[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7909-7916]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        USA FREEDOM ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2048, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2048) 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.

  Pending:

       McConnell/Burr amendment No. 1449, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell amendment No. 1450 (to amendment No. 1449), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 1451 (to amendment No. 1450), 
     relating to appointment of amicus curiae.
       McConnell/Burr amendment No. 1452 (to the language proposed 
     to be stricken by amendment No. 1449), of a perfecting 
     nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 1453 (to amendment No. 1452), to 
     change the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise while my good friend from Florida is 
on the floor to say that I wish I could have a magic wand with which I 
could collapse this time. But as he knows, under Senate rules, one 
Member can demand for the full 30 hours, and we are in a process like 
that. My hope is that there will be accommodation as we go through this 
because I think most Members would like to resolve this.
  Let me say specifically to his two points that there is a substitute 
amendment that has the USA FREEDOM language with two additional pieces. 
Those two pieces are a 6-month notification to NSA by any telecom 
company that intends to change its retention program. As my good friend 
from Florida knows, in part, trying to move a bill is making sure we 
move a bill that can be passed and accepted by the House of 
Representatives. Mandatory retention right now does not meet that 
threshold. But I hope they will accept this requirement of notification 
of any change in their retention program, as well as a DNI 
certification at the end of whatever the transition period is.
  Now, there will be a first-degree and a second-degree amendment, in 
addition to that, made in order and germane. The first-degree amendment 
will be to extend the transition period to 12 months. So we would go 
from 6 months--not to 2 years, as my colleague from Florida and I would 
prefer, and not to 18 but to 12. I think that is a happy spot for us to 
agree upon.
  Then there will be a second-degree amendment to that to address some 
language that is in the bill that makes it mandatory on the part of the 
Justice Department that they get a panel of amicus individuals. What we 
have heard from the Justice Department and gotten a recommendation on 
is that that be voluntary on the part of the courts. We will second-
degree that first-degree amendment with that language provided to us by 
the courts.
  I would like to tell my colleague that by tomorrow afternoon, I hope, 
we can have this complete and send it to the House, and by the time we 
go to bed tomorrow night this might all be back in place.
  I remind my colleagues that any law enforcement case that was in 
progress is not affected by the suspension of the roving or ``lone-
wolf'' provisions. They are grandfathered in so those investigations 
can continue. But for the 48 hours we might be closed, it means they 
are going to delay the start of an investigation, if in fact they need 
those two tools.
  From the standpoint of the bulk data program, it means that is 
frozen. It can't be queried for the period of time, but it hasn't gone 
away. Immediately, as we reinstitute the authorities in this program, 
that additional data will be brought in and the process that NSA would 
go through to query the data would, in fact, be available to the 
National Security Agency only--as is current law--once a FISA Court 
provides the authority for them to do it.
  I think there are a lot of misstatements that have been made on this 
floor. Let me just state for my colleagues what is collected. What is 
metadata? It is a telephone number, it is a date, it is the time the 
call was made, and it is the duration of the phone call.
  Now, I am not sure how we have invaded anybody's privacy by getting a 
telephone number that is deidentified. We don't know who it belongs to, 
and we would never know who it belongs to until it is turned over to 
law enforcement to investigate because it has now been connected to a 
known foreign terrorist's telephone number.
  Stop and think about this. The CFPB--a government agency--collects 
financial transactions on every American. There is nobody down here 
trying to eliminate the CFPB. I would love to eliminate the CFPB 
tomorrow. But there is no outrage over it, and they collect a ton more 
information that is not deidentified. It is identified.
  Every American has a discount card for their grocery store. You go in 
and you get a discount every time you use it. Your grocery store 
collects 20 times the amount of data the NSA does--all identified with 
you. There is a big difference between the NSA and your grocery store: 
We don't sell your data at the NSA; your grocery store does.
  Now, I am for outrage, but let's make it equal. Let's understand we 
are in a society where data is transferred automatically. The fact is, 
No. 1, this is a program authorized by law, overseen

[[Page 7910]]

