[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3439-S3444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   USA FREEDOM ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to inquire as to the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 2048 
postcloture.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we have all had a chance to talk 
about this and the seriousness of what is now before us at this time. I 
look at the seriousness of this, and I listened to a lot of people 
standing on the floor and saying things that sound popular to people 
back home, and I have heard from some of the people in my State of 
Oklahoma, saying: They talk about the privacy problems and all these 
things that might be existing. Then I always think about my 20 kids and 
grandkids and think that they are the ones who are at stake.
  This world we have right now is a much more dangerous world than it 
has ever been before. I look wistfully back at the good old days of the 
Cold War when we had a couple superpowers. We knew what they had--
mutual assured destruction. It really meant something at that time. Now 
we have crazy people with capabilities, people in countries who have 
the ability to use weapons of mass destruction.
  So right after 9/11 we formed the NSA. We have been talking about 
that down here. It is not perfect, but I think it is important at this 
last moment to point out the fact that a lot of lies have been told 
down here. I heard one person--I think two or three different ones 
talking about and making the statement that since the NSA procedure was 
set up after 9/11, that has not stopped one attack on America. I would 
like to suggest to you that a good friend of mine and a good friend of 
the Chair's, General Alexander, who is a very knowledgeable person and 
ran that program for a while, said--and this was way back 2 years ago, 
2013--information ``gathered from these programs provided government 
with critical leads to prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in 
more than 20 countries around the world'' and that the phone database 
played a role in stopping 10 terrorist acts since the 9/11 attacks.
  I was very pleased to hear from my good friend, Senator Sessions, a 
few minutes ago that a brand new poll that just came out of the field 
shows that almost two-thirds of the people in America want to go back 
and give back to the NSA those tools we took away 2 days ago.
  Now we have a situation where we can talk about a few of the cases 
where major attacks on this country were stopped by the process we put 
in place after 9/11.
  One was a planned attack in 2009. Najibullah Zazi was going to bomb 
the New York City subway system. The plan was for him and two high 
school friends to conduct coordinated suicide bombings, detonating 
backpack bombs on New York City subway trains near New York's two 
busiest subway stations; that is, Grand Central Station and Times 
Square.
  Sean Joyce, the Deputy FBI Director, said that the NSA intercepted an 
email from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan communicating with someone 
in the United States ``about perfecting a recipe for explosives.''
  On September 9, 2009, Afghan-American Zazi drove from his home in 
Aurora, CO, to New York City, after he emailed Ahmed--that was his Al 
Qaeda facilitator in Pakistan--that ``the marriage is ready.'' That was 
a code that meant ``We are ready now to perform our task.'' The FBI 
followed Zazi to New York and broke up the plan of attack, and they 
stated it was because of the email that was intercepted by the NSA that 
allowed them to do that.
  How big of a deal is that? People do not stop and think about the 
fact that if you look at the New York City subway stations down there, 
we know that the average ridership of the New York City subway during 
peak hours averages just under 900,000 people--that is 900,000 people, 
Americans who are living in New York City.
  What we do know is that when they came to New York City to perform 
their plan at Grand Central Station and Times Square, it was the NSA 
using the very tools we took away from them 2 days ago, and you wonder, 
how many lives would have been lost? If there are 900,000 riders on the 
subway and they are ready to do this at two stations, are we talking 
about 100,000 lives, 100,000 Americans being buried alive? That attack 
was precluded by the tools that were used by the NSA that we took away 
from them just 2 days ago. Many more have not been declassified.
  GEN Michael Hayden and GEN Keith Alexander, who are both former 
Directors of the NSA, and others have confirmed to me personally that 
at least one of the three terrorist attacks on 9/11 could have been 
avoided, and perhaps all three could have been avoided if we had had 
the tools we gave the NSA right after 9/11, and also the attack on the 
USS Cole could have been prevented entirely.
  So you have to stop and think, it is a dangerous thing to stand on 
the floor and say we have formed this thing in this dangerous world and 
it has not stopped any attacks on America. That is what we are faced 
with today.
  I voted against the program the House passed that is going to be 
considered in just a few minutes. I felt it was better to leave it as 
we had it. Now that is gone. I look at it this way: I do support the 
amendments that are coming up. I do think the last opportunity we will 
have will be the program we will be voting on in just a few minutes.
  So let's think about this, take a deep breath, and go ahead and pass 
something so we at least have some capability to stop these attacks and 
to gather information from those who would perpetrate these attacks and 
then have time to put together a program that will be very workable and 
make some changes if necessary.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                       Extending FISA Provisions

