Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding 02-16-06 on Feb 16th, 2006 :: 0:04:10 to 0:24:10
Total video length: 3 hours 7 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:23 Duration: 0:20:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

0:04:06 to 0:04:21( Edit History Discussion )

?@ ins - @ americans?-the. standard in the? conference report, relevance. l still allow b-government fishing scped ditionz-that's unacceptable and theb b-b-sununu bill d oes. not change. that b`b&-next let me. turn.z{? to. judicial ?-review of. the section~

0:04:21 to 0:04:37( Edit History Discussion )

215?;?b-ordersb-after. all if. we're going to.@-give the government. such.b-intrusive. powers. we should at?@b-least. let? people. go. t?o. a judge and. have. the cha?nce. to. challenge the. orderb`?-the. conference. report. ds @ not provide. for this. judicial&b-review?-itbi would

0:04:37 to 0:04:53( Edit History Discussion )

require -- the -conference report. does provide ~-for. this. judic~?ial q review&?-but i. w?:ould require?a that. the judicial review. but conducted in-secret and that. government.b--submissions. not be. shared ?with b--the challenger under anyb-cizrcumstb.ances. witho ut regard. for whether

0:04:53 to 0:05:08( Edit History Discussion )

. thereba anational security-concerns in. any case-obviously, this. would m?:ake. it `?-very difficult for a challenger `b&b-to get meaningful? judicial.b->?review?, that. come. ports in. anyb&?-meaningf?ul way with. due process b-and. the sununu. bill,?a again does-not address. this. p

0:05:08 to 0:05:22( Edit History Discussion )

roblem?-so what we have. here. are very.~.b`b -intrusive powers, very. limited b-b-judicib.al review and then. on topb`v-of it, anyone. who gets a section?i 215. order can't even. talk. about that's right?&?-they come. complete. with. an hb-automat

0:05:22 to 0:05:38( Edit History Discussion )

ic, indefinite. gag orderb`b&b 3the. new eal supposedlb allowedq ?-judicialv? revieb.w of the g?@ag?q?@ ?-orders but? that'b.s. just. more "ebq b-cosmetics-as?, ib says. yelb.l the. deal does not

0:05:38 to 0:05:52( Edit History Discussion )

b-perm judicial. review. of. gagb-orders no judic ial review. is available&b-for. the first year. after the? 215 ?-order has. been % issued-even when. the right for judicialreview does. kick. in. theb.b-challenger has to pve that. the ?2 government act&?ed in. bad"e faith b-we all know

0:05:52 to 0:06:09( Edit History Discussion )

tha?t's. a?{v2 virtuallyb-impossible standard. to. meet-the. last. point ib.n. section 215 is.b-that the conference q report. as -amended. by. thebab p sununu bill now ?-explicit permits recipients ofb -these orders to. consult with.b&?@ ?-attorneys an

0:06:09 to 0:06:25( Edit History Discussion )

d. without hav?6ing. to`?&b-inform the f i that they?r have`b-done so.b-it does. the same. thing with.b-spec.t. to. national. security.b-letters-thz~is is. an. important?~?@?-clarification but. keep. in mind i that the justice department hab.d i?-already. argued. in. litigation &?-thbaat the provision in h the.

0:06:25 to 0:06:41( Edit History Discussion )

. n.s.l-statute did?: permit. recipients. to-consult with lawyers?b2 this isn't much. of. a victory at-b-all. making sure they have. to`?-tell the f i if they. consu?slt z-a lawyer isn't an. improvement but it's a minor

0:06:41 to 0:06:57( Edit History Discussion )

one?`?&?r b.we turn to. b n.s.l.s ?y these are the. lettersb that the.b-f i. can ib.ssue to. obtain -certain. types of. bus.7iness b`b-records. would no prior. court?-approval at all ba b-the. conference. report. provides-for. judicial 2 review of. n.s.l.s?-but the gives?

0:06:57 to 0:07:13( Edit History Discussion )

. the? government. the right.ba to. enforce them. and hold-people in. contempt. for fail. fogb-comply which was not purchasely&?-laid out in. the statute n starkb-contrast to. the senb.ate. bill. theb-conference report. would requi?2reb-that judicial. review. be-conducted. in. secre and that`?-government submissions not be&

0:07:13 to 0:07:28( Edit History Discussion )

? -sh?[ared with the. challenger. under ?-any cbsircumstances without? regard-for whether. there are national-security concerns. in. any particular case -so just. like. with a?@ the section?-215. j?,udicial. review. provisions, this will. make. it. very difficult q for. challengers to. e `&b-successfulb-and again, the sununu. bill. does.b

0:07:28 to 0:07:44( Edit History Discussion )

&b&?-not. address tb.his. problem~.z7 b-of course. n.>s.l 's come. with b`?-the. gag orders., too-the conference report. addresses?-judicial re.view of. the se gag order.s. but has the same. flaw. as.b-b-the sununu bill. does. with. regard.b-to judicial. re.view of. theb-section. 215

0:07:44 to 0:07:59( Edit History Discussion )

gag rule b&@ mured. to. prevail, yob.u. have to @ ?-prove. that the. government. actedb-in bad faith whichgainb.2 will-certain.ly prove to be virtuallyb`b&&b-impossible and. the sununu. bill does. not`?i ?-modify these provisions. at. all let. me. mak?e. just. one last. point.