by the Congress--House and Senate--and the executive branch at the 
White House. It is a program that has never had--never, never had--a 
privacy violation, not one, in the time it has been in place.
  Now, I am all for, if the American people say this is not a function 
we believe government should be in--and I think that is what we have 
heard--and we are transferring this data over to the telecom companies, 
where no longer are there going to be a limited number of people who 
can access that information. We are going to open it up to the telecom 
companies to search it in some way, shape or form. Whether they are 
trained or untrained or how exactly they are going to do it, it is 
going to delay the amount of time it will take us to connect a dot to 
another dot.
  Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BURR. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this is a good example of the chairman of 
the intel committee, a Republican, and this Senator from Florida, a 
Democrat and a former member of the intel committee, agreeing and being 
so frustrated--as was just exemplified by the Senator from North 
Carolina--that there is so much misunderstanding of what this 
legislation does.
  The fact is, as the chairman has just said, ``metadata''--a fancy 
term--is nothing more than business records of the telephone company. A 
telephone number is made to another telephone number on such and such a 
date, at such and such a time, for such and such duration. That is all. 
We don't know whom the call was from or to. It is when there is the 
suspicion, through other things that are authorized by court order, 
that the analyst can get in and open up as to what the content is in 
order to protect us.
  Would the Senator from North Carolina agree there is so much 
misunderstanding in the press, as has been reported, about how this is 
an invasion of privacy, as if the conversations were the ones that were 
being held by the National Security Agency? Would the Senator agree 
with that statement?
  Mr. BURR. I would agree exactly with that statement. The collection 
has nothing to do with the content of a call. To do that would take an 
investigation into an individual and an additional court process that 
would probably be pursued by the FBI, not the NSA, to look at the 
content.
  I think when the American people see this thing dissected, in 
reality, they will see that my telephone number without my name isn't 
really an intrusion, the time the call was made really isn't an 
intrusion, the duration of the call really isn't an intrusion, and now 
I know they are not collecting anything that was said, that there is no 
content in it and that this metadata base is only telephone numbers.
  There is a legitimate question the American people ask: Why did we 
create this program? Well, it was created in the Department of Defense. 
It was transferred over to the intelligence community. The purpose of 
it was in real time to be able to search or query a massive amount of 
data.
  A few weeks ago, we, the United States, went into Syria and we got a 
bad guy. And we got hard drives and we got telephones and we got a lot 
of SIM cards. Those telephone numbers now, hopefully--don't know but 
hopefully--we are testing them in the metadata base to see if those 
phones talked to anybody in the United States. Why? I think the 
American people want us to know if terrorists are talking to somebody 
in this country. I think they really do want us to know that.
  What we have tried to do since 9/11 is to structure something that 
lives within the law or a Presidential directive that gives us that 
head start in identifying who that individual is. But we only do it 
through telephone numbers, the date of the call, and the length of the 
call. We don't do it through listening to content.
  That is why I think it is healthy for us to have this debate. I think 
my good friend from Florida shares my frustration. We are changing a 
program that didn't have a problem and didn't need to be changed, and 
we are accepting a lower threshold of our ability to intercept that 
individual in the United States who might have the intention of 
carrying out some type of an attack.
  Now, I would only say this. I don't believe the threat level has 
dropped to a point where we can remove some of the tools. If anything, 
the threat level has gotten higher, and one would think we would be 
talking about an expansion of tools. But I accept the fact that this 
debate has gotten to a point where a bulk data storage capacity within 
the government is not going to be continued long term.
  I would say to my good friend, who I think agrees with me, that 
although I believe 24 months is a safer transition period, hopefully 
our friends in the House will see 12 months as a good agreement between 
the two bodies. That 12-month agreement I think would give me 
confidence knowing we have taken care of the technology needed for the 
telecoms to search in real time their numbers.
  Now, make no mistake, this will be a delay from where we currently 
are. I can't get into the classified nature of how long it takes us to 
query a database, given the way we do it, but there is no question this 
will lengthen the amount of time it takes us to connect the dots. 
Therefore, for something that might be in an operational mode, we may 
or may not hit that. That is a concern. But this is certainly something 
we can go back and look at as time goes on.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield.
  Mr. BURR. Absolutely.
  Mr. NELSON. Has the Senator heard many times from the press: Well, 
nobody has come forward and shown us one case in which the holding of 
these telephone business bulk records has paid off. Has the Senator 
heard that statement by the press?
  Mr. BURR. The Senator has heard that statement by the press and has 
heard it made by Members of this body.
  Mr. NELSON. Has the Senator come to the conclusion that with regard 
to the holding of that data and the many cases that are classified, 
that that data has protected this country from terrorists by virtue of 
just the example he gave of terrorist records apprehended in the raid 
in Syria a couple of weeks ago and that those telephone numbers may 
well be like mining gold in finding other terrorists who want to hit 
us?
  Mr. BURR. The Senator hits on a great point, and let me state it this 
way. Would any Member of the Intelligence Committee be on the floor 
battling to keep this program, if, in fact, in our oversight capacity, 
we had looked at a program that was absolutely worthless? Would we 
expend any capital to do that? The answer is, no, we wouldn't.
  We are down here battling on the floor, those of us either on the 
committee or who have been on the committee since 9/11, because we have 
seen the impact of this program. We know what it has enabled us to do 
and we know what happens when we get a trove of technology in our hands 
that gives us the ability to see whether it was tied to somebody--
whether we knew about them or we didn't.
  The fact is, when you have groups such as ISIL today, that are saying 
on social media: Don't come to Syria, stay in the United States, stay 
in Europe, go buy a gun, here are 100 law enforcement officers, here 
are 100 military folks, that is how you can carry out the jihad, it 
makes the use of the tool we are talking about even more important 
because no longer do we get to look at no-fly lists, no longer do we 
get to look at individuals who have traveled or who intend to travel to 
Syria. It is individuals who grew up in neighborhoods that we never 
worried about. And the only way we will be able to find out about them 
is if we connect the conversation they have had or just the fact that a 
conversation took place, and then law enforcement can begin to peel the 
onion back with the proper authorities--the proper court order--to 
begin to look at whether this is a person we need to worry about.
  The Senator from Florida is 100 percent correct that this is 
invaluable to the overall defense of this country.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, and I 
will conclude with this.

[[Page 7911]]

  The American people need to understand there is so much agreement 
behind the closed doors on the Intelligence Committee, as they are 
invested with the oversight of what is going on in order to protect our 
blessed country. My plea now is we would get to the point that as the 
chairman has suggested, even by waiting until tomorrow, we can collapse 
this time and get on to passing this by sending down some minor 
modifications to the House that they can accept, then get it to the 
President so this important program that tries to protect us from 
terrorists can continue.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BURR. I thank my good friend from Florida for his willingness to 
come to the floor and talk facts.
  I see my good friend from Arizona here. Before I yield, let me just 
restate what the Senator from Florida asked me, which was, geez, we 
need a longer transition period and we need something addressed on the 
data that is held.
  I say for my colleagues that there will be three votes at some point. 
One will be on a substitute amendment. It has the exact same language 
as the USA FREEDOM bill. It makes two changes to the USA FREEDOM bill. 
It has a requirement that the telecoms notify the government 6 months 
in advance of any change in the retention program for their data, which 
I think is very reasonable. The second would be that it requires the 
Director of National Intelligence to certify, on whatever the 
transition date is, that the software that needs to be provided to the 
telecoms has been provided so that search can go through.
  In addition to that, there will be two other amendments. The first 
will deal with expanding the transition period from the current 6 
months in the USA FREEDOM bill to 12 months. Again, I would have 
preferred 24 months. We have settled on 12 months. The last thing is 
that it would change the current amicus language in the bill to reflect 
something provided to us by the courts. It was the court's 
recommendation that we change it. This would be easier to fit within a 
program that has a time sensitivity to it.
  So as we go through the debate today, as we go through tomorrow, 
hopefully we will have three amendments that pass, and we can report 
this bill out shortly after lunch tomorrow if everything works well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Bob Schieffer

