because we were creating a dynamic in which employers would be competing more and more for workers and so in effect they would be bidding up the compensation for the workers. so that's what i predicted. and i was confident that that would happen within some number of months or a year or so. so i have to come down to the floor today, mr. president, and confess that i was wrong, very wrong about the timing of that. you see, we didn't have to wait three or six or 12 months for our constituents, the people we represent, to see the benefits in the form of higher wages. they started happening immediately. i mean within days. it's actually been stunning. and in one month -- it's about one month since we passed this sweeping tax reform.

hundred, many hundreds of businesses, those cumulatively employing well over two million workers have announced bonus, wage increases, expanded benefits, increased contributions to pension accounts. and they have cited the tax reform as the mechanism that has enabled them to do this for their workers. what's so exciting about this, mr. president, is this is happening before the wave of new investment has even been able to begin. this is happening because companies know that with lower tax rates, they're going to have more free cash flow, and they're going to use some of that to invest in growing their business, but they have already announced that they're using some of that to enhance the compensation for their employees. let me just give you a few examples. these are just pennsylvania-related companies, just a handful of the ones that i'm aware of, and it's really typical of companies across the

country. comcast, big employer based in philadelphia. they announced specifically as a result of the tax reform that they would make a $1,000 bonus payment to 100,000 front-line nonexecutive employees, and they committed to $50 billion of capital expenditure over the next five years. how many tens of thousands of jobs is all of that capital expenditure going to support? it's a big number. but that's not all. out in pittsburgh, p.n.c. financial services, a substantial bank, a large bank in pittsburgh announced right after the tax reform that they would pay $1,000 to 47,500 of their employees, and in addition, they would contribute $1,500 to each of their employees who are participating in their pension savings plan. oh, and they're also raising their base wage. their minimum wage for employees

at p.n.c. goes up to $15 an hour. no federal government edict forcing them to do it. this is what they want to do so they can attract more and competitive employees. and they have increased their contribution to the foundation, their charitable foundation, $200 million to a foundation that supports early childhood education. that's just p.n.c. it doesn't end there. navient. navient has 900 or so employees in wix borrow, pennsylvania. they announced that they are making a $1,000 bonus to their nonofficer employees. 98% of their employees. not the top brass, those guys don't get it, but everybody else is going to get a $1,000 bonus. customers bank, bush administration county, pennsylvania, wyomissing. they announced that as a result of the tax reform and the tax relief that they're getting, they're going to be able to offer people who have a checking account with them a higher rate on their deposits. another benefit for consumers.

they're going to increase their charitable giving. next tier bank in butler county in western pennsylvania. $1,000 bonus to all of their employees. and then of course walmart. we saw walmart employees in every state in the union. there are over 160 walmart locations in pennsylvania. they're giving a bonus of up to $1,000, raising their starting wage, expanding their paid leave policy and their adoption assistance program for their employees, all in response to the tax relief and reform that they know is going to be good for their business, and they have already decided to make it good for their employees as well. now, that, mr. president, is just a small handful of the companies that i know of in pennsylvania who have made public announcements about this. how many more across the country? it's a huge number, and it's growing rapidly, and it's fantastic.

well, i think it's fantastic. i think it's fantastic when the people i represent are able to earn more to support their family, get a bigger bonus, get a bonus that they might not otherwise have gotten at all. i think it's great. i know that view is not universally shared. the house minority leader pelosi , she doesn't think very much of this. in fact, she said, and i quote, in terms of the bonus that corporate america received versus the crumbs that they are giving to workers to kind of put the schmooze on, i think it's pathetic, it's so insignificant. i have to say, mr. president, i don't think it's pathetic, i don't think it's insignificant. i think a family that's struggling, a family that's working hard, a family that may be living paycheck to paycheck as most families do, these are not crumbs. this makes a difference. and for people who wonder, they heard so much from our colleagues on the other side that this is not going to help middle-class families, any

mystery that people may think surrounds this will be resolved very soon because the i.r.s. has already released new withholding guidance. the treasury has done their evaluation, and they have concluded, as the joint tax committee concluded, that over 90% of all individuals and families filing or paying taxes will see a tax cut, and so they are adjusting the withholding tables so that the take-home pay goes up, so that the money that workers pay to uncle sam goes down. but honestly, i have to tell you, mr. president, i'm convinced that the best in all of this is yet to come. the best is yet to come because it's too early for us to have yet benefited from the wave of new capital investment. we've made it more affordable for business to invest in their workers, to invest in their business, to invest here in america instead of somewhere overseas. we have made that more affordable, and so more of it is going to happen.

and when it happens, people are going to get the benefits from the jobs that they have to provide those capital goods. other people are going to benefit from jobs that are necessary to operate that capital equipment. wages rise because workers become more productive. this is what's in store for us, and this is what's so exciting. it's not just my theorizing on this, mr. president. last week, the c.e.o. of p.n.c., bill demchek was quoted in "the wall street journal." he said, and i quote, for all the investment decisions that companies make, the u.s. just got that much more attractive. it's going to win more than it won before in terms of where people choose to do business activity and to invest, end quote. i couldn't agree more. this is clearly going to be the result. we are allowing american business to compete and to win in a competitive global economy. this is going to increase the

supply of capital. it is going to increase the productive capacity of the american economy. it's going to provide better tools for workers when they have that capital that they can work with that makes them more productive. that enables them to earn higher wages. and with all of the need for more workers that this is going to generate, it's going to continue to put upward pressure on wages because that's what companies are going to have to do in order to attract and retain the employees that they need. so i will say, mr. president, i think we are well on our way to seeing the fruits of this reform. i think it is going to be extremely constructive. i am thrilled that our legislation has already begun to have tangible benefits for the people that we represent, and i'm convinced that the best is yet to come. i yield the floor.