0:07:59 to 0:08:15( Edit History Discussion )

-on nqs.l.'s ?-the. sb.ununu. ?ill. contains. a ?&?-provision. that. states. that.b- libraries. can?not. receive an. ns 9.9 b-n.s.l. for internet. record.s-unless the librabqries provide -quote -- "ielectron?icb b-communication. services.". - un! b-unquote, as define! ed by statute ut. tb.hat.

0:08:15 to 0:08:31( Edit History Discussion )

statutees already appb.lies?-to entities. that. satisfy that `?-definition so. that. provision is`?-essential.ly ?[ just. re.state ! ing exist.9.9 b`?`-existing law?`?-it is. no. improvement at allb -those. cosmetics start to. wear b-pretty thin. when. you start to

0:08:31 to 0:08:47( Edit History Discussion )

`b-look closely at. this deal?-b-let's. turn. then. to. s?eneakand.a?  ?@ b-sneak-and peak search. warrants-as i laid. out in. de.tail yesterday. the conference. report-takes. a significant step. back-from the senate. byill. by. allowing -the. government to wait an entire month. to. either." a.e notify

0:08:47 to 0:09:02( Edit History Discussion )

someone that agents. secret.ly search.b`b-their. hb.ome. or. to. get approval.b-from a judge to delay. the nb.ote @ if i cb.aution e vening b!  ?!  ?! even. longer b-the. senate. bb.ill sab.id theb`b&b-presumption. should. be one. week -anb.d. i've. yet to. hear. anyb&?-argument at. all, even in. direct`b-debate with. the senator from.b-alabama. much. less a.

0:09:02 to 0:09:18( Edit History Discussion )

. persuasive h argume?pnt why that amount of. tile -is in.sufficient for the@ b-governmentb-madam president core. fourth.e amendment.z protection.s.v: are at.b-stake. here @?&?-this isn't like. flipping. a coin.q this involves when. people. come.b-into somebody.'s house without

0:09:18 to 0:09:34( Edit History Discussion )

their knowledge and how long should that. be. a?@llowed without b-telling. them. that 6?@ in your opinion. their houseb.b`b-and once again the sununu. bill`?-does nothing at. all to. addressbi this issue^-let. me. talk. brieflyb.~> about roving&ba ?-intellence wiretaps

0:09:34 to 0:09:50( Edit History Discussion )

. un der-section 206. of the. patriot act?&b--fl we. haven't discussed this-issue. much, in. part. because the conference report. does s partiallybs ?-address. the concerns that have&b been raised. about this. provision -but th@e. conference. report-language is. stib.ll nb.ot as. good. as-the senate bill. was on. this-issue. unlike. the sv.enate bill,&?-the. conference. report. does >

0:09:50 to 0:10:07( Edit History Discussion )

not require that a roving. wiretaap : include. sufficient. information to describe. the specific. person-to be. wiretapped. witb.h [b-particularity a the. sununu. bill. does. not address this problem?-supporters of the. conference&-re?~port say~? that. it. contains. newba -four-year. sunsets?

0:10:07 to 0:10:22( Edit History Discussion )

? for three provisio ns?-section 206. section 215, and-the. so.called?[ lone wolf -expansion of the foreignb-intelligence surveillance @ act that pass.ed as. a part. of the intelligence re.form bill. in.bs? 200 2004 madam pres?;id ent. you?3 and i  ? i'm b-

0:10:22 to 0:10:37( Edit History Discussion )

b-sure agree that.~? sneats. are not?&-enough b @ this re.authorization. process is-our. opportunity to fix the pr?oblems with the. patriot act just sunsetting bad?@ law? again is.bh ?a hardly a real. improvementb-b.and of b.course neither the b`b-b-b.conference rep orb.t. nor the sununu.b-bill contains. a sunset. for? the ?-highly?