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute today to CBS 
broadcaster Bob Schieffer, who retired yesterday as the moderator of 
the most watched Sunday news show, ``Face the Nation,'' after a career 
in journalism that lasted more than half a century. Bob reported from 
Dallas that terrible weekend President Kennedy was assassinated. At 
that time, he was with the Fort Worth Star Telegram. He was CBS's 
Pentagon correspondent, congressional correspondent, White House 
correspondent, and chief Washington correspondent. He anchored the 
``CBS Evening News'' at a time of transition and turmoil at the 
network. For 24 years he moderated ``Face the Nation,'' which became 
more popular every year Bob ran the show. He tried to retire before, 
several times. CBS begged him to stay. That is an impressive run by 
anyone's standards, all the more so considering Bob is probably the 
most respected and popular reporter in the country.
  Familiarity might not always breed contempt, but it is certainly not 
a guarantee of enduring public admiration--except in Bob's case. The 
public's regard for Bob Schieffer never seemed to waver or even level 
off. He grew in stature the longer his career lasted. Not many of us 
can say that. The secret to his success, I suspect, is pretty simple: 
Americans just like Bob Schieffer. They like him a lot and trust him. 
That is pretty rare in his profession, which, like ours, has fallen 
precipitously in recent years in the esteem of the American people. I 
think it is attributable to the personal and professional values he 
honestly and seemingly effortlessly represented, old-fashioned values 
that in this modern communications age make him stand out.
  Bob is courteous and respectful to the people he reports on and 
interviews. There are people in his profession who disdain that 
approach to journalism, but I doubt they will ever be as good at the 
job as Bob Schieffer was. He looked to get answers to questions the 
public had a right and a need to have answered. He was dogged in 
pursuit of those answers, and more often than not he succeeded. But he 
wasn't sarcastic or cynical. He wasn't rude. He didn't show off. He 
didn't do ``gotcha'' journalism. He was fair, he was honest, and he was 
very good at his job. He asked good questions, and he kept asking them 
until he got answers. He was determined to get at the truth not for the 
sake of one-upping you or embarrassing you but because that was a 
journalist's responsibility in a free society. If he caught someone 
being evasive or dishonest or pompous, he would persist long enough for 
them to expose themselves. He didn't yell or talk over them or insult 
them. He didn't need to.
  I don't know how he votes. Most people in his profession have 
political views to the left of my party, and it wouldn't surprise me if 
Bob does, too. Almost all reporters claim they keep their personal 
views out of their reporting, but not many do it successfully, be they 
liberal or conservative. The best do, and Bob Schieffer is the best. I 
never once felt I had been treated unfairly by him because he disagreed 
with me. I think most Republicans Bob interviewed would say the same.
  He moderated Presidential debates without receiving any criticism--or 
at least any deserved criticism--for loading his questions with his own 
views or mediating exchanges between candidates to favor one over the 
other. He was the model of a successful moderator, intent on informing 
the electorate, not drawing attention to himself. That is not to say he 
didn't make an impression on his audience. He did. He impressed them, 
as he always did, with his fairness, his honesty, and his restraint.
  It is no secret that I have made an occasional appearance on a Sunday 
morning show. No doubt I have enjoyed those experiences more than some 
of my colleagues have enjoyed watching them. Some people might think I 
should take up golf or find something else to do with my Sunday 
mornings. I may have to now that Bob has retired.
  I have appeared on ``Face the Nation'' over 100 times--more than any 
other guest. I acknowledge there are viewers who would prefer to see 
someone else claim that distinction. Too bad. I have the record, and I 
think I will have it for a while. I am kidding--sort of. But I am not 
kidding about my appreciation for Bob Schieffer and the opportunity he 
gave me and everyone who appeared on his show to communicate our views 
on issues without a third party editing or misconstruing them and to 
have those views tested by a capable, probing, and fair interviewer, 
which Bob Schieffer certainly was.
  He is something else, too, in addition to being a very good and very 
fair reporter. He is a good guy. And there are never enough of those 
around. I am going to miss spending the occasional Sunday morning with 
him.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Remembering Beau Biden

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I gathered Saturday night in Springfield, 
IL, with my wife and a group of close

[[Page 7912]]

