINT --
 

{13:36:59 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE THE FLOOR AND I WOULD LIKE
 TO FINISH THIS. I WILL COME BACK TO THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
           AND GIVE HIM AMPLE TIME ON WHAT HE WANTS TO COMMENT ON NOW. WE
           HAVE A BICAM RAL SYSTEM. IF THE SENATE COULD ACT ALONE, WE
 WOULD HAVE HAD THE SENATE BILL. AND WHEN THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN SAYS THAT HE WASN'T SATISFIED WITH THIS PROVISION IN
           THE SENATE BILL, AS CONTRASTED WITH THE SAFE ACT, I WOULDN'T
           DISAGREE WITH HIM ABOUT THAT. I WON'T DISAGREE WITH HIM ABOUT
 THAT AT ALL. AND IN THE SENATE BILL, I DIDN'T HAVE EVERYTHING

{13:37:30} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THAT I WOULD LIKE. THERE ARE 17 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
           COMMITTEE, AND THERE ARE MANY MEMBERS WHO THOUGHT THAT THE
           SENATE BILL WENT TOO FAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND THAT IT WAS
           NECESSARY TO BALANCE VERY DELICATELY TO GET 18 SENATORS TO
           AGREE. IT'S SORT OF UNHEARD OF. I WON'T GO OVER THE COMPOSITION
           OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE
 POLITICAL SPECTRUM ON THAT COMMITTEE.
 

{13:38:02 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD?
 
 

{13:38:06 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: ONE MORE COMMENT AND THEN I'LL YIELD FOR YOUR
           REPLY HERE. THE STANDPOINT IS THE SENATE CAME TO THIS
 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION. THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN VOTED FOR
 IT. THE FULL SENATE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION. AND THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT. SO I THINK IT IS RATHER
           LATE IN THE DAY, FRANKLY, TOO LATE IN THE DAY, FOR THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN TO SAY THAT A PROVISION WHICH HE HAS APPROVED IS
           THE BASIS FOR REJECTING THE CONFERENCE REPORT BECAUSE THE
           CONFERENCE REPORT DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT HE'D HAVE LIKED

{13:38:39} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           BETTER. NOW WITHOUT YIELDING THE FLOOR, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
           THAT I MAY PERMIT OR HAVE THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN MAKE
 WHATEVER COMMENTS HE CHOOSES.
 

{13:38:49 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 

{13:38:52 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY THE SENATOR FROM
 PENNSYLVANIA IS NOT THE PROBLEM. EVERYTHING HE HAS SAID IS
 ACCURATE. HE FOUGHT TENACIOUSLY IN THE COMMITTEE AND I THINK
           BRILLIANTLY TO BRING US TOGETHER ON A BALANCED PACKAGE. I WANT
           TO SAY TO THE SENATOR FLEW THE PRESIDENT, I AM GRATEFUL FOR HIS
           EFFORTS IN THIS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IN THE SENATE AS A WHOLE
           AND HIS EFFORTS IN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE I KNOW
 THAT THE SENATOR TRIED. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE WILL OF THIS
 BODY, WHICH WE ALL COMPROMISED ON. YOU CORRECTLY POINT OUT, THE
           SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THAT I HAD TO

{13:39:24} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           GIVE, UNFORTUNATELY, ON THIS NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER ISSUE TO
           GET THE ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT CHANGES REGARDING LIBRARY
 PROVISIONS AND SNEAK-AND-PEEK SEARCHES AND SUNSETS. SO THE FACT
           IS THAT ALTHOUGH -- IN FACT, I WOULD SAY TO THE SENATOR, OF
           COURSE I OBJECTED TO THAT PROVISION, BUT I WAS TRYING TO WORK
           WITH THE SENATOR 20 COME UP WITH A BALANCED PACKAGE, AS SENATOR
           SUNUNU AND I WERE JUST COMMENTING, A PACKAGE AS A WHOLE THAT WE
 COULD SUPPORT. THE SENATOR IS BACK HERE NOW SUGGESTING THAT

