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 stands with them as we have for so many decades in the pursuit of democratic values. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president i rise to address the bill before us, the u.s.a. freedom act and its

predecessor, the patriot act. before talking about the specifics of those bills i want to put into some historical context what it is we're wrestling with here, why this is so hard. what we are really trying to do here in this body this week is balance two critical constitutional provisions. the first is in the preamble to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. that is a fundamental purpose of this government. it's the fundamental purpose of any government. to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. that's national security, and it was in the very core preamble to the constitution of the united states and of course the other provisions are found in the bill of rights, particularly the fourth amendment which talks about the right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures.

unreasonable is a key word. the people that drafted our constitution were geniuses, and every word counts, and 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's 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's 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 but i share the concern of many in

this body that simply having all of that information in the government, in the government computers, even though it was hedged about with various protections, even though there were requirements for how it was to be access the and the level of attention to the detail of that access was important and there is no evidence that it will be abused. i still felt as i say along with many others that simply having the government retain that information itself was a danger to the liberty of our country. i'm with many of the members of this body that have expressed that concern. therefore, the freedom act which we have before us now the u.s.a. freedom act proposes to move to leave the data with the phone companies instead of the government collecting it and having it in the government hands, the data will be in the phone companies and if it is necessary to access 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'm a subscriber to lord at-- acton's famous maxim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. while the crept 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 and therefore it struck me as sensible to get it out of the government's hands. now, the problem that i have had with the u.s.a. freedom act is 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 would retain and hold the data for any particular period of time.

they now hold it as a matter of business practices, 18 months to two years, which is all that is necessary in order to have the data available for national security search, if necessary. the problem is there's no requirement that they -- that they maintain that level of retention, and in fact in talking in an open hearing with one of the vice presidents of one of the carriers, he said categorically we will not accept the limitation on how long we have to hold the data. i think that is a glaring weakness in the u.s.a. freedom act, and in fact it led me to vote against consideration of the bill when it came -- 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 what i consider, technical but

very important aspects of this program, and one would require that if the carriers decide to hold the data for a shorter period of time, they would have to notify the government, notify the congress and we could then make a decision whether we thought that some additional required period of retention would be necessary in order to adequately protect 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 aspect would be extended from six months to a year simply because this is a major, one would say herculean technical task to develop the software to be sure this information would 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, is it an important program, is it worth maintaining? and 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, mr. president. it is part of our national security tool kit and it's interesting to talk about what is 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 we could not track phone -- phone connections not content. i'll talk about that in a minute but we could not track phone connections between the people who were preparing for the september 11 attack, and for that reason, the section 215

program was invented. and i want to stop for just a moment and make clear to the american people this program does not collect or listen to or otherwise have anything to do with the content of phone calls. as i talk to people in maine and they approach me about this, they say we don't want the government listening to all of our phone calls and the answer is they don't. and 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 the date. that's it. and an example of its usefulness was at the boston marathon bombing. the two brothers who 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 the country to determine whether this was a nationwide plot or whether it was simply these two guys in boston. that i would submit, is an important, some would say critical piece of information. now, it turned out 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 an important thing for us to know. and that's 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's the case. is it important and useful as a part of the national security tool kit? 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 he takes out his notebook and writes some notes. if we said 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, and since we're not talking about the content of phone conversations, we're 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's worthy of protection and

usefulness to this country. i think it's particularly important now and it's ironic that we're 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's terrorism 1.0. that's september 11. terrorism 2.0 is a plot that's hatched abroad but communicated directly to people in the united states who are part of the jihadist group. but now we're on to terrorism 3.0, which is isis sending out

what amounts to a terrorist a.p.b. to no particular person but to anyone in this country who has been radicalized by themselves by the internet. there's no direct connection between isis. it might be a facebook post. and that person then takes up arms and tries to kill americans, and that is what their intent is. that's the hardest for us to counteract and that's 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're not going to have the kind of specific plotting that we've seen in the past. this is the most dangerous threat that i think that we face today, and to throw aside a protection a safeguard that i

believe passes constitutional or legal muster, that goes the extra mile to protect the privacy rights of americans by getting this data out of the hands of the government, is one that is worthy of the support and the active work in this chamber to again find that balance, the balance between the imperative the most solemn responsibility we have in this body to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility, 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're doing this week, is to assess the threats assess the technology developments and try to find the right

calibration, the right balance that will allow us to meet that most solemn of our responsibilities. mr. president, i look forward to hopefully 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 24-48 hours so that we can look our constituents and the people of this country in the eye and say we took the responsibility to protect your security seriously. 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. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. burr: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

mr. burr: mr. president i want to thank my good friend, the senator from maine and a committed member of the intelligence committee one who has been vitally involved in the oversight of section 215. i think that's what's left out of the debate is that 15 members of the united states 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's used that frequently. that's the key thing. and i just want to reiterate some of the things senator king said. we're not listening to people's phone calls. there is no content collected. this program expired last night at midnight. and it means that that database

cannot be queried regardless of whether we find a terrorist telephone number. what it's important to remind my colleagues and the american people is, this is all triggered by a known terrorist number outside of the united states. now, in the case of the tsarnaev brothers, we had a 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 not by just going through the database and looking at who americans are calling and trying to figure something out. it's triggered by a foreign known terrorist telephone number and we search to see who that might have contacted in the united states. now, the fisa court only allows this data could be queried when there is a reasonable, are a kickualable suspicion or a ras as we call it. based on the facts that the

queries associated with a foreign terrorist or terrorist organization. if the n.s.a. can't make that case to the courts, that ras is never authorized to go forward. the n.s.a. is not searching through records to see who ordinary americans are calling. they're only looking for the terrorist links based upon a connection of a phone number known to be a terrorist phone number. now, my good friend from maine talked about the boston bombings. let me go back to some of the comments that the directorth of the f.b.i. said -- director of the f.b.i. said earlier this year or earlier last year. director mueller 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 f.b.i. before 9/11 the intelligence community we lost track about midhar, who lived in san diego and was tied to a

terrorist group in yemen and we lost contact about him but we knew the terrorist organization in yemen. if we had this in place we could have targeted the telephone numbers out of the cell in yemen to see if they contacted anybody in the united states of which they were contacting al-midh amp r. we could have put it together and found him after we lost him in flight coming from kuala lumpur coming to the united states. and director mueller said we saw on 9/11 what happens when the right information is not put together. had this program been in place it could have provided the necessary link between the safe house in yemen and almidhar in san diego. for those who have claimed this program served no purpose prior to 9/11 here's the director of the f.b.i. saying it would have and the boston marathon which told us there was no terrorist link and then we come to the

2009 new york city subway bombing plot. in 2009 while monitoring the activities of a terrorist group in pakistan nays noted contact from an individual in the united states subsequently identified as a colorado-based glassy under section 215, provided the information that helped thwart this plot. mr. president, i want to say this one time again to my colleagues. this program works. it has worked, it has stopped attacks because we've been able to identify an individual before they carried out the attack. now, if the threshold that my colleagues who say this has not served any useful purpose meaning you've got to have an attack to be able to prove you thwarted an attack, then, you know that's not why we've got this program in place. we're trying to get ahead of the terrorist act and 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, a dual u.s. and pakistan citizen was arrested by the f.b.i. as he tried to depart o'hare airport to go to europe. at the time of his arrest, they were planning to attack the dane irpublisher. and section 215 analysis was used along with the f.b.i. authorities to investigate headley's overseas associates and their involvement in headley's activities. i'm not sure how it gets any clearer than this. we have an individual whose radicalized, who intends to carry out an act who has overseas connections that we never would have understood without section 215. and i think that as my good friend from maine knows that

when you connect one dot typically it leads to another dot and leads to another dot panned to say to law enforcement, to say to our intelligence community we're not going to give you the tools to connect these dots is to basically stand up in front of the american people and say we're supposed to keep you safe but we're not going to do that. so i say to my good friend from maine, thank you for your support. i say to my colleagues, i hope we're 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 one will be a substitute to the full bill it has all the u.s.a. freedom language with two changes, it would require the telecom companies to provide six months notification of any change in the retention program of their company. that language was the senator from maine's suggestion and it works extremely well.

the second piece the substitute amendment will deal with the director of national intelligence certification that we made the technological changes necessary for the telecom companies to actually query that data that they're holding. there will be two additional amendments the first one will be to change the transition period from six months to 12 months and i think the senator from maine would agree with me i'd like to see it longer but anything longer than six months is beneficial as we talk about the safety and security of the american people. and the last one is the change in the amicus language or the friend of the court language. and i'll get into that in a little bit but the current bill says that the courts shall, shall means that they will do it. and what the court -- the administrator of the court has provided to us is 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, 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 really defeat the purpose of what we're doing and that's trying to be in front of an attack versus in the back of an attack. i say one last time for my colleagues n.s.a. under the metadata program collects a couple of things. they collect the telephone number they collect the date, they collect the duration of mime -- the duration of time that the call took place. they don't get content the person's name, they have no idea whose number it is and were they to tie a domestic number to

a foreign terrorist number that goes directly to the f.b.i. 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 f.b.i. under an investigation through the normal court processes that are not part of the 215 program. 215 limited to a telephone number with no identifier for whose number it is, the collection of the date and the duration of the call. and i think the gentleman from maine would agree with me, i'd just as soon see the program stay at n.s.a. but that decision is a fait accompli. it's going to transition out and we would just like to make sure we've got enough time so that

this can seamlessly happen versus an artificial date of six months and not knowing whether it can happen. i thank tax reform, the -- i thank the gentleman from maine and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following bills en bloc. calendar number 77, s. 184 and calendar number 79, s. 246. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 77, s. 184 a bill to amend the indian child protection and family violence prevention act and so forth and for other purposes. calendar number 79, s. 246, a bill to aestablish the walter sobalef commission on native children and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the

measures en bloc? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. hoeven: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment to s. 246 be agreed to the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: mr. president i rise today to speak about the native american children's safety act s. 184. this legislation which i have introduced along with senator tester is about one thing making sure that foster children in native american communities are placed in safe homes. without this legislation, there will continue to be inconsistent rules guiding the placement of native american children in

foster care. at this time native american tribes and their tribal courts use procedures and guidelines when placing a native american child in a foster home that very significantly -- vary significantly from tribe to tribe. s. 184 creates a transparent pathway for the federal government and the tribes to partner together to establish safety standards and policies to ensure the safety of native american foster care children. moreover this bill will strengthen the governance of the tribes and create safeguards for their foster care placement programs and the individuals that those programs serve. the native american children's safety act specifically includes the following reforms. it requires that all prospective foster care parents and adults living in the home undergo a background check prior to placement of a native american child in that home.

it requires that background checks including checking for criminal activity as well as state and tribal child abuse and neglect reg cities. it requires -- registries. it requires adults who join the household also undergo background checks and requires that foster care homes undergo recertification periodically to ensure they replain safe for foster care children. we worked on this legislation with the tribes, with national indian child welfare association, with the bureau of indian affairs and u.s. department of health and human services administration for children and families. reforms are just commonsense measures designed to protect those native american children who are in need of a good, safe home. in fact, s. 184 has been endorsed by the national indian child welfare association as well as the spirit lake and

turtle mountain tribes in my home state of north dakota. mr. president, this bill has undergone many thoughtful efforts on the part of many people and plenty of thoughtful consideration and it's gone through regular order in the senate and it passed unanimously out of the senate committee on indian affairs on february 4, 2015. i'm pleased that this bill now has passed the full senate so that these children can receive the protection they deserve. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. thank you. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i ask the senate's indulgence. i actually have three things

that i need to discuss here today, one involves this historic flooding that we've experienced in texas and the consequences of that. also the president's signing the justice for victims of trafficking act and lastly, the bill that's before us on the floor here today which is another tool in the toolbox of the national security apparatus in this country to help keep americans safe. first let me talk about the flooding and storm damage that's affected texas this last week or so. over the course of a month texas has faced a deluge of storms and rain, and according to texas a&m climatologists, may was the wettest month on record. now, texas has been in a drought for a number of years now and we're glad to get the rain, but we just wish that mother nature

had spread it out over a longer period of time. the national weather service reported yesterday that in may texas skies shed 37.3 trillion gallons of water which translates into almost eight inches of water covering the entire straight, a state more than 268,000 square miles large. unfortunately, this historic volume of water quickly turned into tragedy and massive destruction. many texans have experienced great loss. some have lost their homes as the rivers came down without any warning and washed their houses from their foundations but of course losing your home does not compare to the heartbreak of losing a loved one and tragically at least 24 people have lost their lives in the floods. but as usual despite the direst

of circumstances the texas spirit remains alive and we've seen many volunteers continuing to dedicate their time and efforts and to lend a helping hand. in women -- wimberly in central texas, a town hit particularly hard a group of students and adults helped organize a make-shift market in the high school gym. this same group helped consolidate and coordinate donations to give to those most in need. locals in the town of about 2,500 people have come to refer to this as the wimberly walmart. fortunately, stories like this of texans helping one another are not isolated. far from it, in fact. communities across the state are organizing donation drives to help those who have lost all their material possessions and many individuals have selflessly risked their own lives to help rescue strangers from the floodwaters and the rubble.

to these volunteers and the many first responders who are working tirelessly, we all thank you from the bottom of our heart. during these hard times, you have not only provided relief but you've also provided perhaps something more important and that's hope. i spoke to several local officials over the last couple of days, including nim kidd who is chief of the texas department of emergency management. nim is doing a terrific job in this very difficult position, and he is performing like the experienced public service that you would come to expect, particularly in dealing with disasters like this. nim said there's a lot of work to be done, and he told me that the rivers may not be back actually in their banks for two more weeks. that's assuming we don't get more rain. this weekend with recovery efforts in full swing and texas

beginning the painstakingly slow process of answering the painful question what now several texas rivers remain at flood stage in more than 100 different locations. so as we start to recover we're reminded that we need to remain vigilant. i was encouraged to hear nim's report that the assistance of fema and other federal agencies has been making a big difference. he was highly complimentary of their contribution. fema is just one example has rapidly deployed resources to help assess the damage done in local communities and we were both glad to see the president quickly grant governor abbott's request for major disaster declaration on friday night which will help texans get the resources that they need. i promised nim and others that i spoke to that i would continue to work with governor abbott and our state's congressional delegation to make sure that the federal government provides all the help texans deserve during

this difficult time. so to those suffering today i want to offer my deepest condolences and prayers. we'll continue to do everything we can here in washington and in austin and local communities who have been severely affected to give texans the help that they need. we have no time to lose in getting these communities back on their feet. and i know the people of texas will continue to help their neighbors across the state during their time of need and ensure that each affected community will make the fullest and fastest recovery possible. now, mr. president, on the second topic on friday, the president signed into law the justice for victims of trafficking act. i know i speak for all those involved in the long journey this legislation has led us on to say -- when i say that i'm thrilled that we're able to mark

this milestone. this is a perfect example of congress working together in a bipartisan way along with the president, to try to do something to help the most vulnerable people in our society, the victims of human trafficking. this is an important day as it shows both the victims of human trafficking as well as the predators who exploit them that congress on both sides of the capitol and on both sides of the aisle, take this issue seriously. and i want to express my gratitude to the organizations and the people who have helped get this done, lending countless hours and endless expertise to this cause. without their advocacy and their determination, this would not have been possible. so in particular, groups like human rights for girls shared hope international the national association to protect children, the coalition against trafficking women and to end

child prostitution and trafficking. but it's also important to remember who this bill is for and of course it's for the victims. typically a young girl between the age of 12-14 who may have left home expecting some adventure or something else other than what they ultimately experience, because many of them find themselves victims of modern-day slavery and victims of habitual sexual abuse. this is for the women like melissa woodward who i have met and she is from the dallas-fort worth area. at just 12 years old melissa was sold into the sex trade by a family member, as hard as that is to conceive of. her life became a prison. she was chained to a bed in a warehouse and endured regular beatings and rapes. she was forced to sexually serve between five and 30 men every day. melissa said at one point she wished she was dead.

so as heart breaking as her story is -- and it is heart breaking -- it is good to know that strong people like melissa along with what help we can give and others who wear for them can give can help them from living a life of victim hood and be transformed by their experience and to regain a new and productive life. so with this law we begin to provide for people like melissa the help they need to heal and importantly treat her and others and the victims they are not as criminals. so while i am thankful for what will be accomplished in this legislation, my hope is that we continue to fight the scourge of human trafficking using this law as the first step of many. and finally mr. president i want to speak about the efforts to reauthorize the critical provisions of the patriot act that expired at midnight last

night. as others have observed, there has been a lot of misleading rhetoric and down right demagoguery about this topic. the issue is actually pretty straightforward and simple. this is about how do we use all the tools available to us to keep our nation safe amidst pervasive and growing threats while at the same time preserving our essential liberties. this is not about trading one for the other. this is about how do we achieve the correct balance. despite our efforts last night this chamber was unable to come up with even a short-term solution to ensure that the key provisions including section 215 of the patriot act did not expire. and we know that any single senator could object to this extension that would have allowed us to continue our work without allowing this program to

expire. unfortunately, three of our colleagues chose to object to the commonsense unanimous consent request to allow those temporary extensions while the senate and the house continued their work. it's important to remember that these provisions of the law were created after september 11 and designed to equip those investigating terrorism with the basic tools used by ordinary law enforcement. why in the world would we want to allow certain investigatory tools to law enforcement but to deny them to keep america safe from terrorist attacks and that's what section 215 did and does and will do again once we resurrect it. and before it expired at midnight these provisions helped our intelligence and law enforcement officials, as i said keep the country safe. i really think, as i think about this and discussing with chairman burr and others who are very concerned about the safety

and security of our country and determined to protect the country by making sure that our counterterrorism efforts maintain every available legal tool consistent with our civil liberties, i think what's happened is we have fallen victim again to the pre-9/11 mentality of considering counterterrorism efforts to be a law enforcement matter alone. and of course our constitution like the fourth amendment to the united states constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, those are designed primarily in a criminal law enforcement context to make sure that american citizens' privacy is protected. but what many of the -- many of those who object to these provisions fail to acknowledge is that our intelligence community has to be able to

investigate and detect threats to the american homeland before they occur. after 9/11 where almost 3,000 people lost their lives sure, there is plenty of time to do a criminal investigation and law enforcement action, but we will have failed in our most essential obligation, which is to detect these threats ahead of time and to prevent them from ever occurring. well importantly as we discussed the week before last, section 2015 in particular includes vigorous oversight measures. this is -- it's important for people to understand that the executive branch -- in other words, the white house the legislative branch, which is both houses of congress and the courts are all very much engaged in vigorous oversight of these tools used to protect the american people. by taking this tool away from those investigating the constant

threat stream to american citizens, we have unfortunately given terrorists an advantage right here in our own back yard. as we have reiterated over and over again these threats to the homeland are real and they're growing and why in the world would we take time to gamble with our national security. the secretary of homeland security jeh johnson said our country has entered a new phase in the global terrorism threat as the so-called islamic state or isil continues to encourage people right here at home to take up the cause of global jihad, and perhaps that's to me the best and most concrete example. things like what happened in garland, texas just a few weeks ago when two people who had been communicating overseas with representatives of the islamic state were incited to take up arms against their fellow citizens here in the united states of america and why in the world would we want to deny

our law enforcement intelligence authorities lawful tools available to them to be able to identify people plotting threats against the homeland and to prevent those threats from actually being carried out and thank goodness, due to the vigilance of local police and other law enforcement authorities, what could have been a blood bath in garland texas, was averted. and so why in the world would we want to take a tool available to our intelligence and law enforcement authorities away and raise the risk that that attack here in the homeland would have been successful rather than thwarted? this is not just something that happened in garland. a few weeks ago f.b.i. director james comey described the widespread nature of the threats, so widespread in fact that he said all 56 field divisions of the f.b.i. have opened inquiries regarding suspected cases of home-grown terrorism. so let me repeat -- every f.b.i.