friends at the retirement party of Ann Dougherty, who served me so well 
here in the Senate office and in the congressional office in 
Springfield. It was a great night with a lot of enjoyment. That was 
interrupted by the sad news of the passing of Beau Biden. One of my 
other staffers came up and said that Beau Biden had passed away here in 
Washington on Saturday evening.
  Beau, of course, the oldest son of Vice President Joe Biden, had been 
suffering from a serious cancer illness--brain cancer--for some period 
of time. Most of us knew there was something terribly wrong when we 
approached the Vice President about his son's illness, and Joe--the 
Vice President--in very hushed terms would say, ``Pray for him.''
  We knew he was in a life struggle, but the fact that he would lose 
his life Saturday evening at age 46 is a personal and family tragedy. 
It is a tragedy which is compounded by the extraordinary person Beau 
Biden was. This young, 46-year-old man had achieved so many things in 
life. First and foremost, he had married Hallie--a wonderful marriage, 
two beautiful children. He was part of that expanded and warm Biden 
family.
  He was known to most people around America by his introduction of his 
father at the Democratic National Convention. It was not a customary 
political introduction; it was an introduction of love by a son who 
truly loved his father. Beau Biden told the story of his mother's 
untimely death in an auto accident with his sister and how he and his 
brother Hunter had survived and drew closer to their father as they 
grew up.
  Jill Biden married Joe at a later date, and the family expanded. As 
you watched this family in the world of politics, they were just 
different. They were so close and loving of one another that you knew 
there was an extraordinary bond there.
  Beau Biden made his father proud and all of us proud in the 
contributions he made, first as attorney general in Delaware and then 
in his service with the Delaware National Guard, actually being posted 
overseas in harm's way and earning a Bronze Star for the extraordinary 
service he gave to our country. That is why his loss is felt on so many 
different levels. This life was cut short--a life which could have led 
to so many great things in public service beyond his service to the 
State of Delaware. But, in a way, it is a moment to reflect on this 
family, this Biden family.
  I have been in politics for a long time, and I have met a lot of 
great people in both political parties, extraordinary people. I have 
never met someone quite like Vice President Joe Biden.
  A friend of mine, a colleague from Illinois, Marty Russo, served in 
the U.S. House of Representatives for several decades. He was a friend 
of Joe Biden's. When Marty Russo's son was diagnosed with leukemia, 
Marty Russo called Joe Biden, who was then a Senator from Delaware. Joe 
Biden not only called Marty Russo's son but continued to call and visit 
him on a regular basis.
  His empathy and caring for other people is so extraordinary. I don't 
know that there is another person quite like him in public life. The 
only one I can think of who rivaled him was Ted Kennedy, who had the 
same empathy. And, as I reflect on it, both of them had in their lives 
examples of personal tragedy and family tragedy, which I am sure made 
them more sensitive to the losses and suffering of others.
  Joe Biden is the kind of person who does things in politics that 
really are so unusual in the level of compassion he shows. I can recall 
one time a year or two ago when we were setting out on a trip together 
that was canceled at the last minute. I called him and said: I am sorry 
we can't go together. I had hoped during the course of that trip to ask 
you to make a special phone call to the mother of one of my staffers 
who was celebrating her 90th birthday.
  She was the wife of a disabled World War II veteran who had raised a 
large Irish Catholic family, the Hoolihan family, and I wanted Joe 
Biden to wish her a happy birthday.
  Well, we didn't make the trip and I didn't get a chance to hand him 
the phone, but he took down the information, and as soon as he hung up 
the phone from talking to me, he called her.
  He was on the phone with her for 30 minutes, talking about her 
family, his family, and thanking her for making such a great 
contribution to this country. It is the kind of person Joe Biden is and 
Jill, his wife, the same. How many times in my life and in others has 
she stepped forward to show a caring heart at a moment when it really, 
really counted.
  The loss of Beau Biden is the loss of a young man who was destined 
for even greater things in public life, but it is another test of a 
great family, the Biden family, a test which I am sure they will pass 
and endure, not without a hole in their hearts for the loss of this 
great young man but with a growing strength that brings them together 
and inspires the rest of us to remember the real priorities in life--
love of family and love of those who need a caring heart at an 
important moment.


                     Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland

  Mr. President, I just returned from a visit to Ukraine, Lithuania, 
and Poland this last week. I went there to assess the ongoing Russian 
threat to our friends and NATO partners in Eastern Europe. What I saw 
was uplifting but deeply disturbing.
  Most urgently is the so-called Minsk II treaty agreement reached in 
February between Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France to bring an end 
to the fighting in Eastern Europe. This agreement was supposed to end 
the bloodshed in Ukraine, allow for the return of prisoners, ensure a 
pullback of heavy weapons, begin preparations for local elections, and 
return control of Ukraine's borders to the Ukraine.
  I am sorry to report that this agreement has not lived up to its 
promise. The blame rests squarely, and not surprisingly, with the 
invading forces of Russia. Not only does fighting continue in Ukraine 
on a regular basis but Reuters recently reported that Russia is 
amassing troops and hundreds of pieces of weaponry, including mobile 
rocket launchers, tanks and artillery at a makeshift base near the 
Ukrainian border.
  The equipment, along with Russian military personnel, had identifying 
marks and insignia that the Russians tried to remove to try to hide 
their real culpability. At this point, perhaps the only people in the 
world who do not believe Russia is behind the mayhem, human suffering, 
and displacement of innocent people in eastern Ukraine are the Russian 
people who have been lied to over and over again about what is actually 
going on with this invasion of Ukraine.
  President Putin has repeatedly lied to his own people about Russian 
soldiers fighting in Ukraine. He has lied to them about what started 
this conflict, and he has lied to them about the treatment of ethnic 
Russians outside of Russia's borders. Yet, as more and more Russian 
soldiers have been killed in fighting, Putin has struggled to explain 
this dangerous and cynical canard to the families of those killed in 
the war.
  Most recently, last week, he even went so far as to make it illegal 
in Russia to report war deaths--incredible.
  Yet, while I was there--as if anyone needed proof--two Russian 
soldiers were captured deep inside of eastern Ukraine. They had killed 
at least one Ukrainian soldier, and when it appeared they were about to 
be caught--listen to this--when it appeared they were about to be 
captured by the Ukrainians, they were fired upon by their own Russian 
forces, an effort to kill them before they could be captured. These 
soldiers have disclosed that they are in the Russian military and 
carried ample evidence on their persons to support the now obvious 
truth that Russia is squarely behind perpetuating this invasion and 
conflict.
  Mr. Putin, if you are going to drag your country into war to 
perpetuate your own political power, you ought to at least have the 
honesty to tell the Russian people the truth about that war, 
particularly those families of Russian soldiers most affected by this 
conflict. Going back to the old Soviet