mr. cotton: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: it's of the highest importance that we reauthorizations title 7 of the foreign surveillance act, especially section 702. it's one of the best tools we have for protecting and preventing terrorist attacks against our country, and it has a long track record of success. it's one reason, for instance, that azazi today is not a household name, but yet just another bin laden wannabe sitting behind bars. he was planning to blow up the new york city subway system but he never got the chance because our intelligence community and law enforcement professionals stopped him in his tracks. by information using section 702 collection. that's how vital this program is, and that's why i will be voting yes on this legislation. now, that being said, the bill we're voting on today is not my ideal legislation. if i had had my way, we would be

voting on a permanent reauthorization with no changes. that was the white house's position when i worked together with the administration and introduced a section 702 extension bill earlier this summer. and the administration has said all along they wanted a clean and permanent reauthorization. the people who rely on this program and who know better than anyone just how valuable it is believed it was good as is. and the way i see it, if the threats against our country won't sunset in six years, why would we sunset this vital program? but i understand we usually have to compromise around here. i'm glad to see a provision i offered to increase the maximum penalty with the misuse of classified information included in this bill. so while i worry this bill might make it harder for our intelligence community and law enforcement professionals to protect our country, i am going to vote yes. as a result, you can imagine my surprise as i listened to the

program's critics. there's a lot of misinformation out there. i want to take this opportunity to set a few things straight. first off, there is nothing unconstitutional about this program. section 702 targets foreigners on foreign soil, not americans, and it is specifically designed to protect americans against unreasonable searches. don't take my word for it, though. every district court who has looked at this question has found section 702 to be constitutional. and that includes, by the way, so-called abouts collection. if you're trying to collect information about a foreign target. an american citizen mentions that target in an e-mail, i would suggest we want our intelligence community to know about that. now, does that mean that they incidentally pick up information about american citizens? yes, but let's be frank here. the only way to prevent this kind of incidental collection is

to prohibit any collection at all. if our intelligence community couldn't track an e-mail address or phone number simply because they theoretically might pick up information about an american citizen, they simply could not do their jobs. and it's difficult if not impossible to tell if many e-mail addresses belong to a foreigner just by looking at it. for example, is 5675309@g 5675309@gmail.com an american e-mail address or not? who knows? now, did the national security administration discontinue its collection at one point? yes, but to me that's evidence that this program works. contrary to what its critics would have you believe, the n.s.a. voluntarily ceased collecting that information in the name of protecting privacy. the n.s.a. respected the minimization standard imposed by

the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the safeguards worked just like they were supposed to. and this bill says the n.s.a. can continue so-called about collection only once it gets approval from the fisa court and from congress. so, yes, section 702 has a whole host of safeguards built in to protect americans' privacy, and this bill adds more still. the f.b.i. wants to review information collected under 702 on a u.s. person or criminal investigation that's not related to national security or foreign intelligence, it has to get a court order based on probable cause even though the constitution does not require that. or the f.b.i. wants to query 702 information and can do so only under fisa court-approved guidelines. and finally, just to make sure the f.b.i. is following the law, this bill requires the d.o.j. inspector general to speck check up on -- check up on the

f.b.i.'s compliance and report back to congress. finally, the critics say the attorney general can just sneak past all these safeguards by designating an investigation into a domestic crime related to national security or a transnational crime. that ignores the layers upon layers of oversight we have in place to prevent just that kind of abuse. not only the d.o.j. inspector general but the fisa court and congress will continue watching the f.b.i.'s use of this program, and keep guard against such misuse. so i have to say i find the critics' arguments to be wholly without foundation. section 702 is constitutional and strikes a pretty good balance between security and privacy. there's no good reason to let this program expire, and no good reason to hold this authorization up any longer. let's remember, after all, that last year there were two terrorist attacks against new york city within six weeks. not to mention a christmas eve

plot against pier 39 in san francisco that was disrupted. also, admiral rogers, the director of the national security agency, has testified that the intelligence community would not have been able to put together its intelligence assessment about russia's interference in our 2016 presidential campaign without this vital program. we face a lot of threats -- terrorism, spying, nuclear proliferation are just a few. they aren't going away any time soon and neither is the russian threat of meddling in our politics either. so it's past time that we give this tool back to our intelligence community so they can continue the hard work of keeping our country safe. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. when we passed tax reform late last year, we knew it would be a win for american workers and for the american economy. this win for our workers and families was long overdue after so many years of sluggish wage growth. americans will see tax cuts very soon. they'll be reflected in their paychecks next month. but tax reform is already making a positive difference. the response from our stkwrorb stkwrorb -- job creators, both small and large job creators has been overwhelming. some 164 companies so far spanning industry sectors and geographical boundaries have announced employee bonuses, higher minimum wages, better benefits, new jobs, charitable

deductions, charitable donations, and new investments. according to americans for tax reform, well more than two million americans will benefit from these bonuses. the national federation of independent business says the tax cuts for our small businesses, the bread and butter of our economy, will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. i want to take a moment today to highlight how some of these job creators are giving back to the hardworking citizens of my state. they include mississippi's single largest private employer, walmart, which has announced that it is raising its starting wage rate for hourly employees to $11. walmart is also expanding its maternity and parental leave benefits as well as giving employee bonuses as a result of the new tax bill.

bancorps south in tupelo, mississippi announced it will give back to employees through pay raises and bonuses. bancorp south says it plans to invest more than $10 million to the employees who work in its 234 locations across mississippi and seven other southern states. another bank, renaissance, announced it will invest tax savings in 2,000 employees. at&t is giving $1,000 employees to 2,000 tkpwhraoes. so are bank of america, american airlines, boeing and comcast. i could go on and on and on with bonuses benefiting hundreds of thousands of employees. other americans will get new jobs.