field division in the country is currently investigating at least one suspected case of home-grown terrorism. as my colleagues must know, we don't have to go very far to find other examples like the one i mentioned that manifested itself in garland. we read about examples regularly. just two weeks ago also in my home state of texas the f.b.i. arrested a man who had reportedly pledged his allegiance to the leader of isil. according to the leader of the f.b.i. he is just one of hundreds of isil sympathizers in the united states which ought to alarm us and be a call to vigilance and make sure we maintain every available legal tool consistent with civil liberties to protect our citizens. and so i think it's obvious that section 215 and the two

noncontroversial national security provisions at issue that it's obvious those should have have not been allowed to expire but unfortunately, they were and now it's our responsibility to fill that gap by passing this legislation and taking up the important amendments which will actually strengthen the house bill. we know that our country and our people are the target of terrorists again and we need to do everything we can to stop them. well my initial preference was to extend these portions of the patriot act for a short period of time so we could begin the debate and discuss the next best move to addressing these issues. without giving the terrorists any advantage by handicapping the men and women committed to protecting our homeland. at a threats to our country are increasing we should be enabling our intelligence officials and law enforcement with the tools they need and not stripping them of the authorities they require

in order to protect us. clearly a full extension of section 215 which was easily extended in 2011 is not possible at this time. but the last thing any one of us should do would be to allow this program to continue to remain dark. so i encourage more colleagues to join me in quickly working together to reauthorize these critical provisions. every day we allow these authorities to remain expired our intelligence officials are forced to act with one hand tied behind their back. we plan to make minor improvements in the house-passed bill and i think they make a lot of sense things like actually getting a certification by the director of national intelligence that this plan to let the telecoms continue to hold this information and then after a court order is provided to then allow that search, but certainly we should want to know whether this actually will work

in a way that's consistent with our national security. and so there's essentially the house provisions will be the base bill, are the base bill here but i think the chairman, chairman burr, and others on the intelligence community have recommended some really positive commonsense improvements which will make this bill better and working together with the senate and the house, i think we can make sure these necessary authorities are restored. as elected representatives of the american people it's our duty to make sure the balance between physical safety and civil liberties is struck, and we will do that, again, and we can do that responsibly by extending these authorities and coming together to find a long-term solution that keeps these invaluable tools in place. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? center the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i thank the majority whip for his comments and for his support of the extension of 215 and for what i think are some very reasonable changes to it. in some of the what the senator from texas said, it took me back to some of the hearings i know the presiding president was in when intelligence officials were asked about this transition and they were asked they simply, will it work? and the answer they gave was i think so. now, to an institution like congress where our number-one responsibility is the defense of the country "i think so" is not the answer that you base the change of a program. therefore, that's why there's a debate in washington right now

now in the senate, soon to be with the house as to whether six months is a sufficient time to be able to address it. i know the president of the senate heard individuals say from the justice department, well if this doesn't work, we'll get back to you on changes. one of the ropes that this tool is in place is because we identified shortcomings in our capabilities to identify terrorists post-9/11. now, let me revert back and i hate to go to history, but 9/11 as the majority whip said, was the loss of almost 3,000 lives americans and international lives. washington, new york, could have been this building. had some brave passengers not found out what they were up to

and stopped them. and i remember those days and weeks and months right after 9/11 as a member of the house intelligence committee and -- there are not many of us left who were here, i think only 40% of the senate was here on 9/11. and what were the questions that went through our minds? who did this? why did they do it? how -- how wide was the plan to attack us? and we had to start from a dead stop and try to figure out the answer to all these questions. it's amazing that in a very short period of time we were able to construct tools that made sure that america would never be faced with questions like that again. and if we were, that it would be a very short period of time, not weeks and months and in some cases years to connect the dots

and to try to figure out how to keep this from happening again. and 215 was one of the tools that was created as a result of 9/11 and i revert back to the director the f.b.i. who said last year that had section 215 been in place prior to september 11 the likelihood is that we could have connected the dots between a known terrorist that we lost track of by the name of almidh amp r who traveled from kuala lumpur to san diego before we had a no-fly list who communicated via cell phone with a terrorist cell operating out of yemen. and we had the numbers out of yemen, we just didn't have the number of al-med hear. had 215 been in place we could have tested against the database

that we had and the f.b.i., director's own words we probably would have stopped that component of 9/11. almidhar and his roommate were two that flew the plane into the pentagon. would it have captured everybody? possibly not. would identifying two individuals incorporated in a cell inside the united states, allowed them to work through traditional means and found the rest of that cell, those planes directed two planes towards new york and that fourth plane directed to the capitol. maybe. maybe it would have. maybe when you're trying to stop something is good. but when you're talking about eliminating something, i think we can do it doesn't meet my test. and that's why one of the amendments that i will ask my colleagues to vote on is second

amendment to make -- is an amendment to make the transition period 12 months. to allow the n.s.a. a sufficient amount of time to technologically prepare the telephone companies to be able to search their data in a time frame that we need to get in front of an attack versus in back of an attack. it's real simple. if it happens in front, it's intelligence. if it happens in back, it's an investigation, it's a legal investigation. it's already happened. we're trying to make sure we stay in front. i want to take just a moment to go over some myths and it's myths about the patriot act. here's myth number nine. the president put in flay place two panels, a review and annual a civil liberties oversight board and interestingly both panels told him the same thing that what he was doing was illegal.

fact president obama's review panels never opined on the legal yet of the program. it said the question of the legality under the fourth amendment is not before us. and it's not the review panel's job to resolve these questions of whether the program was statutorily authorized. myth fact. myth -- national security letter similar to that -- dissimilar to what we fought the revolution over. now, i'm not a lawyer. but given what we've been faced with since september 11, i think it would have been easier to go to law school an try to figure out some of these things. the national security letter despite its ominous sounding name is nothing more than an administrative subpoena. it has an authority equivalent to the authority postal

inspectors employ to investigate mail fraud or the i.r.s. acts use to investigate tax fraud. local inspectors and agents don't need, to issue the framer. the framers would be embarrassed if they had nor authority to investigate fraud an the federal government had to protect us from terrorism. the evidence, before 215 the f.b.i. would issue a national security letter that gave them expansive investigate georgiaory tools. now, they couldn't do it in a timely fashion but eventually they could not only get to a search of telephone numbers they could search financial records, anything about an individual. let me remind my colleagues what we're talking about in section 215, the metadata program we have never identified an american all we have is a pool

of telephone numbers with no person's name attached to them where we collect the date that it was -- the call was made, the duration of the call and the telephone number that it talked to. and the only way that that information can be queried is when we have a foreign telephone number that week to be the telephone number of a terrorist. where we were before was much more expansive with the national security letter but it wasn't timely. and if you want to be in front of an act you've got to be timely. that's how 215 was created. myth number seven. n.s.a. collects your address book buddy list, call records, et cetera, and put them into a data. i think the program is called snack, snac. they put it all into this data program and they developed a

network of who you are and who your friends are. myth. here's being fact. snac is the national security agency system and network attack center which among other things publishes a configuration guide to assist entities in protecting their networks against intrusion. its work could not be further from the allegation made. myth number six 12333 has no congressional oversight. that's a strange one to the intelligent committee that spends a lot of time oversight on 12333. it's simply wrong. senate resolution 400 of the 95th congress corrected the select committee on intelligence the c.r.s., the congressional research service points out the president has a responsibility to ensure the intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed.

intelligence activities of the united states. the committee receives reports on n.s.a. activities under executive order 12333. it is a part of the committee's mandate that we do successful oversight and it is a requirement of any president that they make sure that their administration fully cooperates and reports to both the senate select committee and the house select committee. inconsistent fit number five. the president started this program by himself he didn't tell us about it, maybe one or two people knew about it. again, actually, factually incorrect. every senator was put on notice of the program's existence in 2010 and again in 2011. and my gosh, it has been a national international debate over the last several weeks. smith number four, the patriot act goes from probable cause

which is what the constitution had, to articulable suspicion down to relevance. this statement conflates issues articulable suspicion and relevance are not two different standards for the same thing. they both must being present -- both must be present -- in the metadata program. fisa as med ad by section 215 of the patriot act allows the government to seek a court order requiring the production of tangible things upon a statement articulated statement of facts showing there is a reasonable ground to believe those things are relevant to an authorized investigation. this allows the government to seek call records from telecommunications companies. then when those records have been compiled into a database, that database can only be queried upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the

number to be queried is associated with a particular foreign terrorist organization. now, we keep getting back to this and of all the conversations that are said on this floor about intrusion into privacy one let me state the obvious fact again, it is hard for me to believe that we have invaded anybody's privacy when we have done nothing but grab a telephone number that we have no earthly idea who it belongs to. and the only reason that we would be concerned with that telephone number is if we called a foreign terrorist telephone number and we search it and find somebody in america that they've talked to. the that's it. that is the entirety of the -- that's it. that is the entirety of the program. and it is all predicated on the fact that we don't search any -- we don't query any data unless we have a foreign terrorist telephone number known and

that's what triggers the program to meet the threshold of the court for a requester rhode island the fisa court has somewhat become a rubber stamp for the government. first it is the -- the characterization is correct -- if the characterization is correct, then the federal criminal wiretap process it is even more rubber stamp for the federal government. thate approval rate for title 3 criminal wiretaps is higher than the approval rate of fisa applications. second this claim does not -- does a disservice to the practice of the fisa court where there's often a back-and-forth between the government as applicant and the court. again, this is not unlike the criminal wiretap process. the government often proposes to make an application before making its final application. the chief judge of the fisa court has said it returns or dough manneds modifications on these proposed applications 25%

of the time. in this respect the high approval rate of fisa applications does not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even held from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them. because it had not met the threshold. third, the government has every interest in self-selecting only meritorious applications to bring to the court. the government is a repeat player at the fisa court. it has well-earned a reputation as a broker of candor before the court, and there would be significant reputational costs to bringing non-meritorious applications to the court. so let me sort of put in layman is. the current wiretap standard, equivalent to to going to a fisa

court, approves at a 25% higher rate than the fisa court and the fisa court is the court that expedites time-sensitive investigations and time-sensitive intelligence requests. minimummyth number two the problem in the fisa court is when they take you to this court it's secret. true, it is secret. beer so are anybut so are any other judicial hearings subject to the court. and that court shuts down and goes into a nonpublic setting. just like this institution and we'll do it when we get into the appropriations bills ans when we get into classified appropriations. the doors will be shut, the galleries will be cleared the tv's will be shut off and we will do our business on secret classified information.

it's only real stliks to bleive that the court especially the court that hears the most sensitive cases would only hear those cases in secret because the cases cannot be presented in public. number wurntion the bulk collection of americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment protects upon unreasonable searches, a search occurs when the government intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. the supreme court has noted -- and i quote -- "that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties" -- unquote. the court has also squarely determined that a person does not have a fourth amendment protection privacy interest in the numbers dialed on his phone. telephone companies keep call records for billing purposes. when the government obtains

those records from a third-party telecommunications provider, a search has not taken place for constitutional purposes and, therefore, a warrant is not required. this program has been approved over 40 times by theifies ka is a court to exist. the program was instituted by the executive branch. the executive branch could end the program today. why don't they? they don't because this program is effective. this program has thwarted attacks here and abroad. and i know that individuals have come on the floor and they've said there's absolutely nothing that shows that section 215 has contributed to the safety of america. and i could only say that they are factually challenged in that. you would not have the majority of the intelligence committee on the floor lobbying for this program to continue in its

current form, and now we know that that's not going to happen, so we're trying to reach a modification of the current language so in fact we have a greater comfort level that the intelligence community can be in front of attacks and not behind them. so, madam president, i just within the to remind my colleagues that hopefully -- i just want to re-miewnd my colleagues that hopefully tomorrow afternoon we will to be a point where we're ready to vote on amendments, and there will being three amendments to the u.s.a. freedom act. the first one will be a full substitute. it will take all the identical language of u.s.a. freedom with two changes. one, it will require that telephone companies to notify the united states government six months in advance of any change they make in their retention policy of the data, the telephone numbers. i think this is a very

reasonable request that they give us six months' notice, if they are going to real estate duce the amount of time they keep that data. the director of national intelligence to certify at the end of the transition period that we can successfully make the transition and that technology is in place at the telephone companies provided by the government that they can query those numbers. in other words that they can search it and take a foreign terrorist telephone number and figure out whether they talked to an american. in addition to that substitute amendment, there will be two additional amendments. the first one will take the transition period that is currently six months in the bill and will simply make it 12 months. if i had my preference, it would be 24 months. but i think this is a fair compromise and my hope is that

matched with the certification of the d.n.i., that we'll be prepared to transfer this data but to continue the program in a seamless fashion though it will add some time -- yet to be determined -- to how quickly we can make the identification of any connection of dots. and the second amendment very specifically, will be addressing the amicus provision in the u.s.a. freedom act. now, i'm going to talk about amicus a little later but let me just say for my colleagues that the u.s.a. freedom act in numerous places it says that the courts shall provide a friend of the court. i'm not a lawyer, but my my understanding from those who are lawyers is that "shall" is an indication of "you must."

and the courts have told us that that will be cumbersome and difficult and delay the ability of this process to move forward. so the courts have provided for us language that changes it to where the fisa court can access a friend of the court when they feel that it's necessary but not be required to have a friend of the court regardless of what their determination is. we'll talk about that over the next just shy of a day but it is my hope to all the members that both all three of these amendments can be dealt with before 24 hours is up and that passage of the u.s.a. freedom as amend by the united states senate, can be passed to the house for quick action by the

u.s. house and hopefully by end of business tomorrow could be signed by the president and these very important programs could be back in place. i would make one last note, madam president that i'm sure americans find it troubling that this program is going to be suspended for roughly 48 hours. in the case of investigations that are currently under way they are grandfathered and the lone wolf and roving wiretap can be still used, but for new investigations it's got to wait for the reauthorization of this bill. from the standpoint of the metadata program last night at midnight -- last night at 8:00, it could no longer be queried and it woo woo won't won't be able to be queried until this is reauthorized. there is time sensitivity on us passing this, just like there's time sensitivity in getting the language of the this bill correct so in fact we can query

it, we can convect the connect the dots, we can get in front of the attack prior to it happening. so i urge my colleagues in the senate spend the next 24 hours understanding what's in the u.s.a. freedom act to look at the amendments. they are reasonable. they don't blow up this piece of legislation. they provide us the assurance that we can make this transition and that after we make the transition the program still works. i would urge my colleagues to support all three amendments. with that, madam president i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there any objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, madam president, it's time to et go the job done on fisa. it's time to get the job done. from the beginning of this debate, i had aimed to give senators a chance to advance bipartisan compromise legislation through the regular order. that's why i offered extension proposals that sought to create the space needed to do that. but as we all know, by now every effort to temporarily extend important counterterrorism tools, even noncontroversial ones was either voted down or objected to. so here's where we are. we find ash snefs ourselves in a

circumstance where important tools have already lapsed. we need to work quickly to remedy this situation. everyone has had ample opportunity to say their piece at this point. now is the time for action. that's why in just a moment i'll ask for a consent to allow the senate to consider cloture on the house-passed fisa bill, along with amendments to improve it today not tomorrow, but today. there's no point in letting another day lapse when the end game is clear to absolutely everyone. we know how this is going to end. when we've seen ruche such a robust debate already big debate, not only here in the senate but across the country, and when the need to act expeditiously could not be more apparent. so, madam president i ask unanimous consent that at 6:00 p.m. today the senate vote

on the pending cloture on h.r. 2048, the u.s. freedom act and that if cloture is invoked that all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote on the pending amendments under the regular order, that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time, as amended if amended, and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amed, if amended. mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: is senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i would be happy to agree to dispensing with the time and having a vote at the soonest possibility if we were allowed to accommodate amendments for those of us who opposeobject to the bill. i think the bill could be made much better with amendment ofs and if we could come to an arranges to allow amendments to be voted orntion i would on, i would be happy to

to. but at this point i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: madam president, without consent to speed things up, a cloture vote will occur an hour after the senate convenes tomorrow on tuesday. therefore, senators should expect the cloture vote at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president before recess, there was an attempt to try to bring finality before this bill expired. and at that time i reached out to my friend and colleague from kentucky, senator paul, and offered him my assurance as the manager of the bill that we would take up his amendments. but as the president of the

senate knows if any one senator objects to a vote, then a vote doesn't happen. and i consented at that time to allow that i would initiate a tabling of his amendment so that there could actually be a vote. there's been every attempt to try to accommodate amendments. and i think given the short time that we're dealing with, where we're trying to make sure that the expiration of these needed tools is as limited as we can the leader is exactly right. you can't go outside of the processes that were already triggered prior to this. so i think we've made every attempt to try to accommodate the current senate rules but unfortunately, there were objections to that as we departed town over a week ago and we're where we are. let me just for my colleagues' sake restate where we are. we've had the expiration as of midnight last night of section

215. section 215 has many pieces of it but three that are highlighted is, one the lone wolf provision. an individual who has no direct tie to a terrorist organization but could be radicalized in either in some type of communication, and lone wolf provides us the ability to target them without a direct association to a terrorist group. roving wiretaps, the ability to target an individual and not a specific phone. now, these two are noncontentious, and there was a request by unanimous consent yesterday before the expiration to extend those two pieces. there was an objection. the senate operates by rules. and when one senator objects everything stops. and for that reason, those two things expired last night. now let me say for the benefit of my colleagues and for the american people that any investigation that was currently underway as of 12:00 last night can continue to use those two

tools. what was affected while we're in this expiration period is that you can't open a new investigation and use those two tools to investigate that individual. so we are limited on anything that might have opened since 12:01 this morning. my hope is that the senate will dispose of all the 215 provisions by 3:00 tomorrow. we can turn the faucet back on; law enforcement can use those two tools. but the third piece has been the focus of contention in the united states senate and in the country, and it deals with a program called the metadata program, and it's a scary word. let me explain what the metadata program is. the n.s.a. receives from telephone companies a telephone number with no identity whatsoever. we refer to it as a de-identified number. and they put all of that into

one big data base. and the purpose of it is that when we find a known terrorist outside of the country and we have his telephone number, then we want the ability to query or search that big data base to see did that known terrorist talk to anybody in the united states. we actually have to go to court to the fisa court to get permission and we have to have articulate reasonable suspicion that there's a connection that that known terrorist telephone number can be tested against this data base. we collect a telephone number. we collect the date the call was made and we collect the duration of time of the call. there is absolutely zero -- zero -- content. there is zero identifier. there is not a person's name to it. and people have requested when the program is legal. it is legal because the court

has said when we turn over our data to a third party, we have no reason to believe that there's a privacy protection. therefore, when we get that data when we get that telephone number from a telephone company we throw it into a pool, the only person that should ever be worried is somebody who is in that pool that actually carried on a conversation with a terrorist. and if we connect those two dots a person in america and a known terrorist abroad, and they communicate, then it's immediately turned over to the f.b.i. for an investigation. it's a person of suspicion. we turn it over to law enforcement. law enforcement then goes through whatever court procedures they need to to investigate that individual. that is the metadata program. that is the contentious thing that has bogged this institution down to where we've let it expire. in most cases because people

have suggested it's something other than what i just described. i've read a lot of the myths and let me just go back through some of them again. i think it's important. myth number one the n.s.a. list ens to americans phone calls and tracks their movement. the n.s.a. cannot track their phone calls read their e-mails or track their movement. the n.s.a. is not targeting surveillance of americans. under the fisa court order the only information acquired by the government from telephone companies is the time of call, the length of call, the phone number involved in the call. bz the government does not listen to the call. it does not acquire the personal information of the call or the person who is called which is obtained only through a separate legal process including, if necessary, a warrant based upon probable cause, which is the highest standard that the judicial system has.

