[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 141 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6075-S6080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   USA FREEDOM ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2685, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to calendar No. 499, S. 2685, a bill to 
     reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require 
     the production of certain business records, conduct 
     electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace 
     devices, and use other forms of information gathering for 
     foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, criminal purposes, 
     and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, could we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order, please.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the rule that has been initiated 
here in the Senate and confirmed, we have 30 minutes of debate on this 
matter, and I have been told that it won't take that full 30 minutes. 
And, Madam President, the time for debate would be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate between the leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would ask for order.

[[Page S6076]]

  We still don't have order in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate, please. Senators, please 
take your conversations outside the Chamber.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. We have confirmed three judges from Georgia and I want to 
compliment the two Senators from Georgia for their hard work, both in 
the Judiciary Committee and the White House. And in that, I am sorry 
they had to wait so long. On this side of the aisle we cleared every 
one of those for a voice vote months ago. I am sorry that your side 
wanted to delay it, but I see a 100-0 vote, and the voice votes are 
accurate. But I compliment the two Senators from Georgia for sticking 
with their nominees.
  Madam President, I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Utah, Senator Lee, for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in 2013, the country learned that the 
government, specifically the NSA, had been collecting and storing 
enormous amounts of information about American citizens, and that the 
data collection at issue was not limited to those who were actually 
suspected of terrorist activity or even necessarily to those who were 
connected to those suspected of engaging in terrorist activity. Many 
were understandably very concerned about how much and what kind of data 
was being collected and whether this information could be or had been 
abused by government officials.
  Today proponents of the metadata program claim it cannot be used to 
identify ordinary American citizens. But earlier this year researchers 
at Stanford University proved that the very type of metadata collected 
under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act could be used to uncover a lot of 
information, including information about a person's politics, what kind 
of medications they might be taking, about where they go to church, and 
so on and so forth.
  The USA FREEDOM Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would 
end bulk collection of metadata currently gathered by the NSA, and it 
would help address the problem of the American government spying on its 
own citizens without cause. It also would improve transparency for the 
data that NSA does collect. It has the support of leaders in our 
intelligence community, the Department of Justice, civil liberties 
groups, the National Rifle Association, and several tech companies.
  Opponents of this bill say it will impair our national security. They 
say the bill will keep our intelligence community from protecting us. 
But what opponents of this bill fail fully to appreciate is that most 
Americans are deeply concerned about the collection of their own 
personal information. This bill is an opportunity to strike a 
reasonable commonsense balance between protecting Americans' privacy 
and at the same time protecting our national security.
  While I believe there are honest, decent people working in our 
intelligence community, and while I think this has been overwhelmingly 
the norm, it is important to heed a warning given to us centuries ago 
by James Madison. In Federalist 51, Madison wrote:

       If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If 
     angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal 
     controls on government would be necessary. In framing a 
     government which is to be administered by men over men, the 
     great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the 
     government to control the governed; and in the next place 
     oblige it to control itself.

