{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
 CONNECTION OF TERRORISM OR ESPIONAGE. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE IN
 AMERICA AND UNDER OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. MR. PRESIDENT, I DID NOT

{13:50:00} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           ACQUIESCE ON THIS MATTER SIMPLY AS A MATTER OF DRUTHERS OR
 NONDRUTHERS. I ACQUIESCED IN THIS MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS, ON THE
 TOTAL SCHEME OF THINGS, ACCEPTABLE. AND THERE WAS ADEQUATE
 PROTECTION. AND IT IS NOT, AS THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
           DEFINES IT, BROAD-RANGING AUTHORITY OF A JUDGE, THE IMPARTIAL
           JUDICIAL OFFICIAL HAS TO AGREE THAT IT IS A TERRORISM
           INVESTIGATION AND THAT THESE RECORDS ARE CRUCIAL, IMPORTANT TO
           THE INVESTIGATION, AND THAT THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE
 INVESTIGATION. IT IS NOT SOMETHING EXTRANEOUS, BUT IT IS A

{13:50:31} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 TERRORISM INVESTIGATION. NOW I FOCUS ON THIS MATTER, AGAIN, NOT
           WITH ANY EXPECTATION OF PERSUADING THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN,
           BUT TO TELL MY COLLEAGUES WHY HE'S OBJECTING TO THIS PROVISION
           AND TO INVITE MY COLLEAGUES, THE SENATORS, THE OTHER 98
           STPHORBGS, IF THEY WANT THE BRIEFING -- THE OTHER 98 SENATORS,
           IF THEY WANT THE BRIEFING, TO SEE WHY THERE WAS SENSIBLE
           REASONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE DETAILS OF THIS
           PROVISION NOT GOING TOO FAR, NOT IMPINGING ON SEVERAL LIBERTIES

{13:51:05} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           BECAUSE I WOULDN'T SUPPORT A BILL WHICH IMPINGED ON CIVIL
 LIBERTIES. SIMPLY WOULDN'T DO IT. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO HAVE
 CONTENTIONS. WE HAD A GREAT MANY CONCESSIONS FROM THE HOUSE OF
 REPRESENTATIVES. I'VE TAKEN UP THE TWO PRINCIPAL CONSIDERATIONS
 WHICH THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN WAS ARGUING. THE PRESUMPTION,
           CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER AND THIS
 ADDITIONAL PROVISION UNDER SECTION 215. BUT I WANT TO COME BACK
           FOR A MOMENT TO THE SENATE SECURITY LETTER ON IMPORTANT

{13:51:35} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 CONCESSIONS WHICH THE SENATE OBTAINED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT.
           AND, FIRST, TO POINT OUT THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER WAS
           NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE PATRIOT ACT WHICH WE ENACTED SHORTLY
 AFTER 9/11. THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS HAVE BEEN IN
 EXISTENCE FOR DECADES. BUT THE SENATE UTILIZED THE REVISION TO
           THE PATRIOT ACT TO PUT LIMITATIONS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
 LETTERS BECAUSE THEY FIT IN WITHIN THE OVERALL PARAMETERS. WE

{13:52:10} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           GOT SOME VERY IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY
 LETTERS IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT. THE STANDARD HAD ALWAYS BEEN
           THAT IF YOU GOT A NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER, YOU KEPT QUIET
 ABOUT IT. THE RECIPIENT DID. THERE WAS NO EXPLICIT OPPORTUNITY
           FOR THE RECIPIENT OF A NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER TO CHALLENGE
 IT. BUT THE CONFERENCE REPORT, FIXING UP THE SENATE PROVISION,
           EXPLICITLY GIVES THE RECIPIENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER

{13:52:41} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE RIGHT TO CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND TO GO TO COURT AND TO HAVE
           THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER QUASHED IF IT IS UNREASONABLE,
 OPPRESSIVE OR OTHERWISE CONTRARY TO LAW. AND THE RECIPIENT ALSO
           HAS THE POWER TO GET A COURT ORDER TO TELL THE TARGET. NOW THAT
           IS SUBJECT TO THE CERTIFICATION BY THESE HIGH-RANKING
           GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS THAT IT WOULD ENDANGER NATIONAL SECURITY

{13:53:14} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 OR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. BUT AGAIN, THE PROVISION IN THE
           CONFERENCE REPORT IS MORE PROTECTIVE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES THAN
           WHAT WAS IN THE SENATE REPORT. SO THAT ON THIS PROVISION ON
           NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS, THE CONFERENCE REPORT GOES MUCH
           FURTHER THAN EXISTING LAW. AND AGAIN, THE NATIONAL SECURITY
           LETTERS WERE NOT COVERED IN THE PATRIOT ACT. NOW, MR.