  Mr. LEAHY. It is unfortunate that we were unable to pass the USA 
FREEDOM Act before the June 1, 2015, sunset of sections 206 and 215 of 
the USA PATRIOT Act and the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision of the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Senator Lee and I 
both sought to bring up the USA FREEDOM Act well before the sunset date 
to avoid just this situation. Now that the roving wiretap, business 
records, and so-called ``lone wolf'' provisions have lapsed, it is 
important that we make clear our intent in passing the USA FREEDOM Act 
this week--albeit a few days after the sunset. Could the Senator 
comment on the intent of the Senate in passing the USA FREEDOM Act 
after June 1, 2015?
  Mr. LEE. Although we have gone past the June 1 sunset date by a few 
days, our intent in passing the USA FREEDOM Act is that the expired 
provisions be restored in their entirety just as they were on May 31, 
2015, except to the extent that they have been amended by the USA 
FREEDOM Act. Specifically, it is both the intent and the effect of the 
USA FREEDOM Act that the now-expired provisions of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, will, upon enactment of the USA 
FREEDOM Act, read as those provisions read on May 31, 2015, except 
insofar as those provisions are modified by the USA FREEDOM Act, and 
that they will continue in that form until December 15, 2019. Extending 
the effect of those provisions for 4 years is the reason section 705 is 
part of the act.

[[Page S3440]]