  Congress should address this issue now. The provision of the PATRIOT 
Act authorizing this kind of data collection expires just after 
Memorial Day this coming year, and it is important to adopt a 
compromise well ahead of this deadline that all interested parties can 
accept.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the junior Senator from Utah who has worked so 
hard on this.
  It has been more than a year since Americans first learned that the 
government had been secretly sweeping up the telephone records of 
innocent Americans, regardless of whether there was any connection 
whatsoever to terrorism or criminal activity. I introduced the original 
USA FREEDOM Act last October with Republican Congressman Jim 
Sensenbrenner, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held six public 
hearings to address these issues.
  During those hearings, we learned that the bulk phone records 
collection program had not, as previously advertised, thwarted 54 
terrorist plots, or even dozens, or even a few. In fact, we learned 
through our public hearings that after all the talk about why we needed 
this program, we learned that the number was maybe one. That is an 
important fact for these who argue that the NSA's bulk phone records 
program is somehow essential to our fight against ISIL or other 
terrorists. It did nothing to stop ISIL from starting in the first 
place.
  Our bill protects Americans. It enhances privacy protections and ends 
indiscriminate data collection by the NSA, but also keeps the essential 
tools our intelligence community needs to protect our Nation. That is 
the simple truth and important to remember. That is why our 
intelligence community strongly supports this bill.
  As someone who worked in law enforcement, and as a native of Vermont 
where the right of privacy is cherished, I know we can have both 
liberty and security. The USA FREEDOM Act provides for commonsense 
reforms to government surveillance, and promotes greater accountability 
and transparency of the government's surveillance programs, and it 
improves the FISA Court.
  This is a carefully crafted bill that builds on the work of the House 
of Representatives. It has the unprecedented support of the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Director of the NSA, 
American technology companies, and privacy and civil liberties groups 
across the political spectrum, ranging from the ACLU and EFF to the NRA 
and TechFreedom. Lawmakers from all parts of the political spectrum, 
from the right to left, support the USA FREEDOM Act. They know it is a 
reasonable and responsible compromise. There is no reason why we should 
not proceed to a debate on this important bill.

  I understand that there are some Members who want votes on parts of 
it, and that is fine. Let's have the votes. Let's not block this bill 
and say: Well, we want something better. That means you don't vote yes, 
you don't vote no, you vote maybe. Let's have some relevant amendments, 
and let's vote on them. Don't let this get bogged down in procedural 
nonsense that the American public hates. Senators should allow us to 
get onto this bill and help us reach an agreement on a limited list of 
germane amendments to be considered. Let's have germane amendments and 
vote them up or down. If we work together, we can finish the bill by 
the end of the week.
  We cannot afford to delay action on these reforms until next year. As 
both the ACLU and the NRA pointed out yesterday in a joint op-ed in the 
Washington Times, ``every day that the Senate fails to vote on these 
reforms is a day in which law-abiding citizens have reason to fear that 
the constitutional protections so dear to the Founders and so crucial 
to the functioning of a free society no longer apply.''
  I echoed the words we heard from the Senator from Utah. Every day 
that we fail to act is another day that American businesses are harmed. 
One conservative think tank estimated that the ``mistrust engendered by 
the NSA's programs could cost the U.S. technology industry between $35 
billion and $180 billion over the next three years.'' That is a 
staggering amount.
  Senators should listen to the intelligence community professionals 
who protect our nation every day, and who are calling for swift passage 
of this bill. Ask the Director of National Intelligence. Ask the 
Attorney General. They will tell you that it is better for our national 
security, and better for our fight against terrorism if we pass the USA 
FREEDOM Act.
  This is a reasonable compromise that all Senators should support, and 
I thank the Majority Leader for bringing this bill to the floor. And I 
thank Senators Dean Heller, Mike Lee, Dick Durbin, Al Franken, and 
Richard Blumenthal for their steadfast work on this bill.
  Our bill is good for privacy and civil liberties, and upholds our 
Constitution. It is good for American business. It is

[[Page S6077]]

good for national security. And most importantly, it is the right thing 
to do on behalf of Vermonters and the rest of the American people. I 
urge all Senators to vote in favor of the cloture motion pending before 
us.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Statement of Administration Policy 
in support of the USA FREEDOM Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was orered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administrtion Policy


                        S. 2685--USA Freedom Act

          (Sen. Leahy, D-VT, and 18 cosponsors, Nov. 17, 2014)