frankly, there is more information available in a u.s. phone book than what the n.s.a. puts in the metadata base. there is more privacy information that americans share with their grocery store when they use their discount card to get a grocery. there is more data that's collected at the cfpb on the american than the n.s.a. ever dreamed about but there's nobody down here trying to eliminate the cfpb, though i would love to do it tomorrow. but the fact is if this is about privacy, how can we intrude on anybody's privacy when we don't know who the individuals are of the phone numbers that we have? and the fact that the supreme court has said when you relinquish that information to your phone company, you have no right of privacy. myth number two: the n.s.a. program is illegal. there have been some that have come to the floor and said that.

the supreme court held in smith vs. maryland and the u.s. vs. miller that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone call records. like those obtained under section 215 those records are not protected by the fourth amendment under the current 215 program, the judges of the fisa court must approve any request by the f.b.i. to obtain information from the telephone companies. congress has reauthorized the patriot act seven times. the fisa court reviews the act in an application every 90 days, and the fisa court has approved the reauthorization of those 90 days extensions over 41 times. this is not a car on cruise control. this is a program that every 90 days the court looks at it and assesses whether for another 90 days we have the right to run the program. put on top of that, the congressional oversight of the program, it is probably the

second second- or third-most looked at program by the senate and house intelligence committees of any programs within our intelligence community. the third myth: the n.s.a. dragnet repeatedly abuses government authority. the government does not acquire content or personal information of americans under the section 215 program. the names linked to the telephone numbers are not available unless the government attains -- obtains authorization through a separate legal process including, if necessary a warrant based on probable cause. careful oversight of the program reveals that no pattern of government abuse whatsoever, in fact, after more than a decade critics cannot cite a single case of intentional abuse associated with fisa authorities. that's a far cry from the debate that we listened to, and i might say that has been covered on some of the national media. myth number four: the government

stopped only one plot using section 215. well for anybody that was listening earlier to me, i described four specific things that i could talk about in public. there were four plots. and a plot is something that you get to before an act is done. and we even talked about the tsarnaev brothers who committed a violent act who killed and maimed a number of people in the boston marathon. and we had the ability because we had a foreign telephone number that we thought was tied to the tsarnaevs that even after the fact we were able to go back and use 215 to see if there was a foreign nexus to an act that had already been committed. now, in this case we couldn't find that nexus but we had the tools available so that law enforcement could responsibly look at the american people and say we have done everything to make sure there's not additional

participants in this act that might carry it out at the next marathon or the next race or the next festival. and that's where our ability is supposed to be if in fact our oath of office as a member of congress is to defend the country. myth number five: the fisa court is a rubber stamp. despite all the claims, the fisa court approves 99% of the government's applications, the fisa court often returns or demands modifications to about 25% of the applications before they're even filed with the court. according to the fisa court chief judge the 99% figure does not reflect -- does not reflect -- the fact that many applications are altered prior to the final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely often after an indication that a judge would not approve them. now, let me put this in perspective. 25% more of the wiretap

applications are approved than of fisa. i mean that says enough right there. comparison to federal court documents which include a wiretap application is instructive. of the 13,593 wiretap applications filed from 2008 to 2012, the federal district court approved 99.6. and the only reason that fisa is at 99% is because when the government sees that they're not going to be approved, they withdraw the application. that seldom happens in wiretap applications. myth number six: there is no oversight in the n.s.a. the n.s.a. conducts these programs under the strict oversight of three branches of government including a judicial process overseen by

senate-confirmed judges appointed to the fisa court and a chief judge of the united states. republicans and democrats in congress together review, audit and authorize all activities under the fisa and there are few issues that garner more oversight attention by congressional intelligence committees other than this program. as well as the responsibilities imposed on the executive branch to make sure that the federal agencies in a timely fashion share all information with the select committee in the senate and the house for the purposes of oversight of our intelligence community. now, some have suggested that because the director of the n.s.a. says we think we can do this; we should just trust them. please understand the reason that we're having this debate, because some have suggested the n.s.a. can't be trusted. so let me once again state for

my colleagues, we're going to do everything we can to wrap this up by 3:00 tomorrow. the debate about whether the data is going to transfer from the metadata program at n.s.a. to the telephone companies has been decided. it will transfer. and what we will attempt to do over the next 24 hours is take up the u.s.a. freedom act. the exact language that was passed by the house with a substitute amendment that embraces all of the house language with the exception of two things. it will make two changes. it will require the telephone companies to provide a six-month notice of any change in the retention of their data policy. so, in other words if one telephone company has an 18- month retention program currently in place and they decide they're only going to hold the data for 12 months, they have to notify the federal government six months in advance of that change.

secondly it will require the director of the national intelligence agency to certify that on the transition date that the government has provided the technology for the telephone companies to be able to search the data in a timely fashion for us to stay in front of the facts. in addition to that substitute amendment, which i hope my colleagues will support because there are minimal changes, there will be two amendments to the bill. the first amendment will change the transition period from six months to 12 months, so where the director of the n.s.a. says i think we can do it in six months, to the intelligence committee, think you can do it is not a good answer. so what we're asking is that we go from six months to 12 months so that we can make sure that the technology is in place for this program to continue. and the last piece madam president, is a change in the amicus language of the bill or friend of the court language

in the bill. the bill itself uses the word that the courts shall which means must, have a friend of the court. in all cases that's not needed. if you applied it to all cases you have put in place a very cumbersome and timely process and when we're dealing with trying to get in front of an attack when we're dealing with individuals that are linked to known terrorists abroad, we want to have a fashion to query that data to search that data as quickly as we possibly can with the approval of the court. so what we've done is take in language that has already passed out of the intelligence committee, that has been signed off by the courts, that changes shall to must, that basically says the court has the opportunity any time they need a friend of the court's advice to turn to it and get it, but it doesn't require that they have a

panel set up that automatically sits in on every consideration because a judge doesn't always need that. as the president of the senate knows, the fisa court operates in secret, another criticism of many. well i don't want to share any secrets. sometimes the senate operates in secret. sometimes the intelligence committee, most of the time the intelligence committee operates in secret. and believe it or not sometimes the courts in our country operate in secret. they've got the authority to do it any time there is secret or classified information that can't be shared publicly. well that's all the fisa court does. that's the reason it's in secret. it's not because we don't want the american people to know that there is a fisa court or that there is an application or there is a decision made by the fisa court, but everything the fisa court takes up is secret or

classified, so it's got to be done in secret. just like some of the budgets and some of the authorizations we do in the united states senate that are classified, we should these doors we empty the gallery, we cut off the tv, we hash out the differences we come together and we've got a piece of legislation that only those people that are cleared can read. that's part of functioning and part of functioning from a standpoint of getting in front of terrorism is to make sure the tools are in place to not only allow intelligence but law enforcement to do their job and i think that when the american people understand how simple this program is, we take telephone numbers we take the date the call was made, we take the duration of the time, and if it connects to a known foreign terrorist number, then we turn it over to the federal bureau of investigation and they go to court to figure out whether this is an individual they need to look at. it's no longer part of the

intelligence community. madam president, it's a valuable tool. it's helped us thwart attacks in the past. my hope is that after we get through with business tomorrow about 3:00 p.m. that this will continue to be a useful tool, and i urge my colleagues to expeditiously consider not only the base language, the substitute and both amendments, and with that, i notice the absence of a quorum and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

ms. mikulski: madam president i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you very much madam president. i rise today to speak about where we are as we debate the various aspects of the u.s.a. freedom act. but before i go into that conversation and my statement on that i really want to note the very sad passing of our vice president's son beau biden who passed away at age 46 of brain cancer. of course, the world knows this now because of the news announcement but standing here on the senate floor where i served with the vice president when he was a united states senator i just personally wanted to express my condolences to him on behalf of myself, his

friends here in the united states senate, his colleague when -- on so many issues and also the people of maryland. once the news broke over the weekend, many people asked me in my own home state did you know him had you ever met him. there is just a general outpouring of sadness for his family his wife, his two children and, of course, the vice president and his stepmother jill. so mr. vice president if you have the opportunity to listen, know that the world is sending their thoughts and their prayers with you at this difficult time. but, madam president i also today wanted to speak about where we are in terms of our parliamentary situation. once again here we are in the senate when all is said and done more is getting said than getting done. i am a very strong proponent of the oath that i took to defend

the constitution of the united states against all enemies and by that i mean we've got to be able to protect this country and we need to have a sense of urgency about it. i am not only disappointed, i am deeply, deeply, deeply frustrated that the key authorities of the patriot act expired last night when we had a path forward on legislation that would be constitutionally sound, would be legal and would be authorized. but what did we do? we used parliamentary -- we got ourselves into a parliamentary quagmire. the filibuster of one individual that now has left us exposed in the world's eyes. we have major authorities given -- given to our intelligence community to be

able to pursue their surveillance of potential terrorists and they've expired. those from lone wolf, those from the roving wiretap some other aspects of this, and we just let them go at midnight. now, i hope that right now we do what we can to pass the u.s.a. freedom bill without delay. we need to get these authorities restored and yes do we need reform? absolutely. but let's not delay let's get it going. others are going to speak later on today on the merits of the u.s.a. freedom act. i believe it's our best opportunity to protect the nation while balancing privacy and constitutionally approved surveillance. i do support reforming the patriot act but

madam president, i don't support unilateral disarmament. i don't want to throw the patriot act away, i don't want to throw away our ability to place -- place potential 'tis under surveillance. i don't want to give in under the guise of some false pretext -- pretense about privacy that we're going say gee, i worry about my privacy but the terrorists don't need to worry school bus being able to -- about us being able to pursue them. our nation needs to know that when bad guys with predatory intent are plotting against the united states of america we're going to know about it and we're going to stop it. we're going to know about it because we have the legal authority to track them, put them under surveillance, and we're going to stop them before they do very bad things to our country. now, my comments today are to

stand up not only for the ability to have a law but also for the men and women who are working for the intel agencies, people who work at the national security agency in my own state, the f.b.i. and other agencies within our intel community that are essential to protecting our country against terrorist attacks whether it's a lone wolf or state-sponsored terrorism. these dedicated patriotic intelligence professionals want to operate under a rule of law. they want to operate under a rule of law that is constitutional, that is legal and that is authorized by the united states congress. they are ready to do their job but they wonder when are we going to do our job. congress needs to pass a bill as promptly as it can that is constitutional legal and authorized. we on the intelligence committee

have worked long and hard on such a legislative framework. we have cooperated with the people at the judiciary committee where senators grassley of iowa and leahy of vermont have also then worked and we worked together putting our best ideas forward doing the targeted reform that was essential, not pursuing unilateral disarmament and we now have legislation called the u.s.a. freedom act. is it a perfect bill? no it's not perfect but it is constitutional. if we pass it, it will be legal. and it will be authorized. you know, madam president i know you yourself are a military veteran and i support you for your service so you know what it's like when people try to trash america. and ever since eric snowden made his allegations the wrong people have been vilified. the men and women of our intelligence agency have been

vilified as if they were the enemy or the bad guys. i have the great honor to be able to represent the men and women who work at the national security agency and some other key intelligence agencies located in my state. they work a 36-hour day many times they've worked a 10-hour -- a 10-day week. when others have been eating turkey or acting like turkeys they were on their job doing their job trying to protect america. and let me tell you these people who work for the national security agency, for the f.b.i. and other intelligence agencies are patriots. they are deserving of our respect and one way to respect them is to pass the law under which they can then operate in a way that is, again, appropriate. these men and women at times ever since eric snowden have been wrongly vilified by those who don't bother to inform themselves about national security structures and the

vital functions that they perform. glynn one-liners and snacky comments have been the order of the day. now, the national security agency is located in my state but i'm not here because it's in my state. i'm located because it's in the united states of america. thousands of men and women serve in silence without public accolades protecting us from cyber attacks against terrorist attacks and also supporting our war fighters. i wish you would have the opportunity to come with me, madam president, sometime to meet them. they're linguists they're ph.d.es, the national security agency is the largest employer of mathematicians in america. they're the cyber gekas. many -- cyber geeks. if they had chosen to go to work in dot-commations they would have stock options and time off

and the financial rewards far beyond what government service can offer and we need to be able to support them, again with providing them with the legal authority necessary. remember that section 215 is such a small aspect of what these intelligence agencies do as they stand sentry in cyberspace protecting us. people act like that's all n.s.a. does. they haven't even bothered to educate themselves as to the legality and constitutionality of where we are. now, let's say where we are and let's say where we've been. much has been said about the patriot act. it's been sharply sharply criticized. there's been no doubt that it does require reform. that's why the congress in its wisdom when it passed the bill right after 9/11 put in a safeguard of periodic sunsets so that we could take a breather and see to make sure that what

we did was appropriate and necessary. congress did pass the patriot act, so the men and women at the intelligence agencies worked under what they thought was a rule of law that congress supported. president george bush also told us in his legal advisors -- and his legal advisors told us it was constitutional. so people believed it. those men and women at the intelligence agencies thought they were working under legislation that was constitutional legal and authorized because we passed it. well now others say it wasn't. others even want to filibuster about it. they want to quote the founding. well, i don't know about the founding fathers but i know what the founding mothers would have said. the founding mothers would have said get off the dime and let's pass this legislation. we do need good intelligence. in the the world of isis and

al qaeda the n.s.a. is one of our key agencies in the front line of defense and the people of the national security agency make up the front line. as many of -- as they looked at audits checks and balances, and oversight, there was no evidence of ever any abuse of inappropriate surveillance on american citizens. and we need to know that and we need to recognize that. those employees thought they were implementing a law but some in the media and even some in this body have made them feel like they were the wrongdoers. i find this insulting and demeaning. you know, the morale at the national security agency was devastated for a long time. people were vilified, families were harassed for even working at the n.s.a., and in some instances i heard even their children were bullied at school.

this isn't the way it should be. they thought they were patriots working for america. but our own actions of our own government have placed these workers what they feel under attack. they were attacked by sequester, they were attacked, they felt under attack by government shutdown because many of them are civilian employees at d.o.d., they were not paid and now congress' failure to reform national security has further then said, well, you know, we can take our time, what you're doing is important but you know, we got to talk some more, gee we got to talk some more. what do you mean we got to talk some more the only people in the chamber are my very distinguished colleague the distinguished colleague from indiana who i work in such a wonderfully cooperative way on the intelligence committee. you know, not bipartisan, nonpartisan for the good of the country. where is it? where does everybody want to

talk? do we see 10, 20, 40, 50 senators lined up waiting to talk? no we got to kill time. i don't want to kill time. i'm afraid americans will be killed. we got to get this legislation and we got to get our act together and we've got to pass it. i want the people to know that we cannot let them down by our failure to act and act promptly. so madam president i come to the floor today to say let's pass the u.s.a. freedom act and let's do it as soon as we can. there is no reason -- i know a vote has been set for 11:00 tomorrow. that that means that it will be -- let's see. it will be almost 35 or 36 hours since the authority's expired. then it has to go over to the house. so let's kind of move it and let's keep our country safe, and let's get our self-respect back. you know, for those who look at

our country there were two things two attitudes towards america -- three attitudes. one, great respect for who we are, our rule of law. the other was our fear because we are once the arsenal of democracy. and third a yearning to be in a country that worked under a constitution a congress work to solve the problems of the nation. could we get back to that? i know you want to get back to it. i know my colleague here wants to be part of that. so let's get back together shoulder to shoulder. we shoulder our responsibilities, pass the legislation we need to do, protect our country respect the men and women who work there and say to any foe in the world the united states of america stands united and it's willing to protect us, and to the men and women who work for us in national security, we will support you by passing legislation promptly that is constitutional legal and

authorized. so madam president i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president i want to thank my colleague from maryland a member of the senate intelligence committee. it's obvious that this is a bipartisan effort in dealing with the security of the american people. the senator from maryland is not from my party. together we serve on the intelligence committee. we have served hundreds of hours on that committee together, doing everything we can to provide our country with the opportunity to protect americans from harm. the threat to americans' harm today, to americans today has never been greater in my time on the intelligence committee. as we are dealing with the fires raging in the middle east and we're dealing with terrorist

groups forming as we speak targeting the united states and targeting americans and inspiring even americans to take up arms against their fellow americans for whatever jihadist cause or cause that they are using as the basis for the brutality that is spreading throughout the middle east and the brutality that can happen here if they respond to these inspirational social media requests from organizations like isis al qaeda and many, many others. now, i understand americans' frustrations and concerns about their civil liberties and their privacy, and those concerns have been bolstered by acts of government here that have been been -- acts that i think can hardly be explained as to why

this has happened. look at what's taken place with the i.r.s. talk about targeting people's personal -- invading people's personal privacy and their civil rights and using this organization of government, the power that it has to -- for political purposes is outrageous, and of course the american people are up in arms about something like this. the debacle of benghazi and fast and furious and on and on you could go over the years in terms of what has happened to instill distrust in the minds of the american people, and so when a program like this comes along and we are told unfortunately -- the american people are told by members of this congress falsities as to what this program is and what it isn't it just feeds that narrative that washington is in their bedroom

washington is in their home, it's in their phone it's listening to their calls washington is monitoring everything they do, their locations, when this simply is not true. we have an organization and a tool put in place with that organization the national security administration, following the tragic events of 9/11, that the american people insisted on putting in place. let's use the tools that we can to try to prevent another 9/11 from happening to try to identify terrorist attacks before they happen, not clean up after they happen but before they happen. and this program which has now been described, of course the frustration here for those of us on the intelligence committee is that we're not able to come down and refute statements that are false that are made here without breaching our oath to not release classified information. but we've had these briefings with all of our members that

some don't choose to attend and therefore their narrative continues with -- without any ability to publicly challenge what they have said. it has been said on this floor that big government is listening to everyone's phone calls. that is patently false. first of all it's impossible there are trillions of phone calls made every day throughout the world and the calculation is that it would take 330 million employees sitting there monitoring americans' phone calls to be able to listen to everyone's phone calls. so it's an impossibility, number one, and number two it's guaranteed that this is not happening because the authorities given to the national security agency prevent that from happening and there are layers and layers of attorneys and others who oversee this process including those of

us on the intelligence committees in the senate and the house, including the justice department including the executive branch. all three branches of government are so concerned that this program could potentially be abused that the oversight is such that it would take a monumental conspiracy involving hundreds and hundreds of people to all agree that, yes let's do this and breach the law. if what has been said on the floor about the nature of this program was correct i would be the first to line up and say i'm here to defend the liberties that are being abused by the government and i could guarantee to my constituents that this is a high priority for me that i not support anything that would violate their civil rights or violate their privacy.