  Mr. LEAHY. I would also point out that when we drafted the USA 
FREEDOM Act, we included a provision to allow the government to collect 
call detail records, CDRs, for a 180-day transition period, as it was 
doing pursuant to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders prior 
to June 1, 2015. This provision was intended to provide as seamless a 
transition as possible to the new CDR program under section 101 of the 
USA FREEDOM Act. I thank the junior Senator from Utah for his 
partnership on this bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our terrorist enemies continue to present a 
clear and present danger to our Nation's safety. We must use a broad 
array of information gathering tools to be successful in thwarting 
their plots and preventing future attacks. As the top Republican on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee after 9/11, I worked across party lines to 
give our law enforcement and intelligence communities the authorities 
they need to keep us safe. Having served longer than any other 
Republican on the Intelligence Committee, I can personally attest to 
the critical importance of these authorities in combating real 
terrorist threats.
  Given the extensive and effective privacy and civil liberties 
safeguards already in place, I strongly supported a clean 
reauthorization of the existing law. Unfortunately, such legislation 
could not gather sufficient support in today's climate of 
misinformation about our efforts to stay one step ahead of the 
terrorists. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, the so-called USA 
FREEDOM Act will hamper our ability to address serious terrorist 
threats. My concerns about this legislation were further enhanced when 
the Senate voted down several reasonable amendments that represented 
modest changes needed to preserve our security. Accordingly, I voted 
against the bill because it will not provide the protections we need 
and will put our Nation at risk.
  One of the fundamental flaws of the USA FREEDOM Act is its creation 
of unnecessary delays and impediments to our efforts to protect the 
American people. Under this legislation, telephone metadata-consisting 
of information like the number calling and the length of the call-would 
no longer be collected by the government but instead be retained by 
private communications corporations. Proponents of the bill argue that 
this move is necessary to protect privacy. This argument is 
unpersuasive, given that the data collected does not include the 
identities of the callers or the content of their communications. I 
oppose this approach because the bill lacks any requirement for these 
companies to retain this data for any length of time. Without such a 
requirement, the effectiveness of a search of telephone metadata would 
obviously be compromised.
  One of the other major flaws of the USA FREEDOM Act is its amicus 
curiae provision, which would insert a legal advisor into the FISA 
COURT process to make arguments to advance privacy and civil liberties. 
Such an approach threatens to insert leftwing activists into an 
incredibly sensitive and already well-functioning process, a radical 
move that would stack the deck against our law enforcement and 
intelligence communities. Given that previous law already provided 
intense scrutiny and oversight from the Justice Department, Congress, 
and the courts, this new provision is both unnecessary and potentially 
quite dangerous.
  The Senate's action today undermines not only the operational 
effectiveness of one of our most critical tools to safeguard our 
national security. Going forward, I will do everything within my power 
to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence professionals have 
all the tools they need to keep us safe.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Sunday night was just another self-
inflicted crisis from Senator McConnell and the Republican leadership. 
Playing politics with our national security is reckless. And allowing 
others to play politics with our national security, against the 
majority of the U.S. Senate and House, is not leadership.
  The Republicans said, ``Put us in the majority and we will govern 