last month television station wlox on the gulf coast of mississippi reported that the half shell oyster house plans to use its tax savings to open new restaurants and hire more employees. isn't this what we want? isn't this what we predicted? and isn't it wonderful to see this come to fruition. kevin fish, a co-owner, told the news station, and i quote, we passed up on opportunities in the past that we wouldn't have passed up on had we had this tax structure. so, mr. president, millions of americans might also see lower energy bills from investor-owned utilities. utility companies across the country, including in mississippi are discussing how the law can help them lower energy costs for our consumers. the message is clear across my state and across every state and across this country, the more money our job creators can save

and the more money they don't have to send to washington in the first place, the more they can invest in the future of their businesses and the well-being of their employees. and this is proving true every day and will continue. these are the opportunities that we do not want our job creators to pass up. with every bonus, every pay raise, every expanded benefit, every lower energy bill, american families have more money in their budgets to spend on the things they need most. thank you to the leadership of the president, to the leadership of the house and senate for giving this outstanding benefit to the families, to the workers, to the job creators of the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

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

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: the senate will be voting soon on a bill to reauthorize the fisa amendments act. most americans likely do not recognize the name of the bill, but they probably know what this bill addresses. our government surveillance of communications. as a member of the senate intelligence committee i have learned a great deal about our post-9/11 surveillance laws and how they have been implemented, and i have determined that there are reforms that need to be made to the fisa amendments act. specifically, section 702 before we renew this law.

the single biggest flaw in section 702 is how it has been interpreted. the language of the law, the collection of foreign intelligence of u.s. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the united states, anticipates that incidental or accidental collection of americans' e-mails or even phone calls could occur. but under the fisa amendments act as written, there is nothing, nothing to prohibit the intelligence community from searching through a pile of communications collected under this statute to deliberately search for the phone calls or the e-mails of specific americans. this is not what congress intended when the law was written. and now we're being asked to vote on this law at the last minute with not a single amendment allowed. now, many of us have called this the backdoor search loophole

since it allows the government to search for americans' communications without a warrant. let me repeat that. without a warrant. the u.s.a. rights act, of which i'm a cosponsor, includes a fix to this loophole. it also includes other key reforms to the statute that i support. but that commonsense bill is not the one on the floor today. the bill before us today would actually take us backward. it doesn't require a warrant to search for americans' communications. it makes it quite easy to resume the about collections on americans, a practice that the government has literally abandoned. it grants new authorities to allow section 02 data to be used in domestic criminal prosecutions of american citizens. now i strongly believe that the federal government needs a way to monitor foreign communications, to ensure that

we remain a step ahead of the terrorists and those who would threaten our national security. the fisa amendments act has been beneficial to the protection of our national security. i don't question the value of the foreign intelligence that this law provides. i've seen it with my own eyes. but i also strongly believe that we need to balance the civil liberties embodied in our constitution with our national security imperatives. that is the responsibility of congress, to find that balance. the bill that is before us today could come closer to that standard if we improve it through the adoption of amendments that i and my colleagues would offer if we had the opportunity. but this bill is being fast tracked and we are left with only the choice of an up-or-down vote. the american people deserve better than the legislation

before us today. the american people deserve better than the warrantless wiretapping. i urge my colleagues to consider the gravity of the issues at hand and to oppose reauthorization until we can have a real opportunity for debate and reform. thank you, mr. president, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, before i start, i ask that my law clerk jeff gary, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i believe the american people should be deeply concerned about

the vote senate took yesterday to invoke cloture in effect ending real debate and preventing the senate from considering any amendments to the foreign intelligence surveillance act reauthorization. this isn't what we call regular order, this isn't how the senate ought to operate. in fact, it isn't even how the senate has handled surveillance bills in the past. even in the weeks after the horrendous attacks of 9/11, the senate considered amendments to the patriot act. and in 2008, when the senate first considered section 72, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, there were, in fact, amendments.

but now debate has been cut off and no senate -- and no senator, neither a democrat or a republican, is going to be allowed to offer an amendment. and what the country is going to be left with is a deeply flawed bill that in a number of ways is actually worse than current law. now, i want to talk first about whose rights are at stake. we're talking primarily at this part of my address about americans who talk to foreigners overseas. law-abiding americans whose communications can get swept up under this law. they could be, for example, american business people, perhaps somebody working for a

tech company in colorado or oregon or perhaps somebody working for a steel company in the midwest. these are american business people, law abiding people talking to a foreign contact. they could be swept up under this law or we could be talking about first, second, or third generation americans talking to family and friends still overseas. maybe they are catching up, maisch they are talking about -- catching up, maybe they are talking about kids and grandkids, maybe they are just talking about their hopes and aspirations, but they are still americans -- law-abiding americans who could get swept up in this bill. we could be talking about

american journalists covering foreign stories, we could talk with u.s. service members who made foreign friends while deployed. try to get your hands around that one, mr. president. it is particularly important because one of the proudest things because i ensured that americans overseas would have their privacy rights protected. we got a law passed to do that. i remember george w. bush had reservations about that proposal i made to protect the privacy rights of our law-abiding service members overseas. he said he might originally veto the bill, and in the end it was in his press release saying how

great it was, and i think it was because nobody had really talked about their rights of these wonderful men and women who wear the uniform of the united states. we did it right back when george w. bush was president to protect the privacy rights of our service members overseas, now we're talking about walking by the rights of those u.s. service members if they are talking to foreign friends they made while deployed and we could be talking about american teachers and researchers seeking information from foreigners. but now this body isn't going to have a chance to even consider reforms that might protect the constitutional rights of these americans, the business person, the service member, the first, second, or third generation american or immigrant, because