and that is true of those of us on the intelligence committee whether we're democrat or republican. we've heard today from senator king who is on the committee. we've heard from senator mikulski who just spoke from maryland. we have heard from senator nelson who was formerly on the committee, on the democrat side. on the republican side, our leader of the committee senator burr has laid out in great detail how this works. the tragedy here is that in being forced to describe what the program is and what it isn't, we've had to unclassify information and guess who's listening. i hope a lot of the american people are listening because they need to understand that much of what they have heard is simply falsity. it's factually incorrect. i'm not going to go into why this has happened, why some members choose to say things like they're looking at every -- and i'm quoting here. it has been said on this floor.

big government is looking at every american's records. all americans' phone records all of the time. the n.s.a. collects americans' contacts from your address book, buddy lists calling records phone records emails. and do you want to live in a world where the government has us under constant surveillance? none of us want to live in that kind of world. that's why we live in america. that's why america is what it is. this is not stazi germany. this is not a communist regime. this is not a totalitarian society. we would not allow that here. our constitution guarantees us that privacy and we cherish that privacy and we protect that privacy. but to come down on this floor and make statements like that is -- it's irresponsible and it talks about a narrative here that is just not the fact, just

not the case. it's also been said dr poor ben franklin has been dragged into this because the quote that has been stated about franklin -- and that should drive our decision on this point -- was those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety. i agree with that but the key word here is essential and this matter has come before the supreme court and the supreme court has said what the n.s.a. is doing in storing phone numbers only, not names not collecting information is not essential to liberty and it's a -- they have declared it a necessary and effective tool that is open. the only thing that's in your phone record that you receive

every month and which is the date of the call, the number of the call and the duration of the call and the time of the call. and nothing more than that. and why is this done? it's done so that when we determine the phone number of a known terrorist in a foreign country, we can go into that haystack of phone numbers and say was that phone number connected to a phone number held by someone in america? and senator burr has gone through numerous situations and cases where had we previously had that, we potentially -- in fact the former director of the c.i.a. said we likely would have prevented 911 because we now know that a phone number in america was connecting to a phone number of a terrorist group, al qaeda, and we could

have gone to -- taken that information to the fisa court or to a court and gotten permission to check into that to see if that was leading to some kind of terror attack. it doesn't take much to recall the images of what happened on 9/11 where we were, what horror we stood and watched coming over the airwaves and the tragedy and the loss of life that took place that is changing the face of america. so it's important that we tell the american people what it is and what it isn't. it's important that members take responsibility to understand that this is an issue that rises above politics. this is an issue that cannot be used and should not be used for political gain, whether that's monetary gain or whether that's

feeding a base of support that responds to the scare tactics of america listening to all of your calls, big government in all of your business. this is too important an issue. this is the safety of america. this is preventing us from terrorist attacks. that threat is real. it's more real than it's been in a long, long time. so i talked yesterday about the existing program what it was and what it isn't. it's been talked about here by my colleagues on the floor. we have moved to a point where we have to choose between the best of two worst choices. one choice is that we stay -- we eliminate the program. one of our members here in the senate has publicly indicated that that's what he wants to do.

he claims it's unconstitutional, and unfortunately he doesn't have the support of the supreme court who have dealt with this issue nor legal constitutional lawyers. that is a case that just simply cannot be made. because it doesn't impede on anyone's liberty. again, i would say if it did impede on americans' liberty, i would be the first in line to state that and to fight against that. but it's a -- it's a solution to something that's not a problem. but secondly because one individual would not grant even the shortest of extensions, even an extension on two noncontroversial parts of this program that no one has

challenged to allow that to go forward so that we could keep something in place to address a potential threat that could happen. even that was denied us last evening as the clock was ticking toward midnight and the program expired. someone who was so determined to eliminate this entire program who has misrepresented this program to the american people, so determined to stay with his narrative that he would not even allow an hour, not even allow a day, not even allow minutes for us to try to reconcile the differences here with the house of representatives and those differences are pretty small. now senator burr has been in negotiations with the house and with members of the senate

relative to some changes and modifications in the u.s.a. freedom act which was supported by a significant majority, bipartisan majority in the house of representatives. i think that is a step in the right direction. it doesn't solve all the problems. my concern with the freedom act is the concern of many and that is the act has some major flaws, some which i thought were fatal. but i have to measure that against nothing. and sometimes -- and we have been left, thanks to the procedural maneuvering of one member here, we have been left with only two choices. senate majority leader laid those out in some clarity yesterday and today. and the choices are completely eliminate the program go completely dark, take away this tool, put americans more at risk thanks very much, but it's over, and try something

else. or a provision that has been passed by the house of representatives, that moves collection of the phone numbers from n.s.a. to the telephone companies. now, the problem with the bill is it doesn't mandate that movement. it's a voluntary act that phone companies are most likely not going to want to adhere to. and primarily because they now have to set up a situation where they potentially could be liable for breaches of the people who are overseeing their program. now, there are 1,400 telephone companies in the united states. many of them are small. but to move this program which has the oversight of six layers of oversight at n.s.a., which was the oversight of the senate intelligence committee and the house intelligence committee

the oversight of the department of justice and the administration and of a federal court, the federal intelligence security court called fisa, all of that security, oversight to make sure there is no breach now gets transferred over to up to 1,400 telephone companies. now, the people that oversee this program it's a very small number at n.s.a. that operate this program. they have had intensive background checks security clearances they have proven their commitment to make sure to do everything possible not to abuse this program and there's never been a documented case, never one case of abuse of this program. again, a solution to something that isn't a problem. all of a sudden now we have

dozens if not hundreds if not more than a thousand phone companies all putting their own program in place. this is not something they would like to do number one because it's going to be costly, and number two they can't guarantee every one of their people will have the same background checks and security checks as n.s.a. has. they will not have the oversight of the intelligence committees, of the justice department, of the executive branch. we are trusting a private entity to do the kind of things that multiple agencies, and you can count on some breaches of security there as people want to use the capability to abuse that program for whatever reason. maybe they're checking up on their wife or their girlfriend or their business partner or who knows for what possible reasons they could use this. so it really doesn't add privacy protection.

it detracts from privacy protection. secondly the retention of records, it's voluntary. they now if we have some amendments that are passed by this body and accepted by the house, we will get notification if a company doesn't want to retain those records. but there's no -- there's no retention authority granted here to us to ensure that those companies will keep any records, keep any phone numbers, and then the capability of the program will be significantly reduced. we're having to put in a very sophisticated program that the n.s.a. says we're not sure it's going to work. we're not sure if this process that the freedom act requires to replace what we have now is going to be effective and it's going to take many months to determine if that is the case. and so it's an untested program that we are putting a bet on that this is going to work.

and it would be nice to know that we have something in place that we could easily replace this with. so we're going from the known to the unknown. and we're making a bet that this is going to be more effective and provide more privacy for the american people. it's a -- it's a diminishment and a significant degradation of the current program and it will not be as effective as the program that is currently in place. nevertheless we have to weigh this against nothing and that's the position we've been put in because one senator would not allow an extension of time for us to come to a more lengthy debate and reasonable negotiation in consultation with the house of representatives to arrive at something which would give us more assurance that we have a program in place that

doesn't breach privacy but allows us to detect potential terrorist attacks and stop those attacks before they take place. madam president, it's -- having had to go through all this and raise the kind of issues here and talk about a fellow colleague is not fun. and it's not something i hoped i would ever have to do. but i could not stand by and watch a program that is helping protect the american people from known terrorist threats and their safety be jeopardized by falsities that are being said about what this program is and isn't. and i'm hoping now -- and it

looks like we are coming together on something that is far from what we need that's going to significantly degrade our capability but it's the only choice that we have. and we're going to have to weigh that decision is something that is far less better than nothing. and ultimately given the fact that these threats have never been greater something even if it's not what we now have, something is better than nothing. but we've been put in this situation unnecessarily by a misrepresentation and a public that hasn't been informed it's not their fault we haven't been able to because so much of this has been classified. our adversaries the terrorist

groups they know a lot about the program they didn't know before. thanks to eric snowden and thanks to some misrepresentation, we are left with a devil's bargain and that is to choose the best of the worst. we'll talk this through today we will have that vote tomorrow in my mind, it's absolutely essential that the modifications that are being made and being presented -- i won't go into depth about talking about those it's already been talked about here. it's essential that those be passed by this body and, of course it's essential that the house accept them. i know a lot of negotiation to be going on back and forth and it will continue to do so, but it's the only way to keep a program in place even degraded as it is and compromised as it is. it's the only way to keep a program in place. so i will be supporting those

tweaks those changes even though i think it's far short of what we need to do to fix the issue that was rushed through the house without much deliberation but to make it stronger to put us in a better position i will support those. and if those amendments can be passed then i will reluctantly choose to vote for something that is better than nothing as degraded as it is, in order to keep this program as one of the essential tools, and it's one of many, as we collect information to keep that in place. madam chairman, i know my colleague from ohio has been seeking the floor for some time. i apologize for taking too long but i now yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio.

mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent following my remarks that senator connecticut be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that -- to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: with a microphone, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: first i want to offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to vice president biden and the entire biden family. the vice president has been met with more personal tragedy than any person should have to endure in my lifetime. he's faced it all with remarkable grace he's perseveressed to -- persevered to accomplish so much good for his state and his country and we are indebted to him for that. i know he and jill and the whole family are in our thoughts and prayers today. madam president, turning to the business before the senate this month, business that should be in front of the senate this month, the senate banking committee will hold two hearings

beginning tomorrow on the export-import bank. it's you know he want that the senate move to reauthorize the ex-im bank before the charter expires on june 30. frankly, madam president i find it both curious and alarming and also troubling that we seem to be doing this over and over. we do a transportation bill only for a few weeks or a few months. we do the ex-im bank for only a few weeks or a few months. when we act that way it's wasteful it's alarming to many it makes it almost impossible for companies and states -- state departments of transportation and state development agencies to plan. it means that far too many companies simply can't attract the investment that they need because of the uncertainty. and when i hear people complaining in this body of the uncertainty of government and of government action and then it's

those same people that so often block the export-import bank, want to stumble along for a few weeks of reauthorization or block a transportation bill, it clearly undermines our ability for our economy to grow and clearly undermines and erodes any kind of investment and planning that we should be doing. today's global economy we should providing american businesses with predictability and support to sell their products around the globe. this shouldn't be crystal. like a transportation bill the export-import bank, at least it used to be, there was unanimity. there was consensus there was for instance in 2006 the ex-im bank was passed by unanimous consent. for those obviously not necessarily conversant with senate-speak, unanimous consent means nobody comes to the floor and objects. that means unanimous.

it means we move together as one to try to do something which obviously adds to our g.d.p., helps our workers helps our communities. i know in places like columbia and mahoning county in ohio and dayton and toledo, that i know what globalization has done to our economy and i know that when we can do some things like export-import bank and long-term transportation bills and planning, it helps the economy grow and i know what plant closings where met in mansfield and lima, and hamilton, when a plant closes, not just hurts that family where the employee works -- of the employee, it hurts the business, it hurts the community, it hurts the local hardware store and everybody else. the ex-im bank we know supports thousands of businesses large and small hundreds of thousands of american jobs. according to the ex-im bank's

estimates, supported $27 billion in exports 160,000 american jobs. it reported supporting $250 million in deals in just ohio alone. my state 60% of which went to small business. opponents who like to talk about corporate welfare the same people that by and large vote for trade agreements and tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle-down economics those same people say this is corporate welfare. no really it isn't. it's aimed primarily at small businesses. the ex-im bank fills gaps in private export financing. it charges fees and interest on loan rate-related transactions much the ex-im bank covers its operating costs and loan costs. last year ex-im returned $600-plus million to our treasury so it doesn't cost taxpayers. it actually brings money to our country, money that otherwise might go to foreign imports as if we don't have a big enough

trade deficit this would make it worse. we know that our competitors have their own export-import banks. there are some 60 of these around the world. why should we disarm and put our manufacturers and exporters exporters at a competitive disadvantage? that's what we'll do if the bank's authorization expires at the end of this month. we need to give our companies our businesses, our workers the same leg up as they compete around the world. this should be about as obvious as it gets. leader mcconnell is committed to giving us a vote on ex-im reauthorization before it expires. i hope that he can manage it better than he managed the patriot act fisa, the most recent issue the n.s.a. that's been it front of the senate, and better than he could manage the trade bill, that pushed all of this into this week and caused, as senator coats said, rightly caused this law to spierks which was a mistake.

we should be planning here better. we should be coming together on issues where we can come together. we could have come together on n.s.a. earlier. we could have come together on trade a little bit better earlier and we can certainly come together on a transportation bill and an ex-im bank bill. i urge my colleagues to the house to act to reauthorize the bank supporting u.s. exports should a cause we all get behind. we've seen too many issues come of the senate with bipartisan support to watch them die in the house. we can't let that happen with the export-import bank. i hope my colleagues will join in pressing our counterparts in the thousands get this done. we need do it. the house needs do t we need to provide american workers the support they need to sell our products around the globe. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president i feel my speaking at this moment is appropriate because much of what i have to say follows logically from the last words of the presiding officer when he spoke recently on the u.s.a. freedom act because i agree with the presiding officer

when he said that we need a bill, we need to move forward and approve reforms and changes in the law that are contained in the u.s.a. freedom act. we may be in disagreement about some of the specifics. we may be in contention about the extent of the changes made. but there is a general consensus that this decade and a half-old law is in need of some revision and that the u.s.a. freedom act contains many, many important and genuinely worthwhile changes in the rules that will apply. as the united states hopes to protect our security but also to safeguard and preserve essential rights and liberties. that's the balance that needs to be struck. a difficult balance in a

democracy, one of the most difficult in an area where secrecy has to be maintained because surveillance is more useful if it's done in secret. but, at the same time, rights need to be protected in an open society that prides itself on transparent and accessible courts. changes in the rules are welcome, such as the end to the present system of bulk collection of phone data. we may disagree on that point. changes in the rules that i support may not be supported by many of my colleagues. i believe the u.s.a. freedom act goes in the right direction on bulk collection of phone data by ending the current practice in its present form. what brings me here is not so much a discussion about the rules as the method of enforcing

those rules and implementing and assuring that they are faithfully executed, which is the role and the responsibility of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, in the first instance. inthere are means of appeal. but but that one is likely to be the end destine nilings destination on most issues especially since it operates in secret. the u.s.a. freedom act again goes in the right direction by making it more transparent and requiring disclosure of significant decisions and opinions when it is appropriate to do so. and under circumstances that in no way should involve compromising our national security striking again a good balance.

but this court, we have to recognize, is an anomaly in an open democrat system. its secrecy makes it an anomaly. it works in secret, hears arguments in secret, issues opinions in secret, it's decisions are almost never reviewable and it is, unlike most of our institutions, opaque and unaccountable. understandably so because it deals with classified, sensitive issue: protecting our national security against threats that cannot be disclosed when they are thwarted in many instances, the success of actions resulting from the fisa court are most valuable when they are known to

most american people. so this court is special. it's different. but let's not forget that if we were to say to the founders of this country, there will be a court that works in secret, has hearings in secret, issues opinions that are kept secret, and its decisions decision will have sweeping consequences in constitutional rights and liberties, they would say that sounds a lot like the courts that were abhorrent to us, so much so that we rebelled against the crown who said in the star chamber, in courts that england had at the time, there's no need for two sides to be represented there's no need for openness. secret one-sided courts were

one of the reasons that we real estate belled and men and women -- that we rebelled and men and women laid their lives on the line and lost their homes and treasures and families and paid a price for open and democratic institutions. so we should be careful about this anomalous court that may be necessary but we should try to make it work better than it has. and so transparency, the issuance of opinions, is very much a step in the right direction where the issues are significant and the transparency of those decisions is consistent with our security. at the moment, there may be a delay, but we should remember that the bulk collection of phone data, which the united states court of appeals for the

second circuit said was illegal persisted for so many years because the decision itself was never made known to the american people. there is another reform that i think is equally if not more significant. courts that are secret and one-sided are likely to be less successful not only because they're secret but because they're one-sided. as part of this reform i've worked hard and, in fact, proposed for the first time a bill that would create an adversarial process. two sides represented before the court. a bill that i sponsored in 2013 to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance court in fact, was joined by 18 cosponsors. i thanked them for their support. both sides of the aisle. and the basic structures that i propose are reflected in the u.s.a. freedom act today.