responsibly.'' They claimed there would be no more shutdowns, no more 
governing by crisis. Yet, on Sunday night our intelligence 
professionals were left without the important tools they need to fight 
terrorism. And now Republicans are at it again--proposing amendments 
that would delay the process and leave us without these critical 
capabilities for even longer.
  FBI Director Comey said that his Agency uses section 215 fewer than 
200 times per year, but when the FBI uses it, ``it matters 
tremendously.'' And the White House National Security Council's Ned 
Price said that a sunset would result ``in the loss, going forward, of 
a critical national security tool.''
  I can't believe Republicans would take us to the brink and put our 
country at risk. It is shameful. The USA FREEDOM Act is supported by a 
wide, bipartisan majority in both Chambers. It passed the House with 
338 votes. A little over a week ago, a clear majority of Senators, 57, 
voted to proceed to this legislation. That still wasn't enough. Senator 
McConnell and his Republican colleagues blocked it from moving forward. 
On Sunday night, even more Senators did the right thing and voted in 
support of the USA FREEDOM Act. Mr. President, 77 Senators voted to 
proceed to a debate on the USA FREEDOM Act.
  I want to thank my colleagues who worked tirelessly on this 
legislation, who reached out to the intelligence community, technology 
companies, and privacy and civil liberties groups to come up with a set 
of reforms that maintains the important balance between protecting 
privacy and keeping our country safe. It is not easy to get this level 
of support. The USA FREEDOM Act strikes an important balance between 
protecting our privacy and defending our country.
  The bill reforms the PATRIOT Act by ending the bulk collection of 
Americans' telephone records while still providing the ability for 
investigators to get the records in a more targeted manner. It would 
improve the transparency of the government's surveillance activities by 
adding additional reporting requirements and giving private companies a 
greater ability to publically report when they receive requests for 
information from the FBI or NSA. And it would add a panel of experts to 
the FISA Court who can assist in providing additional points of view 
when cases involve significant or novel interpretations of the law.
  We need to pass this bipartisan bill immediately and send it to the 
President, without amendments to water it down and further delay the 
intelligence community's access to these important authorities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, thank you.
  I rise today to urge prompt passage of the House-passed USA FREEDOM 
Act of 2015 and to urge opposition to the amendments offered by the 
majority leader. Those amendments are unnecessary. They would weaken 
the bill in unacceptable ways, and they would only serve to prolong and 
deepen the uncertainty around the reform and continuation of important 
national security authorities.
  The House-passed USA FREEDOM Act is measured, compromise legislation 
that is the result of lengthy negotiations that bring much needed 
reforms to some of our surveillance authorities, ensuring that we 
safeguard Americans' rights while increasing the government's 
accountability. I am proud to have worked with Senator Dean Heller of 
Nevada to craft the bill's transparency provisions, which draw support 
from privacy advocates, the business community, and national security 
experts.
  The USA FREEDOM Act works to end bulk collection programs that our 
intelligence community has told us are not necessary. At the same time, 
the bill makes sure our national security agencies have legal tools 
that are necessary to protect our Nation. Put simply, the USA FREEDOM 
Act of 2015 strikes the balance we need--making sure that our 
government can keep our Nation safe without trampling on our citizens' 
fundamental privacy rights.
  Of course, the public cannot know if we are succeeding in striking 
that balance if they do not have access to even the most basic 
information about our major surveillance programs. That is why my focus 
has been on the legislation's transparency provisions. Under the 
provisions I wrote with Senator