what is happening the senate is being forced to vote on a reauthorization bill without any public discussion about any kind of alternative. the one committee consideration, what's called a markup, occurred entirely in secret. that's public law being debated in secret. and yesterday the senate discussed whether to cut off debate on a bill that authorizes vast unchecked surveillance powers in less time than it takes to shop for the week's groceries. so now with no amendments possible, there's not going to be a single opportunity for the public to see its representatives explain why they are supporting or why they are rejecting these key reforms. you can only conclude from this that opponents of reforms just

were scared. they were frightened. they just didn't want to have them debated in the open. they must be worried that the more americans understand about the program and the more they hear about commonsense bipartisan proposals to fix it, the more the public is going to say we can do better -- we can do better than the status quo because the public, once they have the benefit of a little transparency and a little open debate, what i have seen -- and i just finished my 8605th -- 865th open hall town meeting, once you talk to folks at home about these issues, they understand that security and liberty aren't mutually exclusive. that sensible policies get you

both, not so sensible policies and failure to look at the issue really gets less of both. my view is the senate let down the american people yesterday. in my view we have a solemn obligation to deliberate, to consider amendments to vote up or down, and i think that is really what the senate is all about. one of the worst arguments for jamming this bill through without amendments was that somehow this law was going away. it just wouldn't be around. it was expiring. first, members who wanted to debate reforms were prepared to go to this floor many months ago. nothing stood in the way of a floor debate last year, but even today there's no reason to rush all this through, absolutely

nothing prevents the congress from extending 702 authorities for a week or two to allow us to carry out our constitutional responsibilities. by the way, the director of national intelligence has said publicly and on the record that it's authorities continue until april. so, mr. president, i was stunn stunned. i had senators on both sides of the aisle i like very much, good, dedicated senators saying oh, my goodness, we've got to act. if we don't act here in the next few days, oh, my goodness, powerful tools that we need to stop the terrorists -- and i will take a back seat to anybody in terms of stopping the terrorists -- they're going to be gong. that's just -- they're going to be gone. that's just not true. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to put into the record the statement from

the office of national intelligence where the director said on the record that its authorities would continue. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. so despite yesterday's vote, i regret to have to say, i'm going to have to oppose this legislation on final passage. my view is that if this bill does not go forward now, it's possible to get democrats and republicans back to work together and ensure that there's meaningful debate on the floor of the united states senate and that this is done with ample time to meet this window that the office of national intelligence has talked about publicly. but if that doesn't happen, the senate has denied itself the

opportunity to even attempt to fix this badly flawed bill. this surveillance authority allows the government to sweep up some untolled amount -- untold amount of law-abiding americans s. communications. the government says of course that its targets are terrorists, and this is about keeping americans safe from terrorism. mr. president, i don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting terrorist threats. having served on the intelligence committee for sometime now, i can tell all members and the public, there is no question that the terrorist threat is real and that there are significant numbers of people who represent a very real threat to the well-being of our country. now, if somebody says, we've got

to keep americans safe from terrorism, i am all in and i would submit, mr. president, i don't know of a single united states senator -- not one out of 100 -- who is not all in on this fight against terrorism. but that is not what the law says. the law says that under section 702 the government can collect without a warrant the communications of foreigners to acquire foreign intelligence information. and here's how the law defiance foreign intelligence information. it's information that relates to the conduct of the, quote, foreign affairs of the united states. mr. president, that is just about any piece of information

about a foreign country. and who can the government target to get all this information? anybody expected to possess, receive, and/or is likely to communicate that information. so if you unpack that, you don't have to be a terrorist suspect or any kind of threat to the united states to be a target under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the government just has to think that you know something the government wants to know. that's why so many americans -- democrats, republicans, and independents -- are worried about getting their private communications swept up. they're law h -- they're law-abiding people, as i've been saying. americans on a regular basis talk to friends and family and contacts overseas.

they're worried because based on what the law says, which i've just read, those foreigners could be targets and the americans' communications could be collected by the government. now, for years i and other members of the congress of both houses, both parties tried to at least get an estimate of how many law-abiding americans' communications have been getting swept up. as recently as april of 2017, the director of national intelligence said that the public was going to get some kind of estimate. but in june the director suddenly changed course and told the public and the congress, you're not getting anything. what that means is that no one knows the size of the databases. nobody knows how many americans' private communications are setting there waiting to be searched and possibly used against those americans. just yesterday the privacy and

civil liberties board was invoked by those opposing reforms. but what that board had to say about the sheer volume of american communications being swept up is actually, in their words, too much expansion in the collection of u.s. persons' communications or the uses to which these communications are put may push the program over the line, over the constitutional line. so here they were being cited, in effect, as supporters for the status quo when with i just read you, they're concerned about the status quo. this is why, mr. president, the foreign intelligence surveillance act today is an end run on the constitution, and it is what the president of the senate and other members of this body, both democrats and republicans, have wanted to change.

and this end run is not just a vast collection. it's that after all the communications of our people are swept up, the government can go searching for individual americans through all that data. they don't have to be suspected of anything. the government can just decide on its own that your private communications might reveal some intelligence or some evidence of a crime, and that search, like the collection of the communications, takes place without a warrant. no warrant on the collection of americans' communications. no warrant on searching for individual americans. mr. president, this is a case of two wrongs certainly not making a right. what the senate did last night was prevent any debate on this basic constitutional question. the u.s.a. rights act introduced by 15 senators of both parties

would have required a warrant for those searches of americans. the our colleagues, senator leahy and senator lee, have legislation requiring warrants, a democrat and a republican. other families have had their own -- other members have had their own proposals. none of them are going to get heard by of the senate. we had a chance to super-consider amendments. we could have fixed thed underlying bill which doesn't require any warrants for any selves for americans. let me just repeat that. the underlying bill does not require any warrants for any searches for americans. none. not in intelligence cases, not in criminal cases. warrantless fishing expeditions for americans can just go on and on and on. the bill's so-called reforms only apply to the government's access to the results of the searches. but it doesn't really even do