0:10:37 to 0:10:53( Edit History Discussion )

. controversialb "e? national`b&?-security let?@ter. authorities that`?h were expand."?ed by. the patriot act.9.9  ?&?-acb.t `?-even though. many. of. of us said.{b.b&b--back in december. that. that. was ab&very important change. that. we -wanted to. see made.ba i have the same. response to b-those. whob v; point? to the. valb.uable`

0:10:53 to 0:11:08( Edit History Discussion )

new. report.ing. provisions. in. the `b&b-confer[ence report`?&b-we must. make. substantive changes?-to the law not? just. improve?`?-oversib.ght-b.i. have laid out at. length. the many substantive reasons to -oppose the deal.b&b-but there's. an. additional. reason.b-to oppose. cloture on the motion

0:11:08 to 0:11:24( Edit History Discussion )

-to pro7ceed? madam presidentb -and. that's. ?ecause it. appears that the majority leadbher is-planningb 3 to. prevent senators .from offering. and getb.ting vote p on amendments to this. bill.b`?-i wab.s. o n the. floor for?i nine`?c hours. yesterday?hv i wasn't asking. for much. just a?-guarantee.

0:11:24 to 0:11:40( Edit History Discussion )

"? that. once. we. moved?@  ?! move to.pr?zoceed. that. i could offer? and?b-get. vote.s on. a hand.ful. of-amendments relative to the bill -there was. a time.hat. i was here b9.9  ?-here ?-there was a. time. that. senators `b-didn't have to. camp. out on the&?--floor. to. plead for theb-opportunity

0:11:40 to 0:11:55( Edit History Discussion )

@ to. oer amendments-in fact, offering debating. and voting on. amendments. is what theb-national is. suppose?rd. to. b^e. all?-about`?-"@ that's hb.ow we craft - is. what-the. senate is suppod. to be all?-about-that's how we. craft legislation but. my. offer was reject ed and?@ it-appears. that the. other side my-try. to. ram this. deal.

0:11:55 to 0:12:11( Edit History Discussion )

through without. a real. amending processb @b-now. i hope. that 2 even. cv?olleagues `?-who. may support the deal will&?@ oppose such.2 a sham proceb.ss it makes no. sense tb.o. agreeb to. go-forward. without a guarantee t?hat-we will. be. allowed to. actual.;ly-try. to improve. the bil.4l. and it

0:12:11 to 0:12:27( Edit History Discussion )

-is a dis?courtesy to. all? senators. .9.9  ?! ?!  ?-senators, not. just. me. to. try to-ram. through controversial?z>-legislation without. the chance-to improve it ab 3{?-in sum madam president ib h-oppose the sham legislative ?[process. that. the senate. is. face! b-facing here. and

0:12:27 to 0:12:42( Edit History Discussion )

i oppose. the flawed deal i that.e. are beingv-asked. to. ratify-notwithstanding the. achievements v-approved in the. confereb.nce-report rkt we. still have not `b-addressed some of. the most`?@ significant problems? with. the patriot. act of. the so. i must-oppose proceeding. to > this. bill-which wi~?ll allow.

0:12:42 to 0:12:58( Edit History Discussion )

. this. deal. to. go-forward-i cannot ub.nderstand. how? any?aone who. opposed the conference-report back. in. december 2 can justifb3y. supporting. it now?@b--the. conference. report. wasv? a ?-be7ast. two month?s ago and@ it-hasn't gotten. a?ny better. look.ing`

0:12:58 to 0:13:14( Edit History Discussion )

b&? ; since. then -i. urge. my. colleagues. to. vote. "no?i.9.9  ?!?-"no" on.b{ cloture and i reserve the balance. of my timv3e i suggest the absence of a quorum?-the presiding officer: the clv[erk will call the roll;. ,ba?&bh quorum call:qb =.

0:13:14 to 0:13:30( Edit History Discussion )

,^7? @?b.

0:13:30 to 0:13:46( Edit History Discussion )

b ,b v?v?2b

0:13:46 to 0:14:01( Edit History Discussion )

>. ,b h?b a;b abb @?@b a

0:14:01 to 0:14:17( Edit History Discussion )

. ,@b.> 2?@b ;b.i@ b. b

0:14:17 to 0:14:32( Edit History Discussion )

b.a? ,?2?b hb ab @b.

0:14:32 to 0:14:46( Edit History Discussion )

b.@b ,?bb ab b

0:14:46 to 0:15:02( Edit History Discussion )

@?2b ~@? ,b2?@?"?b.{b.v;:v?b ,b

0:15:02 to 0:15:17( Edit History Discussion )

zb ,? b >~>

0:15:17 to 0:15:33( Edit History Discussion )

~zb abqb @ ? ,b 2bv

0:15:33 to 0:15:49( Edit History Discussion )

bq ^,?,bv7ib b

0:15:49 to 0:16:05( Edit History Discussion )

%& ,b.b

0:16:05 to 0:16:21( Edit History Discussion )

?b @b.~,?,b i?a~i[?ib.b

0:16:21 to 0:16:37( Edit History Discussion )

.~;?"e ,v:~?v~{?ab 2

0:16:37 to 0:16:52( Edit History Discussion )

?@b.z7~b ,b.^7bb

0:16:52 to 0:17:08( Edit History Discussion )

b2bx?~?b ,?@~?z;?:ib.