[[Page S3441]]

Heller, the American people will be better able to decide for 
themselves whether we are getting this right.
  For all these reasons, the act has my strong support. And I am in 
good company. The House has passed it. The President is ready to sign 
it. We have the votes here to pass it. So what are we waiting for?
  Senator McConnell has offered several amendments. And here is the 
problem: They deviate from the House bill without improving the 
legislation. At best, the result of adopting these amendments would be 
further delay, further negotiation, and a highly uncertain outcome.
  Now that we have allowed the national security authorities at issue 
to expire, we simply do not know how the House would proceed if we sent 
them back a modified bill. Maybe that kind of risk and delay would be 
justified if these amendments improved the bill, but they do not. I 
would like to talk a little bit about why these amendments are both 
unnecessary and problematic.
  The majority leader's main substitute amendment makes two additions 
to the bill. The first is a requirement that electronic communications 
service providers notify the government if they plan to shorten the 
length of time they retain call detail records--records that the 
government may seek to query under the USA FREEDOM Act.
  The fact is, based on how our country's telecom infrastructure is set 
up, the government only goes to a handful of companies for call detail 
records, and those companies have told us they have business reasons 
for retaining records. Based on a long history of working with these 
companies--under these authorities, other authorities--the Attorney 
General and the Director of National Intelligence have told us the USA 
FREEDOM Act is fine as it is. There simply is not a problem in need of 
a solution here. And look, this is the kind of thing that we can 
revisit if in the future some change in circumstances means that data 
retention threatens to become a problem. It certainly does not need to 
risk derailing the bill and its reforms now.
  The second change in the majority leader's substitute amendment is a 
certification requirement asking the Director of National Intelligence 
to certify to Congress that the USA FREEDOM Act's transition from bulk 
collection of call detail records to a more targeted approach is 
operationally effective.
  To be clear, this certification, whether issued or not, in no way 
affects the effective date of the bill or the timeline for the 
transition. It has no statutory limitations. It is a wholly unnecessary 
deviation from the House-passed bill. If there is a problem with the 
operational effectiveness of the transition, you can bet that the 
Director of National Intelligence is going to let us know, and I would 
certainly hope and expect that we would all be ready to listen and work 
with him at that point. Again, this is the kind of thing that should 
not risk derailing the bill now.
  The majority leader has offered other amendments that seek to weaken 
the USA FREEDOM Act more directly. One amendment would lengthen the 
time before the bill with its various reforms goes into full 
effect. That would do nothing but unnecessarily extend bulk collection 
programs. NSA has told us they can transition in 6 months, as provided 
for in the bill as it stands. There is no justification for extending 
the timeline now.