that. it only kicks in if the government is already well down the road of investigating somebody. this bill -- this means the bill provides more rights to criminal suspects than to innocent americans. think about p what that's going to -- think about what that's going to mean in texas or oregon or north carolina or anywhere else in the country. this bill provides more rights. as i've described it, to criminal suspects than to innocent americans. and it gets worse because the bill is even no narrower than t. it imposes no elementations at all if the government determines that the search relates to national security or to a criminal matter that has nothing at all to do with national security. why are opponents of reform happy now? because their bill does nothing. i went and read the director of

national intelligence statisti s for 2016, the c.i.a., the national security agency conducted over 5,000 had warrantless searches. it doesn't include the f.b.i.'s whose searches are supposedly too numerous to even count. it doesn't include communications record searches which number in the tens of thousands. how many times did not government encounter a situation in which under this bill there would even be the possibility of needing a warrant? exactly one. that's right. one among the thousands and thousands of warrantless searches for americans. and even that is an overstatement because that one instance in 2016 could have occurred prior to a predicated investigation, in which case it,

too, would be exempt from warrant requirements. basically, this bill that we will vote on provides an easy-to-read road map to the government to make sure it never has to get a warrant for anything. meanwhile, the thousands of americans subject to warrantless backdoor searches each year have no protections at all. mr. president, had there been amendments, i think there would have been the familiar argument against requiring a warrant for searches of americans' private communications. we would have heard the foreign intelligence surveillance act is necessary to connect the dots between suspects and terrorists. here's why that's misleading. opponents of reform like to talk about a tip to the government that somebody is acting strange

on a bridge. they say this is a situation when the government needs to go directly to reading the private communications of this person. that's just not how the constitution works. and think about it. would you want the content of your private communications searched, accessed, and read just because somebody has got a slight suspicion about you? and here's the misleading part. opponents of reform say that unless the government searches for and reads the e-mails, it just can't connect the dots to the terrorists. that is just false. the government already has the authority to get this information and in a less intrusive way. now, some may remember just a few years ago there was a debate about endin ending metadata, thk connection of phone records on

law-abiding americans. what remained at the end of that debate was the authority of the government to go get the phone and e-mail records of anyone as long as the records were relevant to an investigation. and if it's an emergency, the government can get those records immediately without having to go to the court first. and i want to emphasize that, mr. president, because it's something that i have felt very strongly about and i wrote that section -- section 102 of the u.s.a. freedom act. because i wanted to make sure that it was clear in this debate about finding policies, where security and liberty aren't mutually exclusive, where we have both, i wanted to make sure that the strongest possible message, the strongest possible message was sent; that if the

government believes that there is an emergency, the government can move immediately -- immediately -- to get the information it needs and then come back later and settle up with the warrant process. mr. president, when i have the opportunity to be in the oval office, which i've had several times -- it is a wonderful honor, a privilege given by the people of oregon to pursue these issues -- i will say what i say to a president, not what the president says back because i think those are private communications with the president. but at one point in this debate, i said to president obama, if you and your staff feel that the current emergency provisions are not adequate, if you think

they're not strong enough, i want to know about it because i will work with you to make sure that they do the job. and that's because when there's an emergency, mr. president, and the security and the well-being of the american people is on the line, the government gets a chance to move quickly, come back and settle later on the warrant process. and i included that in essentially all the legislation that i've authored. this provision, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, is what allows the government to connect the dots without going directly to the content of private communications. that's how our system is supposed to work. the government gets less intrusive information on americans using a lower standard first. so what if the government needs the content of communications

urgently? what if the government sees an immediate threat and believes it as no choice but to read those communications right away? as i said, that's why we had the amendment that i described in u.s.a. freedom act, and it's why we said in our amendment to section 702 this proposal, that we would also have an emergency exception. so again, u.s.a. freedom act, emergency exception, foreign intelligence surveillance act, emergency exception. in this case under our proposal, an emergency a government can search for and read those communications immediately and seek a warrant later. our proposal also includes other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a hostage situation where a search might help save someone. so i bring this up only by way

of saying, mr. president, reformers have been very clear. when the government has an emergency that is defined by the governments no the by somebody else who might conceivably not have all the information, what we did in u.s.a. freedom act is what we are doing in the foreign intelligence surveillance act, which is protecting the american people in an emergency. there are other facts about warrantless backdoor searches tha.for years after the original passage of the law, foreign intelligence surveillance act, the c.i.a. and the national security agency didn't have the authority to conduct the searches. what's more, the bush administration never asked the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance act court for the authorities. the bush administration didn't think it was a problem that the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. could

conduct warrantless backdoor searches of americans. but now people act like the warrantless searches are somehow inseparable from the broader program. they pretend that you really can't have an effective foreign intelligence collection program unless you make sure you're violating the rights of americans. this week should have been an opportunity to discuss the facts of how this bill could have been improved. should have been an opportunity to clarify that americans don't have to choose between security and liberty. it should have been the senate's chance to push back against scare tactics and fearmongerring and lay out for the public what the government does and doesn't need to protect us. instead we get a bill that isn't necessary for our security and does nothing to protect our liberty. there are other important amendments that are not going to

be considered. one relates to what is known as a bouts collection, a process in which two innocent americans could have their communications swept up if they just write an e-mail referencing a foreign target. we're talking about communications entirely among individuals who are themselves not targets and are potentially all americans. the whole concept is just contrary to the fourth amendment. as 9 privacy board -- as a privacy board concluded, there was nothing comparable in the law. i'll quote from a legal standpoint under the fourth amendment, the government may not without a warrant open and read letters sent through the mail in order to acquire those that contain particular information. likewise, the government can't listen to phone conversations without probable cause about one of the callers or about the phone in order to keep recordings of those conversations that contain