       The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 
     2685, the USA FREEDOM Act. In January, the President called 
     on Congress to enact important changes to the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would keep our 
     Nation safe, while enhancing privacy and better safeguarding 
     our civil liberties. This past spring, a broad bipartisan 
     majority of the House passed a bill that answered the 
     President's call. S. 2685 carefully builds on the good work 
     done in the House and has won the support of privacy and 
     civil liberties advocates and the private sector, including 
     significant members of the technology community. As the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence 
     stated in a letter dated September 2, 2014, the bill is a 
     reasonable compromise that enhances privacy and civil 
     liberties and increases transparency.
       The bill strengthens the FISA's privacy and civil liberties 
     protections, while preserving essential authorities that our 
     intelligence and law enforcement professionals need. The bill 
     would prohibit bulk collection through the use of Section 
     215, FISA pen registers, and National Security Letters while 
     maintaining critical authorities to conduct more targeted 
     collection. The Attorney General and the Director of National 
     Intelligence have indicated that the bill will retain the 
     essential operational capabilities of the existing bulk 
     telephone metadata program while eliminating bulk collection, 
     based on communications providers' existing practices. The 
     bill also authorizes an independent voice in significant 
     cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 
     (FISC)--the Administration is aware of the concerns with 
     regard to this issue, as outlined in the letter from the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, 
     and the Administration anticipates that Congress will address 
     those concerns. Finally, the bill will enhance transparency 
     by expanding the amount of information providers can disclose 
     and increasing public reporting requirements.
       In sum, this legislation will help strengthen Americans' 
     confidence in the Government's use of these important 
     national security authorities. Without passage of this bill, 
     critical authorities that are appropriately reformed in this 
     legislation could expire next summer. The Administration 
     urges Congress to take action on this legislation now, since 
     delay may subject these important national security 
     authorities to brinksmanship and uncertainty. The 
     Administration urges the Senate to pass the USA FREEDOM Act 
     and for the House to act expeditiously so that the President 
     can sign legislation into law this year.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Rubio.
  Mr. RUBIO. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  God forbid tomorrow morning we wake up to the news that a member of 
ISIL is in the United States and Federal agencies need to determine who 
this person is coordinating with to carry out a potential attack within 
the homeland. One of the tools they will use is a tool that allows them 
to see the people they have been calling and interacting with so we can 
disrupt that cell before they carry out a horrifying attack that could 
kill millions of American people.
  Today we are able to do that because of a program that collects those 
records and keeps them--not in the hands of anyone who is looking at 
them on a regular basis but keeps them readily available for the 
government so the government can access those records and disrupt that 
plot. What this bill would do is take that apart. In essence, it would 
ask the companies to keep those records--at least in the hopes that 
they would. Under this plan, if this were to pass, if suddenly we were 
to go target these members of ISIL and find out whom they are 
coordinating with, those records may not be there and that plot may 
indeed go forward. That would be a horrifying result.
  Here is why this doesn't make sense. First of all, we are rushing 
this to the floor of the Senate in a lameduck session, on an issue that 
doesn't even expire until next year, on a bill that was not listened to 
or heard in a committee, and they cannot cite a single example of this 
program ever being abused--not one simple example of this specific 
program being abused by anybody intentionally. So we are dealing with a 
theoretical threat.
  The second thing is that even as we speak, law enforcement agencies 
investigating a common crime don't even need to go to a court to access 
these very same records. They can just issue an administrative subpoena 
and get ahold of them. We are actually making it harder to go after a 
terrorist than it will be to go after a common criminal.
  This is happening at a time when homegrown violent extremism is the 
single fastest growing threat to the United States, people here at home 
who have been radicalized--even on the Internet--and people who have 
traveled to the Middle East and been radicalized in the hopes of 
returning and carrying out attacks here.
  I hope this body would take more time to study an issue of this 
magnitude because this program was specifically designed to address the 
intelligence gaps that existed after the 9/11 attacks. I promise you, 
if, God forbid, any horrifying event like that were to happen, the 
first question we will be asked is why didn't we know about it and why 
didn't we prevent it. If this program is gutted, we potentially will 
not be able to know about it, and we will not be able to prevent it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this program does not gut it; it actually 
enhances it.
  Secondly, if this was important to stop ISIL, ISIL never would have 
started. The fact is that we had this program way beyond anything 
anybody is talking about today, and it didn't slow up or eliminate ISIL 
one iota. That is a straw man which we should not even have here. It 
has no effect on that, and everybody who has read the intelligence 
knows that.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking our very 
esteemed colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Leahy, for his leadership on this issue and my colleagues whom he has 
named who have helped in drafting and crafting this very important 
piece of legislation.
  I also wish to thank my friends and colleagues across the aisle, such 
as the Senator from Utah, who have supported and helped to make clear 
that this bill advances the cause of safeguarding our Nation without in 
any way detracting from its essential operational intelligence 
capabilities.
  In fact, National Intelligence Director Clapper said:

       The bill will retain the essential operational capabilities 
     of the existing bulk telephone metadata program while 
     eliminating bulk collection.