[[Page 7913]]

playbook of lies and disinformation is an insult to the Russian 
families whose young men are being sent into your war.
  So it is clear the Minsk agreement is in jeopardy. It is critical 
that the European Union now renew its sanctions in response to Russia's 
illegal aggression. We in the United States should continue to work 
with our key NATO allies to ensure that Ukraine succeeds as a free 
democratic state and that NATO members are protected against Russian 
provocations--more on that in a moment.
  Not everything in Ukraine is negative. The new government coalition 
is working tirelessly to reform the nation and provide a model of free 
market democracy on Russia's borders. Perhaps that is why Putin is 
trying so hard to undermine Ukraine. Decades of corruption, bribery, 
inefficiency, and bureaucracy are being tackled by this new government. 
Security services are being reformed. Ukrainians are starting to free 
themselves from the stranglehold of dependence on Russian natural gas.
  Keep in mind all of this is occurring while Russia has largely 
destroyed a key industrial section in Ukraine. Try to imagine 
rebuilding a neglected and corrupted economy in the midst of fighting a 
war against one of the world's superpowers, Russia, and losing key 
engines of a nation's economy. That is what the Ukrainians are up 
against. They have risked so much for a better future; one that is open 
and connected to the rest of the free world. Why this was and is such a 
threat to Russia I will never fully understand.
  I will say one thing that Mr. Putin did not count on. His invasion of 
Ukraine has unified that country in a way that I could not have 
imagined even last year. You see, there was a question which direction 
Ukraine would go, West or East. The people of Ukraine stopped the 
former Prime Minister, Yanukovych, in his efforts to move toward Moscow 
believing that their future should be in the West, but there was 
divided opinion even within Ukraine until Vladimir Putin invaded. At 
that point, the people of Ukraine realized their future was in the 
West. They looked to the West, to the European Union, to America, not 
only for support in this conflict but for inspiration as to what their 
future may hold.
  I was proud to see what our Nation has been doing in Ukraine. Under 
President Obama, we have provided significant nonlethal supplies and 
assistance to Ukraine and its military. In fact, we lead the world in 
supporting Ukraine's efforts to revitalize their economy and to 
strengthen their military. We have led that fight on establishing 
sanctions on Russia and making sure they are not lifted until Russia 
stops this invasion.
  In the town of Lviv, in western Ukraine, we have 300 U.S. Army 
personnel training Ukrainian National Guardsmen. I had the privilege of 
meeting with our forces, our American forces, these trainers and the 
trainees. I must say it was amazing.
  Now, listen, some of these Ukrainian National Guardsmen whom we are 
training had just returned from battle in the eastern part of Ukraine. 
One had been captured by the Russians for 5 days. They had been under 
gunfire and fighting in combat against the Russians and their skilled 
military who are being sent into an area called the Donbass.
  After they were relieved from that responsibility in the east, they 
were brought back west to this training camp with America's best in 
terms of our Army leadership. It turns out the basic training these 
Ukrainians should have had before they went into battle was never given 
to them. So now, coming back from battle, our soldiers were trying to 
give them the basic training to make sure they could survive if sent to 
battle again and bring home their comrades in the process. They were 
deeply, deeply grateful for that training, and our men and women 
working there to train them were so proud to be part of this effort. I 
commend this effort. I thank the President for extending America's hand 
to help the Ukrainian military be trained so they can survive and repel 
this Russian aggression.
  I went on to Lithuania and Poland. It was also clear the Russian 
bullying and aggression is not limited to Ukraine. In both Lithuania 
and Poland, these frontline NATO partners face a steady stream of 
Russian vitriol and military threats. Russian planes recklessly buzz 
NATO airspace, Russian leaders make threats of capturing cities like 
Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and dangerous missiles were moved 
into the Russian region of Kaliningrad, bordering both Lithuania and 
Poland. All the while, a steady stream of sophisticated yet crude 
Russian propaganda flows from its state-run media services.
  I happened to be in Berlin at an Aspen conference not that long ago--
just a few months ago--when we were moving NATO equipment and forces in 
a parade--a scheduled parade--of our military in NATO through Poland 
and the Baltics. There was a cable channel called RT, which stands for 
Russia Today, that was broadcasting what they called protesters 
protesting the presence of NATO soldiers and equipment. RT reported 
that these protesters were holding signs--and they showed small groups 
of them--saying, ``NATO, stop your invasion of the Baltics.''
  Well, it turns out that was a phony. When I went there, I got the 
real story. In every town these NATO forces went through with their 
equipment, they were welcomed like conquering heroes. Women were 
holding out flowers and candy, and children were applauding as they 
went by, holding flags of Poland and of the United States. But RT, the 
Russia Today cable channel, was trying to twist the story and make it 
look as if the U.S. presence there was resented, when in fact it was 
welcomed.
  The stakes here are very high. Putin is pumping Russian language 
incitement into areas of Europe where ethnic Russian populations live. 
He is promoting a message of victimhood and trying to justify further 
belligerence. What an insult to the talented and proud and outstanding 
Russian people.
  I was pleased to see that the U.S. and NATO forces are maintaining 
regular rotations in these frontline nations. We are boosting our 
Baltic Air Patrol to protect the airspace and working with NATO allies 
to boost their own defenses.
  One of the most amazing things in both Lithuania and Poland was the 
unequivocal request of the governments in those countries for the 
United States to have an even larger military presence in those 
countries. They are worried. They want to make sure NATO is there if 
they need it, and they think as long as the United States is there, 
they have more confidence about their future.
  I had to tell them we are having our budget issues here. We are not 
talking about expanding U.S. military bases anywhere in the world at 
this point. We are trying to maintain our own military. It was 
heartwarming to think that they still believe in the United States as 
the one 911 number in the world that you want to call if you ever have 
a challenge.
  It is a dangerous and tragic state of affairs in this part of the 
world. I was glad to see it firsthand and to reassure those leaders in 
Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine that the United States shares their 
values and cares for their future.
  What we have seen is an effort by Putin to undermine decades of 
security arrangements in Europe while perpetuating an insulting image 
of victimhood. He has challenged the entire West and its democratic 
systems. We cannot let him succeed, for Ukraine, for NATO, even for his 
own people. Despite our disagreements in Congress, I hope we can 
continue to provide strong funding for support to Ukraine and NATO.
  I met with a group of eight members of the Parliament in Ukraine. 
Their Parliament is called the Rada. Of these eight members, at least 
six of them--maybe seven--were brand new to this business. They had 
come out of the protests in the Maidan--which is a large square in 
downtown Kiev, Ukraine--where the protesters had ousted the former 
government, installed a new government, and risked their lives to do 
it. Some lost their lives in the process. There were so many of those 
young people sitting across the table from me who 6 or 8