particular content. that's the quote from the privacy board. and you sure heard on the floor, the sponsors of the status quo in my view suggest that the privacy board had a different view of what they were up to. from a practical standpoint, this form of collection was so problematic that the government itself was forced to shut it down. now the underlying bill says go ahead and start it up as long as you tell congress. congress got to be told anyway based on the bill before us, if congress does what it does best, which is nothing, the government can just go head. again, i don't think that's what the public thinks the senate should be about. the government everyone wants to get back in the business of this collection, it can come to the congress and get it authorized. their argument wins the day? so be it. but by preemptively writing into black letter law this form of

collection, sight unseen, means that this senate is surrendering our constitutional responsibilities. this is one of the examples, this collection that i mentioned, mr. president, of why this bill actually is a retreat from current law. congress has never approved a bouts collection, wasn't in the 2008 bill creating the law or the first reauthorization of section 702. it happened because of a secret interpretation of law and most of congress knew nothing about it. now for the first time when the government itself has suspended it largely because they know it had been abused, what we're doing is essentially sefng up what amounts to a fast-track proo says to write it -- process

to write it back into the law. it definds abouts collection broadly, broader even than the government, and it invites its resumption. now, the senate is also not going to get to consider an amendment limiting how information on americans can be used against americans. the bill allows unlimited secret use of section 702 information all collected without a warrant, that any investigation or any administrative or civil procedures against americans. now, americans understand how the government can thoroughly disrupt their lives without ever charging them with a crime particularly if they're doing it based on secret information. but when it comes to using 702 information, as evidenced in criminal proceedings against americans, the bill provides no real protections.

all the government needs is the attorney general to determine that the criminal proceedings relate to national security or involved a set of crimes that have nothing at all to do with national security. it's a catch-all category called transnational crime. now, i have tried for some time to get the government to tell me what this transnational crime is. haven't gotten much of a response. in any case, the underlying bill here specifically says that the attorney general's decisions cannot be challenged in court. so there you are. if the attorney general decides that the crime you are being charged with somehow relates to national security or is a, quote, transnational crime, that decision by the attorney general is just really pretty much sacred. you can go to jail without ever being allowed to challenge the

government's use of section 702 information against you, information that was obtained without a warrant and potentially uncovered as a result of warrantless searches specifically conducted to find your communications and communications about you. the ways in which the government could potentially use this information collected without a warrant, investigate and prosecute americans and those in the united states are limitless. immigration status, recreational drugs, drug taxes, the list goes on and on. i don't think americans think that's how the system is supposed to work. is that what a warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance bill is supposed to do? i don't think so. immigration status, recreational drugs, backtaxes. this bill allows -- the bill leaves in place other problems that affect our rights.

one of them is the issue of what's called parallel construction. that's a lot of fancy legalese that even information against an american originally comes from section 702, if the government subsequently constructs a case from other collection, it never has to tell that american it used section 702. my bill with senator paul and 13 other senator, would have -- other senators would have fixed that. the bill we're voting on shortly without any debate, nothing on amendments, also leaves in place a big catch 22 that prevents anybody from ever challenging section 702 in court. section 702 collection is secret so almost no one can prove definitively that they personally were swept up. that means it's also -- almost impossible to get standing to go

to court and challenge section 702. i'm sure it pleases opponents of reform, but it means that section 702 isn't going to be part of any court review process where both sides to the adversarial system get heard. fixing this problem is not as some in the house misleadingly said giving rights to terrorists. that was part of the fearmongering that went on. what this is simply saying that section 702 is not exempt from constitutional challenges that apply to every single federal statute. by the way, the hallmark of our constitutional system. there are other problems which could have been fixed with amendments. i'm particularly troubled by the fact that the underlying bill doesn't fix the problem of reversed star -- targeting.

this is where a government targets a foreigner overseas when it's really interested in collecting the communications of an american without a warrant. right now the law is written -- as written allows the collection to continue without a warrant unless in effect the only purpose of the collection is to obtain the american's communications. my concern is that if the government has even the slightest interest in the foreign target, it's not going to seek a warrant regardless of the intensity of the government's interest in the american on the other end of the phone or the e-mail. this could mean, again, frequent, ongoing searches of the american's communications. it could mean the use of the american's communications in investigations and criminal proceedings. there's a solution to this. we proposed it. and that is if a significant purpose for targeting a foreigner is to get an american's communications, the government would need a warrant.

pretty simple, mr. president. i note the president of the senate was supportive of reforms and our bipartisan coalition. i very much appreciate that. just think about that. we had a solution to the fact that reverse targeting has been abused. and we simply said i if the significant purpose of the government of targeting a foreigner is to get an american's communications, the government would need a warrant and, of course, we have the emergency exception in the bill as well. the bill also doesn't prevent the government from directing service providers to modify or weaken encryption without any court oversight. i'm telling you, this problem has been injured appreciated. -- has been underappreciated. as we all know, there's an ongoing debate about whether the

government should be able to mandate backdoor weaknesses in encryption. i believe that this kind of authority is just a loser all around. i think americans if you weaken strong encryption will be less safe. certainly, you know, parents who are concerned about a youngster don't want to weaken the protection in their smart phone for the tracker so they can keep tabs on their kids and i'm telling you, if the government is allowed to mandate backdoor weaknesses in our products, i believe we'll be less safe. we'll have less liberty, and it will be a big loser for many of our high-skilled, high-wage companies. and i've already announced, mr. president, if there is any

effort to weaken strong encryption, i will do everything in my power to block that legislation because it is a loser from the security standpoint, it is a loser from a liberty standpoint, and it will be bad news for a lot of our companies that pay good wages for the high skills of americans. even those who argue government should be able to mandate back-door weakness of encryption assure us that it's only going to happen if the court orders it, but under section 702, the government could direct a service provider to do that without any court awareness at all. and, of course, congress might not know either. now, again, we would have liked to fix this here on the floor. the legislation i had, the bipartisan legislation with senator paul requires the fisa