{13:53:46} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           PRESIDENT, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN. I'M GOING TO COME TO SOME LATER. BUT I'D ASK
           UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I MIGHT YIELD TO THE SENATOR IF HE CARES
           TO REPLY AT THIS POINT TO WHAT I JUST SAID WITHOUT LOSING MY
 RIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
 

{13:53:58 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 

{13:54:01 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE SENATOR
           THAT I MEANT WHAT I SAID ABOUT HIS EFFORTS WITH REGARD TO THESE
 ISSUES AND HIS SINCERE DESIRE TO TRY TO FIX THESE PROVISIONS.
           AND THAT'S WHAT WE STARTED TO DO IN THE SENATE VERSION.
           SECONDLY, I DO THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PROCESS, THAT WE DO
           NEED TO COME OUT HERE ON THE FLOOR AND BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT
           WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT THESE PROVISIONS. IT'S
           NEITHER SUFFICIENT TO SAY TO OUR COLLEAGUES, YOU KNOW, THAT
           THIS IS -- WE HAVE TO PASS IT AS IT IS BECAUSE THE TIME IS
 RUNNING OUT. NOR IS IT SUFFICIENT FOR SOMEBODY ON MY SIDE TO

{13:54:32} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SAY, LOOK, THIS IS AN ENORMOUSLY DANGEROUS, UNFIXABLE PROVISION
           AND THE WHOLE THING SHOULD GO DOWN. NEITHER OF THOSE POSITIONS
 ARE DEFENSIBLE. WHAT IS DEFENSIBLE IS TO LOOK AT THESE
           POSITIONS AS WE'VE BEEN DOING AND ASKING HAVE WE DONE ENOUGH TO
           PROTECT LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. I'VE COME TO THE CLOSE THAT WE
           WERE VERY CLOSE OR HAD ACHIEVED THAT WITH SECTION 215, BUT THE
           CONFERENCE REPORT FAILS IN THAT REGARD AND BRINGS US BACK FAR
           TOO CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL MISTAKE. ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY
           LETTERS, I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE SENATE

{13:55:06} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 VERSION, WHICH I DIDN'T FIND TO BE ADEQUATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
           AND SO WITH REGARD TO BOTH OF THOSE, NOT TO MENTION THE
           SNEAK-AND-PEEK SEARCHES ISSUE THAT WE'LL DISCUSS LATER ON, THIS
           SIMPLY DOES NOT DO THE JOB. BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THE SENATOR'S
           SINCERE DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THE SENATE IS WELL INFORMED OF THE
           REMAINING ISSUES THAT COULD AFFECT HOW PEOPLE VOTE ON THE
 CONFERENCE REPORT. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.
 

{13:55:37 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS ARE
           STRONGER IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT THAN THEY WERE IN THE SENATE
           BILL. THE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT IS
           MORE PROTECTIVE THAN THE LANGUAGE IN THE SENATE BILL ON
 CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION. AND THE CONFERENCE REPORT PICKING UP
           THE SENATE BILL PROVISIONS IMPROVES THE CIVIL LIBERTIES
           PROTECTION FROM EXISTING LAW BY THE EXPLICIT RIGHT OF THE
           RECIPIENT TO GO TO COURT, TO QUASH OR TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE TO

{13:56:09} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 THE TARGET. BUT LET'S MOVE ON TO THE --
 

{13:56:14 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE REMARK IN
           RESPONSE TO THAT, AND THEN I WILL HAVE 0 LEAVE. IF I COULD, IF
           THE SENATOR WOULD YIELD?
 