colleagues work with me and have -- colleagues worked with me and have since on formulating that bill and averriving at this moment -- and arriving at this moment where the central goals would be accomplished by section 401 of the u.s.a. freedom act which provides for the appointment of individuals to serve as amicus cure amicus curiae friends of the court. that provision would be egregiously undercut, in fact gutted by mcconnell amendment 1451 because it would prevent these lawyers the amicus curiae that would be selected by the court, from obtaining the information and taking the actions they need to advance and

protect the strongest and most accurate legal arguments and thus really eviscerating the effectiveness of this provision as a protection. it's a protection of our rights and liberties because these amicus curiae would be public advocates protecting public constitutional rights and they would help to safeguard essential liberties not just for the individuals who might be subjects of surveillance, whether it by wiretap or by other means by for all of us because the foreign intelligence surveillance court is a court. it's decisions have the force of law. its members are article 3 judges selected to be on that court sworn to uphold the law both constitutional law and statutory law. and so this provision in my

view is fundamental to the court as a matter of concept and constitutional integrity. that integrity is important because it is a court but it's also important to the trust and confidence that people have in this institution. i was a law clerk to united states supreme court -- specifically to justice blackman -- and i well recall one of the justices saying 10 me, you know, we don't have armies, we don't have police forces, we don't have even the ability to hold press conferences. what we have is our credibility and the trust and confidence of the american people. that is so fundamental to the courts of this nation who

consist of judges appointed for life without any real direct accountability as we can be held to be through the elective process. the foreign intelligence surveillance court has taken a hit in public trust and confidence. there is a question about whether the american people will continue to have trust and confidence and whether that sense of legitimacy and credibility will continue. and the best way to assure is to make the court's process as effective as possible, not just in the way it operates but the way it is seen and perceived to operate, the way the american people know it should operate and the way they can be assured that their rights are protected

before the court by an advocate, an amicus curiae who will protect those rights of privacy and liberty that are integral to our constitution and the reason why the founders rebelled against the english. but there is another reason why an advocate presenting the side opposing the government is important to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and that is everybody makes better decisions when they hear both sides of the argument. judges testified at our hearings in the judiciary committee about the importance of hearing both sides of the argument, whether it is a routine contract case or a criminal trial where by the

way, often a judge's worst nightmare is to have the defendant represent himself because the judge is deprived, and so is the jury, of an effective argument on the other side of the government. and so too here. we were told again and again and again by the judicial officers who testified before our committee -- and i've heard it again and again and again as i've litigated over the last 40 years -- that judges and courts were best when they hear both sides. i have no doubt that the judges of the fisa court believe as strongly in constitutional rights and implementation of constitutional law as anybody in this body, including myself. i have no doubt that the government litigators who appear before the court representing

the intelligence agency seeking warrants or other action and approval by the court have a commitment no less than anybody in the united states senate, including myself, to those essential values and ideals. but courts are contentious. they are places where people argue, where sides different sides are represented. different views of complex questions and these issues before the court are extraordinarily complex. they also involve technology that is fast-changing and often difficult to explain and comprehend and easily minimized in the consequences that may flow from approval of them. and so the u.s.a. freedom act would provide for in effect a panel of applicants and experts

with proper security clearances that the court can call upon to give independent informed opinions and advocacy in cases involving a novel or significant interpretation of law. not every case, not every argument but where there is, for example the issue of whether the statute authorizes the bulk collection of phone records. i tend to think that the outcome would have been different in that case if the court were given the opposing side of the argument the argument that eventually prevailed in the united states exreels for the second -- the united states court of appeals for the second circuit by a unanimous bench. so the court really deserves this expertise. it deserves the other side, and

it deserves to hear both sides of the argument. and just to clarify those two sides of the argument should not be in any way given so as to detract from the time necessary if there's an urgency. the warrant should be issued and the arguments heard later just as they are in a criminal court. when there is an exigency of time -- and i've done it myself as a prosecutor -- the government's lawyer should go to the judge be given approval for whatever is necessary to protect the public or gain access to records that may be destroyed or otherwise safeguard security, public safety. and that should be the rule here too. now in the normal criminal setting, at some point a significant issue of law is going to be litigated if the evidence is ever used, and that's the basic principle here

too. if there is a novel or significant issue of law, it should be litigated at some point. and that's where the amicus curaie could be involved. security clearance is essential. timing is important. and there should be no compromise to our national security in the court hearing the argument that the advocate may present on the other side. it can only make for better decisions in -- in fact, it will benefit all of our rights. these provisions were written in consultation with the department of justice attorneys who advocate before the fisa court. they are supported by the attorney general and the national director of

intelligence. they reflect a balance in compromise that appear throughout the u.s.a. freedom act. amendment 1451 would upset this balance. it would strike the current provisions providing for the appointment of a panel of amicus curiae, the provisions that represent a carefully crafted balance. and it would compromise those provisions in a way that need not be done because this balance has the support of numerous stakeholders from civil liberties groups, to the intelligence community. and it would replace this balance, this institution with an ineffective far less valuable advocate. there is no need to water down and undercut and eviscerate the role of the independent experts by removing requirements for the court to appoint a panel of experts to be on call for the

experts to receive briefings on relevant issues and significantly to provide those experts with access to relevant information. those provisions aren't necessary and unwise. and, therefore i oppose strongly amendment number 1451 because it does unnecessarily and unwisely weaken the role of these experts and amicus curiae. equally important amendment 1451 would limit access and significantly restrict the experts in their going to legal press dents pe -- precedence, petitions and other materials; restrict their access unnecessarily and unwisely and thereby endanger those rights and liberties that the advocates, the advocates are there to protect. and it would also restrict their ability to consult with one

another and share insights they may have gained from related case as government attorneys are currently able to do. by undercutting these essential abilities and authorities this amendment would hamstring any independence both in reality and in perception and thereby also undercut the trust and confidence that this act is designed to bolster and sustain. in short i know that many people of good conscience may disagree over the best way to reform this law. i accept and i welcome that fact. i welcome also my colleagues' recognition that an amicus curiae procedure in some form would benefit this court. but i urge my colleagues to

reject an amendment that would lessen its constructive and beneficial impact. we've already delayed long enough this amendment would not only weaken the bill, it would exacerbate the delay bill sending this bill back to the house. and we all want to avoid a very, very potentially troubling delay in approving this measure. i have been dismayed by the divisions and delay that have prevented us from finally approving the u.s.a. freedom act before the existing law expires. we should move now. we should act decisively. we should adopt the u.s.a. freedom act without amendment 1451 which would simply further erode the trust and confidence, the legitimacy and credibility of the foreign intelligence

surveillance court. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment and passing u.s.a. freedom act in its current form, avoiding the delay of sending it back to the house and then potentially it coming back to the senate so that we can tell the american people that we're protecting the strongest, greatest country in the history of the world from some of the most pernicious and perilous terrorist forces ever in the world's history. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: if the senator would withhold his request we may have another member who would like to speak. mr. blumenthal: i will withhold my request and i would just add while we're waiting for my colleague to take the floor that i want to join a number of my colleagues. i had intended to speak separately and i ask that this part of my remarks be printed

separately. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i join many of my colleagues in our feelings and expression, deep sadness on the loss of beau biden, one of our nation's greatest public servants one that i was privileged to join in serving with as attorney general. he as attorney general of delaware and i of connecticut. i knew beau biden well and in fact sat next to him at many of our meatings at the -- many of our meetings at the national association of attorneys general. there was no one i met as attorney general who was more dedicated to the rule of law to protecting people from threats to public safety and respecting their rights and liberties in

doing so. and his loss is really a loss to our nation as well as to the vice president's family. my heart and prayers go out to them. i know how deeply the vice president loved beau biden and how much as a dad his death will unspeakably and unimagineably affect him. and so i want to express on behalf of cynthia and myself our thoughts and prayers which are with the vice president and his family at this point. thankyou, mr. president. i yield the floor.

ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: since march i've been speaking on the senate floor about the 198 north dakotans who died while serving our country in vietnam but today i'm going to talk about something a little different. i'm going to talk about projects that were made by the bismarck high school juniors in commemoration of these servicemen who gave the ultimate sacrifice in vietnam. three bismarck high teachers: larry -- laura forty and sarah remus and sarah rendell are working with their high school students. partnering with these high

school students to learn about and h honor these men. in addition to conducting research contacting families and writing essays about these north north dakotans who died in vietnam, the bismarck high students took this information and created artifacts to further honor these men. it is their goal to place these artifacts by the soldiers' names at the vietnam memorial wall when these students come to washington, d.c. this fall. over 150 students worked in groups or individually to create some truly amazing artifacts. it was difficult to single out a few to share with you today on the senate floor but know that the artifacts i describe today are truly examples of this wonderful project that has connected these young students with the stories and the families of the young men who gave their lives for our country almost 50 years ago. the first artifact i'll show you is for john lundeen.

mackenzie rid dell, brittany hawkenson are bismarck high juniors who reached out to john's son and daughter-in-law. the girls learned that john wanted to be a farmer after completing his army service and painted a farm scene on the scoop of a shovel. on the shovel's handle they wrote john's date of birth and death in purple to represent his purple heart medal. also on the handle they paibted a bronze -- painted a bronze star and silver star, medals john earned while in service. john's family worked with the students to commemorate john's service. they mailed the students soil from kansas where john intended to farm and a small john deere tractor on the lid. the students placed the kansas soil in a jar with north dakota soil and put a tractor on the lid. if it works out john's son and daughter-in-law may try and join the students in visiting the vietnam memorial wall in november to place these

artifacts by john's name. hunter lauer and kara wetzell paired up to research the life and death of roy wagner who was appear student at bismarck high, about 50 years before them. in high school, roy was a lineman on the football team and wore number 62. hunter and kara decorated a bismarck high football jersey with roy's last name and wrote his dates of birth deployment and death in the number six and the medals he received for his service and sacrifice in the number two. hunter and kara compared roy's position to the position on the battlefield protecting his comrades and friends. hoping his tribute to naval seaman richard -- mitchell

hamsey for a long time, he carved his initials into a piece of wood. logan hand carved the full a.p.l. 30 emblem into wood and then protected the project with a coat of lacquer. the emblem consists of stars and stripes on the left, three bars on the right and an apple in the middle for a.p.l. or auxiliary personnel lighter. logan is looking forward to the placement of his project in honor of mitchell at the vietnam wall. ashley erickson, caleb conzits and sam stewart are the three students who researched the life and death of marine corps captain earn islamic state bartolina. earnest was flying a helicopter on a medevac mission when his helicopter was shot down and he was killed. to honor him the students

placed a small purple heart medal on a model chinook helicopter. they decorated the board that holds the helicopter with music notes because earnest played the french horn and with the marine corps and purple foxes emblem to represent that he belonged to the h.m.m. 364 squadron. caden freeman also created an artifact to commemorate the life of ernest bartolina. he drew his medevac helicopter in a jungle setting of vietnam. in the helicopter, he incorporated photos of men who serve in vietnam stating the reason i made this collage of the soldiers in vietnam was to represent ernest bartolina and the fallen soldiers of the war with the medevac in which he died in. i think that this is a good representation of him because he volunteered to be in the war. bismarck high students shady pre

tenzegal and private first last robertal berths are both from sioux lakes reservation in north dakota. it is this recognizes that led shady to research roger's life and decided to make by hand a god's eye. she hand wove the god's eye in red and yellow. she red beaded 37 e the panel location of his name on the vietnam wall in black and white. these four colors are the colors of the medicine wheel very important colors to the native american culture. let me read what shandy said in her own words about poarng p.f.c. alberts. i decided to make a god's eye because as native americans we believe that everything belongs to the creator -- the land, the animals, the food we eat and ourselves. we believe that this life on earth is only temporary. we believe we were put here to grow love and learn and then to return home. our culture has made most

natives artists. some of the things we do consist of bead work, fetter work, quill work cloth work, painting. all of it is made by hand which means that whatever we decide to make we put our mind, hearts and time into. our elders say always do things with a good heart because the energy and vibes we have at the time stays with whatever we are making, which is why i hope i put the best in the god's eye. taylor anderson, austin wetzel and mariah lear are 11th graders who created a large f- 410 phantom plane -- f-4-d phantom plane to leave at the vietnam memorial wall in honor of air force lieutenant colonel wendell keller. the students contacted wendell's family who shared the mementos and the photos of wendell and told them about wendell's life,

the 1969 plane crash and the 2013 identification of his remains. the family even mailed the students items recovered from wendell's crash site, including pieces of a zipper and an air tube. austin taylor and mariah built and decorated the plane with images of wendell and the medals he was awarded in recognition of his extraordinary service. the students named the plane the carol two in honor of wendell's wife. brenna gilge courtney hervala learned of captain thomas alderson was a multisport athlete. he lettered in tennis, basketball and track when he was a student at grand forks central high school. brenna and courtney contacted the school to obtain the school letters and had a dog tag made with tom's information on it. in their report, these girls noted this letter represents

alderson's high school years and it can easily be related to a lot of teenaged boys today. the letter with the dog tag shows how quickly he had to grow up and mature in such a short amount of time. as alderson joined the military, he turned in his letter, along with his childhood for a dog tag. when mikayla baim began her project, she looked at different soldiers' names to find the right person to research. she noticed one of the killed in action had the same last name as hers and she started to look into the soldier's family tree and her own family tree. mikayla found that army sergeant richard baim was a cousin to her grandmother. mikayla decided to draw a family tree to show how she was related to sergeant baim. this connection made the project that much more meaningful to mikayla. she had no idea she was related to a soldier who was killed in action in vietnam. mikayla added some information

about richard by his name on her family tree and wrote a note to him. she thanked him for his service and expressed her desire that he were still with us so she could have gotten to know him. this project also emphasized for mikayla the importance of appreciating family and friends because you never know when people who are close to you may be taken away. nicole holmgren, tiffany friese and brandy beiber and georgia marion looked for george klein's family members and spoke on the phone with jerry's brother bob. bob told the students about jerry's life growing up in rural north dakota, about being the oldest of five kids and working on the family farm. in fact, bob explained to the girls that jerry made the farm his priority, choosing to spend all of his free time there. the four students created a farm complete with grass tractors, rocks and farm animals to represent the place where jerry

felt happiest, on a farm where he planned to return and make his life with his fiancee after serving in the army. j.c. walter and cambry shaneer decorated a fishing hat to commemorate thomas walker, a staff sergeant who served in vietnam in the army. the students learned that prior to being drafted thomas enjoyed spending his free time fishing with his young family. on the fishing hat j.c. and cambry wrote thomas' name, date of birth and date of death. on eight fishing lures they hung from the hat they wrote the names of thomas' family members and the awards he received during his service to our country. bailey mckeiver, teagan mcintyre and shandi tex and maize paxner filled a fishing tackle box with items that were important to michael myhoff who

served in the army during vietnam. these four students communicated with michael's family who described michael's interests in baseball rock collecting, hunting and fishing. the students filled the tackle box with baseballs rocks shotgun shells and fishing lures to represent his hobbies. they also decorated the box with pictures of michael and the baseball field in center, north dakota, that is named after him. finally, in the final photo i will show you today is of a young man who was impacted in a very meaningful way in his research. zack bollen, a talented student who carved a piece of wood into the shape of north dakota. zack added a peace sign and the soldier's name and then expressed his own feelings about the surprise made in vietnam and made by the vietnam soldier he researched. i'd like to share with you the beautiful sentiment expressed by zack through his project. the empty chair. the absence of one voice in the

air. emotions take over with fear. you're all i can't hear. damn the opinions of the world. it's only filled with selfish words. scream and never be heard. keep quiet carry on, sir. bring with you your heartfelt rhymes, from the unchartered waters of your mind. and take your wounded skin and fly. it takes true love to sacrifice your life. this project has meant so much to the families of the soldiers who have been researched. this project has meant so much to these young children who are connected in a way that without this -- these three great teachers they would never have been connected to those who were killed in action in vietnam. they would never have appreciated the sacrifice and in many ways these soldiers would never be remembered. and so i can't tell you how

proud him as their united states senator of the wonderful students of bismarck high and the great teachers who have taken on this project it has meant so much to me, it has meant so much to the families, and i think really meant so much to so many of the vietnam veterans of my state who are still with us, who see this period of commemoration as dictated by the president as an important time to heal the wounds of vietnam. finally, mr. president turning to another matter, i today can say that i am elated that the senate unanimously passed my legislation which would create a commission on the status of native american children. this bipartisan bill which was first introduced when i came to the senate -- in fact, it was my first bill -- will study the challenges facing native american kids, including poverty, crime high unemployment substance abuse domestic violence and dire economic opportunities, as well

as making recommendations on how to make sure native american youth receive the tools and educational resources that they need to thrive. this is not a new issue for me. this is an issue that i worked on when i was north dakota's attorney general and i saw the challenges for so many of our children living in indian country and i saw that sometimes they are the most forgotten children in america. i fought for native families all during my time as north dakota's attorney general improving -- pledging to improve the lives of nature american youth once i was positioned to do so. so this is truly an important day for tribes and native communities as well as native children and their families, but we can't stop the momentum. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the house of representatives to uphold the federal government's trust responsibility to indian tribes and pass this bill because standing up for native children is an issue on which we should all agree.

the commission on native children will work to identify complex challenges faced by native kids in north dakota and across the united states. the comprehensive and first of its kind commission would conduct an intensive study on issues affecting native american youth. the 11-member commission will issue a report to provide recommendations ensuring native kids have access to sustainable wraparound systems as well as the protection, economic resources and educational tools necessary for success in both academia and in their careers. in addition to the commission on native children the subcommittee will also provide advice in order to assure that those in washington don't lose sight of these children. i want to thank all of my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, but i particularly want to single out senator lisa murkowski from alaska. she has been a co-champion and a copartner. she sees the same issues among

alaska natives as i see among the plains indians in my state and we have named this bill after two great educational and spiritual leaders of our states. in my case, my bill is named after alice spotted bear, former tribal chairwoman of the ricra nation in north dakota. alice was a passionate advocate for native children and a recognized leader in education. unfortunately, she passed away much too soon, but i know her spirit is here in this bill, and i look forward to getting this bill passed in the house of representatives. i i look forward to the report and all of us pulling in the same direction to make sure all of our children are protected all of our children are loved and all of our children are given equal opportunity including those children in native american homes and those children in indian country. thank you mr. chairman. with that i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i understand the majority leader is on his way here to close out the senate very shortly so i want to take one minute to recognize a significant milestone in the life of one of our colleagues here on the floor. friend, senator lindsey graham, and that milestone is his retirement from the united states air force and reserve which he has served for more than 30 years. i think that 30 years' service particularly 30 years' service overlapping with the responsibilities of being a united states senator is something that is worth a kind word. the quality of senator graham's service was impeccable. he has been awarded a bronze star for his service he has been recognized for his loyalty to the air force by being appointed to the united states air force academy board of visitors. so clearly his contribution to

the united states air force has been real. but i think senator graham would also be the first say that he believes that the united states air force made more of a contribution to him than he did to the united states air force. i think that's one of the reasons he was such a good united states air force and reserve officer and it's also one of the reasons that away have such affection for him here in the senate. i have to say that i disagree with senator graham about a great number of things. he is a very, very conservative member of the senate. but we get to know one another in this body a bit and i like senator graham, i respect senator graham, and i am pleat come to the floor today to commend senator graham for what must be a somewhat emotional milestone as he steps down from the uniform that he has now more than 30 years for our country. mr. president, i yield the

floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tuesday june 2, following the prayer and pledge the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use

later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 2048 finally that the filing deadline of all second-degree amendments to h.r. 2048 be at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so under the regular order the cloture vote will occur at 10:30 in the morning. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

coming online to complete. the idea is that there is any sort of market power monopoly power in this industry right now.

it is very difficult to understand. >> tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern on c-span2. >> tomorrow virginia congressman gerald connolly looks at nsa surveillance programs and the ongoing fight against isis. more about the future of the nsa with steve king. he will also discuss immigration issues and i was role in the 2016 presidential race. plus phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. >> also tomorrow a house hearing on the recent amtrak train derailment in philadelphia. we will hear from the chair of the national transportation safety board and amtrak president and ceo

the hearing is held by the house transportation committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. after that another house hearing on the status of the automobile airbag recall and current safety standards. at hearing is held by a house commerce subcommittee live tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span three. >> this summer book tv will cover book festivals from around the country and top nonfiction authors and books live from the live from the chicago tribune printers row lit fest. the hour live in depth program. your phone your phone calls. near the end of june watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival. in the middle of july live at the harlem book fair the nation's flagship african-american literary event with author interviews

and panel discussions. live from the nation's capitol for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. that 15th year. that is a few of the events this summer. >> earlier today maine sen. angus senator angus king came to the floor to discuss the nsa surveillance bill. he was joined by intelligence committee chair richard burr talked about some of the amendments being offered. here is more now. >> mr. president. >> the senator from maine. >> mr. pres., i rise to address the global forests the usa freedom act and its predecessor the patriot act. before talking about the specifics of those bills i want to put into historical context what it is we are wrestling with for why this is so hard. what we're really trying to do here in this body this week's balance to critical constitutional provisions. the 1st is in the preamble to provide

for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. that is a fundamental purpose of this government, the fundamental purpose of any government to provide for the common defense of the insured domestic tranquility. that is tranquility. that is national security for national security and it was in the very core preamble to the constitution. the other provisions are found in the bill of rights particularly the 4th amendment which talks about the right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. unreasonable the keyword. the people that drafted our constitution were geniuses and every word counts. the word was unreasonable. there is no absolute right to privacy. there is no absolute right to national security. we have to try to find the

right balance year in and year out decade in a decade out in relation to developments in technology and developments in terms of the threats which we face. it it is a calibration that we have to continue to try to make. now i have been concerned is 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'll talk about that in a few minutes. but i share the concern of many on this body is simply having all that information in the government computers even though it was hedged with various protections and there were requirements for how was to be accessed in the level of attention to the detail was important and there is no evidence that it

had ever been abused. i still felt along with many others that simply having the government retain that information itself was a danger to the liberty of our country. therefore the freedom act which we have before us now the usa freedom act proposes to move to leave the data with the phone companies instead of the government collecting and and having it in the government hands it will be in the phone companies. if necessary to access 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 the data. why should the government simply hold it? i am a subscriber to lord acton's famous maxim that power corrupts 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 and what pressures there may be will political pressures there may be command therefore it struck me as sensible to get it out of the government's hands. now, the problem that i have had with the usa freedom act as i felt they went too far 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 amount. they they now hold it as a matter of business practice 18 months to two years which is all that is necessary in order to have the data available for national security search if necessary the problem is, there is no requirement that they maintain that level of retention. in fact, in open hearings

with one of the vice presidents of one of the carriers he said categorically, we will not accept a limitation on how long we have to hold the data. i think that is a a glaring weakness in the usa freedom act and it led me to vote against consideration of the bill when it came -- when the motion to proceed with the 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, what i consider technical but very important aspects of this program. one would require that if the carriers decide to hold the data for shorter amount of time they would have to notify the government, notify the congress and we could then make a decision whether we thought that some additional required time of retention would be necessary

in order to adequately protect national security. another amendment that i understand will be proposed here is that the transition from the current program to the private carriers holding the data will be a spend -- extended from six months to a a year simply because this is a major one would say herculean technical task to develop the software to ensure this information will be available for national security purposes and timely basis. the final question that we have been debating and discussing isn't an important program? is it worth maintaining? there has been a lot of argument that if you cannot.to a specific plot that was specifically followed by this now provision and we don't need it all. i don't buy that.