court approve of the kind of technical assistance the government is seeking from providers which would also result in the congress finding out. this bill that we will be voting on soon doesn't do that. as a result, the court and the congress could end up totally in the dark about an issue that i think is absolutely central to the security and well-being of our people in the 21st century. the bill also provides no clarification on the question of whether section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act can be used to collect communications the government knows are entirely domestic. put your arms around that. this law is called the foreign intelligence surveillance act, and we can't even get a straight answer from the government, the

director of national intelligence about whether the law can be used to collect communications the government knows are entirely domestic. when i first asked the head of national intelligence whether 702 provided this authority, he said in a public hearing no, that would be against the law. but then apparently he told toax in the news media that he was answering a different question than the one i asked. so i asked once again the director of national intelligence to answer the question i had asked, at which point he then wrote and said the whole thing was classified. this is the essence of what is secret law. i believe it's the kind of thing that erodes trust in government and in the intelligence

community specifically. so had we been able to have a real debate, i would have offered an amendment that would in effect write into black letter law what the head of national intelligence told me at first when i asked him could fisa be used to collect wholly domestic communication before all this george orwell stuff, the head of national intelligence said no, fisa could not be used to collect wholly personal communications. that answer would have reassured the american people, but after all of this back and forth and the bizarre situation where the director of national intelligence says the whole

thing is classified after he's already given an answer in public, now the public isn't going to have an opportunity to see its representatives address this issue or take a position. supporters of the bill point to provisions related to oversight of section 702. here's how inadequate those are. yesterday, we heard again about the privacy board. right now, the privacy board is restricted to reviewing counterterror programs. most intelligence programs aren't neatly categorized that way. they're broader than that. of course, the effect on american privacy has nothing to do with whether a collection program is about terrorism or anything else. this bill leaves in place completely arbitrary limits on the privacy board and their ability to oversee the country's intelligence programs. finally, the bill does not

meaningfully strengthen the fisa court in a way that i think is very basic. there are people with top security clearances who appear before the court and provide the only alternative view in what is otherwise basically the government's show. the fisa court has often gone years without addressing serious legal and constitutional questions, but sometimes the court never gets to them. right now, these sort of friends of the court are only heard from when the court invites them, but imagine if these folks who have top security clearance were informed about what was going on and could ravishes with the court when they felt it was important. it's not going to hinder the fisa court, but it would greatly improve the chance the court would consider serious issues earlier. once again, no reform.

there are also basic principles of transparency that are ignored in the bill. right now, the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. are obligated to inform the public how many searches of americans they conduct. the f.b.i. is not. i don't see a good argument why congress shouldn't change that. the american people desire to know how often the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. conduct warrantless searches looking for information on them, they deserve to know how often the c.i.a. -- the f.b.i. does so, particularly because the f.b.i. conducts searches for evidence of a crime as well as for intelligence. so i believe i've outlined the faults of the bill. this is not reform, mr. president. it is not even business as usual. it is a retreat. it is, in fact, worse than just

extending the program's business as usual, because for the first time it writes into black letter law problematic practices as i have outlined. there is not real oversight, there is not transparency. that's what the public demands. that's what i heard people asking for at the town hall meeting i held last weekend in oregon. there are a lot of unanswered questions americans still have about the program. mr. president, there's certainly many members of congress who share my concerns who have devoted much of their career to ensuring that americans have security and liberty. i want to especially express my appreciation to senators paul and lee. they have been tireless champions. senator leahy has led on this critical matter for decades.

chairman leahy on the intelligence committee. senator heinrich, my seatmate, is, i think, one of this body's rising stars because they are willing to dig deeply into the issues, and in the house, 183 members voted for the most comprehensive section 702 reform bill, the house version of the u.s.a. rights act. and as we saw last night, mr. president, and the president of the senate and i were involved in a lot of those deliberations down here in the well of the senate, this was a really close vote. you know, a lot of people say well, you know, the reformers, they're going to say their peace and they're going to get six, eight, ten votes and the like. i think last night we really

brought home what i hear americans say democrats, republicans -- by the way, many independents who really have questioned about the way the government works and want to see their liberties protected in a way that also keeps them safe, and a big group of members in the other body and last night a big group of united states senators said what a quaint idea. let's have the united states senate be the united states senate. let's have a few amendments. it was communicated to the leaders. i want to thank senator schumer for making it clear that he thought that some amendments would make this a better, fuller, and more complete

debate. and i just think it's very unfortunate with the fact that there are so many important issues here. it's an important bill. and i hope people have seen that having spent a lot of time on these issues over the years, i think we really need to have more time spent on this floor getting a chance to debate these issues, have senators of both parties working in good faith, working towards constructive solutions. i think support for what we sought last night, which is a real debate and real solutions and actual amendments. i think more and more americans are coming around to seeing that's the way to proceed

because americans aren't going to buy the idea, well, we'll just say you have got to give up some of your liberty to have security. ben franklin said it really well. if anybody gives up their liberty to have security, they really don't deserve either. what we need are smart policies. that's why i talked about encryption. song encryption makes us safer. it also protects our liberty. that's why i outlined some of the deep flaws in this bill. i'm telling you, i think this bill puts on track fast track, going back to abouts collection where somebody is barely mentioned and all of a sudden the government is collecting information on them. so, mr. president, i will oppose final passage of this legislation. nothing is preventing the congress from getting this

right. as i mentioned, the office of national intelligence director of the relevant agencies has said there is plenty of time for us to take this bill, have a few amendments, real debate, and come up with a bill that better ensures that americans are both safe and free. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and i would note, mr. president, the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent for the quorum call to be eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22 all postcloture time on

