Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 168 (Thursday, December 27, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 168 (Thursday, December 27, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8427-S8429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5949.

Amendment No. 3437

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3437
offered by the Senator from Vermont.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a matter I care a great deal about.
I am concerned that we are rushing to rubberstamp a House bill that is
going to extend the surveillance authorities of the FISA Amendments Act
for another 5 years. My amendment would allow the authorities to
continue, but it would give a lot better and more timely oversight.
We passed this--and it was not on a last-minute thing--out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in July. We acted quickly so that we would
not be acting in this last-minute manner.
This has no operational impact on the intelligence community, but it
does ensure the strongest of oversight. I hope Senators will support
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment and to
indicate that the administration opposes the amendment as well.
We have just 4 days to reauthorize this critical intelligence tool
before it expires. That is the reason for having the House bill before
us today. The House bill is a clean bill. It extends the program to
2017, when it would sunset and would need another reauthorization. I
believe we must pass the House bill now. I believe 2017 is the
appropriate date.
I am very worried that if we do anything else, if we pass any one of
these amendments, we will jeopardize the continuation of what is a
vital intelligence tool. So regretfully, I oppose the Leahy amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Leahy
amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient
second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Gillibrand), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

YEAS--38

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Franken
Johnson (SD)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Moran
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker

NOT VOTING--10

Boxer
Brown (OH)
DeMint
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inhofe
Kirk
Lautenberg
Murkowski
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 3435

Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 3435, offered by
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to have two more votes tonight.
They will both be 10 minutes in duration in addition to the debate time
that has already been established. Then we are going to move in a very
direct way to complete as much of the debate time as possible on the
amendments on the supplemental. It is extremely important that we get
this debate completed tonight so we can start voting in the morning. We
have already set up that we will have some votes in the morning. We are
going to come in probably about 9:30 and start voting. We have a lot to
do.
It would really be good if people who have amendments on the
supplemental use their debate time tonight. We are going to have no
more votes tonight, but tomorrow there will be a limited amount of
debate time. Senator Mikulski will be here tonight, Senator Schumer
will be here tonight, and Senator Menendez will be here tonight to help
move this, in addition, of course, to the managers of the bill on the
other side. We hope people will work hard to get debate out of the way
tonight so we can vote tomorrow. We have a lot of votes tomorrow. I am
led to believe there are a number of amendments the managers of this
bill will pass either by voice or some other quick fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, following up Leader Reid's comments, to
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have these amendments,
Senator Schumer and I would like to know. We will stay here to offer
and debate them, as you were accorded under the unanimous consent
agreement. If you come up and tell Senator Schumer and me now, we can
get an order and sequence and tell you when we will call you up.
Instead of everybody standing around, we would actually get a regular
order and you would know when your amendments are coming up and what
order you are coming up so that you could plan your evening. Please see
Senator Schumer and me, and we will work with you to accomplish this.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, is it time to speak to amendment No.
3435?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Merkley-Lee
amendment. I thank him for being lead cosponsor.
I say to my colleagues, this is all about supporting the fourth
amendment and opposing secret law. As we all know, in this Nation law
consists of both the plain language and the court interpretations of
what the plain language means. In the case of the FISA rulings, the
public never finds out the second half and therefore doesn't really
know when information will be collected, if you will, that is relevant
to an investigation. No one ever knows

[[Page S8428]]

what that means. The public should be able to know and should be able
to weigh in.
This amendment is constructed so it protects national security. It
says this will only happen in cases when it is compatible with national
security to release the FISA findings, and, second, you can do
summaries instead, and if summaries are still causing a national
security problem, a schedule is sufficient as to how the administration
is reviewing these. It balances national security while it fights for
the fourth amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the vice chairman of the committee
opposes this amendment, as does the administration. We have only 4 days
to authorize this intelligence tool before it expires. Sending this
legislation to the President without amendment is the only sure way to
do it.
The Director of National Intelligence is engaged in an ongoing
process to declassify significant FISA Court opinions where it is
possible to do so. I have agreed to work with Senator Merkley to get
summaries of FISA Court decisions that can be made public.
In sum, the intelligence community strives to be as transparent as
possible with the public, but legislation that would force its hand and
potentially risk the exposure of classified information is both
unnecessary and unwise.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the Merkley amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

YEAS--37

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Heller
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Webb
Wyden

NAYS--54

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Moran
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--9

Boxer
Brown (OH)
DeMint
Harkin
Inhofe
Kirk
Lautenberg
Murkowski
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 3436

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to
amendment No. 3436 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Fourth Amendment
Protection Act. The fourth amendment guarantees that people should be
secure in their persons, houses, and papers against unreasonable
searches and seizures. Somewhere along the way we became lazy and
haphazard in our vigilance. We allowed Congress and the courts to
diminish our fourth amendment protections, particularly when papers
were held by third parties.
I think most Americans would be shocked to know that the fourth
amendment does not protect their records if they are banking, Internet,
or Visa records. A warrant is required to read their snail mail and to
tap their phone, but no warrant is required to look at their e-mail,
text, or Internet searches; they can be read without a warrant. Why is
a phone call more deserving of privacy protection than an e-mail?
This amendment would restore the fourth amendment protections to
third-party records, and I recommend a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, as does the
vice chairman and the administration. This amendment is not germane to
FISA. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which would
have jurisdiction over this matter. It seeks to reverse 30 years of
Supreme Court precedence of interpreting the fourth amendment.
According to the administration talking points received this afternoon:
The amendment would severely limit the effectiveness of law enforcement
authorities at all levels of government and will effectively repeal the
FISA Amendments Act.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 79, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

YEAS--12

Baucus
Begich
Cantwell
Heller
Lee
Merkley
Paul
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Webb
Wyden

NAYS--79

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--9

[[Page S8429]]

____________________