it is part of our national security toolkit command 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 and that was we could not travel -- tracfone connections between the people who were preparing for the september 11 attack. for that reason section 215 program was invented. i want to i want to stop for just a moment and make clear to the american people this program does not collect or listen to or otherwise have anything to do with the content of phone calls. as i talk to people and they approach me about this, we

don't want the government listen to a phone calls. the answer is, they don't. this program does not and has not convey 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. and an example of its usefulness was at the boston marathon bombing. the two brothers who perpetrated that horrendous attack in boston in april of 2013 this program allow the authorities to check their phone numbers to see if they were in touch with other people in the country to determine whether this was a nationwide plot of whether it was simply these two guys in boston. that, i would submit, is an important, some would say critical piece of information. it turned out they were

acting on their own but had they're been connections with other similarly inclined people at that time that would have been an important thing for us to know. that is the way that this program is used. is it absolutely critical and indispensable in solving cases? i don't think anybody can argue that that is the case. it is important and useful as a part of the national security toolkit? yes particularly when the invasion of privacy, privacy, if you we 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. the detective goes to the scene of the crime takes out his notebook and make some notes. would it limit a tool that

was helpful to them in solving that crime or another? the answer i think the bs. we should we should not take a tool of way that is useful and important unless there is some compelling argument on the other side. since we're not talking about the content of phone conversations but simply which number called which of a 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 usefulness to this country. i think it is particularly important now. it is ironic that we are talking about unilaterally disarming at a time a time when the threat to this country has never been greater than 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 were smuggled into the country in various ways had a had a specific target and a specific plot that they were working on. terrorism 2.0 is a plot hatched abroad but communicated directly to people in the us who are part of a jihadist group. but now we are on to terrorism 3.0 which is isis sending out what amounts to a terrorist apb to no know particular person but to anyone in this country who has been radicalized by themselves, the internet. there is no direct connection. that person then takes up arms and tries to kill americans.

that is what their intent is that is the hardest for us to counteract and the 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 earlier scene in the past. this is the the most dangerous threat that i think we face today. to throw aside a protection safeguard that i believe passes constitution and legal muster that goes the extra mile to protect the privacy rights of americans by getting this data out of the hands of the government is one that is worthy of the support and the active work in this chamber to again find that balance the

balance between the imperative, the most solemn responsibility we have this body to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility, to tranquility, 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 and make us who we are. we we can do both things. there is never going to be a final answer. what we have to do is just what we are doing this week to assess threat says the technology developments and try to find the right calibration balance that will allow us to me that most solemn of our responsibilities. mr. president, i look forward to hopefully the consideration of amendments later 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 that we can look our constituents and the people of this country in the eye and say we took the responsibility to protect your security seriously. we also took seriously your rights, 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 senator from north carolina. >> i want to thank my good friend the senator from maine. committed number of the intelligence committee one who has been vitally involved in the oversight of section 215. i think that is what is left out of the debate.

fifteen members of the united states senate have actively carried out oversight. this is probably one of the most looked at programs that exist within the jurisdiction of the intelligence committee. there are a couple more that probably get more cost and attention constant attention this is not a program that is used that frequently. i just want to reiterate some of the things senator kane said. we're not listening the people's phone calls. this program expired last night at midnight. it means that that database cannot be queried regardless of whether we find a terrorist telephone number. it is important to remind my colleagues in the american people that this is all triggered by a known terrorist number outside of the united states. in that case we had a

telephone number outside the country and wanted to see whether the connection had been made so there was direction. this is triggered not by just going through a database and looking at who americans are calling. it is triggered by a foreign known terrorist telephone number. we. research to see who they may have contacted in the united states. this data can only be queried there is a reasonable articulable suspicion. based upon specific -- specific facts. can make the case to the court. is now searching to the records. the only looking the only looking for the terrors based on the connection of the phone number known to be a terrorist number.

my good friend from maine talked about the boston bombings -- had the program been in place before september 11 those attacks might have been derailed. according to the director of the fbi we lost track. one of the two who lived in san diego. he was tied to a terrorist group in yemen. we lost contact. we knew the organization in human. if we had had this program in place we could have targeted the telephone numbers out of the cell to see if there were contact anybody. we get up with the connection together.

we saw we saw 911 what happens on the right information is not put together. this program serve no purpose. prior to 911 the director of the fbi saying it would have. the boston marathon the told us there was no terrorist link. the 2009 new york city subway bombing plot. early september 2009 nsa noted contact from individual in the united states and the fbi subsequently identified as a colorado-based and provided the important lead information.

mr. president i want to say this again. 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. if the threshold of my colleagues who say this is not serving any useful purpose means you have to have an attack to prove that you have ported an attack that's not why we have this program. we are trying to get ahead. in the case of the subway bombings we do that. there was a chicago terrorist investigation. a chicago businessman. he tried to depart chicago o'hare airport to go to europe. plotting to attack the

danish newspaper. section 215 metadata analysis was done along with the fbi authorities to investigate. i'm not sure how it gets any clearer than this. we have an individual who is radicalized who intends to carry out an act of as overseas connections that we never would've understood without section 215. i think as my good friend from a nose when you connect one typically it leads to another and another to say to law enforcement in our intelligence community react and give you the tools is to basically say we are supposed we're supposed to keep you safe but were not going to. thank you for your support.

i hope we are able to advance. hopefully we will do it with three amendment votes in a final passage. the usa freedom language with two changes. it would require the telecom companies to provide six months of any change in their attention. that language the senator from maine suggestion and it works well. the 2nd piece will deal with the director of national intelligence certification that we made the technological changes for the telecom companies to queried at data. to a mission -- two additional amendments to change the transition from six to 12 months.

the senator from maine would agree. i would like to see it longer. it's beneficial. the last one is the change in human language. i will get into that. the current bill is the courts shall. but the administrator of the court has provided is language that they think will allow the court to be a friend but not require them to always have a friend of the court. again the process we go through in section 215 in many cases is an accelerated process. any delay can defeat the

purpose of what we are doing trying to be in front of an attack. i say one last time the nsa under the metadata program collects a couple things. they collected telephone number. they collected eight. they collect the duration of time that the call took place. they don't get contact -- content. content. they don't get the person's name have no idea is number it is. and and 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, 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 who's telephone number was or if there was a

need to see content that will be sought by the fbi under an investigation through the normal court processes that are not part of the 215 program. 215. 215 limited to a telephone number with no identifier for his number it is the collection of the date and the duration of the call. i think the gentleman from maine would agree with me i just assume the program stay at nsa. it will transition out and we would like to make sure we have enough time so that this can seamlessly happen versus an artificial date. i think the gentleman. i yield the floor. >> the senate is out for the night. earlier debate was continued after several provisions expire. the chamber is considering a

house passed bill that prohibits the ball collection and storage of telephone metadata. senators return tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern with the 1st lord of the day expected at 1030. >> tonight public knowledge president and ceo and former sec commissioner on the proposed merger between charter communications and time warner cable. >> we would love to have more competition. some have satellite. hardly anybody has to broadband providers. wireless providers are available but they can't provide the video streaming. and so the question is where do you get more competition? it's coming over that same wire.

the same company. what what is your tv package and the other is your broadband. a lot of companies want to provide both and make provider services new packages. the cable company has an incentive. law enforcement will have to make sure there is no unfair benefit to cable. >> lots of americans, particularly young americans under the age of 30 have cut the wire. no cable subscription or telephone. purely wireless. they get the broadband they want. these are not broadband illiterate people. you have new companies coming online to compete wireless broadband. the idea that there is any

sort of market power or monopoly power in this industry right now is very difficult to understand. >> tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern. >> tomorrow nsa surveillance programs in the ongoing fight. more about the future. he will also discuss immigration issues and i was role in the 2016 presidential race. washington journal live tuesday and everyday. also tomorrow house hearing we will hear from christopher hart the chair

of the national transportation safety board and amtrak president and ceo live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. after that another house hearing on the status of the takata automobile airbag recall. that hearing held by a house commerce subcommittee live tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress. color photos, bio contact information and twitter handles. district maps, a foldout twitter handles. district maps a foldout map of capitol hill and delicate congressional committees. order your copy today, 1395+ shipping 95 plus shipping

and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> next a discussion on recent moves by congress to limit the pensions and allowances continues. host: late last month, the congressional committee moved to cut the pensions and allowances >> late last month the congressional committee moved to cut the allowances. here to talk about those efforts director of american university center for congressional and presidential studies. as the law stands now, there is this effort by congress going on. but today, how much money are former president given? in what ways can they receive benefits from the government after leaving office? guest: they get a pension that is slightly more than $200,000 a year, but they also get expenses for the buildings they are in. that is over $400,000 for mr. bush and mr. clinton. they also have permanent

security details, secret service, and so does the wife of the president for life unless she remarries because of that or something like that. they have medical facilities that they can go to free. they have free cancer patient -- transportation if it is related to government activity and the gsa determines that. they have quite a few things from the government, but they also can make a lot of money from giving speeches and doing other things as we have seen with mr. clinton and mr. bush. host: to make the security element or understandable, what is the argument for all these other benefits, specifically the one that comes to mind is the office benefit? guest: this first started with mr. truman, who wrote to congress. congress under the constitution has the authority to establish pensions and salaries of the

president. that should be clear. but mr. truman was spending over $30,000 a year just answering letters. so congress determined that they should allocate money for that. that is now $96,000 a year minimum for people just to answer letters and correspondence. congress then and congress now feels it is reasonable for ex-president's to have support. office support as well as staff support and they have it. the problem is, of course, if they make lots of money in another way, both the senate and the house feel that maybe they should pay for that themselves. host: here's a headline from a column from townhall.com and several other papers as well. millionaire ex-president's can pay their own way. he writes, considering that every living past president is a multimillionaire, why should taxpayers have to fund an allowance for any of them? keep us up-to-date on what congress passed in the

committee last month. guest: it was a bipartisan vote which is rate in this congress because things are pretty hung up and gridlock in the house of representatives. what they said is that they will get the pension, but the on the pension, -- beyond the pension, for every dollar above $400,000 that they make in their own private lives, they will reduce it a dollar. therefore, president bush and president clinton would have to pay for all that themselves. host: is a multimillionaire president -- what is the max amount that somebody could be paid out by the government under this new bill? guest: under the new bill, the maximum amount would be $400,000. if they may less than $400,000. the clintons in the bushes make more than that so it gets reduced. host: where does it stand, it

passed in the house committee so now goes to the senate? guest: the senate has a bill also. it is slightly different. it would reduce the total amount for pensions and allowances to $200,000. host: some numbers for our viewers as we are talking about this. if you want to call in with questions or comments, we would love to hear from you. we are talking with james thurber of american university. republicans can call in to a 2-74 8-8000. we will also look for your tweets in your e-mails as well. some numbers on the expenditures for former president in fiscal 2014 came out to $3.6 million. the request in fiscal year 2015

with 3.3 million dollars. some of the payments that former president's include a little over $200,000 for current pensions, personal compensation is about $36,000. as much as 99 the -- not heard $90,000 in various benefits and pensions for a window of a former president is up to $20,000. we talked about what presidents have used parts of that tension as well. we want to hear from our viewers. our phone lines are open. who has been the most expensive ex-president terms of money paid out after they left office? guest: i think it is clinton although right now former president bush its $420,000 a year for office space and clinton gets $415,000. that is a little less, but certainly clinton is getting the moat. -- most. i should add that they also get security -- social security

also. for many americans, they live on social security. they get all this sort of stuff also. host: has there been a president that has turned down some of this federal money? guest: i cannot answer that authoritatively. maybe you can because you have been studying this also, but i do not think so. host: talk about your thoughts on the role of a president once they leave office. specifically how that has changed over time in terms of what they do to make money and live their lives afterward. guest: i think each president is slightly different and the four living presidents that we have are quite different. i think that president carter has taken a role of being in international peacekeeper is someone who brings people -- an international peacekeeper and someone who brings people together and keeps giving service through habitat for humanity and he has written books.

he mainly makes his outside income from books, but also a few speeches. not speeches that make $550,000 for one hour like bill clinton does. bill clinton has established his library. they all establish libraries but he has also established a foundation. carter has a similar foundation, but clintons is very different. it is unique in the sense that is receiving very large payments from corporations, but also foreign nations. that has become an issue when hillary was secretary of state and some of these contributions were coming in the foundation and there was some question by some that there might be a conflict of interest. that has never come up before. george w. bush has become a painter. we all know that he is painting. he made $15 million since he left office.

the clintons jointly made $30 million in the last 18 months. host: we want to bring our viewers into this conversation with james thurber of american university. he is director for senator of congressional and presidential studies been he is our guest for the next half hour of sewer. -- or so. william is an arkansas on the line for republicans. good morning, little brother. caller: as you are aware, the monarch blood or fly -- butterfly is scheduled to go extinct this year. the mexican government shutdown five illegal logging sites. that is mainly because they have massed 10,000 troops on our border. the corps of engineers is killing double-breasted -- double crested comrades on the columbia river. host: we are going to stick to discussion that we are having with james thurber about the effort to change money paid out to ex-president's. we will go to can burn --

laverne in congress, texas. caller: good morning. my concern is that we have these congressmen who come in poor as church must who lead and possibly making more than the president and becoming multimillionaires and having the audacity to take money under the table or wherever they take it from. then to deny the president of the united states ishis due? these are the same people asking the postal service to fund their own retirement. all we have to do is look at dennis hastert. he came in a teacher in high school and leaves congress as a millionaire and has more than enough to pay a bribe for years and years of millions of dollars. this is ridiculous. host: james thurber, are you hearing this?

guest: we have certain rules about leaving congress and becoming lobbyists. there is a one-year cooling off period in the house of representatives. there is many ways around that. he can become a strategic advisor and receive millions of dollars giving advice to people and not theoretically or in practice under the law be a lobbyists. there is a two years cooling off period in the senate. i mention this because many former members of congress become lobbyists. that is what former speaker dennis has to did. he made millions from the tobacco industry and the oil and gas industry. one wonders about their true feelings about public service. many people stay in congress for a short period of time leave stay in washington, and make lots of money. it is hard to make money in

congress, but let me give you one example with mr. hastert. mr. hastert purchase land in illinois around the freeway and then, it is a fact that he put in an earmark, there are no longer allowed anymore, to have an offering off that interstate highway. the value of the lands went skyhigh. he sold it and made a great deal of money out of that. now that triggered earmark reform on the hill, but that is how he made money while he was still in office. host: one tweet as we have been having this discussion about pregnant -- payment to former presidents. richard writes if x presidents need the money, they should get it. they have ended as far as i'm concerned. the question is why now? is anyone worried about this becoming a political issue in the 2016 election? guest: it is a political issue in the 2016 election. it is an issue now because of

hillary and bill clinton making so much money and also receiving almost $2 million with the benefit if you add up the pensions and office space and staff and travel and things. so it is an issue. it will continue to be an issue. i think probably that hillary clinton as a candidate will have to address this issue also. it is being pushed in the senate in a very partisan way. the house of representatives -- mr. cummings is the ranking member of the committee where this is reported from. it is a bipartisan bill. i think it is likely to move in the house. i do not know how fast it would move in the senate. host: it certainly would impact president obama as he leaves the office. at the white house said anything about these efforts? guest: i've heard nothing from the house. we have fundraising for libraries. we have not talk about that. where former presidents can go to their libraries, they have

vast offices and staff funded by corporations and others and individuals to keep those latter is going. that is a whole other dimension of these things. host: virginia beach on the line for independents. go ahead, jose. caller: i find it funny that they can go and passes laws for presidential pensions, but me as a disabled veteran, i have to go through hell pretty much to get any money at all. there is not even too many bills lately that benefit veterans. i'm trying to figure out what is more important -- either veterans that serve and lose their limbs or have ptsd let myself or presidents who can still make millions without the government paying them? guest: this is exactly what is

going to many people's minds in america. where is the justice here when we had people living below the poverty line and not getting adequate health care? they serve our country and they are injured sometimes permanently and we have struggles just to get those benefits up for our warriors in our veterans. i think this is one of the reasons it will be a major political issue in 2016. is this just?is this fair ? i'm not even getting enough to survive. i think this is a potent issue. host: if you want to join the conversation, questions or comments. question from twitter -- who has been the poorest ex-president? guest: probably mr. truman. he came in very poor. he was in the house of

representatives. he did not make a lot of money. he did not make a lot of money in office. he didn't want to. he went to give public service. he went home truly dead broke. hillary said, we are dead broke. they were as broke as harry truman. you have to go way back. some of the salaries of these presidents, if you average them out to $2012, it is very interesting. in 1909, they had a $7,500 salary that would "let of $1.9 million. -- the equivalent of $1.9 million. you need to keep that in perspective. i think truman is probably the modern times person who can clearly say he was dead broke. host: let us go to eileen

waiting in california on the line for independents. good morning. you are on what james thurber. caller: this is my first time getting through to c-span. i agree with james. i think that jimmy carter deserves his pension. he is to this day -- he was never worried about a lot of money. he was considered a weak president, but his heart and soul was in the right place. i think the president to have a lot of money like the clintons and the bushes do not need their pensions as badly as some of the other presidents. we need to start thinking about when we can start giving back to america. our politicians really need to start getting it together for most americans. i think that 70% of us are not getting represented by this two-party system. until they clean up their act, i do not think we will be. thank you. host: that is california. is anything you want to pick up on from her call? guest: i think people should

think of presidents as public servants. when they leave and they make millions of dollars, mr. reagan left office and it was very controversial because he gave one speech in japan for $3 million. thousands you months after he left. that doesn't seem like it is in the public service. the way mr. carter left office, he really seems and i think it is accurate in giving. he defines himself a giving rather than taking. host: did this happen in the premodern president's era? did we see this from presidents in the early 20th century? guest: i think presidents and the early 20 century and before that were independently wealthy before the gotten to office. they were not that concerned to grab as much money when they got out. they do not have the phenomenon of writing a popular book. some of this income -- finally dollars of income for the

clintons in the last 18 months was from hillary books. that is a new phenomenon. carter writes books also, but they are not the same kind of books. they are theological. there are about fishing and things like this. they sell a lot also, but i think he does it because of a love of writing rather than trying to enhance his income. host: in the history of writing a book, there was a famous book written by former president ulysses s. grant that he finished just before he died. was there a president who wrote a book before that? guest: i'm sure there were, but i cannot answer that. i'm sorry. host: cheryl is in st. petersburg, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you so much for taking my call and thank you so much for enlightening more of the public as to all of the corruption, the revolving door, the stories of

the presidents and all the money they collect afterwards. well, it is a degrees. -- a disgrace. how about the congressional people who have become lobbyists? are they still collecting huge amounts of money while they lobby? thank you. guest: members of congress have a prorated pension that is related to the number of years that they have spent on the hill. on average, it is about $40,000 a year. but many members of congress stay here and be in the advocacy business. that means they are lobbying sometimes when they are not federally registered lobbyists. and they can make quite a bit of money. there are those who have left and headed the pharma, for example,.