{13:39:58} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           AFTER WE MADE THESE GAINS AND WE LOSE THOSE GAINS THAT I SHOULD
           NOW ACCEPT THE ONE PART THAT WE DIDN'T PREVAIL ON AND GIVE UP
 THE PARTS THAT I DID PREVAIL ON. NOW THAT STRIKES ME AS A
           RATHER ODD DEAL. THIS WAS, AS THE SENATOR KNOWS, A VERY
 DIFFICULT VOTE FOR ME TO EVEN SUPPORT THE SENATE PACKAGE. I WAS
           THE ONLY MEMBER OF THIS BODY TO VOTE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL
 PATRIOT ACT BECAUSE IT WAS DEEPLY FLAWED. THE SENATOR FROM
 PENNSYLVANIA AND MANY OTHERS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THERE WERE SUCH
 FLAWS. WE WORKED TOGETHER TO FIX WHAT WE COULD, AND I AM
           DETERMINED, AS I SAID AT THE TIME OF THE SENATE BILL TO, TRY TO

{13:40:29} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           FIX THE OTHER FLAW, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY
 LETTER AREA LATER. BUT THIS IDEA THAT WHEN YOU GET THE PACKAGE
           BACK AND IT ONLY INCLUDES THE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE AND IT
           DOESN'T INCLUDES THE THINGS YOU DID LIKE YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR
           MOUTH SHUT AND YOU SHOULDN'T OPPOSE IT TO ME IS RIDICULOUS. SO
           MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY TO THE SENATOR, AND I MEAN IT
           ABSOLUTELY SINCERELY, HE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS CHAIRMAN. HE HAS
           BEEN ONE OF THE REAL KEYS TO US HAVING ANY CHANCE AT ALL TO FIX
 THIS LEGISLATION. I'M JUST VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT WE GOT

{13:41:01} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           BACK FROM THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW VERY WELL THAT
           THE CHAIRMAN DID NOT WANT THIS DOCUMENT TO LOOK LIKE THIS. HE
           WANTED IT, I ASSUME, TO LOOK LIKE THE VERY DOCUMENT THAT HE
 CRAFTED IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MR. PRESIDENT, I
           YIELD BACK TO THE SENATOR.
 

{13:41:18 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'TTIES AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
           THE -- I DON'T DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN HAS SAID. IN FACT, I LIKE THE PART WHERE HE SAID I
           WAS BRILLIANT, AND I LIKE THE PART WHERE HE SAID I WAS A
 TREMENDOUS CHAIRMAN. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS I DISAGREE WITH
           AS TO WHAT HE SAID. A LITTLE LEVITY WON'T HURT THIS DEBATE ANY.
           I FOCUS ONLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS AT THE OUTSET TO
           ESTABLISH THE POINT THAT THE CONFERENCE REPORT IS MORE
           PROTECTIVE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES ON THAT POINT THAN THE SENATE

{13:41:49} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           BILL. AND I WANT TO GO ON TO THE OTHER POINTS BECAUSE I HAVE
           ONLY FAINT HOPES OF PERSUADING THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN TO
           SUPPORT THE CONFERENCE REPORT, BUT I DO THINK IT IS A VERY
           USEFUL TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE HE IS APPROPRIATELY
           VERY, VERY DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS BILL, AND THERE'S NO BETTER
           WAY TO ACQUAINT OUR COLLEAGUES AND THE STAFFS AND PERHAPS THE
           TWO OR THREE PEOPLE WATCHING ON C-SPAN 2, TO ACQUAINT AMERICA

{13:42:25} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           TO THE EXTENT WE CAN WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. NOW, ON TO
 SECTION 215. SECTION 215 INVOLVES BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE
           HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL POINT ON LIBRARY RECORDS, AND THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN WAS CORRECT, IS CORRECT THAT THE EXISTING LAW IS
 DEEPLY FLAWED. AND BEAR IN MIND, WE'RE LIVING UNDER THAT LAW
           UNTIL WE PASS A NEW LAW. THAT'S GOING TO BE -- THAT IS THE LAW

