Thank you very much, Mr. President. 非常感谢，议长先生。
You know, four years ago, following the most devastating attack in our history, this Body passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world; terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out attacks that may be even deadlier than those that took place on September 11th. 各位知道，四年前，在我国历史上最严重的袭击事件之后，本机构通过了《美国爱国者法案》，旨在赋予我国执法部门所需的工具，以追踪在我国境内和世界各地潜伏密谋的恐怖分子；这些恐怖分子此刻正试图利用我们法律和安全中的漏洞，发动可能比九月十一日事件更为致命的袭击。
We all agree that we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. And we all agree that we needed to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders. Americans everywhere wanted to do that. 我们都认同，我们需要立法让可疑恐怖分子更难在我国隐藏踪迹。我们都认同，需要让他们更难组织、策划、获取飞行执照和偷越我们的边境。各地的美国人都希望做到这一点。
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I even arrived here in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law, the very purpose of which was to protect us, was also threatening to violate some of the rights and freedoms that we hold most dear; that it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe but powers that it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion. 但在《爱国者法案》通过后不久，在我来到参议院之前几年，我开始听到来自不同背景和政治倾向的人们的担忧：这部本意是保护我们的法律，同时也威胁到我们最为珍视的一些权利和自由；它不仅赋予了执法部门保护我们安全所需的权力，还赋予了它无需理由或怀疑就侵犯我们隐私的权力。
Now, in Washington, this issue has tended to degenerate into the typical either/or debate: Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. I would suggest, Mr. President, that this is a false choice. It asks too little of us and it assumes too little about America. 如今在华盛顿，这个问题往往沦为典型的非此即彼之争：要么保护人民免受恐怖袭击，要么保护我们最珍视的原则。议长先生，我认为这是一个错误的选择。它对我们的要求太低，对美国的期望也太低。
That's why, as it's come to time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, we've been working in a bipartisan way to do both -- to show American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties, to show the American people that the Federal Government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to do so, not because it can do so. 正因如此，在重新授权《美国爱国者法案》之际，我们一直以两党合作的方式努力兼顾两者——向美国人民表明，我们可以在不践踏公民自由的情况下追踪恐怖分子，向美国人民表明，联邦政府签发搜查令和执行搜查是因为有此需要，而非因为它有此权力。
What we have been trying to achieve under the leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators is some accountability in this process to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion. 在两党参议员小组的领导下，我们一直试图在这一过程中建立某种问责机制，以便在有怀疑时获得答案和证据。
Several weeks ago, these efforts bore fruit. The Judiciary Committee and the U.S. -- U.S. Senate managed to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that, while I can't say is perfect, was able to address some of the most serious problems in the existing law. 几周前，这些努力取得了成果。司法委员会和美国参议院通过了一项两党法案，虽然我不能说它完美无缺，但它确实解决了现有法律中一些最严重的问题。
Unfortunately, that strong bipartisan legislation has been tossed aside in conference. Instead, we've been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails to address the concerns of Members of both parties as well as the American people. 遗憾的是，那项强有力的两党法案在协商委员会中被弃置一旁。取而代之的是，我们被迫审议一项仓促出台的法案，它未能解决两党议员和美国人民的关切。
This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When national security letters are issued, they allow Federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive, how wide ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. All that is needed is a signoff from a local FBI agent. That's it. 这项法案使我们的司法部门凌驾于法律之上。当国家安全信函发出时，它们允许联邦探员对任何美国人进行任何范围的搜查，无论多么广泛、多么宽泛，都无需在任何法官面前证明搜查的必要性。所需要的只是一个地方联邦调查局特工的签字。仅此而已。
Once a business or a person receives notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it and they're even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the first amendment, this conference report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order. 一旦企业或个人收到将被搜查的通知，他们被禁止告诉任何人，甚至被禁止在法庭上质疑这一自动禁言令。尽管法官们已经裁定类似的限制违反了第一修正案，这份会议报告却无视判例法和质疑禁言令的权利。
If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice, hold on. You will have to tell the FBI that you've done so. Think about that: You want to talk to a lawyer about whether or not your actions are going to be causing you to get into trouble, you've got to tell the FBI that you're consulting a lawyer. This is unheard of. There is no such requirement in any other area of the law. I see no reason why it's justified here. 如果你决定咨询律师获取法律建议，且慢。你必须告诉联邦调查局你这样做了。想想看：你想和律师谈谈你的行为是否会给你带来麻烦，却不得不告诉联邦调查局你在咨询律师。这是闻所未闻的。在任何其他法律领域都没有这样的要求。我看不出在这里有什么正当理由。
And if someone wants to know why their own Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, the phone calls that you've made, the e-mails that you've sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea; no jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong. And there are Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators that recognize that it's plain wrong. 如果有人想知道为什么自己的政府决定对每一份个人记录或私人文件展开大海捞针式的搜查——你读的图书馆书、你打的电话、你发的电子邮件——这项法案却让人民无权在法庭上申诉此类搜查的必要性。没有法官会听取你的请求；没有陪审团会审理你的案件。这是完全错误的。共和党参议员和民主党参议员都认识到这是完全错误的。
Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing and it's the right thing; but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. 赋予执法部门调查可疑活动所需的工具是一回事，也是正确的；但在没有任何真正监督的情况下这样做，严重危及所有美国人的权利和美国所代表的理想。
Now, supporters of this conference report have argued we should just hold our noses and support this legislation because it's not going to get any better. That is not a good argument. We can do better. We've got time to do better. It doesn't convince me that I should support this report. I believe we owe it to the Nation, we owe it to those who fought for our civil liberties, we owe it to the future and our children to make sure that we craft the kind of legislation that would make us proud, not just legislation that we would settle for because we're in a rush. 如今，这份会议报告的支持者辩称，我们应该捏着鼻子支持这项法案，因为它不会变得更好了。这不是一个好理由。我们可以做得更好。我们有时间做得更好。这并不能说服我支持这份报告。我相信，我们欠国家一个交代，欠那些为公民自由而战的人一个交代，欠未来和我们的子女一个交代，要确保我们制定的是令我们自豪的法案，而不仅仅是因为仓促而将就的法案。
We don't have to settle for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can have one that secures both. 我们不必接受一部牺牲自由或安全的《爱国者法案》。我们可以拥有一部同时保障两者的法案。
Now, there have been proposals on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act for three months so that we can reach an agreement on this bill that is well thought through. I support these efforts and will oppose cloture on what I consider to be this unacceptable conference report. 如今，国会两院和两党都有人提议将《爱国者法案》延期三个月，以便我们就这项法案达成一个深思熟虑的协议。我支持这些努力，并将反对就这份我视为不可接受的会议报告进行终止辩论的表决。
Mr. President, I thank you. I yield the floor. 议长先生，谢谢您。我让出发言权。