[[Page 7914]]

months ago had nothing to do with politics. They had jobs and they were 
artists and they were involved in their community, but they were so 
inspired by what they saw in the Maidan that they decided to run for 
Parliament. Now these young people are tackling the toughest issues 
that any government can tackle: ending the corruption, reforming their 
government, saving their economy, fighting the Russians on the eastern 
border.
  It humbled me in a way. I have given so much of my life to Congress 
and the legislative process, and I thought how many times we find 
ourselves tied up in knots, just as we are today, with little or 
nothing happening on this floor of the U.S. Senate when there are so 
many challenges we face across this Nation. I thought about them, 
sitting in Kiev not knowing if tomorrow or the day after or a week 
after they would have to face an invasion of the Russians coming across 
their country trying to capture it. Yet they have the courage and 
determination to press on, to try to build a better country for the 
future, inspired by their own people who took to the streets to reclaim 
their nation.
  Well, I left with some inspiration on my own part. I hope to 
encourage this administration to show even more support for the 
Ukrainians and to make it clear to our NATO allies that we will stand 
with them, as we have for so many decades, in the pursuit of democratic 
values.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to address the bill before us, the 
USA FREEDOM Act, and its predecessor, the PATRIOT Act. Before talking 
about the specifics of those bills, I will try to address the 
historical context of what it is we are wrestling with and why it is so 
hard.
  What we are really trying to do in this body this week is to balance 
two critical constitutional provisions. The first is in the preamble, 
which is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic 
tranquility. That is a fundamental purpose of this government. It is a 
fundamental purpose of any government--to provide for the common 
defense and ensure domestic tranquility. That is national security, and 
it is in the very core preamble to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Of course, the other provisions are found in the Bill of Rights, 
particularly in the Fourth Amendment, which talks about the rights of 
the people to be secure in their persons and papers from unreasonable 
searches and seizures. ``Unreasonable'' is a key word. The people who 
drafted our Constitution were geniuses and every word counts. The word 
was ``unreasonable.'' So there is no absolute right to privacy, just as 
there is no absolute right to national security. We have to try to find 
the right balance, and that is what we have to do year in and year out, 
decade in and decade out, in relation to developments in technology and 
developments in terms of the threats which we face. It is a calibration 
that we have to continue to try to make.
  Now, I have been concerned, as a member of the Intelligence 
Committee, about the retention of large quantities of telephone data by 
the government. I think the program under which that data has been 
analyzed is important, and I will talk about that in a few minutes. I 
share the concern of many in this body who feel that simply having and 
retaining all of that information in government computers, even though 
it was hedged about with various protections and even though there were 
requirements for how it was to be accessed--and the level of attention 
to the detail of that access was important--and there is no evidence 
that it had ever been abused, was a danger to the liberty of our 
country. I feel the same as many of the Members of this body who have 
expressed that concern. Therefore, the USA FREEDOM Act, which we have 
before us now, proposes to move to leave the data with the phone 
companies. Instead of the government collecting and having it in the 
government's hands, the data will be in the phone companies. If it is 
necessary to access that information for national security purposes, 
the government will have to go through the process of going through the 
Justice Department and the court in order to get permission to access 
that data.
  Why shouldn't the government simply hold it? I am a subscriber to 
Lord Acton's famous maxim that ``power tends to corrupt, and absolute 
power corrupts absolutely.''
  While the current administration or the prior administration may have 
no inclination to misuse that data, we have no idea what may come in 
the future, what pressures there may be, what political pressures there 
may be. Therefore, it struck me as sensible to get it out of 
government's hands.
  The trouble I have had with the USA FREEDOM Act is that I felt it 
went too far in the other direction because there was no requirement in 
the bill, as it passed the House, that the phone companies retain and 
hold the data for any particular period of time. They now hold it, as a 
matter of business practice, for 18 months to 2 years, which is all 
that is necessary in order to have the data available for a national 
security search if necessary. The problem is that there is no 
requirement that they maintain that level of retention.
  In fact, in an open hearing, one of the vice presidents of one of the 
carriers said categorically: We will not accept a limitation on how 
long we have to hold the data. I think that is a glaring weakness in 
the USA FREEDOM Act, and, in fact, it led me to vote against the 
consideration of the motion to proceed when it came up last week.
  Today or tomorrow--whenever the timing works out--there will be a 
series of amendments proposed by the Senator from North Carolina, the 
chair of the Intelligence Committee, designed to deal with several of 
these technical but very important aspects of this program. One of 
those amendments would require the carriers--if they decide to hold the 
data for a shorter period of time--to notify the government, notify the 
Congress, and we could then make a decision as to whether we thought 
that some additional required period of retention would be necessary in 
order to adequately protect our national security. Another amendment 
that I understand is going to be proposed is that the transition period 
from the current program to the private carriers holding the data will 
be extended from 6 months to 1 year, simply because this is a major, 
Herculean technical task to develop the software to be sure that this 
information will be available for national security purposes on a 
timely basis.
  Now, the final question, and the one we have been debating and 
discussing here is this: Is it an important program? Is it worth 
maintaining? There has been a lot of argument that if you can't point 
to a specific plot that was specifically foiled by this narrow 
provision, then we don't need it at all. I don't buy that. It is part 
of our national security toolkit.
  It is interesting to talk about the history of this provision. It 
came into being shortly after September 11, because a gap in our 
security analysis ability was identified at that time, and that was 
that we could not track phone connections--not content, and I will talk 
about that in a minute--between the people who were preparing for the 
September 11 attack. For that reason, the section 215 program was 
invented.
  I want to stop for just a moment and make clear to the American 
people that this program does not collect or listen to or otherwise 
have anything to do with the content of phone calls.
  As I talked to people in Maine and they approached me about this, 
they said: We don't want the government listening to all of our phone 
calls. The answer is: They don't. This program does not convey and has 
not conveyed any such authority. We are talking about a much more 
narrow ability to determine whether a particular phone number called 
another phone number, the duration and date of that phone call, and 
that is it.
  An example of its usefulness was at the Boston Marathon bombing. The 
two brothers perpetrated that horrendous attack in Boston in April of 
2013. This program allowed the authorities to check their phone numbers 
to see if they were in touch with other people in