  This bill increases trust and confidence and credibility of our 
intelligence system. It advances that trust and confidence in the 
capability of government surveillance to do its job but at the same 
time protect our vital privacy interests. It advances the cause of 
constitutional liberty and the appearance and perception of trust in 
that system. It does so by making the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court look and function like the courts we are accustomed to seeing 
issue search warrants in the criminal process and protect essential 
liberties. It does it by strengthening and, in fact, installing an 
adversarial process so that more than just the government's version of 
the facts and law are presented to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court. It does it by providing for appellate review, just 
as we have in normal civilian court. It does it by increasing the 
transparency and accountability of the FISA Court system.
  Our Founders would have been astonished and appalled to learn that we 
permit warrants to be issued by a court that is operating in secret, 
issuing secret opinions, and making secret law much like the Star 
Chamber did, and that is why this reform is so profoundly and 
historically important--because we made the FISA Court one that we can 
more aptly and abundantly trust and one that will have credibility and 
confidence.
  I support this bill.
  I thank my colleagues for showing that we can work together in a 
bipartisan way to safeguard the essential

[[Page S6078]]

rights of Americans at the same time we protect and preserve our 
national security.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak to 
this bill, and I have to say that this is one of the few times that the 
vice chairman, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I have a 
disagreement.
  I very much support this 215 metadata program. I think the 
Intelligence Committee had approximately 12 hearings on the subject 
last year.
  Many people believe that the NSA is using this program all the time. 
In fact, in the year 2012 there were 288 approved queries, and 12 of 
them eventually led the FBI to obtain a probable cause warrant for the 
content of the communications. In fact, you cannot obtain content in a 
query; a query just searches the phone metadata.
  Then the next criticism we have heard has been, well, the government 
should not hold the metadata. And that is essentially the big change 
this bill makes.
  In October 2013, we voted out of our committee--by a vote of 11 to 
4--a FISA reform act; however, in my judgment, that bill is not going 
to pass in this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is up.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended, 
please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I recently talked with Members of the House, and here is what they 
told me: If we didn't pass the House bill, there were Members who 
wanted to end the whole metadata program. I do not want to end the 
program. I am prepared to make this compromise, which is that the 
metadata will be kept by the telecom companies.
  Senator Chambliss and I wrote a letter to the four big telecoms, and 
we asked them if they would hold the data. The answer came back from 
two ``yes,'' and the answer that came back from the other two was 
inconclusive. Since that time the situation has changed--not in writing 
but by personal testament from officials with the two other companies 
that they will hold the data for at least 2 years.
  Here is the problem: Although there is no mandate to hold the phone 
metadata, the fact is that the telecoms have agreed to hold the data 
for a sufficient period of time.
  The President himself has assured me that he is comfortable with this 
bill. And I believe that if we do not pass this bill, the metadata 
program is at risk because the 215 program sunsets next year.
  Senator Rubio sits on the intelligence committee. I listened to him 
with interest. I agree with what he said about ISIL and other terrorist 
groups. They will come after us if they can, and the only protection we 
have is essentially to disrupt a plot before it becomes a reality in 
this country.
  The metadata program is not as widely used as the 288 approved 
queries in a given year would indicate.
  Additionally, in this bill--and I think this should be of 
satisfaction to a number of people--the FISA Court would have to 
approve a query before that query takes place.
  I am prepared to support this bill, and I do so for very practical 
reasons because without it, I believe we will not have a metadata 
program.
  This is hard for me because I have tried to be supportive of the 
legislation that comes out of our committee. I have talked to Senator 
Leahy. I have said that the one big problem I have with his bill is 
that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is upset with the 
language on the special advocate. Senator Leahy said he would change 
the language on this part of the bill.
  Senator Blumenthal has an amendment--which I assume will pass--which 
does change the language on this part of the bill to accommodate the 
objections of the FISA court. If that is the case and the telecoms 
agree to hold the data, I believe that solves what is a very practical 
problem.
