From the Congressional report, Kerry's explanation on his votes on the PA

[Mass]

I think he really thought it was a step in the right direction (improving what was existing before).

I disagree with him and think it is a bad political move, but I am sure he is sincere. (Always the problem between a pragmatic approach to fix what exists and an opposition approach - Democrats will have to chose once and for all whether they want to be an opposition party or not).

Why I believe it is the wrong approach: There is no way to distinguish those who voted this version because it is the most liberal they can accept (like Sessions, Santorum, and Co) and those for which it is the least liberal they can accept (like Kerry, Kennedy, or Boxer). So , in a way, the Republicans can say : Kennedy and Kerry agrees with us that we dont need civil liberties, when it is clearly false, and it will unfortunately stand in the media.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the course of this week, the Senate has had a series of votes on the PATRIOT Act conference report as well as on a bill amending the conference report introduced by Senators Sununu, Craig, Murkowski, and Hagel.

Last December, I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I did not cast that vote because I oppose reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I supported the PATRIOT Act then just as I do now. I voted against cloture on the conference report because I believed that it did not adequately protect our civil rights and liberties. Supporters of the conference report believed that you had to choose between two extremes: taking a tough stand on terror and protecting our fundamental constitutional rights. I thought you could accomplish both at the same time.

On February 28, 2006, I voted against cloture on the Sununu compromise bill, S. 2271, vote No. 22, because of procedural measures taken by the majority to prevent Senator Feingold--or any other Senator--from offering amendments. Senator Feingold's four proposed amendments would have improved the Sununu compromise and addressed more of the concerns I had with the conference report. They would have, No. 1, ensured that section 215 orders to produce sensitive library, medical, and other business records would be limited to individuals who had some connection to terrorism; No. 2, ensured that judicial review of section 215 gag orders and National Security Letter, NSL, gag orders is meaningful; No. 3, sunsetted the NSL authorities after 4 years; and No. 4, required notification of sneak-and-peek search warrants within 7 days of the search rather than within 30 days. I believe that each of these amendments would have improved both the Sununu compromise bill and the conference report. Regardless of whether my colleagues agree with me on that, I believe the Senate should have been given the opportunity to vote on them.

On March 1, 2006, the Senate conducted a series of votes, both procedural and substantive on the Sununu compromise bill and the PATRIOT Act conference report. I voted to support the Sununu compromise. I also voted to proceed to the motion to reconsider the conference report, to proceed to the conference report, and to invoke cloture on the conference report because, in my view, the Sununu compromise and the conference report come as a package deal. I support the two taken together, and for that reason, I also voted for the conference report today.

I support the Sununu compromise bill because it makes some important improvements to the PATRIOT Act. First, it allows judicial review of a section 215 nondisclosure order 1 year after its receipt. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain business records, including library, medical, and gun records among other things. Under the conference report, recipients of these section 215 orders were subject to an automatic permanent nondisclosure order which would have prevented them from bringing any court challenge. Under the compromise, a section 215 nondisclosure order is now subject to judicial review.

Second, the conference report would have required recipients of National Security Letters, NSL, to identify their attorneys to the FBI. NSLs allow the Government to obtain, without a warrant, subscriber records and other data from telephone companies and Internet providers. The compromise removes that requirement so that recipients of NSL orders can seek legal advice without having to inform the FBI.

Third, the compromise clarifies that the Government cannot issue NSLs to libraries unless the libraries provide ``electronic communications services'' as defined by the statute. Thus, libraries functioning in their traditional roles, including providing Internet access, are not covered.

Even though this legislation does not address all of my concerns with the conference report, these compromise provisions are steps in the right direction and will be important components of the PATRIOT Act.

I am proud to support this legislative package and am pleased we have reauthorized and improved the PATRIOT Act. I believe there is still more work to be done and will work with my colleagues; such as Senator Feingold and Senator Specter, on further improvements. For example, in a perfect world the PATRIOT Act would provide for more meaningful judicial review of section 215 gag orders as well as NSL gag orders. There is no reason to have a conclusive presumption against recipients--one that can only be overcome by a showing of Government bad faith. Nor is there any reason to prohibit judicial review of those gag orders until a full year has passed. They should be immediately reviewable, and, if there are any presumptions, they should be in favor of the privacy rights being invaded rather than the Government doing the invading.

In a perfect world, the Patriot Act would require the subjects of section 215 business record disclosures to have some link to suspected terrorists. As I mentioned earlier, section 215 is expansive, and it allows the Government to obtain very sensitive, personal records. Simply requiring those records to be relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, as the conference report does, is simply not enough. This standard will not prevent Government fishing expeditions.

And, in a perfect world, the PATRIOT Act would have required the Government to notify victims of sneak-and-peek searches--unannounced and secret entries into the homes of Americans--within 7 days as the original Senate bill did. The 30- to 60-day timeframe is simply too long. People have a right to know when the Government has been in their house, searching through their things.

Thus, I understand why some of my colleagues are disappointed with the compromise. They say that it does not go as far as the original Senate bill which was passed by unanimous consent, and they are right. But the fact is that the compromise does improve the original conference report. I believe the compromise was the product of good faith negotiations. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a step in the right direction. And I will continue to work with my colleagues so that we can create a more even balanced PATRIOT Act.