 

{13:56:21 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: I'LL YIELD ON THE CONDITION THAT I NOT LOSE MY
 RIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
 

{13:56:25 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS, WE'LL HAVE TO
           AGREE TO DISAGREE OR TRY TO DEBATE THIS THROUGH AND COME TO A
           SIMILAR CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE CONFERENCE REPORT
 DID SRAOE A SRAOE THE SENATE BILL. AND I THINK -- VIS-A-VIS THE
           SENATE BILL, AND I THINK WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. PERHAPS WE CAN
           AGREE ON HOW VALUABLE THIS IS IN LIGHT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
           LETTERS, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PART OF THE SUNSET GROUP OF
 PROVISIONS. I WANT TO POINT OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT THESE
           NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS, WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN 30,000
           ISSUED ACCORDING TO "THE WASHINGTON POST," IN A YEAR, THEY ARE

{13:56:57} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           NOT SUNSETTED. THAT'S TROUBLE. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
 FLOOR.
 

{13:57:01 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THAT THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN GET A BRIEFING AND NOT ACCEPT WHAT HE READS IN "THE
 WASHINGTON POST". "THE WASHINGTON POST" IS WRONG. I'M NOT I
           HOPE THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN WILL NOT LEAVE THE FLOOR. MR.
           PRESIDENT, IF I CAN HAVE THE ATTENTION OF THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN. I HOPE YOU'LL NOT LEAVE THE FLOOR. LET ME MAKE A
           COUPLE OF OTHER COMMENTS, AND I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. ALTHOUGH I
           DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN EXTENDED SO FAR.
 

{13:57:29 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, I SAY TO THE SENATOR THAT I
           APPRECIATE -- I NEED TO LEAVE JUST BRIEFLY. I WILL BE RIGHT
           BACK. BUT THE -- I'M ENJOYING THIS PROCESS. I NEED TO TAKE CARE
 OF ONE MATTER. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO RETURNING TO CONTINUE THIS
 DISCUSSION.
 

{13:57:47 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: LET ME BE JUST BRIEFLY, ONE-SENTENCE COMMENT ABOUT
 THE 30,000. I WOULD URGE THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN TO GET A
           CLASSIFIED BRIEFING AND NOT TO TAKE HIS FACTS FROM "THE
 WASHINGTON POST," BECAUSE "THE WASHINGTON POST" IS TOTALLY
           WRONG. AND I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTS ARE,
           ALTHOUGH I ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR LEAVE TO PUT
 THOSE FACTS BEFORE THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE TOO MUCH IS CLASSIFIED.
           AND I THINK THIS IS INAPPROPRIATELY CLASSIFIED, AND I'D LIKE TO
           BE ABLE TO DETAIL. HR ET ME TALK ABOUT THE DELAYED NOTICE --

{13:58:23} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           LET ME TALK ABOUT THE DELAYED NOTICE PROVISIONS ALSO REFERRED
 TO. EXISTING LAW PROVIDES FOR NOTIFICATION TO THE TARGET, WHICH
 COULD MEAN ANYTHING. THE SENATE BILL CALLED FOR SEVEN DAYS. THE
           HOUSE BILL WANTED 180 DAYS. WE GOT 30 DAYS. I WOULD SUGGEST THE
           TOTALITY OF THE LEGISLATION, WE'RE AT THE 85% TO 15% RANGE, 85
           SENATE PROVISIONS, 15% HOUSE PROVISIONS. AND THE 15% WHICH THE

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

           HOUSE HAS DO NOT IMPINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. I WOULDN'T TAKE 1%
 IF THERE WAS INAPPROPRIATE ENCROACHMENT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. THE
           30 DAYS CAN BE USED FOR CAUSE SHOWN FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. WITH
           RESPECT TO THE WIRETAP PROVISION, I JOINED THE SENATOR FROM
 WISCONSIN IN OPPOSING THE ROVING WIRETAPS. I'VE NEVER LIKED
 WIRETAPS. WHEN I WAS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN PHILADELPHIA, THIS
           ISSUE CAME BEFORE CONSIDERATION OF OUR BODY, AND I WAS THE ONLY

{13:59:32} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 ONE OF 67 COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO OBJECT TO WIRETAPPING.
           AND SINCE I CAN ONLY BE BRIEF HERE, I WOULD INVITE MY
           COLLEAGUES -- AGAIN I KNOW I'M NOT GOING TO PERSUADE THE
           SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, BUT IN TALKING ABOUT THE LATE NOTICE,
           IN TALKING ABOUT WIRETAP PROVISIONS, I WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO
           LOOK AT THE DETAILS AS TO HOW WE HAVE PROTECTED AGAINST RANDOM
           SELECTION ON THE SPECIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON
{END OF CH:   109th SENATE, FIRST SESSION 2005/12/13 TIME: 14-00 , Tue.}