  In any event, I have agreed to support this legislation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time on the other side has been used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and a half minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I only had one speaker and I had 15 minutes. Did he 
use 7\1/2\, 8 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was instructed that the Senator from 
California spoke on the time of the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
the Senator from California used be added to my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not 
object. I was going to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator 
from Texas, Mr. Cruz, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed up 
to 4 minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I object to that. He can have your 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will not object to the request, and I will yield the 
remainder of my time to the Senator from Texas. I am sorry the Senator 
from Georgia would not offer me the courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the Senator from Maine for 2 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we need reform of the NSA program but not 
in this manner. Let's remember why this intelligence tool was put into 
place. It was enacted in the wake of the worst terrorist attack in our 
country that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people. We have testimony 
from the former Director of the FBI and from the former Deputy Director 
of the CIA telling us that had this tool been in place, it is likely--
most likely--that the plot that killed nearly 3,000 people would have 
been uncovered. Why would we weaken the ability of our intelligence 
community at a time when the threats against this country have never 
been greater?
  Let me address to my colleagues the privacy issue that has been 
raised--an issue that all of us care about. These data are far more 
safe, far more subject to privacy protections if they are held by the 
Federal Government where only 22 vetted and trained government 
employees have access to them instead of nearly 150 telecommunications 
companies that employ thousands of workers, and the government is going 
to have to go to those companies and ask for the data. That greatly 
exposes the privacy of individual Americans far more than the current 
system.
  So for both of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill 
of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. It is a mistake. It would 
make us less safe, and we have expert testimony telling us that.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I regret that I just have 2 minutes. It is 
unfortunate that a bill with this amount of consequence for Americans 
is being debated in such a limited amount of time.
  We have 2 bills, one produced by the intelligence community, written 
and supported by the chairman, a Democrat from California, and by the 
vice chairman, the Republican from Georgia, and it passed on a 
bipartisan basis with more than a 3-to-1 ratio. Here we are trying to 
go forward, allowing only one vote on one different bill.
  Why do we have to rush this through in a lameduck session when it has 
such consequences and when the director of the agency that oversees 
this, when asked by me what are the ultimate consequences of this, his 
answer was: A compromise of our ability to detect terrorist attacks--
and the consequence will be Americans will die. And when that happens, 
and when those of us who go everyday to the Intelligence Committee know 
what the threat is--the threat is greater than it has ever been--we 
need to understand that eventually something will happen here, and 
people will turn to us and say: Did you have every possible tool in 
place to try to stop this from happening? If you

[[Page S6079]]

didn't, why didn't you? Let's not have a repeat of 9/11 when the 
commission then comes to us and says get the tools that you need.
  This program has been so mischaracterized in terms of what it does 
and doesn't do. Even as I talk to my colleagues, they don't have a full 
understanding of what it doesn't do. It has more oversight than any 
other Federal program in our committee's jurisdiction. We have enhanced 
it through our committee with hours and hours of discussion, and here 
we have a bill that wasn't even taken up by the Judiciary Committee and 
was just brought here to the floor.
  So I urge my colleagues to think this through before we come to a 
conclusion we are going to regret.
  I thank the vice chairman for the time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, in closing, let me say there are any 
number of reasons why the substance of this bill is totally flawed. We 
live in a dangerous world today. We all know and understand that. While 
the provisions in this bill wouldn't have prohibited ISIL from being 
formed--it didn't prevent ISIL from being formed--the provisions in the 
underlying FISA bill give the Intelligence Committee all the tools they 
need to make sure that when ISIL recruits individuals to go to Syria to 
fight, if they are trying to recruit Americans, we can find out about 
that. We have under surveillance today any number of individuals, whom 
we think have been committed to jihad, who live in America.