[[Page 7915]]

the country so they could determine whether this was a nationwide plot 
or whether it was simply these two guys in Boston. That, I will submit, 
is an important and--some would say--critical piece of information. It 
turned out that they were acting on their own, but had there been 
connections with other similarly inclined people in the country at that 
time, that would have been important information for us to know, and 
that is the way this program is used.
  Is it absolutely critical and indispensable in solving these cases? I 
don't think anybody can argue that that is the case. Is it important 
and useful as a part of the national security toolkit? Yes, 
particularly when the invasion of privacy, if you will, is so limited 
and really so narrowly defined. I liken it to a notebook that a police 
officer carries at the scene of a crime. A detective goes to the scene 
of a crime, takes out his notebook, and writes some notes. If we said 
that detectives can no longer carry notebooks, would it eliminate law 
enforcement's ability to solve crimes? No, but would it limit a tool 
that was helpful to them in solving that crime or another crime? The 
answer, I think, would be yes.
  We should not take a tool away that is useful and important unless 
there is some compelling argument on the other side. Since we are not 
talking about the content of the phone conversations--we are simply 
talking about which number called which other number, and it can only 
be accessed through a process that involves the Justice Department and 
then permission from the court--I think it is a program that is worthy 
of protection and useful to this country, and I think it is 
particularly important now.
  It is ironic that we are talking about, in effect, unilaterally 
disarming to this extent at a time when the threat to this country has 
never been greater and the nature of the threat is changing. September 
11 is what I would call terrorism 1.0, a plot that was hatched abroad. 
The people who perpetrated it were smuggled into the country in various 
ways. They had a specific target and a specific plot that they were 
working on. That is terrorism 1.0, September 11. Terrorism 2.0 is a 
plot that is hatched abroad but communicated directly to people in the 
United States who are part of the jihadist group. But now we are on to 
terrorism 3.0, which is ISIS sending out what amounts to a terrorist 
APB to no particular person but to anyone in this country who has been 
radicalized by themselves or by the Internet. There is no direct 
connection between them and ISIS. It might be a Facebook post. That 
person then takes up arms and tries to kill Americans, and that is what 
their intent is. That is the hardest situation for us to counteract, 
and that is a situation where this ability to track numbers calling 
numbers can be extremely useful. In fact, it might be the only useful 
tool because we are not going to have the kind of specific plotting 
that we have seen in the past.
  This is the most dangerous threat that I think we face today. To 
throw aside a protection or a safeguard that I believe passes 
constitutional and legal muster and goes the extra mile to protect the 
privacy rights of Americans by getting this data out of the hands of 
the government and that is worthy of the support and the active work in 
this Chamber to find that balance--the balance between the imperative, 
the most solemn responsibility we have in this body, which is to 
provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility, and to 
protect the safety and security of the people of this country in light 
of the constitutional limitations in the Bill of Rights that protect 
our individual liberties that make us who we are--we can do both 
things. There is never going to be a final answer to this question. But 
what we have to do is just what we are doing this week, and that is to 
assess the threats, assess the technology developments, and try to find 
the right calibration and the right balance that will allow us to meet 
that most solemn of our responsibilities.
  I look forward, hopefully, to the consideration of amendments later 
either today or tomorrow and look forward to what I hope will be a 
quick passage of this legislation in the next 24 to 48 hours so we can 
look our constituents and the people of this country in the eyes and 
say: We took the responsibility to protect your security seriously, and 
we also took seriously your rights, your liberty, and your 
understanding that the government is not going to impinge unreasonably 
in any way in violation of the principles of this Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from 
Maine, a committed member of the Committee on Intelligence, and one who 
has been vitally involved in the oversight of section 215.
  I think what has been left out of the debate is that 15 Members of 
the U.S. Senate have actively carried out oversight. This is probably 
one of the most looked at programs that exists within the jurisdiction 
of the Intelligence Committee. There are a couple more that probably 
get more constant attention, but this is not a program that is used 
that frequently. I think that is the key point.
  I wish to reiterate some of the issues Senator King brought up. We 
are not listening to people's phone calls. There is no content 
collected.
  This program expired last night at midnight. That means the database 
cannot be queried, regardless of if we find a terrorist telephone 
number. I think it is important to remind my colleagues and the 
American people that this is all triggered by a nonterrorist number 
outside of the United States.
  Now, in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, we had the telephone 
number outside the country, and we wanted to see whether the connection 
had been made, so there was direction in that case. But this is 
triggered by not just going through the database and looking at who 
Americans are calling and trying to figure something out, it is 
triggered by a known foreign terrorist's telephone number, and we 
searched to see whom they may have contacted in the United States.
  Now, the FISA Court only allows this data to be queried when there is 
a reasonable articulable suspicion--or RAS, as we call it--based on 
specific facts; that the basis for the query is associated with a 
foreign terrorist or terrorist organization. If the NSA can't make that 
case to the courts, that RAS is never authorized to go forward. The NSA 
is not searching through records to see whom ordinary Americans are 
calling; they are only looking for the terrorist links based upon the 
connection to a phone number known to be a terrorist phone number.
  Now, my good friend, the Senator from Maine, spoke about the Boston 
bombings. Let me go back to some comments the Director of the FBI, 
Director Mueller, made earlier last year. He testified in the House 
that had the program been in place before September 11, 2001, those 
attacks might have been derailed. Why? Well, according to the Director 
of the FBI, before
9/11, the intelligence community lost track of al-Mihdhar. Al-Mihdhar 
was one of the two who lived in San Diego, and he was tied to a 
terrorist group in Yemen. We lost track of al-Mihdhar, but we knew the 
terrorist organization in Yemen. So if we would have had this program 
in place, we could have targeted the telephone numbers out of the cell 
in Yemen to see if they were contacting anybody in the United States--
and they were contacting al-Mihdhar--and we could have put the 
connection together and found al-Mihdhar after we lost him in flight to 
the United States.
  I think Director Mueller said we saw on 9/11 what happens when the 
right information is not put together. If this program had been in 
place, then it could have provided the necessary link between the safe 
house in Yemen and al-Mihdhar in San Diego.
  For those who claim this program served no purpose prior to 9/11, 
here is the Director of the FBI saying it would have. Then we have the 
Boston Marathon bombing, and the program told us there was no terrorist 
link.
  Then we come to the 2009 New York City subway bombing plot. In early 
September 2009, while monitoring the