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

{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}

 
           LIKELY TO -- IS LIKELY TO TRY TO AVOID THE WIRETAP. AND THE
           FINAL COMMENT I HAVE TO MAKE IS ABOUT SUNSET.u AND THE HOUSE
           PUT IN THE PROVISION FOR A TEN-YEAR SUNSET, AND THE SENATE PUT
 IN A PROVISION FOR A FOUR-YEAR SUNSET. AND THE HOUSE WANTED TO

{14:00:36} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 COMPROMISE AT SEVEN YEARS, HALFWAY BETWEEN FOUR AND TEN. AND
           THE SENATE CONFEREES INSISTED ON A COMPROMISE AT FOUR YEARS.
           THE HOUSE SAID IT WASN'T MUCH OF A COMPROMISE. THE COMPROMISE
           OF FOUR YEARS, WHICH WAS THE SENATE PROVISION, WHEN THEY WERE
           AT TEN AND WANTED SEVEN. I WANT TO THANK THE WHITE HOUSE AND I
           WANT TO THANK THE PRESIDENT FOR ASSISTANCE IN WORKING THIS
           DETAIL OUT. WE DID SO ON THE EXPECTATION THAT BY WORKING THE
           SUNSET TO FOUR YEARS WE WOULD HAVE A NUMBER OF SENATE

{14:01:08} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SIGNATURES ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT AND A NUMBER OF HOUSE
 SIGNATURES ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT. AND I'M NOT GOING TO WASH
           THAT LINEN IN PUBLIC AS TO WHAT HAPPENED THERE, BUT ONLY TO SAY
           THAT OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW THIS ACT IN FOUR YEARS IS A MIGHTY
           POTENT WEAPON TO KEEP LAW ENFORCEMENT ON ITS TOES, KNOWING THAT
           IT'S GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AND
           I HAVE PLEDGED BOTH PRIVATELY AND PUBLICLY AND AGAIN ON THE

{14:01:42} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           FLOOR OF THE SENATE YESTERDAY TO HAVE EXTENSIVE AND PIERCING
           OVERSIGHT AS TO WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES HERE, AND THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN, I THINK, WILL AGREE WITH ME ON THE POINT THAT
           IN THE YEAR I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN, THERE'S BEEN REAL OVERSIGHT.
           WE'VE REALLY CALLED PEOPLE AND HAVE DONE A JOB HERE. BUT I
           THINK THE DEBATE HAS BEEN VERY USEFUL. I DON'T HAVE ANY
           QUESTIONS TO POSE TO --
 

{14:02:07 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: I CERTAINLY WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
 

{14:02:10 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: I'M GLAD HE'S HERE TO RESPOND SO THE OTHER SIDE
           CAN BE ARTICULATED AND SO THAT MY COLLEAGUES CAN MAKE THEIR OWN
           EVALUATION AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN'S
           OBJECTION TO SECTION 215, WHICH IS VERY, VERY LIMITED TO THAT
           ONE ADDITIONAL PROVISION WHICH IS JUSTIFIED, SO THEY CAN
           EVALUATE HIS OBJECTION TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS WHERE
           THE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION IS TIGHTER IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT
           THAN IN THE SENATE VERSION AND OTHER PROTECTIONS AND THE

{14:02:41} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           PROTECTIONS ON DELAYED NOTICE, SO-CALLED SNEAK AND PEEK AND ON
 WIRETAPS AND THEN ESPECIALLY ON SUNSET. AND I THINK THE DEBATE
           IS VERY ILLUMINATING, DOES MORE THAN THE SPEECH I DID
 YESTERDAY. NOTHING AS DULL AS A SPEECH ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND
 NOTHING AS LIVELY AS A LITTLE DEBATE. AND THIS FLOOR HAS VERY
 LITTLE DEBATE. VERY LITTLE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS WHERE PEOPLE COME
           HERE, SENATORS COME HERE AND IN A RESPECTFUL WAY POSE QUESTIONS
           AND IN A RESPECTFUL WAY GIVE ANSWERS AND TRY TO ILLUMINATE

{14:03:16} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 RATHER THAN ON USCATE. NO TABLE-POUNDING. I THANK THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN FOR WHAT HE'S DONE THIS YEAR ON THE COMMITTEE
           AND FOR HIS THOUGHTFUL APPROACH HERE, ALBEIT WRONG, ALBEIT NOT
           PERSUASIVE AND SHOULDN'T CARRY THE DAY. I THANK HIM FOR HIS
 CONTRIBUTION. WITHOUT YIELDING THE FLOOR, I ASK UNANIMOUS
           CONSENT THAT I MAY YIELD TO THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN WITHOUT
 LOSING THE FLOOR.
 