  Another amendment would render ineffective one of the safeguards for 
Americans' privacy rights and civil liberties in the bill. This 
amendment would weaken the role of outside, nongovernment experts in 
participating in certain cases before the FISA Court. That is an 
unacceptable change to a provision that has already been the subject of 
bipartisan negotiations and compromise.
  That is really the thing to remember--this is a compromise bill. In 
writing our transparency provisions, Senator Heller and I had to 
compromise a great deal. We didn't get everything we wanted when we 
initially negotiated these provisions last year, and we had to 
compromise further still this year. I am disappointed that the bill 
doesn't include all of the requirements that were agreed to in our 
discussions with the intelligence community and that were included in 
the Senate bill last Congress. But that is the nature of bipartisan 
compromise. And I recognize that right now we need to start by taking 
one big step in the right direction, and that is by passing the USA 
FREEDOM Act.
  Down the road, we will have the opportunity to revisit these issues 
as needed. For my part, I am committed to pushing my colleagues to 
revisit the transparency provisions. We still have work to do, 
particularly with regard to section 702, which has to deal with the 
collection of communications of foreigners abroad. But, again, right 
now it is clear what needs to happen in this Chamber. We need to pass 
the House-passed USA FREEDOM Act without further amendment. If we do 
that, we can get these authorities back up and running. That is exactly 
what we should do.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Minnesota 
for his words. The press and everybody else does not see the hundreds 
of hours of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans, Senators 
and Members of the House of Representatives working on this. The 
Senator from Minnesota is one of those who worked very hard to get us 
to the point where we are today. It has not been easy. Nobody got 
everything they wanted. I didn't get everything I wanted. Senator Lee 
didn't get everything he wanted. The Senator from Minnesota didn't get 
everything he wanted. But because of the work of people such as the 
Senator from Minnesota, we have a far better piece of legislation, and 
it is probably why it passed overwhelmingly in the other body, with 
Republicans and Democrats agreeing. In fact, that is why we have to 
reject these amendments and we have to cleanly pass the House-passed 
USA FREEDOM Act.
  Again, I cannot emphasize to Senators how much time has gone into 
this by key Republicans and key Democrats in the House and key 
Republicans and key Democrats in the Senate. We have worked behind the 
scenes for days, weeks, and months to get here.
  Cleanly passing the House-passed USA FREEDOM Act is the only way to 
avoid prolonging the uncertainty that the intelligence community now 
faces because of the lapse in the three authorities this past Sunday. I 
think both Senator Lee and I would agree the lapse in authorities was 
entirely avoidable. The Senate majority has put the intelligence 
community and the American people in this position because of a 
manufactured crisis, procedural delays.
  Understand that any changes in this bill--as I have stated and as the 
distinguished senior Senator from California has indicated, as well as 
others, any changes in the bill will force it back to the House, and 
there is absolutely no guarantee that the House will accept the 
Senate's changes and pass the new bill. In fact, the House Republican 
majority leader said this morning that it would be a challenge to pass 
any bill that came back with changes. The Republican chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee put it more bluntly. He warned that any 
amendments would likely make the sunsets permanent. Keep that in mind.
  We can pass some amendments we may not think are major, although some 
of us think they are, but by passing them, all those who say they want 
to give the tools to the intelligence community--they are making the 
sunsets permanent if we pass these amendments.
  So I urge Senators to oppose all of the amendments that are being 
offered by the majority leader. Senator Blumenthal, Senator Franken, 
and others have spoken about the reasons to oppose the FISA Court 
amicus amendment and the substitute amendment. I agree with them 
wholeheartedly, and I thank them for their leadership. As I said 
earlier to others, Senator Blumenthal used his experience as a former 
attorney general, former U.S. attorney to work on the amicus provision.
  I also urge Senators to oppose the amendment which would leave the 
current bulk collection program in place for a full year. Extending the 
current bulk collection program for a full year

[[Page S3442]]

is unnecessary. Beyond being unnecessary, it creates significant legal 
uncertainty for the government. Remember, a Federal appellate court has 
already ruled that the program is unlawful, and they upheld a provision 
assuming that Congress is going to change it. But it is very obvious 
when we read the Second Circuit opinion that they mean a relatively 
short time, not a year.
  So the amendment to leave the bulk collection program in place for a 
full year is only going to invite further legal challenges. It will 
also delay implementation of tools the intelligence community has asked 
us to provide, including what is in this bill--a new emergency 
authority to request business records under section 215.
  I can't say enough about all of the work we have put in for 2 years 
across the aisle and across the Capitol. This is a bill which brings 
much needed reform to the government's surveillance authorities, but it 
also ensures that the intelligence community has the tools to keep us 
safe.
  The USA FREEDOM Act is milestone legislation. It will enact the most 
significant reforms of government surveillance powers since the USA 
PATRIOT Act. I am proud of the bipartisan and the bicameral effort that 
led to this bill.
  Today, we can pass important surveillance reform legislation and then 
work to build on these reforms in coming years.
  So I urge Senators to oppose all amendments and then vote to pass the 
USA FREEDOM Act, just as the House passed it. We don't need to inject 
any more uncertainty or delay into the process. None of these 
amendments are worth causing further delay. Pass it. This will be 
signed into law tonight by the President.
  I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor, so I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?