[[Page 7916]]

activities of an Al Qaeda terrorist group in Pakistan, NSA noted 
contact from an individual in the United States who the FBI 
subsequently identified as Colorado-based Najibullah Zazi. Section 215 
provided important lead information that helped thwart this plot.
  I wish to say this one more time to my colleagues: This program 
works. It has worked. It has stopped attacks because we have been able 
to identify an individual before they carried out the attack.
  Now, the threshold for my colleagues who say this program has not 
served any useful purpose, meaning we have to have an attack to be able 
to prove we thwarted an attack--that is not why we have this program in 
place. We are trying to get ahead of the terrorist act. In the case of 
the subway bombings in New York, we did that in 2009.
  There was a Chicago terrorist investigation in 2009. David Coleman 
Headley, a Chicago businessman and dual U.S. and Pakistan citizen, was 
arrested by the FBI as he tried to depart Chicago O'Hare Airport to go 
to Europe. At the time of his arrest, Headley and his colleagues, at 
the behest of Al Qaeda, were plotting to attack the Danish newspaper 
that published the unflattering cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. Section 
215 metadata analysis was used along with other FBI authorities to 
investigate Headley's overseas associates and their involvement in 
Headley's activities.
  I am not sure how it gets any clearer than this. We have an 
individual who is radicalized, who intends to carry out an act, who has 
overseas connections that we never would have understood without 
section 215. I think that as my good friend from Maine knows, when we 
connect one dot, typically it leads to another dot and that leads to 
another dot. To say to law enforcement, to say to our intelligence 
community that we are not going to give you the tools to connect these 
dots is to basically stand up in front of the American people and say 
that we are supposed to keep you safe, but we are not going to do that.
  So I thank my good friend, the Senator from Maine, for his support.
  I say to my colleagues, I hope we are going to be able to reinstitute 
this program shortly after lunch tomorrow. Hopefully, we will be able 
to do it with three amendment votes and a final passage vote. One will 
be a substitute to the full bill. It has all the USA FREEDOM Act 
language, with two changes. It would require the telecom companies to 
provide 6 months' notification of any change in the retention program 
of their company. That language was the suggestion of the Senator from 
Maine, and it works extremely well.
  The second piece of the substitute amendment will deal with the 
certification of the Director of National Intelligence that we have 
made the technological changes necessary for the telecom companies to 
actually query that data they are holding.
  There will be two additional amendments. The first one will be to 
change the transition period from 6 months to 12 months, and I think 
the Senator from Maine would agree with me that--I would like to see it 
longer--anything longer than 6 months is beneficial as we talk about 
the safety and security of the American people.
  The last amendment is the change in the amicus language or the friend 
of the court language. I will get into that in a little while. The 
current bill says the courts shall--``shall'' means they will do it. 
The administrator of the court has provided us with language that they 
think will allow the court the flexibility, when they need a friend of 
the court, to solicit a friend of the court in FISA Court but not 
require them, with the word ``shall,'' to always have a friend of the 
court.
  Again, I think, as my good friend from Maine knows, the process we go 
through in section 215 through the FISA Court in many cases is an 
accelerated process. Any delay can defeat the purpose of what we are 
doing; that is, trying to be in front of an attack versus in the back 
of an attack. I say one last time for my colleagues, NSA, under the 
metadata program, collects a few things: They collect the telephone 
number, they collect a date, they collect the duration of time that the 
call took place. They don't get content. They don't get the person's 
name. They have no idea whose number it is. Were they to tie a domestic 
number to a foreign terrorist number, that then goes directly to the 
FBI because they say to the Bureau: We have a suspicious American 
because they have communicated with a terrorist, at which time it is 
out of the 215 program for the purposes of investigation of the 
individual. If there was ever a need to find out whose telephone number 
it was or if there was a need to see content, that would be sought by 
the FBI under an investigation through the normal court processes that 
are not part of the 215 program. Section 215 is limited to a telephone 
number, with no identifier for whose number it is, the collection of 
the date, and the duration of the call.
  I think the Senator from Maine would agree with me. I would just as 
soon see the program stay at NSA, but that decision is a fait accompli. 
It is going to transition out. We would just like to make sure we have 
enough time so this can seamlessly happen versus an artificial date of 
6 months and not knowing whether it can happen.
  I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________