{14:03:41 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 

{14:03:43 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, I AM THOROUGHLY ENJOYING THIS, BUT
           I CAME OUT HERE AND DESCRIBED THE SENATOR, AS I WOULD AGAIN, AS
 VALIANT ON THIS ISSUE. I'M GETTING A LITTLE WORRIED, THOUGH, AS
           WE START REVIEWING EACH OF THESE PROVISIONS. I MEAN, THE
           SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA VOTED FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE
 PROVISIONS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE SENATE VERSION. THERE
           WAS A REASON THAT WE DRAFTED THEM THAT WAY. AND SO WHEN THE
           SENATOR PROPERLY PUTS ME THROUGH MY PACES ON EACH OF THESE, AND
           I IDENTIFY MY REMAINING OBJECTION, AND HE MINIMIZES THE

{14:04:18} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           OBJECTION, HE ALREADY VOTED FOR THOSE VERY PROVISIONS. HE VOTED
 FOR EXACTLY THESE PROVISIONS IN THE SENATE BILL. SO WHEN I
           POINT OUT ON SECTION 215 THAT A GENERAL RELEVANT STANDARD THERE
           IS NOT A SUFFICIENT PROTECTION, AND HE AGREES ON THE RECORD
           THAT THAT WAS TROUBLING TO HIM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S A VALID
 THING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. ON SNEAK-AND-PEEK PROVISIONS, THE
           SENATOR DIDN'T VOTE WHEN HE VOTED IN THE SENATE FOR 30 DAYS'
           PERMISSION FOR SNEAK AND PEEK AND A 90-DAY EXTENSION AFTER

{14:04:49} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THAT. HE VOTED FOR SEVEN DAYS BECAUSE THE SENATOR FROM
 PENNSYLVANIA KNOWS AS WELL AS ANYBODY IN THIS BODY IF IDEA OF A
           SNEAK-AND-PEEK SEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE IS A VERY TROUBLING
           EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION THAT EVERY MESH
 HAS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. SO THIS IS A
           VERY NARROW EXCEPTION. WHEN THE SENATOR CAME TO VOTE IN THE
           SENATE, HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR 30 DAYS. HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR OVER
           FOUR TIMES SEVEN DAYS. HE VOTED FOR SEVEN DAYS. SO TO NOW

{14:05:19} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SUGGEST THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW A TRIVIAL CONCERN IS NOT
           CONSISTENT WITH EITHER THE SENATOR'S RECORD ON THIS PARTICULAR
           LEGISLATION, NOR CONSISTENT WITH HIS APPARENT COSPONSORSHIP OF
 THE SAFE ACT IF THE PAST. SO I AGAIN DO THINK THAT THIS IS
           VALUABLE, BUT WHEN YOU PUT -- WHEN THE SENATOR ACTUALLY LIST
           THESE ALTOGETHER, AS HE'S DONE, AND I AM GRATEFUL, THE ONLY
           THING I CAN AGREE WITH HIM ON IS -- I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE
           SUNSETS HAVE BEEN PRESERVED, AND THAT'S A POSITIVE STEP, BUT
           LET
 
 ME JUST SAY THIS: IF THE SENATOR COSPONSORED THE SAFE ACT, HE

{14:05:54} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           KNOWS SOME OF THINGS WE'RE SUNSETTING POTENTIALLY PERMIT THE
 VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS OF INNOCENT AND LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. A
           SUNSET IS ONLY A SECOND LEVEL OF PROTECTION SAYING, LOOK,
           PEOPLES' RIGHTS MIGHT BE VIOLATED NOW, BUT AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE
 A CHANCE TO CHANGE IT LATER. THE IDEA OF PREVAILING ON THE
           SUNSET, WHICH ALLOW VIOLATIONS TO CONTINUE, WITHOUT CHANGING
           THE VERY SUBSTANCE THAT PROTECTS AMERICANS' RIGHTS AND CIVIL
 LIBERTY, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON TO VOTE FOR THIS CONFERENCE
           REPORT, BUT I DO LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER EXCHANGE WITH THE

{14:06:28 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SENATOR AND ON THIS AS THE WEEK GOES ON. MR. SPECTER: MR.
 PRESIDENT?