                           Amendment No. 1453

  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1453.


                           Amendment No. 1452

  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table amendment No. 1452.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1451

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1451.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     McCain
     McConnell
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Graham
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 1451) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 1735

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 1735, 
which is the Defense bill, be withdrawn; further, that at 11 a.m. on 
Wednesday, June 3, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
1735, and it be in order for Senator McCain to offer amendment No. 
1463, the text of which is identical to S. 1376, the Armed Services 
Committee-reported NDAA bill; finally, that the time until 2:30 p.m. be 
for debate only and equally divided between the bill managers or their 
designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are not 
the sort of minority party that objects to virtually everything. We 
want to help move things forward. But I also want to be clear that we 
are not going to require a vote to move forward on the Defense 
authorization bill. But everyone should be aware that the President 
said he would veto this bill. It has all of this strange funding in 
it--funding that my Republican colleagues railed against on previous 
occasions. Now they are using it.
  We have grave concerns about this bill. Unless it is changed, I 
repeat, the President will veto it. I hope there are some significant 
changes in the bill while it is on the floor so we can help to vote to 
get it off the floor. So based upon that, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1450

  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1450.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

       
     Graham
       
     Warner
       
  The amendment (No. 1450) was rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1449

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1449.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

[[Page S3443]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Graham
       
  The amendment (No. 1449) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Leahy be recognized for 3 minutes. Then, I would say to my colleagues, 
I am going to use my leader time to make a final statement, and then we 
will be ready for the final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for his courtesy.
  Very briefly, we worked for 2 years across the aisle and actually 
across the Capitol. I don't know how many meetings Senator Lee, and 
others, and I have had. Now the Senate is finally poised to pass our 
USA FREEDOM Act and send it to the President for his signature. This 
bill brings much-needed reform to the government's surveillance 
authorities. It will end the bulk collection of Americans' phone 
records, increase transparency, improve oversight, and, most 
importantly, help restore Americans' privacy--all while ensuring that 
the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe.
  I am proud to have done this. I have fought to protect the privacy 
and constitutional rights of Vermonters and all Americans since 1975, 
when I cast my first-ever vote as a Senator to approve the 
establishment of the Church Committee. I will continue to fight for 
Americans' privacy.
  I urge Senators to vote to pass the USA FREEDOM Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will now proceed on my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this year I observed that 
President Obama's national security policy has been noteworthy for its 
consistent objectives. He has been very consistent--drawing down our 
conventional and nuclear forces, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, 
ending the tools developed by the previous administration to wage the 
war on terror, and placing a greater reliance upon international 
organizations and diplomacy. That has been the hallmark of the Obama 
foreign policy.
  None of this is a surprise. The President ran in 2008 as the 
candidate who would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on 
terror. And our Nation has a regrettable history of drawing down our 
forces and capabilities after each conflict, only to find ourselves ill 
prepared for the next great struggle.
  The book ends to the President's policies were the Executive order 
signed his very first week in office that included the declaration that 
Guantanamo would be closed within a year, without any plan for what to 
do with its detainees, and the Executive order that ended the Central 
Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation programs. Now, some 
of these detainees, my colleagues, are now in Qatar, preparing to 
rejoin the Taliban. Some are in Uruguay, camped out in a park across 
from the American embassy. And, regrettably, some are back on the 
battlefield in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Syria. These are other hallmarks 
of the Obama foreign policy.
  Last year the President announced that all of our combat forces would 
be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of his term in office, whether 
or not--whether or not--the Taliban were successful in capturing parts 
of Afghanistan, whether or not Al Qaeda senior leadership has found a 
more permissive environment in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and 
whether or not Al Qaeda has been completely driven from Afghanistan.
  I will repeat. The pattern is clear. The President has been a 
reluctant Commander in Chief. And between those two book ends, my 
colleagues, much has occurred that has undermined our national 
security.
  There was the failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with 
Iraq that would have allowed for a residual military force and 
prevented the assault by the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant. 
China is aggressively expanding its sphere of influence. There is the 
threat to veto funding for the troops--we just heard it from the 
minority leader--and their equipment without similar increases at the 
IRS and EPA.
  Let me say that again. The President is threatening to veto the 
Defense bill unless we increase funding for the IRS and EPA. Now, this 
is going to diminish our military's ability to respond to the myriad of 
threats that are facing us today. And we all know what they are. Al 
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has doggedly pursued tactics and 
capabilities to circumvent all that we have done since September 11, 
2001, to defend our country.
  So while the President has inflexibly clung to campaign promises made 
in 2008, the threat from Al Qaeda has metastasized around the world. 
ISIL, which has broken off from Al Qaeda, uses social media to 
communicate with Americans, divert them to encrypted communications, 
encourage travel to the would-be caliphate, and encourage attacks right 
here at home. Al Qaeda and ISIL publish online magazines instructing 
individuals in terrorist tactics. And in the long run, the al-Nusra 
Front in Syria may present the greatest long-term threat--the greatest 
long-term threat--to our homeland.
  The President's efforts to dismantle our counterterrorism tools have 
not only been inflexible, but they are especially ill timed.
  So today the Senate will vote on whether we should take one more tool 
away from those who defend this country every day: the ability of a 
trained analyst, under exceedingly close supervision, and only with the 
approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to query a 
database of call data records based on reasonable articulable 
suspicion--no content, no names, no listings of phone calls of law-
abiding citizens. None of that is going on. We are talking about call 
data records.
  These are the providers' records, which is not what the Fourth 
Amendment speaks to. It speaks to ``the right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.'' But these 
records belong to the phone companies. Let me remind the Senate that 
the standard for reasonable articulable suspicion is that the terror 
suspect is associated with a ``foreign terrorist organization'' as 
determined by a court. Nobody's civil liberties are being violated 
here.
  The President's campaign to destroy the tools used to prevent another 
terrorist attack has been aided by those seeking to prosecute officers 
in the intelligence community, to diminish our military capabilities, 
and, despicably, to leak and reveal classified information--putting our 
Nation further at risk.
  Those who reveal the tactics, sources, and methods of our military 
and intelligence community give a playbook--a playbook--to ISIL and to 
Al Qaeda. As the Associated Press declared today, the end of the 
section 215 program is a ``resounding victory for Edward Snowden''--a 
``resounding victory for Edward Snowden.'' It is also a resounding 
victory for those currently plotting attacks against our homeland.
  Where was the defense of the National Security Agency from the 
President? Our chairman of the Intelligence

[[Page S3444]]