  Secondly, there is another part of their recruiting that is even more 
dangerous than asking young men and women to come to Syria to fight for 
ISIL. They want people to go into the Parliament in Canada and start 
killing people. They want people to walk the streets of New York and 
pull out a gun or a hatchet or whatever it may be and start killing 
people.
  If we eliminate this program--and that is basically what the Leahy 
amendment does--then we are going to take a tool away from our 
intelligence community that is not going to allow them to be able to 
interrupt and disrupt those types of terrorist attacks.
  Now, with respect to our privacy, folks, gosh, we need to be really 
protective of privacy issues in this country. We live under a 
Constitution that has survived for in excess of 200 years. It has lots 
of privacy protections in it, and all of us want to see that happen. 
But let me tell my colleagues what is going to happen if this amendment 
comes to the floor and should happen to pass today. The metadata that 
is collected by the NSA can be accessed by 22 individuals--22. That 
means there is an opportunity for leaks to occur or for individual 
privacy rights to be breached by 22 people. If this amendment ever 
became law, all of a sudden, all of the telecoms are going to be 
holding this metadata information as opposed to the NSA holding it. All 
of those telecoms have thousands of employees, lots of whom have 
access--will have access to this metadata. So instead of having the 
potential for 22 people to breach the privacy rights of American 
citizens, all of a sudden we are going to have thousands of 
opportunities for the privacy rights of Americans to be breached.
  Let me close by saying that this program has been criticized an awful 
lot simply because of the leaks that Mr. Snowden made because of his 
theft of government property. But the fact is there cannot be one 
single case pointed to by anybody who can show that as a result of the 
collection of metadata under 215, any American has had their privacy 
rights breached. It simply has not happened. It will not happen if we 
keep this program in place.
  Do we need to modify it? You bet. And Senator Feinstein and I did a 
good job of that, considering 10 amendments within our committee, 
voting on all 10 of them. Some of them passed. Some of them didn't. The 
bill came out of our committee on a bipartisan vote.
  The Leahy amendment has not even gone to the Judiciary Committee to 
give the members of the Judiciary Committee the opportunity to review 
it, to file amendments on it, to debate it in committee, and vote on 
it. That is not the way this institution has ever worked, and it is not 
the way it should work here in a lameduck session with time running 
out, and particularly on a controversial and sensitive and important 
program as is the 215 FISA amendment program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, many months ago the American people were 
astonished to learn the Federal Government was collecting bulk metadata 
from personal cell phones of millions of law-abiding citizens. This 
legislation protects the Constitutional rights of privacy under the 
Fourth Amendment while maintaining important tools to protect national 
security and law enforcement.
  This is bipartisan legislation that enjoys the support of the 
intelligence community as well as the tech community. The bill is not 
perfect, but in my view we should take it up and consider reasonable 
amendments on the floor to make it better. But it is imperative that we 
stand together, united, protecting the Bill of Rights.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Georgia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield back the remaining time, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 499, S. 2685, a bill to reform the 
     authorities of the Federal Government to require the 
     production of certain business records, conduct electronic 
     surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, 
     and use other forms of information gathering for foreign 
     intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and 
     for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Martin 
           Heinrich, Richard Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Al Franken, Bernard Sanders, Carl Levin, Tom 
           Udall, Charles E. Schumer, Mazie K. Hirono, Tom Harkin, 
           Cory A. Booker, Barbara Boxer, Christopher A. Coons, 
           Richard J. Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2685, a bill to reform the authorities of the 
Federal Government to require the production of certain business 
records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap 
and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for 
foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     McCain

[[Page S6080]]


     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 58, the nays are 42. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, obviously I am disappointed by tonight's 
vote, but I am not new to this fight. We have had six public hearings 
on this issue. We heard interesting testimony by the head of the NSA 
who talked about 50-some-odd terrorist activities that have been 
thwarted by the bulk collection program. When he had to testify in 
public, it came down to possibly one.
  I mention that because people asked whether we had hearings. We had 
six. But the reason I say I am not new to this fight is the very first 
vote I cast as a Senator in 1975 was in favor of the Senate resolution 
that created the Church Committee. I have worked ever since to ensure 
strong oversight of surveillance authorities.
  We found in the Church Committee that administrations of both parties 
had so badly misused the tools they had in the intelligence community. 
We tried to put in restrictions that would balance our constitutional 
rights and the security that we needed as Americans. We tried to do 
that. I think we did.
  That is why over the past decade I have consistently opposed 
expanding the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act sunsets without 
including meaningful reforms. The first sunsets were put in place by 
the Republican leader in the House, Dick Armey, a conservative 
Republican, and myself in the Senate. We joined together for the same 
reason: If you do not have an ability to look at these issues on a 
periodic basis, then they will get out of hand.
  I fought the status quo every step of the way in these efforts. The 
broad coalition of those in favor of the USA FREEDOM Act shows we are 
gaining ground. While I am critical of those Republicans who failed to 
answer the call of the American people who elected them to stand up and 
work across the aisle, those who reverted to scare tactics rather than 
working productively to protect America's basic privacy rights and our 
national security--I acknowledge the hard work and principled stance of 
several Republicans: Senator Heller, Senator Lee, and Senator Cruz, as 
well as other Republicans in the other body, including my initial 
partner in this effort, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. There have also 
been two important partners on the Democratic side in this reform 
effort: Senators Franken and Blumenthal who worked with me on 
transparency and the FISA Court reforms.

  We Vermonters fight to protect our privacy rights. Every Vermonter 
does. They mean a great deal to us. Every Vermonter feels that way, and 
this lifelong Vermonter will not give up the fight. I owe that to the 
Vermonters I serve and to the Constitution I swore an oath to defend.
  I would say to those both in this Chamber and outside who approached 
this issue by fomenting fear, fomenting fear stifles serious debate and 
constructive solutions, like the carefully drawn reforms in this bill. 
Doing it at the last minute is all the more regrettable. This Nation 
deserves more than that.
  This Nation should not allow our liberties to be set aside by passing 
fears.
  America will always face the threat of terrorist attacks, both 
outside our borders and inside. We didn't do away with all our civil 
liberties after the Oklahoma City bombing. It was an American who did 
that, somebody who served in our military, churchgoing, and so forth. 
No more should we do it if the attacks come from outside our country. 
We talk about 9/11. We had all the evidence necessary to stop 9/11 
before it happened.
  Everybody who has looked at that now agrees that if we had bothered 
to translate the material we had, if we had bothered to listen to 
people in Minnesota who tried to warn us about it, we could have 
stopped it.
  But because mistakes were made then, let's not take away the 
liberties of 325 million Americans.
  I felt this way when I was a prosecutor. We even had people escape 
from prison with the intent to kill me.
  I said: OK. We will get them, but we will follow the law in doing it, 
and we did.
  Mr. President, 13 years ago this week a letter was sent to me. The 
anthrax in it was so deadly that the one person who touched the 
envelope--that I was supposed to open--died. They died from it. We 
still haven't caught all of the people involved.
  But notwithstanding that, when people came to me and said: Well, 
maybe we should do away with some of our search and seizure laws, maybe 
we should do way with some of our laws for wiretaps, after all somebody 
tried to kill you. And if you had touched that envelope you would have 
died.
  I said: No, this is more than one Senator, more than one person, more 
than one individual. This is the Constitution of the United States. If 
we, 100 Members of this body, do not protect our Constitution, we do 
not protect our country, and we do not deserve to be in this body.
  I will continue to fight, and whatever years I have left in this 
body, I will continue to fight to preserve our Constitution and our 
rights as Americans.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.

                          ____________________