{14:06:28 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR?
 
 

{14:06:32 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: I THANK THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN IN HIS LAST
 COMMENTS. HE MADE MY ARGUMENT MUCH BETTER THAN I HAVE DURING
           THE COURSE OF THE PAST HOUR WHEN HE CHASTISES ME FOR AGREEING
           TO 30 DAYS WHEN I HAD VOTED FOR SEVEN DAYS IN A CONTEXT WHERE
           THE HOUSE BILL HAD 180 DAYS AND THAT IS THE REASON TO VOTE
 AGAINST THIS BILL. HE'S MADE MY CASE. WHEN YOU TAKE UP AN ISSUE
           ABOUT WHAT IS FAIR AND APPROPRIATE AND PROTECTIVE OF CIVIL

{14:07:03} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           RIGHTS AS TO WHEN THE TARGET SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AS TO A
           SURREPTITIOUS OR SECRET SEARCH OF HIS APARTMENT AND YOU HAVE AN
           EXISTING BILL WHICH SAYS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME WHICH
           COULD BE ANYTHING, AND THE SENATE COMES IN, IN SEVEN DAYS AND
           THE HOUSE COMES IN AT 10 DAYS, THAT THERE IS NO REAL CONCESSION

{14:07:33} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 ON CIVIL LIBERTIES. THE HOUSE MADE A CONCESSION OF 150 DAYS
 FROM 180 TO 30. THE SENATE MADE A CONCESSION OF 23 DAYS FROM
 SEVEN TO 30. AND I WOULD ASK THE OTHER 98 SENATORS WHETHER THIS
           IS A MERITORIOUS ARGUMENT, A WEIGHTY ARGUMENT OR MORE THAN A
 SCINTILLA. SCINTILLA, THAT'S THE EXPRESSION WE USE IN THE LAW

{14:08:04} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 WHEN THE ITEM HAS VIRTUALLY NO WEIGHT. IF COMMON LAW, THEY TALK
           ABOUT A PEPPER CORN AS BEING ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, BUT THIS
 IS A SCINTILLA. MAYBE THIS ISN'T EVEN A SCINTILLA TO SAY THAT A
           CONCESSION FROM SEVEN TO 30 DAYS IS MEANINGFUL. BUT I'M GLAD
           THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN MADE THAT AS HIS FINAL PERSUASIVE,
           OVERWHELMING ARGUMENT, BECAUSE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE FLIMSINESS
 OF THE CONSIDERATIONS.
 

{14:08:31 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE LAST EXCHANGE, PI
           COULD, THAT WOULD NOT --
 

{14:08:35 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: I HAVE THE FLOOR, BUT I WILL YIELD TO THE SENATOR
 FROM WISCONSIN. ON UNANIMOUS CONSENT. I SAW SENATOR BYRD ONE
           DAY PERFECT THIS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MISTAKE OF
 YIELDING WITHOUT RESERVING THE RIGHT TO THE FLOOR.
 

{14:08:48 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE NO DESIRE THE TAKE THE
 FLOOR AWAY.
 

{14:08:51 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
 

{14:08:54 NSP} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. FEINGOLD: LET ME JUST SAY, BACK WHERE I LIVE, WHEN THE
           GOVERNMENT COMES INTO YOUR HOME AND YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE
           BEEN RUMMAGING AROUND IN YOUR HOUSE AND SOMEHOW THEY'RE ALLOWED
           TO DO THAT FOR SEVEN DAYS AND YOU FIND OUT LATER ON THAT THEY
           DID THIS, YOU'RE UPSET. IF YOU DON'T FIND OUT FOR 30 DAYS,
           WHERE I COME FROM, THAT'S NOT A SCINTILLA. THAT'S A BIG DEAL.
           THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT COMING INTO YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT

{14:09:27} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           GIVING YOU NOTICE, AS PEOPLE EXPECT UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
 IS NOT A TRIVIALITY. IT IS AT THE VERY CORE OF ONE OF THE MOST
 IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. I'M NOT SURE I'M
           --, YOU KNOW, IN THE END, EVEN COMFORTABLE WITH THIS CON
           SETTING OF A SNEAK AND PEEK. IT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED IT MAY BE
           NEEDED IN SOME CASE, BUT WHY IN THE WORLD CAN'T A JUDGE HAVE TO
           RENEW THAT EVERY SEVEN DAYS. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF TRIVIA TO
           THE PEOPLE OF MY STATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN COME BOO INTO
 THEIR HOUSE WITHOUT NOTICE UNDER THE FOWRMENT. AND I REJECT THE

{14:09:58} (MR. FEINGOLD) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 IDEA THAT'S A MINOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEVEN AND 30 DAYS.
 

{14:10:03 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, THE PROBLEM WITH THE RENEWED
           ARGUMENT BY THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN IS NOT ON SEVEN DAYS OR
           30 DAYS, IT'S ON ONE DAY. IT'S ON ANY SNEAK AND PEEK. IT'S ON
           ANY DELAYED NOTIFICATION. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS THAT LATITUDE
           BECAUSE THEY NEED TO CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION, AND IF A
           DISCLOSURE IS MADE, IT WILL IMPEDE AN INVESTIGATION. AND A
           PERIOD OF -- A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ENABLES THEM TO CONTINUE

{14:10:39} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

 THE INVESTIGATION WITHOUT ALERTING THE TARGET. AND ONE DAY
           WOULD BE TOO LONG FOR THE ARGUMENT WHICH IS MADE BY THE SENATOR
           FROM WISCONSIN, AND WE ARE CONDUCTING THIS DEBATE AS IF WE HAVE
           A LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN THIS COUNTRY MADE UP TOTALLY OF
           ROGUES WHO HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND
           WHEN THEY GET A DELAYED NOTICE WARRANT, BEAR IN MIND, MY

{14:11:11} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           COLLEAGUES AND THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, THAT THEY HAVE
           GOTTEN JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THIS SNEAK-AND-SPEAK WARRANT, ON THIS
 DELAYED NOTIFICATION WARRANT. THEY'VE GONE TO A JUDGE AND HAVE
           GOTTEN LEEWAY ON STANDARDS WHICH ARE SET FORTH AND ARTICULATED
 IN THE PATRIOT ACT. MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE IS NOT IN ORDER.
 

{14:11:35 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. THE SENATE WILL
           COME TO ORDER.
 

{14:11:44 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE IS STILL NOT IN ORDER.
 

{14:11:46 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
 

{14:11:50 NSP} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           MR. SPECTER: BACK TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT, MR.
 PRESIDENT. THIS PERIOD OF TIME, THE CLOSER TO THE SENATE
           POSITION THE BETTER, BUT THIS IS NOT SOME RANDOM ACT OF A ROGUE
           LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THIS IS A DELAYED NOTICE WARRANT WHICH
           HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY GOING TO AN IMPARTIAL MAGISTRATE AND BY

{14:12:24} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           SHOWING CAUSE AND BY SHOWING REASON TO HAVE THIS DELAYED
 NOTICE. MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS ON
           THE FLOOR EARLIER TODAY AND HAS RAISED A NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS,
           AND I SEE OTHER OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE FLOOR SEEKING
           RECOGNITION, SO I WILL NOT TAKE THESE UP AT THIS TIME, BUT I
           WOULD INVITE MY COLLEAGUES TO EXAMINE WHAT THE SENATOR FROM NEW
           HAMPSHIRE HAS HAD TO SAY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE WHICH I

{14:12:57} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           HAVE HAD WITH THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN BECAUSE I THINK THEY
           ARE COVERED, BUT I WILL WANT TO DEAL WITH THEM SPECIFICALLY. I
           WOULD POINT OUT, AND I'M LOOKING THROUGHING THE TRANSCRIPT FOR
 A MOMENT HERE, ON SOME OF THE THINGS WHICH HE HAS HAD TO SAY.
           THERE WERE ALSO SOME COMMENTS MADE BY THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT,

{14:13:27} (MR. SPECTER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }

           THE DISTINGUISHED RANKING MEMBER, WHICH I WILL COMMENT ABOUT
 LATER. WE WILL HAVE A DEBATE.