Committee and his committee colleagues have worked with determination 
to educate the Senate concerning the legal, technical, and oversight 
safeguards currently in place.
  We hear concerns about public opinion. A CNN poll was released 
today--just today. The CNN poll is not exactly part of the rightwing 
conspiracy. It states that 61 percent of Americans--61 percent of 
Americans--think that the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, 
including data collection, should be renewed.
  So if there is widespread concern out of America about privacy, we 
are not picking it up. They are not reporting it to CNN. Sixty-one 
percent say: I am not concerned about my privacy. I am concerned about 
my security.
  So my view is that the determined effort to fulfill campaign promises 
made by the President back in 2008 reflects an inability to adapt to 
the current threat--what we have right now--an inflexible view of past 
political grievances and a policy that will leave the next President in 
a weaker position to combat ISIL.
  I cannot support passage of the so-called USA FREEDOM Act. It does 
not enhance the privacy protections of American citizens, and it surely 
undermines Americans' security by taking one more tool from our war 
fighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend the majority leader is 
concerned, as he should be, about why the country is less secure--
especially in the last couple of weeks--he should look in the mirror. 
We have a situation where he has tried to divert attention from what 
has gone on here. It was as if there had been a big neon sign flashing 
saying: You can't do highway reauthorization, you can't do FISA 
reauthorization, and you can't do trade in 4 or 5 days.
  To do this right, we should have spent some time on FISA. Because of 
the mad rush to do trade, that did not happen. So today to try to 
divert attention from what I believe has been a miscalculation of the 
majority leader, it is making this country less safe. Every day that 
goes by with the FISA bill not being reauthorized is a bad day for our 
country. It makes us less safe. And to try to divert attention, as he 
has tried doing in the last few minutes--blaming the Obama 
administration for stopping torture, the detention centers, pulling 
troops out of Iraq--I say, my friend is looking in the wrong direction.
  The issue before us is not to be--and he is, in effect, criticizing 
the House of Representatives for passing this FISA bill, to reauthorize 
it in a way that is more meaningful to the American people and makes us 
more safe. It makes it so people feel more secure about the 
intelligence operations we have going on in this country.
  Is he criticizing the Speaker for working hard to get this bill 
reauthorized and in a fashion the American people accept? Because his 
criticism today is not directed toward people who voted here today; it 
is directed toward the bipartisan efforts in the House of 
Representatives that passed this bill overwhelmingly, with 338 votes. 
It is one of a few bipartisan things they have done over there, and 
they did it for the security of this Nation. I do not think any of us 
needs a lecture on why we are less secure today than we were a few days 
ago. I hope everyone will vote to continue the surveillance 
possibilities that we have available if this law passes. If it does not 
pass, what are we going to do? It will go to the House of 
Representatives. The majority leader of the House of Representatives, 
the distinguished House Member from California, Mr. McCarthy, said: 
They do not want anything from us. They want this bill passed. They 
want the USA FREEDOM bill passed today. That is what the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, said. Of course, that is what 
the Democratic leader says also.
  Let's vote. A vote today to pass this bill will make our country 
safer immediately, not a week from now. That is how long it will take, 
at a minimum, if this bill is changed when it goes to the House--I am 
sorry--if it does not go to the President directly, and it should go 
directly from here to the President of the United States. He can sign 
this in a matter of hours and put us back on a more secure footing to 
protect ourselves from the bad guys around the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as my good friend, the minority leader, 
frequently reminded me over the last few years, the majority leader 
always gets the last word.
  Look, his fundamental complaint is he does not get to schedule the 
Senate anymore. He wanted to kill the President's trade bill, and so he 
did not like the fact that we moved to the trade bill early enough 
before the opposition to it might become more severe.
  I say to the Senator, the minority leader, he does not get to set the 
schedule anymore. My observations about the President's foreign policy 
are directly related to the vote we are about to cast. It remains my 
view--I know there are differences of opinion, and I respect everybody 
in here who has a different opinion--that this bill is part of a 
pattern to pull back, going back to the time the President took office. 
I remember the speech in Cairo back in 2009 to the Muslim world, which 
sought to question American exceptionalism. We are all pretty much 
alike. If we just talked to each other more, everything would be OK. In 
almost every measurable way, all the places I listed, plus Ukraine--you 
name them--we have been pulling back. My view with regard to my 
position and my vote is that this is a step in the wrong direction. But 
I respect the views of others, and I suspect the minority leader will 
be happy at the end of the day. It appears to me the votes are probably 
there to pass this bill, and it will go to the President. I still think 
it is a step backward from where we are. It has been a great debate. I 
respect all of those who engaged in it on both sides. I think it is 
time to vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. LEAHY. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hatch
     Isakson
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Graham
       
  The bill (H.R. 2048) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________