{13:42:59} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           WE'RE OPERATING UNDER TODAY. EXISTING LAW ENABLES A LAW
           ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL UNILATERALLY TO GO TO GET RECORDS ON HIS
 DETERMINATION THAT THEY'RE RELEVANT. AND THERE'S NO JUDICIAL
 REVIEW. NOW, WHAT THE SENATE BILL DID AND WHAT THE CONFERENCE
           REPORT PERPETUATES IS TO PUT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND THE
           TRADITIONAL SAFEGUARD OF LIBERTY HAS BEEN TO INTERPOSE A

{13:43:29} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           DISINTERESTED, IMPARTIAL MAGISTRATE BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
 BETWEEN THE CITIZENS. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET A SEARCH
           AND SEIZURE WARRANT TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE. THAT'S WHAT
           HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET AN ARREST WARRANT, TAKE SOMEBODY INTO
           CUSTODY, AND WE HAVE MOVED SUBSTANTIALLY TOWARD THAT CAUSE,
           ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN
           AIRTION WARRANT, BUT A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE WAY BY

{13:44:00} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE SENATE BILL WHICH IS PERPETUATED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT
           THAT THE COURT MAY ISSUE AN ORDER FOR RECORDS ONLY ON -- QUOTE
           --  "A STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE
           GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE TANGIBLE THINGS SOUGHT ARE RELEVANT
           TO AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION TO PROTECT AGAINST INTERNATIONAL
 TERRORISM." NOW, THE SENATE BILL ESTABLISHED THREE CRITERIA FOR

{13:44:31} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 THE RELEVANT STANDARD. FIRST, ACTIVITIES OFFING A SUSPECTED
 AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER. SECOND, A FOREIGN POWER OR AGENT OF A
 FOREIGN POWER. THIRD, AN INDIVIDUAL IN EXACT WITH OR KNOWN TO A
 SUSPECTED AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER. NOW, IN CONFERENCE, WE DID
           ADD AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION, WHICH THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
           HAS OBJECTED TO, AND THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION IS THAT THE JUDGE
           MAY ORDER THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
{END OF CH:   109th SENATE, FIRST SESSION 2005/12/13 TIME: 13-45 , Tue.}

< A>{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

 
           AN INDIVIDUAL WHERE THE JUDGE CONCLUDES THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE
           IMPORTANT, CRUCIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION, TO A TERRORISM
 INVESTIGATION. NOW, IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I WOULDN'T HAVE PUT
           THE PROVISION IN, BUT WE HAD A CLOSED-DOOR BRIEFING WHERE THE
           DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAME IN AND SHOWED US WHAT THEY CONSIDER

{13:45:35} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           TO BE NEED. AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE REALM OF
           REASON, BUT I KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE AN OBSTACLE TO GETTING THE
           LAW PUT INTO EFFECT AND GETTING SUPPORT FOR THAT PROVISION, AND
           I OPPOSED IT. BUT WHEN I RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE OTHER POINTS
           OF VIEW BESIDES MINE AND BESIDES THE SENATE'S, AND WE GOT A LOT
           OF OTHER MAJOR CONCESSIONS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER,
           WHICH I'VE ALREADY DESCRIBED, WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT. THERE

{13:46:08} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           ARE MORE CONCESSIONS WE GOT THERE. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THAT
           PROVISION WAS ACCEPTABLE.u AND THE QUESTION WHICH I HAVE FOR
           THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN IS WHETHER HE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
           TO GET THAT BRIEFING LAST THURSDAY I ASKED MY CHIEF COUNSEL,
           WHO HAS DONE SUCH AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB, MICHAEL O'NEILL, WHO
           WAS HERE A MOMENT OR TWO AGO -- HE'S PROBABLY TOO BUSY TO STAY

{13:46:43} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           AND LISTEN TO THESE SPEECHES -- TO MAKE THE BRIEFING AVAILABLE
 TO THE SENATOR OR HIS STAFF. MY QUESTION TO THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN, NUMBER ONE, IF HE'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT
 BRIEFING?
           NUMBER TWO, IF SO, WHAT HE THOUGHT OF IT WITH RESPECT TO THE
           WEIGHTINESS OF WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD TO SAY?
           AND, THIRD, IF THIS MODEST ADDITION IS SO SIGNIFICANT AS TO

{13:47:15} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SINK, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER SIMILARLY UNWEIGHTY MATTERS, SINK -L BILL?
 