billy tauzin did this and left and made millions of dollars. americans are concerned if there is a conflict of interest in this revolving door because they are thinking about a job before they leave. now there are rules where you have to recuse yourself from any action on the hill that is related to someone wanting to hire you. you have to go to the ethics committee to do that. it is a hard thing to do when you have a lot of friends and powerful friends and all you have to do is say, hey, i am leaving and it would be nice talk to you about something dealing with electricity or water or whatever. host: issues that they have spent years of their life studying and voting on legislation. guest: when they are committees of jurisdiction, they're not going to cut off those relationships. they are cashing in on knowing the process and knowing the issue, but also knowing the network of people who deal with this. and america is upset about this.

in 2007, there was an ethics and lobbying bill being pushed by then senator obama. they were not enforcing it adequately in terms of the revolving door and conflict of interest. host: we are talking with james thurber, the director of congressional and presidential studies. we are talking about this effort by congress to try to cut this federal funding for ex-presidents and the benefits they have received. to give you a sense of the scope of the money that we are talking about, this number from the fiscal times. the total amount spent on all former president and their spouses from 1998 through 2012 is about $52.3 million. big money we are talking about here. paul is up next in montana on the line for democrats. paul, good morning. caller: i would like to ask you a very simple question.

where does this idea come from to cover ex-presidents after they leave office and the families and stuff? where did this idea come from? is it in the constitution? guest: it is not in the constitution. the constitution designates the power of congress to designate salaries of congress and pensions. they came primarily from when mr. chairman left office -- mr. truman left office and he was struggling because he spent $30,000 answering letters. he had to do it out of his own pocket. that is when it started. host: that would be the 1958 former president act. when the terms used in that act was that money would be used to help "maintain the dignity" of the office of the president. guest: that is exactly right. the caller has a good point. it is not in the constitution but the power of the persons in

the constitution with congress. that money cannot be spent unless it is authorized and appropriated by congress. if people have problems with this, they should push congress to do something about it. host: joe's on a line for independents. good morning. caller: gentlemen, i find this conversation pretty amazing. if they did chances law, all past presidents would be grandfathered into getting all the stuff that they are getting. ok, if you change the law now, i see it as no -- i don't know what word you would use. no coincidence that we are just about to have our first black president and maybe our first woman president elected. and now the white racist

conga's wants to eliminate any pensions for the black guy in the woman -- congress wants to illuminate any pensions for the black guy and a woman. he had no problems as long as it was a white guy getting all these benefits. the key issue in this country is displayed and racism -- this blatant racism that is just astounding at times and this is one of those times. you need to see it for what it is. host: james thurber, is there any member of congress who has brought back that up in this debate? guest: let me clarify it is reducing expenses when they leave. at elijah cummings, and was african-american, is ranking on the committee and has given quite a moving speech about this.

i don't think elijah was thinking about this as a way to go after the president simply because he is african-american. host: and if some of these changes are enacted, they would apply to all presidents. there is no grandfather clause for current ex-president, there? -- is there? guest: many times, bills are retroactive, but i think this would be a bill that would be grandfathering in everyone that now get these things. host: it would apply to everybody. guest: right. let me clarify, i think this bill does apply to all living president. host: right. mica, good morning. caller: i just want to make a comment. all of these guys, always presidents when they get out of office you said the get a 400,000 of her benefit. i am on social security

disability. i make $1500 per month. my income above that is $2000. i have to wait to get medicare. every year, congress and the president, they always try to cut back on medicare and the benefits. i think you should consider a flat rate for everyone. host: mike in jonesboro arkansas. do you want to pick up on anything there? guest: he makes a good point. let's go on to another one. host: nick, good morning. caller: i think you need to expand your thinking process a little bit beyond the presidents and look at everybody in politics. you constantly hear about them wanting to cut back like the previous caller said, social security, medicare, everything else, but they never talk about themselves. i would like you to put out a figure on how much us taxpayers

pay out on all the politicians as a whole. how much do they collect from the taxpayer dollar per year? i believe in serving the country, not ripping them off. guest: i don't have that figure off the top, but every year it is of -- it is available for the senate. it also breaks it down for salaries and pensions and medical -- medical benefits. it's a significant figure. host: and the former payout -- the total payout for former president can i can give you that figure. for reagan, in fiscal 2014 for nancy reagan, just under $14 million. you were, you get paid, not a volunteer job.

guest: $3.5 million in pensions and other benefits. for their offices, paying for secretaries, answering metals -- answering letters. and now we have the internet and it's a little cheaper -- host: and nancy breaking news use some of that for postage. guest: right, and now it is a little cheaper with the internet. host: next color, go ahead. caller: a quick question and a comment. what is the salary of the current president? and my comment, the president while they are in office, i can

imagine there will be tremendous pressure and is a very stressful situation. they earn their pension, so i don't think we should be [indiscernible] guest: the current salary is 400,000 dollars establishing 2000 one. before that, it was $200,000 a year. but if you take 2012 and look at it in $2012, that was $1.2 million in 1959 in terms of $2012. yes, it's a lot of -- in terms of the dollars of 2012. yes, it's a lot of stress. after they leave office, if they are giving speeches and cashing in on the fact that they had

this job and they are making millions i think many people think that there should be a discount in the amount of money that is given them for expenses not pension, but expenses. i think it's going somewhere in the house of representatives. it may go through the senate. host: do any of the benefits that you been talking about not a lie if -- not apply if a president resigned from office? there are some questions on twitter about how president nixon used these funds. guest: if you resign, he still get them, but if you are impeached, you do not. host: but go to die in -- let's go to diana in wisconsin, a democrat. caller: good morning and think for taking my call. i do think it should be discussed, but i do not trust the congress that we currently have. they are very partisan and they

are not going to vote in the best interest of anybody but themselves. most the people in congress that are out in these days that are -- you've got most of the people in congress that are out in these states that are creating havoc. they are taking away our pensions. i would rather see congress take up issues that the people in the united states care about and have been waiting for them to take up and do their job. guest: i have a book calling all -- coming up called "american gridlock" about these issues. it's highly partisan, i grew with the collar. and it's deadlocked, so they are not dealing with some of the most important issues. if you rank the issues important to america right now, this is not one of them. it will be things like immigration, the debt and the deficit, tax reform, education policy, giving more power to the

states or not. but there gridlock. very few members vote together. we got a blossoming of bipartisanship on a couple of issues recently, maybe trade is one of them. it's grim. therefore the american people rank congress at 14.1% on doing a good or else any job. -- good or outstanding job. it was 12% at one time. host: so it has gone up. guest: yes. host: let's go to michael in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on something that you answer just a moment ago about whether when they get impeached they don't collected. what if there is another reason, they don't carry out their full

storm -- full-term, let's say, a medical condition where the they cannot do their job, something like that? do they still get that after the fact? of a still qualified? guest: if they are alive and if they are in a medical condition where they cannot function, they still receive this. the only way they would not receive it is if they were impeached. and that came up during a time when there was an impeachment proceeding going forward against nixon. there was a law that was passed at that point. by the way, members of congress do not get their pensions either they have been convicted of a felony. and there are couple that has happened to. host: let's focus on one of the other benefits, annual money for office spaces. in fiscal 2014, here are some of

the numbers. the total for former president carter about $109,000. for george h $179,000. for former pre and for george w. bush about 421,000 bush -- four and $21,000 for office and cost. that is one of the benefits we are talking about here in this segment of the washington journal. richard is up next in florida. west florida, line for republicans. good morning. .. are you with us this morning? caller: can you hear me ok? host: yes. caller: when i look at it, all of these guys running for office, they say, you know, they

are going to be public servants. but the money they make, they are not servants. they are more like our owners. it's the way congress gets its raise every year. it's done automatically at 12:00 midnight. unless someone stands up and says we don't get a raise but if he stands up and says that you will never get a bill passed because he will be ostracized. the money they make is atrocious. host: do you think that specifically for this funding for former president that congress should vote every year actively on whether they should provide this funding or not and if they did that, do you think that would get caught up in the politics of the moment? caller: >> guest: absolutely. when it comes to money, that seems to be the driving ambition ambition, to make as much as they can, as much as they can in their lifetime. it's like greed is taking over and greed is taking over the whole country.

it's just the way it is. >> guest: i have heard that. it's a flat $400,000 that was established and it is not indexed to cost of living, just to make that clear. it took the congress and the members i think is a great variation. there are members that come to the place with moderate background and leave that way but we don't hear about them. we hear about the ones who make a lot of money or have some curt curt -- controversy associated with them but i know this is not popular pretty think most of them are hard-working. they are not in it for the money money. some are in any stay here and become lobbyists which i worry about is a conflict of interest but the vast majority don't make a lot of money while they are in office. is it time for a couple more calls. pat pat in annandale virginia line for independence back.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to discuss the secret service protections that they ex-president and their wives received. i heard hillary clinton say she is not driven a car since 1992. the secret service is driving them around and i don't mind the protections but here we have a candidate for presidential office going all over the country staying in hotels all kinds of expenses because of what will be a billion-dollar campaign and yet we we are the chauffeurs and under the guise of protecting her. i believe that those campaigns should pay for the social service for secret service protection. guess to an interesting point. the secret service has a tough job protecting the former presidents and presidents wives but also the candidates. they are now calculating to our viable candidates and whether

they should have secret service protection. now when it comes to the republican party there are so many of them and it's very expensive. i've talked with the secret service about this and they have come up with a way to calculate when and how they should protect them, not help it when they should do it. they have to redeploy people from all over the world sometimes to do this. it's very expensive but you don't want to have a candidate like george wallace shot andy don't want anybody killed so it's on their watch. they are very concerned about it. that's very complex and it's an interesting idea. i'm sure the secret service would like to have some more funds coming in to cover this. >> host: we will certainly watch what's going on with the legislation as it moves through congress. hope to have you back again in the future if there is further

movement before the 2016 election. james thurber is director of the american center for presidential studies. check it out on line ad american.edu. we appreciate your time this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> we would love to have more competition. very few consumers have more than one wire to the home. some have satellite for video. hardly anybody have two broadband providers. wireless providers are available but they can provide the videostreaming that you get from your cable company or your fios if you have a telephone delivered service and so the question as where'd you get more competition? the competition is coming over that very same wire so it's the same company. the cable company controlling to parts of the service. one is your tv package and the others are broadband service. a lot of content companies want

to provide both and they want to make provider services. the cable company has an incentive to favor its own favorite project which had bundled and service so i think they will have to make sure there's no unfair benefits to cable through this consolidation consolidation. >> lots of americans particularly young americans under the age of 30 they don't have a cable subscription and they don't have a telephone wired prescription. it's truly wireless and they get the broadband they want. these are not ripe and illiterate people. they are quite broadband sophisticated. you have new companies coming on line to compete. wireless broadband offerings. the idea that there's any sort of market power or monopoly power in this industry right now i think is very difficult to

understand. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2.

>> earlier today south carolina senator lindsey graham became the ninth candidate to officially enter the republican presidential race. he made the announcement from his boyhood home of central south carolina and discussed his experience with u.s. national security and foreign-policy. here's a look. >> i have got one simple message. i have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. [applause] that includes you, hillary. [laughter] [applause] we will have a recess for russia

that sticks. i know the players. i know our friends and i know our enemies alike but most importantly ladies and gentlemen, they know me. [applause] i have listened learned and prepared myself for the job of commander-in-chief. i have served in the air force for 33 years. [applause] and it has been a true pleasure and honor grade i've spent much of my adult life as part of a team committed to defending america, protecting our way of life, making sure that we are safe. politicians focus on elections. the military focuses on the mission. if given the privilege to serve as your president i will focus on the mission, to defend america, to protect our way of life into leave the next

generation a stronger, safer better nation than we inherited. [applause] >> that was part of what senator graham had to say during today's presidential announcement. you can see his entire comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or any time on line at c-span.org. >> next to discussion on the ongoing senate debate over nsa surveillance which has several provisions expire last night at midnight. or "washington journal" this is 50 minutes. >> host: for more on the future of nsa spying powers and to sort out last night shamanic sunday session where joined by roll call niels lesniewski. first of all where do they stand as of right now on the legislation to replace the now expired patriot act? gets to the next thing we are going to see is with the senate

having voted to proceed to and take up the usa freedom mats which is the bill that passed the house with a 338 vote that will be the vehicle for the debate that's going to be had basically today and tuesday and maybe into wednesday but what we are already hearing is late last night before the senate adjourned mitch mcconnell the majority leader who has been a critic of the house bill from the beginning said that he wanted to amend it and late last night richard burr the chairman of the intelligence committee that republican from north carolina, announced essentially made clear what his intentions would be or his staff made clear what his intentions would be in terms of amending the house bill bill. the biggest thing that is new as of late last night or early this morning is that burr is going to try to amend the house bill to provide a year-long grace period

for transitioning the holding of the bulk of phone records from the nsa telephone companies. the house bill only gives 180 days to do that. amber: wanted to be a year. the intelligence community says that they can do it in 180 days. the obama administration backs the house bill that burr has been concerned about that from the beginning. he's trying to push it up for 180 days to a full year. the change of who holds these records from the nsa and the phone companies themselves the biggest most headlined part of the usa freedom mats but what about the other components of the patriot act that expired this lone wolf provision we heard about the rope in wiretap provision. [inaudible question] is also included in what would be the new freedom act? just go the other provisions which in fact mcconnell tried at one point last evening to renew on their own without what

we would call section 215 authority for the ball collection of records those would be revived as well and basically any sort of legislative vehicle that would move forward. now those are less controversial provisions presumably but it has not been entirely clear how are or how long they have been used which we will hear some senators particularly senators on the intelligence committee say is that they can use more they can use some or what their effectiveness is they can't even really say so that's the problem in the intelligence community. you'd often can't tell people how you were using things. >> host: that is the question we got from a caller in our first segment, are there numbers of how successful the patriot act has been? >> guest: i don't know those numbers off the top of my head. there were some people in the intelligence community who will put out numbers regarding the

success of various programs that you are always looking at such a narrow sliver of what is actually going on. it's really difficult to tabulate how effective the patriot act revisions have been whether it's provisions or things that are authorized for longer-term or indefinitely. >> host: we have seen before when a provision or a bill is getting ready to expire short-term extensions move perhaps less controversial part for things like the wall lone wolf provision or the wiretap were there seems to be enough support there. why wasn't senator can't mcconnell able to get that bridge and why do we now have this gap between midnight last night and whenever an x. bill is passed? >> guest: what happened was when mcconnell made that offer senator paul for his junior from kentucky objected to that as well. let's go to its support for the president. >> guest: also true and what

happened essentially is that paul decided that he was going to exercise his prerogative as a senator, which is his right to allow the entire program the three provisions in their entirety to expire and partly the question is if democrats are blaming mcconnell as much as paul because there was no real reason the democrats would say to him take taken the memorial day recess knowing that this was coming down the pike. but it seems like they were some kind of the calculation on that part of mcconnell where he thought there might be an opportunity to get a deal on sunday night that just did not materialize. >> host: we are talking to niels lesniewski about the debate that happened last night. what happens forward is her expert on senate proceedings and following the debate closely not just the past 24 hours but

during his time at roll call newspaper. he is with us for the next 45 minutes or so. niels lesniewski before we get two calls i want to ask you what this is done to the relationships in the senate specifically various republican senators who felt the tension last night. we want to show our viewers a clip of some of the back-and-forth between senator john mccain who was speaking on the floor and senator rand paul who was trying to object or at least ask a question to get a response from senator john mccain. we will play that in just a second but if you could set up what was happening here. >> guest: this was a situation where -- this was a provision just before the senate was to recess for meetings where senator dan coats a republican from indiana was in control of the floor and as a result he was the one in charge of the time and basically what happened was john mccain and

grandpa got into a spat over who exactly controlled the floor at the time. >> host: here's a bit from that exchange. >> mr. president mr. president i want regular order. >> i would be happy to yield to the senator for question. >> maybe the senator from kentucky should know the rules of the senate. when a gentleman has the floor he's open to response for a question. my question is to the senator from indiana and i want to say his words are powerful and accurate. >> mr. president how much time remains on the clock for the republican side? >> to ask him if he is seeing --

>> mr. president how much time is remaining? >> i think the chair is made very clear that the senator from indiana has more. >> i know the senator understands when the senator has the floor. >> twice the senator from kentucky has not -- the rules of the senate. i would ask the senator from indiana isis is taking alum i read in the streets killing people, going to destroy 2000-year-old antiquities at the same time or moderate has fallen with thousands of innocent men, women and children being massacred and at this time isn't this program as critical as it's ever been since its inception given the fact that it's virtually on fire and we are losing everywhere?