the house message to accompany s. 139 to expire at 1:59 p.m. on january 13. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent to speak for approximately 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i rise now for the 193rd time to wake up speech, and as i do so we are coming up on president trump's anniversary in office. unfortunately, this occasion does not offer the american people much to celebrate. behind the persistent tweets and the dog whistles, the trump presidency has been a spectacle of special interest self dealing. billionaire donors have endless

access installing their operatives and pursuing their special interest goals throughout the executive branch. they are literally writing the rules in an unambiguous effort to enrich themselves ever more at the expense of everyone else. fossil fuel barons are the new american dark money emperors, carl ichan early on got himself installed as a special advisor to the president on regulatory reform and began pushing for a change to the renewable fuel standard that would net one of his companies, c.v.r. energy, hundreds of millions of dollars. icon's insider campaign came to an end in august of last year right around the time that a new

yorker outlined the potential legal claims that could arise from his murky status and self-dealing. federal investigators have since opened a probe into ichan's time at the white house. then came murray energy's c.e.o. and big trump donor bob murray with his policy wish list for trump officials. he called it his action plan. murray had donated $300,000 to the president's inauguration and he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to commission action afacilities -- affiliates and scott pruitt. in a front line documentary, bob

murray bragged about giving the administration this action plan and that the first page was already done. well, i was curious to see the bob murray action plan for the trump administration so i joined senator carper, our ranking member on the environment and public works committee, and asked the white house for a copy of the bob murray action plan. the white house ignored our request, and to this date, has never responded. i guess the white house was busy organizing trump's nominee for second in command at the e.p.a., a lobbyist for, guess who, bob murray and murray energy. during the murray energy

lobbyist's e.p.a. confirmation hearings, he claimed he did not have the bob murray action plan. he admitted that he had seen the bob murray action plan at a meeting between bob murray and energy secretary rick perry last march, but he could not recall details of what was in the action plan or what was discussed in the meeting. lobbyists for energy companies who get one-on-one meetings with the secretary of energy often little note nor long remember what went on at that meeting. anyway, i asked the department of energy whether they had a copy of the elusive bob murray action plan. shortly after my request and

before we heard anything from the department of energy, the magazine in these times -- "in these times" released photos of that march meeting that the murray lobbyist had mentioned between secretary perry and bob murray. there's bob murray and secretary perry. it looks like bob murray received a pretty cozy reception from the energy secretary. this gentleman, i believe, is a lobbyist -- another lobbyist for bob murray and murray energy. after they got through the hugging, they got down to business. there's the secretary, there's the c.e.o. bob murray, there's his other lobbyist, and this is the bob murray lobbyist who is

now teed up to be the number two at e.p.a. and right there in the pictures is the bob murray action plan. this is a closeup of it and the presiding officer can't see from there and nobody on the camera can see, but if you look right here, it talks about power grid reliability in the cover letter signed by bob murray which may have cooked up, since this was a meeting with secretary perry, secretary perry's power grid reliability proposal to the federal energy regulatory commission. which included huge subsidies to coal plants. so you have a coal company c.e.o. bringing his action plan

into secretary -- in to secretary perry on whose cover letter it talks about power grid reliability and before you know it secretary perry is proposing a power grid reliability contract that happens to give the coal industry enormous subsidies. what could possibly be wrong with that? well, with this photographic evidence in hand, i renewed my request that they produce the bob murray action plan. they were no longer able to pretend they didn't have it because they have a picture of it on the secretary's desk, they nevertheless continued to stonewall me saying, get this, that they would provide me the document after responding to

foia requests from the public. so memo to my colleagues, when -- in the oversight authority of the congress of the senate, you request documents from the trump administration, you might want to consider putting in a parallel foia request as that may be the only way you get a response. despite the administration's best efforts to stonewall the bob murray action plan, however, my office was able to obtain a copy from an independent source. this version is addressed to vice president pence. "the new york times" has now published the bob murray action plan and i ask unanimous consent to append the article that they

wrote, "how a coal baron's wish list became president trump's to-do list," and the bob murray action plan that was the subject of that story at the conclusion of these remarks in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. the article details demands made by murray that have already been checked off by the president and the administration, including the repeal of the clean power plan, withdrawal from the paris climate agreement, the installation of mining industry operatives at the mine, healthy administration and even the appointment of a possible fuel friendly united states supreme court justice. several more of bob murray's action plan requests are underway at the mine, safety, and health administration now

led by a former coal mine executive, murray energy, and industry trade associations are working to undo obama era rules to protect miners, and the 2010 coal mine dust rule is also on the chopping block. over at e.p.a., bob murray's political money beneficiary, scott pruitt, has begun a review of the agency's 2015 ozone standards. let me just drop in as a senator from rhode island we have had days when you drive into work and the skies are clear and the weather is nice and the radio says little children, infants, and elderly folks and people who have a breathing difficulty should stay inside air conditioning and not enjoy the

beautiful day. why? because of ozone, which is being bombarded in rhode island by, guess what. coal plants. we are downstream of the receiving end of ozone of those coal plant emissions. so, obviously, loosening the ozone standards is good for coal companies. and, a new topic, e.p.a. continues to cut and drive away its staff, all items on bob murray's action plan. since it appears that bob murray has tailored his action plan for individual agencies, i sent additional asks last week to the department of labor, environmental protection energy, the federal regulatory commission and the tennessee valley regulatory commission to

see what action plans they have from bob murray. the fossil fuel industry may be able to boss cabinet secretaries around and may be able to bring the majority party in congress smartly to heel, but fortunately there are still some venues where their demands run smack up against the rule of law. in our courts and in administrative proceedings decisions must have substantial support in the evidence and lying and misleading can be exposed and even punished unlike in congress where lying and misleading have been sickening successful fossil fuel tactics