 

{13:47:20 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, IN RESPONSE TO THE SENATOR FROM
 PENNSYLVANIA, THE SENATOR STPHOEZ VERY WELL I'M FAMILIAR WITH
           WHAT WENT ON IN THAT BRIEFING. YOU AND I SPOKE ABOUT THESE VERY
 PROVISIONS. I INDICATED TO THE SENATOR THAT I WOULD HAVE MY
           STAFF GO OVER THE HYPOTHETICALS THAT THOSE WHO WANT THIS HAD
           ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT RAISED. AND MY
           STAFF AND I LOOKED AT THOSE HYPOTHETICALS AND WERE VERY
 UNPERSUADED. AND HERE IS THE SIGNIFICANCE. WHAT THE SENATOR
           FROM PENNSYLVANIA IS SUGGESTING IS THAT IT IS NOT A MAJOR DEAL

{13:47:52} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           TO ADD ON TOP OF THE THREE-PART TEST IN THE SENATE AN
 ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT MERELY REQUIRES RELEVANCE. MR.
           PRESIDENT, THIS IS A BIG DEAL, BECAUSE THE OTHER THREE
           PROVISIONS REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS PERTAIN TO A TERRORIST OR
           SPY OR RECORDS OF PEOPLE IN CONTACT OR KNOWN TO A TERRORIST OR
 SPY, OR RELEVANT TO THE ACTIVITIES OF A TERRORIST OR SPY. MR.
           PRESIDENT, ALL THREE OF THOSE TESTS REQUIRE THE CONNECTION THAT

{13:48:26} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA AND I DEMANDED IN THE "SAFE" ACT.
           THE ADDITIONAL ITEM PUT IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT IS THE
 LOOPHOLE, THE EXCEPTION THAT SWALLOWS THAT. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
 THE CONNECTION TO THE TERRORIST OR SPY. AND THIS LEGISLATION,
           FROM THE VERY OUTSET WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RESPONSE TO WHAT
 HAPPENED ON 9/11 TO TERRORISM. THIS DOES GUT THE CHANGES TO
 SECTION 215. THIS DOES RENDER MEANINGLESS THE EFFORTS THAT YOU
           AND I AND OTHERS MADE TO GET A GOOD PROVISION IN THE SENATE.

{13:48:57} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           AND, YES, IT IS A SUFFICIENT REASON NOT TO GO FORWARD. THE
           FEELINGS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT THIS POORLY
           DRAFTED SECTION 215 CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY A PROVISION THAT
           SIMPLY DEMANDS GENERAL RELEVANCE AND REFUSES TO SHOW A
 CONNECTION TO TERRORISM OR ESPIONAGE. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND,
           YES, I WOULD SAY TO THE SENATOR ON THAT GROUND ALONE, ALTHOUGH
           THERE ARE OTHER GROUNDS, THIS IS VERY DISTURBING. MR.
           PRESIDENT, I DO WANT TO SAY TO THE SENATOR, MY COLLEAGUE AND MY

{13:49:30} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           FRIEND WHO DID TRY HARD, I WOULD -- HE USES THE WORD, IF HE HAD
           HIS DRUTHERS HE WOULD PREFERRED A BETTER PROVISION. THIS ISN'T
 ABOUT DRUTHERS. THIS IS ABOUT A DEVASTATING POWER OF THE
           GOVERNMENT TO BE ABLE TO GO AND TAKE YOUR LIBRARY RECORDS ON
           SOME GENERAL NOTION OF RELEVANCE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A
 &nbs