>> host: some tense moments on the florida senate. senate. this from a group that senator rand paul started referring to is the irobot is. >> guest: that was a specific reference to an event that happened last week when you were speaking on the floor and there was a video from the floor and this is where on c-span we always say c-span does not control the cameras but the senate controlled camera actually picked up on something that -- did not which is lindsey graham the republican from south carolina who is announcing his presidential bid today was actually rolling his eyes at rand paul as he was speaking so of course lindsey graham is generally going to be in the line with john mccain's part of the republican conference in the senate and so that was the group that is now in open war

with rand paul. one of the things that i'm wondering is the extent to which senator mccain is going to be out and about in the country sort of as a surrogate for lindsey graham may be appearing outside of rand paul events or something like that. i don't want to call him a troll but that might be what he turns into. >> host: lindsey graham rose to a potential nomination beginning today with his announcement that happening at 10:30 and you can watch it here on c-span. that's happening in south carolina with road trips quickly to new hampshire and iowa. those all-important first caucus caucus, first primary states. we want to hear from you this morning. we have niels lesniewski with us to answer all your questions from what happened last night in that unusual setting sunday session. let's start with greg from columbia mississippi on the line

for democrats. greg good morning. >> caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. >> host: go ahead, greg. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. we had the nsa, the cia, the cia cia, fbi and all these other agencies. if i understand that there was a call from the trainer of the pilot who hit on 11 and he had called the fbi on several occasions to let them know that all of this was going to happen or something weird was happening happening. they ignored him. now we come up with the patriot act and it seems to me that we just need to train the people in the agencies, the people working the agencies better so they can figure out what's going on and how much is the patriot act cost? >> host: a couple of questions there but if you want to start with the first one on either members that say law enforcement

has all the powers that they need and they just need to use a better? >> guest: certainly that would be one of the things of someone like senator paul would be talking about. the other thing that the caller mentioned that the one that we really cannot answer is necessarily how much exactly does the patriot act cost? the way that the budgeting for the intelligence community is done we eventually get a topline figure for some of the intelligence agency spending so that -- there is something that is referred to as a black budget where you are i or anyone else who is not privy to the property security clearance can see the details of that so the question of how much does the patriot act cost to implement is something that we could not know because we cannot know the details of

the nsa or we don't know the details of how much resources the nsa is putting into that program. >> a question for you from one of our viewers watching on twitter. who do security contractors obey obey? twitter writes that cia destroyed docs after direct orders were given to preserve them. just go there was the whole debate and in very the answer to the question will i think would be that the intelligence community has to report to the intelligence committees of the house and the senate as well as something that is called a gang of a. this is not the immigration gang of aid from a cup will of years back. this is the leaders of the house and senate as well as the leaders of the intelligence committees who are privy to an extra level of classified information but as the person

asking the question on twitter astutely points out there have been incidents in the past were the cia is not necessarily listen to directions that were given and we had to hold a debate over the last couple of years about whether or not the senate may have been spied on as part of an investigation into the use of torture during the bush administration and so it is really a question of how much the intelligence community listens to its oversight. the headlines. >> host: the headline starting with roe colon the front page of their -- the senate -- but too late tinfoil rand paul if you want to read why college dj mr. colin as we will have niels lesniewski with us. a few headlines from the miami

herald nsa forced to hang up u.s. spying for a while is the headline there on the front page of the "boston globe"." phone records program expires as the headline there. the front page of "the los angeles times" is nsa spy program shut down and the lead story in the atlantic journal-constitution journal-constitution. nsa can't snoop on phones the controversial program will likely be back on tuesday. virgil is waiting in las vegas nevada on our line for democrats. virgil, what do you think? >> caller: good morning, hello. i think the whole thing is nothing but a debacle. it's going to cost us an enormous amount of money even though we don't have any idea how much it does cost. if we put all these records in a pile it would probably stack all the way to the moon. this is enormous. and the number of calls that go through.

i have personal experience with the patriot act, the so-called patriot act. nothing patriotic about it. my church for which i've been a member for 20 years i was very much openly against the iraq war and its obvious that it was a debacle we were getting ourselves into. somehow or another the bush-cheney rumsfeld administration -- by open opposition sent a letter to my church that i belong to for 20 years on executive so-called executive letter. they got so shut up about that letter that they asked me to leave the church. i have been there for 20 years and i didn't mind because i was

contributing $100 a week to the church and it saved me $5000 a year so i said go ahead and kick me out of the church. so i easily found another place to worship god in a hurry. >> host: we saw a story in the front page of "the wall street journal" today about dick cheney coming out with a book this fall fall. can you talk about some of the past voices that are returning to this debate over security versus privacy? >> one thing we saw over the weekend on the sunday morning shows that general hayden is back and talking about these sorts of issues. cheney seems like an obvious candidate the former vice president seems like an obvious candidate to be someone who will be in the news again particularly if we see a situation where someone like rand paul probably most likely

gains traction in the republican primary process and in the process of trying to get the republican nomination for president in 2016 because obviously senator paul who is foreign-policy and national security issues are so far removed from those of the george w. bush administration that of someone like paul gets traction we will probably hear more and more from the likes of mr. cheney. >> host: a few more tweaks as we have been talking this morning. whenever anything has the words patriot freedom or liberty in its name i'm suspicious of the motives and the purpose. sukie asked for definitions of those terms and karen writes in about your assessment of the graham mccain political relationship. generally aligned question mark graham and mccain are joined

at the hip is karen takana's assessment. karen -- sarah is up next on our line for independents. karen, good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: karen you are on with niels lesniewski. >> caller: in the patriot act like hidden changes have been done internally if they knew they had changes done in? they don't have your name. they just have your number and tracking your calls. in the freedom act the telephone companies keep the calls but for how long? there are over 1500 telephone companies in the united states alone. one says i will keep it firm on on -- four months and one says i will keep it for two.

.. now i have a problem with a person that not only changed the face of america as far security that we had to scramble the navy, the army, the marines, the air force to change our codes. i mean, he called him a great leader and humanitarian. to give classified documents to somebody else is more than a felony. it is a war crime. host: that is sarah and vernon, new york.

talk about the timing because there is some question on that. guest: our caller from vernon raises a really good question in that regard because angus king, who is an independent who caucuses with the democrats in maine, was concerned for a very long time of the freedom act about how long the phone companies were going to keep these records. we learned last night that intelligence chairman richard burr is trying to amend the house bill in several ways, one of which i did not mention earlier would require notification by the phone company is there going to keep records less than 18 months. so essentially what burr wants to address is something the caller picked up on, which is is concerned that if the phone company decided in upstate new york, i think it would be verizon, if they decided they

were only going to keep the records for a couple of months, that there would have to be some way of the u.s. government would know that in advance and try to be able to adjust accordingly. host: shirley is in detroit michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning to you. my concern is this. anything that our government wants to do to protect us when it comes down to security, i've am for. as far as listing into regular conversations and whatnot, that is something that is kind of puzzling to me. there is a lot going on in our country and around the world and i can understand why they want the patriot act to stay, i guess, the way it is. i think you really have to understand politics and the government itself about the patriot act, but there are a lot

of men and women who are coming into this country every day. they have been coming in here for decades. and nobody really knows who is really in our country anymore. they can't even keep up with who is coming and going in this country. if you have got the situation that has taken place with isis and god knows who else, a lot of men and women are being recruited out of our country. they're coming from europe and all around to get involved with these people. whatever our government has to do to keep this country safe. it is starting to get really frightening. and i do not think i'm the only one -- yes, i am a democrat, but i will say when it comes down to the security of our country what ever they have to do to keep us safe i am four. r.

host: several members making that exact point on the floor the sentence. -- of the senate. guest: members of congress would argue that this program does not even as it was designed, the program has now lapsed since midnight, section 215 was not actually for people listening in on your telephone calls or my telephone calls or anyone else's. it was pertaining to the metadata behind the calls in the patterns of who people called and the like. one thing that i think is important to point out is that one of senator paul's concerns even with the usa freedom act is the possibility that it could lead back to full collection -- bookulk collection through some sort of ancillary means. i will use somewhat perhaps a ridiculous example, but bear with me here.

if someone who was involved in terrorist activity or coordinating with isis or something like that, if they were to call into this program this morning, would then all of c-span's phone records then be scooped up in the net from the phone company? that is the kind of thing that senator paul is concerned about with the revised program. host: on her twitter feed, get your popcorn and program. the paul fight against the gop power structure could be very entertaining. reality tv for free. that is at c-span washington journal. calling in for hawaii. judy, is it hawaii? caller: i stand with brands. rand. i'm appalled that so many people in congress so easily give away

our rights to privacy. people are very uncomfortable. i have conversations with friends and i do not even what my husband to hear. we want our privacy. it is not proven effective at all. they have not gotten anything out of this metadata collection in the time that they have had to do it. and the worst thing about it is is that if people feel and fear of their own government spying on them, they become less creative. we have been the most innovative austan oriole country that has ever existed -- entrepreneurial country that has ever existed. this is having affects on all that. if people come up with ideas they will not easily share them or plan them if they think they are being spied on.

it has a lot of effects that we do not really think of. i don't think that they can use the way that they solved crimes before and continue to use those ways and get approval from a judge and use probable cause. host: judy is a rand paul supporter from hawaii. rand paul tweeting out last night after the senate session, "thanks to your help, provisions that allow book collection on innocent american citizens have expired." there was another tweet that rand paul put out " continue to celebrate this victory." a contribution to a presidential campaign. guest: it was convenient timing that this came on made 31st -- may 31 because we're talking about the end of the month. there will be campaign finance

reporting numbers that will become available at some point in time and we will see how much of a money bomb so to speak that the rand paul presidential campaign got out of this, as well as any sort of associated clinical action committees. the other thing that will be interesting to see is if anyone on the other side in response gets a lot of money. i was talking before the break to lindsey graham, who is announcing his presidential bid this morning. he said that when he got back to washington he was going to go aggressive to counter rand paul's argument that, and this is a paraphrase of something that senator graham told me, but senator graham's view is that senator paul believes that the nsa is more dangerous perhaps when isis. -- than isis. that is the level of the rhetoric we are getting into. host: a money bomb is a term

used as a quick online rush. rand paul searching for a money bomb this past weekend. larry in pleasantly, tennessee. good morning. caller: niels, i was wondering if you are aware of a $1.9 billion project that is building and one million square-foot facility for the nsa and it is in utah. it has been on the internet for months and months now. if you are not aware, you might want to look into that because that is going to be a massive storage facility to just hold everything that they're getting. host: have you looked into it? guest: i've heard of it, but i've not looked into it and i will look into it more. host: randy in ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, sir.

does this thing not help us catch the boston bomber when they bombed the marathon? did this thing help us catch them? the other thing is -- i do not understand rand paul. he is not going to be president. i'm going to tell you now. he is done and shot the gop in the foot. my grandson is in the navy. he is protecting that you go out there. has he done nothing? i don't care about my phone conversations. if i want to tell my husband i love him, the whole world can hear me say. i don't care. i'm not hiding. they are doing wrong, but you know what? i would rather have them have my information instead of god for bid 9/11 happening again and got for did this time instead of hitting new york, they hit kentucky. guest: host:host: if you topics there

-- if you topics there. guest: it is the breath of difference in this debate. the caller from hawaii and those two collars, you see the gap that will be clear and the republican field although it certainly looks like senator paul is going to be an outlier based on the candidates running at this point. host: certainly plenty of time to go before the vote in the primary and the caucuses in iowa. according to "the washington post" story on that, the latest polling numbers in bloomberg news shows that paul is the first choice of 10% of likely iowa caucus-goers. that is high enough to be tied for second place behind wisconsin governor scott walker. results reveal weaknesses. his standing, for instance, is

well below the 21% tally one by his father in the 2012 caucuses. and a new survey found that paul's favorability rating has led by nine points and cheney were, the biggest drop for anyone in the field. those are some the polling impacts that we are seeing. jacksonville florida on the line for independents. you are on the line with niels loosen us a listener ski. guest:caller: does anyone really believe that the nsa has stopped listening and all calls after midnight? after all that has been done? guest: the obama administration and others said that that was the legal limit for collecting data and they cannot continue to do it after the expiration. although one would say, and the caller does raise a point, given the classified nature of many of these programs and given perhaps

the track record of some intelligence agencies in the past, that is a question that is not a question that anyone can answer definitively. whether or not things stopped way they were supposed to stop at midnight is certainly something that is open to speculation. host: let us go to don waiting in michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i as a democrat have to stand with rand paul on this. host: with rand paul? caller: yes. i agree that we should not be collecting this data. if they have a suspect, get award and go to a judge. -- a war and go to a judge. rant and go to a judge.

if we get scared, are we going to lock everyone up as a suspected terrorist? it is wrong just like the people we had in cuba in those prisons over there. that is wrong. you have people who have not committed a crime and have gotten locked up. host: could you see yourself voting for rand paul if he makes it to the general election? caller: no. i'm leaning towards sanders. host: and if it is a rand paul versus the hillary clinton vote, could you see yourself? caller: maybe. caller:host: maybe from don and michigan. his rand paul getting support -- is rand paul getting support from democratic voters as he goes through this effort? guest: some of his support seems to be crossover support for more libertarian minded liberals and

i think you raise a good question of the caller because if as someone anticipates we have a hillary clinton contest on the democratic side. one of the things that we are going to see this paul is arguing and his campaign is arguing that he would be better suited to defeat secretary clinton that a lot of the others in the republican field because he appeals to a different set of voters than a traditionally republican leaning republican. host: a tweet from gregory about the 215 program, we would be better served with that money in our pocket and in job creation. eddie and florida on the line for democrats. eddie, good morning. caller: is this me?

host: it is you. go ahead. caller: it is betty. host: sorry about that. caller: what i would like to say is that we should not give up the constitution and the bill of rights. i have personal experience with this. i was put on one of these government lists for no reason except my ex got involved with some bigwig in the government. and i know that once you are put on these lists that you cannot get help from anyone. because with your identification , with your sopping cards -- shopping carts or whatever every time they run them they see that you are on the list and no one will help you. there is nowhere to turn. there is abuse going on in this program, just like obama's whistleblower. how many whistleblowers he has had. they are trying to shut people up from what they're doing. if you open the door to this and you let them do this to american citizens with no proof, then

where does it stop? i do not see why there cannot be judicial overview and why they can't go to a judge and say judge, this is what we have and we want to start this program on them. give us 30 days or three months and we will come back and show you what we have got. host: niels lesniewski, what are the arguments from the other side on those kinds of proposals? guest: one of the questions that i think that we have for existing investigations that were started using this in these programs that have now laspsed eventually, you do have to go to a judge and get a warrant. but there was a question about what exactly is being allowed to continue by this secretive court. i do not think we know that you did the other thing is that we

do not know exactly what the next thing is going to come out of the second circuit court of appeals in new york city, which had been the court that senator paul has been siding and saying in that the 215 program is illegal. host: let us go to north carolina on a line for independents. we have about 10 minutes left with niels lesniewski. you are on the washington journal. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was personally affected by this listening in on our phone calls. i have a friend in west point and i've called him one day and told him about the cd i had that i was going to send him. the cd -- someone was there on the actual date of the buildings was not down in new york. i was going to send him the cd because he has friends in new york city that he was want to send and make more of these cds

and send them out to people in new york city. so i package the city so i knew it would not get broken. when he received a, he said the package was not damaged but when he opened it, the cd was snapped in the middle. ok, that cd involved actual footage of this person team there and taking pictures on the day that the 9/11 attack happened. the one that was really focused on was building seven that nobody wants to talk about. building seven was eight hours a full eight hours after the buildings fell down, it was actually when building seven fell straight to the ground in under six seconds. host: we will hold off on conspiracy theories this morning. we had a whole segment that we did late last year about that topic on our c-span website that we did on "washington journal"

if you want to go back and watch that. it is with the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth. that is the name of that group. it is on our website at c-span.org we have a few minutes left with niels lesniewski. we want your ex receives -- expertise on the patriot act expiring and where we go from here. gary is on the line from ohio. caller: good morning. they had that patriot act before 9/11. they had that patriot act in their pocket trying to get it passed for years. now how come if this patient act is so good, how calm there was what 187 something nsa agents that was forced to retire, plus

the assistant nsa director? these people all stood up for america and they got fired and there is nobody on the court to represent the people that if they take somebody to a pfizer court that they have no representation. host: remind us what a fisa court is. guest: the foreign intelligence surveillance act which is the underlying law here is a bit of a secretive federal court for handling and adjudicating these claims. and a lack of representation for people who i guess you would describe as defendants or people who were going to be subject to the laws the backcourt overseas

-- that backcourt overseathat court oversees. there are several groups that are advocating for the group subject to those proceedings. it is difficult because with everything else that we have been talking about this morning. there is this classification issue. how exactly that would be done or how effective networks is an open question. host: let us go to greg waiting in kissimmee, florida. good morning. caller: i want to make a general comment about the american people and how it comes about through this stuff. the problem i have -- and i'm an independent, but i will probably change to republican so i can vote for rand paul in the primaries. the reality of it is that the

legislature, just like the president, they do stuff that is not what the people really want. the president does that to the congress. if you wants to do it, he just does it. the legislation does it. they create situations in the world from the stuff that they do that makes this general paranoia among the people something that is outstanding. the problem is is that the average americans have to send their sons into these wars and into the situations that are created by this general insanity to clean up the messes that the government makes. i have a brother in law who has been involved in government service for a long time, 30 years. and the truth of the matter is that a lot of the people who are really drawn to work in these kinds of programs, they are the kind of people that thrive on secrecy and privacy and paranoia and stuff like that. i appreciate rand paul tried to

point out that this is not what americans want. just like that gentleman who had his cd brokered you can put all kind of stuff together, it's a conspiracy or not. the american people cannot figure it out. that is the problem we have gotten into with this private world of our government that is doing things that do not have anything to do with allowing gimmick and people to do things that the american constitution has allowed us to do. host: i will let you join in on that. guest: i think that is one of the things that i think the intelligence community and the intelligence communities and the intelligence committees on capitol hill could do a better job with. i think they knew this particularly in recent years explaining what it is that they do. it would probably be helpful. in the senate intelligence committee, they meet behind closed doors for a couple of

hours most every tuesday and thursday that the senate is in session. and the attendance is really good for members of that committee. the members block out time significant time from their schedules for these meetings that they obviously cannot really tell us a whole lot of what is going on. but i don't think that the average constituent of someone who is a senator or their senator is from am a state on the intelligence committee knows that the senator goes to that many meetings or what work that they do. host: neil is waiting in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my comment is about the nsa. why isn't it picking up all the illegal activity done by congress, by the clintons, by pretty much most of the democrats?

why are they not finding hillary's e-mails, her telephone calls, her text? she has basically sold off everything to the state department to the highest bidder. i'm not sure what the purpose of the nsa is if they cannot find the biggest crime that is being done right now under our noses. host: niels lesniewski, and brings up a question. our members of congress subject to -- are members of congress subject to these provisions under the patriot act? guest: in theory, yes. i don't remember the exact details, but your viewers can look on rollcall.com because i wrote a story last year when bernie sanders actually was trying to ask the intelligence community questions about whether or not he has been subject to surveillance.

and the answer is that he got, i believe suffice to say, were not all that detailed. so in theory anyone who is having phone conversations that are involved in the bulk collection, yes. if they are collected in bulk, that would include members of congress. host: you have a story of senator leahy visiting bow biden, the vice presidents late son. can you talk about the tributes last >> can you talk about the tributes to the vice president's son. >> the unusual part of yesterday's session which we knew going in after the tragic news saturday evening the death of beau biden the firmer delware attorney general joe biden's son that there would be

tributes and mcconnell and minority leader harry reid opened the floor with such tributes. there were other senators who spoke, including leahy and a story i wrote as about how leahy once ran into beau biden unexpectedly in iraq, when the biden son was serving over there as part of the delware -- part of a delware unit, and as a result they just sort of ran into each other and then leahy called the vice president's office right after the fact to relay the had seen him. >> host: if you want to read that story it's on roll call.com. appreciate your insight and time on "washington journal." >> tomorrow on "washington down"a look at the nsa programs and the fight against isis. then more about the future of the nsa with iowa representative

steve king. hell discuss immigration issues and iowa's role in the 2016 presidential race, plus phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. live tuesday and every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the new congressional directory, bioand con -- contact information, and a foldup map of capitol hill, and a look at the the president's cabinet federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's 13.59 plus shipping and handling through the c-span2 online story at c-span.org. >> here on c-span2 tonight the communicators is next with a look at the proposed media merger between charter communications time warner

cable, and brighthouse networks. then some of today's debate in the senate on expired nsa provisions of the patriot act. and later a discussion on homeland security and defense policies during the george w. bush administration. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> this week on "the communicators" two guests. we're joined by gene kimmelman and harold furtchgott-roth former commissioner with the federal communications commission. good afternoon to you gentlemen. also joining us,