0:17:08 to 0:17:24( Edit History Discussion )

zb @?y?~ b.@. ,?@bhb.v

0:17:24 to 0:17:39( Edit History Discussion )

i>{b ,~h

0:17:39 to 0:17:55( Edit History Discussion )

b ,b irb

0:17:55 to 0:18:10( Edit History Discussion )

.{v?b 7 ? , b.3bi

0:18:10 to 0:18:27( Edit History Discussion )

b"er7b.bq. ,b7b

0:18:27 to 0:18:42( Edit History Discussion )

. bib.bqbb. b qb :?a. ,ba?b.>?b.

0:18:42 to 0:18:58( Edit History Discussion )

~{b @b.zib q7 b,?,?b 6~?b.b

0:18:58 to 0:19:13( Edit History Discussion )

@?@bav;"e?qb7~~@. ,".b[?i?@

0:19:13 to 0:19:29( Edit History Discussion )

~?>b ,e?p?b

0:19:29 to 0:19:45( Edit History Discussion )

@ @a@?i?i?i? ,"?ba

0:19:45 to 0:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

b.sb.^7?e?x?eb ,b

0:20:01 to 0:20:17( Edit History Discussion )

ib ,

0:20:17 to 0:20:33( Edit History Discussion )

bab.a s|>?b ,@?

0:20:33 to 0:20:49( Edit History Discussion )

.^brb "es?q?b ,?

0:20:49 to 0:21:04( Edit History Discussion )

b @b.zh ,b.z

0:21:04 to 0:21:20( Edit History Discussion )

bp~?b 6b.q ,b sb.

0:21:20 to 0:21:36( Edit History Discussion )

b zb.hb s? ,?s.

0:21:36 to 0:21:52( Edit History Discussion )

b@?@ ? ,?:b& mr. craig: madam president? -the presidin

0:21:52 to 0:22:07( Edit History Discussion )

g officer: the senator from idaho?`b-mr. craig: madb.amba president ib -ask unanimous consent that the quorum call! ?! call be lift.bqed the ?presiding officer: w?ithout objebhction&?-mr. cr?aaig: madam presi?6dent i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees. to. meet.b-during?a today's session of. t?heb -senate they hb.ave. approval of. the?&?-majority and the minority

0:22:07 to 0:22:23( Edit History Discussion )

-leaders.b-i. ask unanimous consent that &?-these. requests.~ be. agreed to and?-that these requests. ?e. printed ?-in the record.b&b-the presiding officer: without objection &?-under the previous order the ?-clerk will report. the@b motion. to `?-invoke cloture ^b`z&?-the clerk: we the. underscience`-senators

0:22:23 to 0:22:39( Edit History Discussion )

in. accordance. with. the ?&?r provisions of. 2r50u8. 2 of the&b-standing rules of. the?: senate do ab&b-hereby move. to. bring to. a clob.se`b-debate on. the motion. to. proceed~?`?-to s. 2.2.7.1. sign.ed by. 16.b-senators?i?> the presiding officer: by-unanimous. consent the.

0:22:39 to 0:22:54( Edit History Discussion )

. mandatoryb-quorum call. has been waive theb 7b-the question is, is it. the sense of the sna that. debate on the motion to proceed. to.b3 s 2.2.71 b-the u.s.a patriot act b-addi?itional reauthorizing amendments act of 2 006, shall be.b&?&?-brought to a closebab `?@ ~-the yeas? and nays.

0:22:54 to 0:23:09( Edit History Discussion )

a7re mandatoryb;?`b&?&? -under. the rule`b -the clerk will call the roll ,b | ib`z> vote: ,ba?> ?@?@v2b@bpb

0:23:09 to 0:23:23( Edit History Discussion )

?b b2br r^;b.4b ,b@bb

0:23:23 to 0:23:38( Edit History Discussion )

v2?>b.bz b2vsb b bab ,b.z>?@?b.bb

0:23:38 to 0:23:54( Edit History Discussion )

b.b~?b. b 7b. b2?i~?b ,b

0:23:54 to 0:24:09( Edit History Discussion )

bb2b.bib.:~?{@ ,b @

0:24:09 to 0:24:24( Edit History Discussion )

b >b bh@b b,v,b.

Retrieved from "http://mvprime.cse.ucsc.edu/wiki/Stream:Senate_proceeding_02-16-06_2/0:04:10/0:24:10"
Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid