vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 76, the nays are 17. three-fifths -- the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if there are not on this vote, the yeas are 77, and the nays

are 17. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the tell me when i have five minutes left, please. the presiding officer: the senate will so notify you. mr. paul: tonight begins the process of ending bulk collection. the bill will ultimately pass but we always look for silver linings. i think the bill may be replacing one form of bulk collection with another but the government after this bill passes will no longer collect your phone records. my concern is that the phone companies still may do the same thing. currently, my understanding is the n.s.a. is at the phone company sucking up the phone records and sending them to utah. my concern is -- the presiding officer: order. order in the senate, please. the senator deserves to be heard. mr. paul: my concern is under the new program, that the records will still be sucked up into n.s.a. computers but the computers will be at the phone

company, not in utah. so the question is, will it be a distinction without a difference? the question also will be will this be individualized? one of the things about the fourth amendment that was the biggest part of the fourth amendment for our founding fathers was that a warrant should be individualized. general warrants were what we fought the revolution over. james otus fought a famous case in the 1760's and he found against the british soldiers writing their own warrants. the interesting thing is, part of the patriot act allows our police to write their own warrants. we have something called national security letters. these have been done by the hundreds of thousands. interestingly, when the president first -- or when the president was in the senate, he was opposed to national security letters and said that they should have judicial warrants.

now it's kind of interesting that in this bill that will pass -- it's supported by the president supported by the director of national intelligence and now supported in a wide bipartisan fashion. it concerns me whether or not -- the presiding officer: will the senator please suspend. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well out of the chamber. the senator deserves to be heard. mr. paul: it concerns me that the president that supports the bulk data collection and has been performing it illegally for six years now supports this bill the devil's in the details and the question is, will the new bill still allow bulk collection by the phone companies? will they be able to put into the search engine not an individual for whom we have suspicion but an entire corporation? this is what was revealed when we saw the warrant that was

revealed that had verizon's name on it. we had the director of national intelligence come before the american people, come before congress swear under oath that they weren't doing this. part of my problem with the intelligence gathering in our country is it's hard for me to have trust. it's hard for me to have trust in the people that we're giving great power to. they also insist that we won't be able to catch terrorists. they insist that the bulk collection allowed them to catch terrorists. but then it turned out when it was investigated, when we looked at the classified documents when the president's bipartisan privacy and civil liberties commission looked at this when his review board looked at this and then when the department of justice inspector general looked at this they all found that there was no unique data, there was no great discovery, there was no great breaking up of a terrorist ring.

people have brought up the boston bomber, the tsarnaev boy. they said we need the patriot act after the bombing to get his phone records. that's the most absurd thing i've ever heard. he's already committed a bombing. in fact, i think he was dead at the point and you're saying we couldn't get a warrant to look at his phone records? it's absolutely absurd. i had a meeting with somebody from the intelligence community about six months ago and i asked them this question -- how do you get more information about terrorists, with a warrant with their name on it where you can go as deep into the details as you want, or met adata collection that uses a -- this metadata collection that uses a less than constitutional standard. and he said, without question you get more information with a warrant than you do through the metadata. when someone commits an act of atrocity there's no question we would get a warrant. but i would go even further. i would say that i want to get

more warrants on people before they blow things up. i would say that we need more money spent on f.b.i. agents analyzing data and trying to find out who we have suspicion for so we can investigate their records. i think we spend so much money on people for whom there is no suspicion that we don't have enough time and money left to go after the people who would actually harm us. the people who argue that the world will end at midnight tonight -- the presiding officer: will the senator please suspend. order in the chamber please. please take your conversations off the floor. thank you senator. mr. paul: the people who argue that the world will end and we will be overrun by jihadists tonight are trying to use fear. they want to take just a little bit of your liberty but they get it by making you afraid. they want you to fear and give up your liberty. they tell you if you have

nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. that's a far cry from the standard we were founded upon -- innocent until proven guilty. one of the objections that i tried to bring forward earlier but was interrupted repeatedly was that the patriot act was originally intended to go after foreigners and terrorists. we allowed a less than constitutional standard. we didn't ask for probable cause. we just said it had to be revent, the information had to be relevant -- the information had to be relevant to an investigation into terrorists. here's one of the problems, one of the big problems i have with the patriot act. we now use parts of the patriot act to arrest people for domestic crime. section 213 "sneak and peek" where the government can come into your house place listening devices and never announce that they were ever in your house and then leave and then monitor your

behavior and never let you know they've been there is being used 99.5% of the time for domestic crime. so little by little, we've allowed our freedom to slip away. we allow the fourth amendment to be diminished. we allowed the narrowing loss of something called probable cause. people say well, how would we get terrorists with that? the vast majority of warrants are approved in our country. the vast majority of warrants that are fourth amendment warrants where we individualize them put a name on and ask probable cause, if the police tonight are looking for a rapist or a murderer, they will go to the house and if they suspect they're inside but nothing is imminently happening, they will stand on the curb and call the police and they almost always get a warrant. do you think there's a judge in this land that would not grant a

warrant, particularly after the boston bombing to look at the sonora boys records the records. there is not a judge in the land that would say no. i would say in advance there is not much chance a judge would say no, if you went to them and said the russians have given us indication and evidence that he has been radicalized and associated overseas with people who are training to attack us. there's no reason why the constitution can't be used. but we just have to not let those who are in power make us cower in fear. they use fear to take your freedom, and we have to be very, very careful of this. now, some are saying i'm misrepresenting this, i'm saying the government is listening to your phone calls. i'm saying they are collecting your phone records. there are programs, though, in which they may be looking at content. emails, for example. the current law says that after

six months, even the content of your email has no protection. we have a very good piece of legislation to try to fix that, but realize those who are loud, those who are really wanting you to give up your freedom that they don't believe the fourth amendment protects your records at all and this is a big debate. we went to the court the second court of appeals the highest court in the land just below the supreme court said that what they are doing is illegal but we don't yet have a ruling on whether it's constitutional. one of my fears about the bill that we're going to pass, the sort of in-between step that some think it may be better, is that it will moot the case. this means that the court case may never get heard at the supreme court now. i have a court case against the n.s.a. there's another district court that has ruled against the n.s.a.

we now have an appellate court ruling against the n.s.a. the court may well look at the activity of the senate and say well you guys have fixed the problem, we don't need to look at it anymore it's no longer relevant. my other concern about this new bill that's going to pass is the same people will judge it that judged the previous system. these people are called the rubber stamp courtroom also known as fisa. realize that the fisa court is the court that said the collection of all american records is relevant. the appellate court basically laughed at this notion and said that it sort of destroys any meaning to the word relevant if you collect everybody's records. it's not even a modifier. they should have instead of said relevant said you could have everyone's records all the time.

one of my other concerns about the in-between solution that we are going to choose is that some are conjecturing -- you have to be suspicious of a government that often lies about their purpose. some are conjecturing that they're going to collect more phone data under the new system. one of the complaints last week, as there was discussion about this, in the newspaper it was reported that really they were only collecting about 20% to 30% of your cell phone data. they are trying to collect all of your land line data, but they weren't for some reason collecting all of your cell phone data. one of my concerns is that as we go to this new system, they may actually be better at collecting our phone records and they may well be able to collect all of our cell phone data. unless we can go to a system where we individualize the warrants, unless we can go to a

system where a person's name is on the warrant i'm going to be very very concerned. now, we will present amendments on this bill. we tried to negotiate to be allowed to present amendments, but there wasn't a lot of negotiating that went on in the last week. in fact, there was none. so we will still try, we will put amendments forward and we will try to get amendments to make i think the bulk collection less bad that's going to occur. one of the things we would like to do is to say that when they search the phone records that they can't put the name of a corporation in there that they would have to put an individual's name. it's kind of tricky about the way these things are worded. the wording of this bill will say that they can only put a u.s. person into the selector term to search all the phone records. the problem is that they define u.s. person as also meaning

corporation or association or grouping. so there is a little bit of looseness to the language, and so if we are still going to allow corporation, what is to stop them from going back and putting at&t or verizon in the selection and then once again they are looking at all the phone records and all we have done is transferred the phone records from government control in utah to phone company control in another location. will we be trading bulk collection in utah for bulk collection under the phone company? now, there are good people who believe this bill will reform, and i think they are well intended. i think there are good people who really think we will end bulk collection and it won't happen. my fear, though, is that the people who interpret this work at a place known as the rubber stamp factory over at fisa. it's a secret court and it's a

court in which 99.5% of the time they approve warrants. warrants are simply rubber stamped over there. in fact, they prove that relevant meant all of your records. my question is if they put at&t in the selector item, will we once again have the same thing just in a different location? i have several amendments that i'm interested in if we were to be able to amend the bill. one of the amendments would say the selector, the search would have to be an individual, which i think is more consistent with the fourth amendment. another one would change the standard to the constitutional standard, which would be that it has to be probable cause, which is a higher standard than simply saying it's relevant. then we would actually be sending a new signal to the fisa court another amendment i have which i think would go a long way towards making the patriot

act less bad i think is the best way to put it, would be to say that any information gathered under a less than constitutional standard could only be used for foreigners and terrorists. see, that was the promise and at the time there were people who opposed the patriot act. not enough but there were a few. and when they opposed the patriot act they said the fear was that it would be used against american citizens. and they said oh, no, no, we're only going after terrorists, but the law allows them to do it. we now have sections of the patriot act in which 99.5% of the time it's being used for domestic crime. we have also seen that the drug enforcement agency, it is alleged, is using information gathered under the patriot act to then go back and re-create cases against people for domestic crime. the question we have to ask

ourselves is are we really willing -- are we so frightened that we're willing to give up our freedoms? are we willing to trade liberty for security? the u.s. court of appeals i think had some great points that they made when they used against the government, and i think what's important to know is that the president has continued to do this illegally. you've seen him on television. the president has been saying well congress is just getting in the way if congress would just do their job and get rid of this everything would be okay. but the truth of the matter is congress never authorized this. even the authors of the patriot act said that this was not something that congress ever even contemplated. the court is now saying that as well. this was done by the executive

branch. admittedly both the republican executive branch and democratic executive branch, but this wasn't created by congress. so when the president says well, congress should just do this, the question that's never been asked by anyone in the media is why doesn't he stop it. everybody that has given advice has said he would, he will come out and say he believes in a balanced solution, but he really is just abdicating the solution and has never discontinued the program. even when he has been told explicitly by the court that the program is an illegal program. this is what the u.s. court of appeals says in the case aclu versus clapper. we agree with the appellants that such an expansive concept of relevance is unprecedented and unwarranted. the records demanded are not

those of suspects under investigation or even of people or businesses that have had contact with suspects or of people or businesses that have had contacts with others who have had contact so even two steps removed we're gathering records that are completely irrelevant to the investigation. we're gathering up the records of innocent americans. now, the other side will say well we're not looking at them. so i have been thinking about this. our founders objected to the british soldiers writing warrants. they objected to them coming in their house and gathering their papers. do you think our framers would have been happy if the british government said okay, we're just breaking your door down, we're just getting your papers, but we're not going to look at them? do you think that would have changed the mindset of the framers? so the fact that they say they're not looking at our

records is that any comfort or should it be comfort, the act of violation is in taking your records. the act of violation is in allowing the police or a form of the police, the f.b.i. to write warrants that are not signed by a judge. the court goes on to say the interpretation that the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle. the idea of a limiting principle when the court looks at things is that the way i see it, it's a difference between something being arbitrary where there is no sort of principle that confines what can happen. if you have a law that has no limiting principle it's essentially arbitrary.

this is what hyack wrote about when he wrote in the walk to serfdom. he wrote about the difference between the rule of law and arbitrary and having an arbitrary interpretation of the law. the danger to having an arbitrary interpretation of the law and the danger to having general warrants is that they have been used in the past with bias. people have brought their own bias into this. in the 1960's, the bias was against civil rights activists it was against vietnam war activists. in the 1940's, the bias was in incarcerating and in interning japanese americans. but the thing that was consistent in all of these is that there was a generalization, generalization based on the color of your skin, whether you were asian american or african-american and also about the shade of your ideology. there is a danger in allowing the government to generalize without suspicion and to disobey

the fourth amendment and that danger comes that a government could one day generalize and bias could enter into things. we have on our records right now laws that allow an american citizen to be detained. it's not specifically part of the patriot act but it's along the same lines of this, that you're getting rid of a process the due process amendments and the ability of the bill of rights to protect the individual. when we allow an individual to be detained without a trial what happens is there is the possibility that someone could decide we don't like those people, and when you say well, that could never happen, think about the times in our history when it has. richard jewel everybody said he was the olympic bomber. he was convicted on tv. within hours people said richard jewel's guilty. think about if he had been a black man in 1920 in the south

what might have happened to him. think about the possibility for bias entering into our government. think about the fact what madison said about government is madison said that we restrain government because we're worried that government may not be comprised of angels. if government were comprised of angels we wouldn't have to worry about restraining government. patrick henry that the constitution was about restraining government, not the people. it's not enough for people to say, oh, i'm a good man or i'm a good person, or the n.s.a. would never do this. the other problem that makes us doubtful is that the n.s.a. hasn't been honest with us. if they wanted to develop trust again, the president should have immediately let go the person who lied to us, the director of national intelligence. the appeals court concluded by

saying that the government's bulk collection of telephone meat data metadata exceeds the scope of what congress has authorized and therefore violates section 215 of the patriot act. some will try to argue that this debate was not worth the time we took on it. i cooperate disagree more. i'm like everybody else, you know i prize my time with my family and being at home object the weekends. and i wish we would have done this in a more sensitive way where we had had more time hand and had an open amendment process. but we waited until the end we waited until the final deadline. and this is a characteristic of government and it's a flaw in government frankly. we lurch from deadline to deadline. people wonder why congress is so unpopular. it's because we go from deadline to deadline and then it's hurry up we have no time to debate,

you must pass it as is. the biggest debate against amendments is -- and it finally convinced even the people who didn't like this. they so much dislike amendments and slowing down the process that they're just going to take it even though they don't like it we'll pass what the house passed and it's unlikely any amendments will pass. about but the thing is we need to get away from lurching from deadline to deadline. what happens with budget or spending or any of these bills is we're presented with thousand-page bills with only hours to go. about a year ago this came up and at that time we were presented with a thousand-page bill with two hours to go and i read the senate rules and it said we're supposed to be presented with the bill for 48 hours in advance. so i raised my hand and made a motion. and the motion i made was guys, we're breaking the rules here. men and women we're breaking the rules here. so very just voted to amend the

rules for that bill and ignore the rules. this is why the american people are so frustrated. people here in town think i'm making a huge mistake. some of them i think secretly want there to be an attack on the united states so they can blame it on me. one of the people in the media the other day came up to me and said oh, when there's a great attack aren't you going to feel guilty you caused this attack? it's like the people who attack us are responsible for attacks on us. do we blame the police chief for the attack of the boston bombers? the thing is that there can be attacks even if we use the constitution but there have been attacks while collecting your bulk data. so the ones who say when an attack occurs it's going to be all your fault are any of them willing to accept the blame we have bulk collection now are any of them willing to accept the blame for the boston

bombing, for the recent shooting in garland? no but they'll be the first to point fingers and say, oh, yeah it's all your fault we never should have given up on this great program. i'm completely convinced that we can obey the constitution, use the fourth amendment as intended spirit and letter of the law and catch terrorists. when we look objectively at this program, when they analyzed the classified information they found that there was no unique data. we had to fight them tooth and nail because they started out saying 52 cases were cracked by the bulk data program. but when when this president's bipartisan commission looked at it it turned out none of that was true. this gets back to the trust issue. if we're going to be lied to by the department of -- the detectivor of national intelligence it's hard for us to believe them when they come

forward and they say oh, this is protecting us, we have to have it. but what we're hearing is, information from someone who really didn't think it was a big deal to lie to us about whether or not the program even existed. mark my words the battle's not over. there are some -- and i talked with one of the -- i would say one of the smarter people in silicon valley who knows this from an intimate level how things work and how the codes and programs work, and he maintains that the bulk collection of phone data is the tip of the iceberg. that there's more information in other data pools that are classified, some of this is done through an executive order called 12333. i'm not sure i know everything in it. i've had no briefings on it. anything i tell you is from the newspaper alone. but the thing is that i would

like to know, are we also collecting your credit card information, are we collecting your texts are we collecting your emails? they've already told us the fourth amendment doesn't protect your emails. even the don't after six months. -- content after six months. they've told you the fourth amendment doesn't apply to your records at all. so be very careful about the people who say trust us, we'll never violate your freedoms. we'll never take advantage of things. the president's privacy and civil liberties oversight board's conclusion was that section 215 of the patriot act has known minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism. we not have identified a single instance involving a threat to the united states in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome. the president's privacy board

went on to say the government's collection of a person's entire telephone calling history has a significant and detrimental effect on individual privacy. when they talked about whether or not the phone records were relevant to an investigation the president's commission said this -- "first the telephone records acquired under the program have no connection to any specific f.b.i. investigation at the time of their collection. second because the records are collected in bulk, potentially encompassing all telephone calling records across the nation they cannot be regarded as relevant to any f.b.i. investigation. here's the continuing danger to us though. it is i think maybe a minor

success we'll prevent the government from collecting these records. but realize that the interpretation of this will still occur in secret in the fisa court and that this is the fisa court that said that collecting everyone's records was relevant. it completely destroys the notion that the word "relevant" has any meaning at all. this will be the question, whether or not we can trust the fisa court to make an interpretation that is at a higher degree of discernment than the one in which they said relevant can mean anything. the court or the orange original u.s. freedom act as patches by the house committee was a better bill and has gradually watered down until even the director of national intelligence, the one who lied about the program now supports it which gives me some misgivings. but the records that will be

collected, the question is how will we have an interpretation by the fisa court. the original bill that had an advocate and i thought this was a good part of the original bill. there would be a judicial advocate who would argue on the side of those who are having their records taken. and so there would be an adversarial court lawyers on both sides. many people who write about jurisprudence and trying to find justice say one of the essential functions of a court system in order to find justice is that there has to be a lawyer on both sides. there has to be an advocate on both sides. the truth isn't always easy to find. the truth is presentation of facts by one side, presentation of contrary facts by the other side, and someone has to figure out which facts are more believable or which facts are -- trump other facts. and so i think a judicial advocate would have been good. there's still -- they're still going to have it, they call it

by a different name now but it will be optional at the discretion of the fisa court. so the court that ruled that all of your records are relevant now will have a choice as to whether or not to give you an advocate. that doesn't give me a great deal of comfort. there are other ways we could do this. we occasionally do look at terrorism cases in regular federal court. and when names come up that could jeopardize someone's safety and our intelligence agency or a secret, federal courts can go into secret assess. i've heard the senator from oregon often mention this and i think it's a great point. that no one wants to reveal the names of anyone or the code or the secrets of how we do this but if we're talking about constitutional principles, we want to do it in the open. law shouldn't be discussed in secret. -- investigated in secret. as we move forward the patriot act will expire tonight. it will only be temporary.

they will ultimately get their way. but i think the majority of the american people actually do believe government has gone too far. in washington it's the opposite. but i think washington is out of touch. there will be 80 votes in order to say continue the patriot act. maybe more. but if you go into the general public, if you get outside the beltway and visit america you find it's completely the opposite. there was a poll a couple weeks ago that said over 80% of people under age 40, over 80% of them think that the government collecting your phone records is wrong. and shouldn't occur. so i think really this will be useful. people say you're destroying yourself you should have never done this, the american people won't side with you. and people wish me harm and wish that this will be unsuccessful. but you know what, i came here to defend the bill of rights and

to defend the constitution, popular or not but i frankly think that the bill of rights and the constitution are very popular, very important and i will continue as long as i have breath and as long as i'm here to defend them and with that, mr. president, i yield back the remainder of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president before he leaves the floor i just want to make sure having worked with senator paul for many many months now that i especially appreciate his efforts in the last few days in this week to try to accommodate this body with respect to amendments. my colleague has said repeatedly that he was very interested in a

short list of amendments that he hoped to have some modest time that would be available for these amendments. he and i have worked together on a number of them, and i think it's a reflection as people think about this debate and on a topic that is of such enormous importance that my colleague from kentucky, especially with respect to this amendment issue, has tried continually to be reasonable and to be accommodateing to this body. mr. president, until just a few hours ago, i was at home in oregon having town hall meetings flew all night to be here for this extremely important session. and, of course, the topic that we discussed this evening was front and center in terms of my constituents. and the message from oregonians

at these town hall meetings, mr. president, was very clear. the people that i have the honor to represent in the united states senate want policies that advance their security and protect their liberty. the program that we have been talking about here tonight in the united states senate really doesn't deliver either. it doesn't make us safer and it chips away at our liberties. and, mr. president i'm going to spend a little bit of time this evening making the case for those kinds of arguments and laying out the challenge for the days ahead. now, with respect to the safety issue -- and all of us understand particularly, mr. president, if you've been on the intelligence committee as i

have for over 14 years, it is a dangerous world. anyone who serves on the intelligence committee knows that beyond any kind of debate. so we want policies that really deliver both security and liberty, and here's what the president's own experts had to say with respect to this program that involves collecting millions and millions of phone records on law-abiding americans. and this was a group that was appointed, mr. president and spent a considerable amount of time looking at the bulk phone record collections program and they issued a report, and if i could just paraphrase what is the central finding mr. president. at page 104 of their report -- and i paraphrase here --

"information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 tele telephony metadata." these experts say "could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders." now, the reason that that's important, mr. president it spells out and recognize that those who sign this report are individuals with some of the most pristine anti-terror credentials in our country. mike morell, for example the former acting director of the c.i.a., richard clarke, who held an extremely important position in two administrations served with both republicans and democrats -- both of them are signatories to this important

report. and beyond that, mr. president -- and it has not gotten much attention -- the reality is that our government, on top of everything else, has emergency authorities so that when those who are charged with protecting our country believe there is a threat to the nation, they're allowed to issue an emergency authorization to get the information that they need right away and then they can go back and get the warrant approved after the fact. mr. president, nobody is talking about eliminating that emergency authority. so what we have is a program that the most authoritative anti-terror experts in the country believe does not make our nation any safer -- and i

read the most significant finding in their report -- and on top of that, as i just indicated, emergency authorities are still preserved. and, in fact, mr. president i've indicated to our president and those who work in the intelligence agencies that if at any point -- at any point mr. president -- that the executive branch and particularly the intelligence agencies feel that their emergency authorities are inadequate to protect the country, i personally, personally would be willing to support efforts to ensure that those emergency capabilities are reformed and our country can take the steps it needs when it's necessary. now, on top of this question, mr. president, with respect to

the issue of our safety, i want to talk about what i heard at some length earlier today with respect to how the program worked. and i heard a number of senators say, nobody in government is listening to these calls. that was repeated a number of times on the floor of this body. mr. president, when the government under this program knows who you called, when you called and where you called from in many instances the government doesn't need to be listening. if the government knows under this program that a person called a psychiatrist three times in 36 hours twice after midnight that's a lot of private and personal information. the government doesn't need to be listening to that call. so this notion that some who

have wanted to make sure that our country would have both security and liberty are saying that oh, it's a fantasy that the government is listening to calls, i can tell you that those who have been trying to reform the program have said, in effect the government doesn't need to listen to those calls. if the government has that amount of private and personal information, the government knows a lot about you and it really doesn't need to listen. and certainly if you're talking about a landline, mr. president then the government knows where you're calling from, if they have a phone book. so with respect to this question of the government, you know, listening, i wanted i want it particularly understood that a program like this -- when the government has this kind of

information, i believe that represents a threat to our liberty. and the reason why i think so is hardly a week goes by, mr. president, when databases aren't violated. we see that reported regularly in the press number one. number two we've known about unfortunate times in our history -- j. edgar hoover comes to mind -- when this kind of information could be used. and, third i've been very concerned, given what our former colleague, senator you udall and i had to do with respect to bulk phone record collection of e-mail. we battled to end this -- and of course this was e-mail that could be read by government agencies. we battled with various intelligence leaders saying that we felt this a violation of people's rights, and it wasn't

effective. they asserted for months and months that it was. and finally one day they woke up and said the program wasn't needed anymore. none of this would have even happened mr. president had not senator udall and i made that case repeatedly. the intelligence leadership knew that we were not going to give it up. but that's what goes on if there isn't a check on some of these kinds of procedures. and senator paul made meption of -- made mention of the fact that the intelligence leadership has not exactly been straight with the american people on these issues. and i want to emphasize that we are not talking about the thousands and thousands of law-abiding, patriotic dedicated, wonderful people who work in the intelligence, you know field -- day in and day out, they do so much for our country. we're so appreciative of all

that they do. they're the ones who do the hard work, for example to capture osama bin laden and day in and day out make us safer. but the intelligence leadership, on the other hand, as noted by our colleague from kentucky, hasn't always been straight with the american people. i spent many, many months trying to decipher what the former n.s.a. director meant when he said the government doesn't collect any dossiers on millions of americans. i pointed out -- i had been on the intelligence committee a long time and i'd never heard the term "dossier" used. so i tried to learn more about it used private opportunities public opportunities just couldn't get the information. so finally mr. president i said i've got to ask this question in public. on the intelligence committee you don't get but perhaps 20 or 25 minutes a year to ask

questions in public to hold intelligence leaders accountable on policy matters not secret operations, because secret operations have to stay secret. but policy matters. and so after being stonewalled for many, many months -- many months -- i finally said, i've got to ask this question in public. so as to make sure no one would feel ambushed, i sent the question to the head of the national intelligence department mr. clapper i sent it a day ahead of time. and then i didn't hear anything about it being inappropriate or in violation of classification rules. so i asked in public, i said, does the public collect any type of data at all on mols or -- on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? and i was told no. and that answer was obviously false. and i tried to get it corrected. and we still couldn't get it

corrected. and, of course, then mr. snowden spoke out publicly, pointed that out, and since that time, mr. president, the head of national intelligence and his representatives have given at least five different explanations for why that answer was given. so that's why you've got to ask the hard questions. you've go to to got to ask the hard questions about these issues. and i see my friend and colleague, senator heinrich, has joined us here tonight. and i am so pleased that he has joined the intelligence committee because senator heinrich is one of those senators who subscribes to that view that i just mentioned that it's our job to ask the hard questions. it may be uncomfortable it's

not designed to in any way convey disrespect. but we see it as our job to ask the hard questions. and i'd be interested in my colleague's thoughts with respect to this issue and having him being given a chance to participate in this colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: first off, i want to thank my friend from oregon and to recognize the substantial leadership he's shown on this issue over the years, long before i came to the intelligence committee and long before edward snowden began to steal documents. senator wyden along with senator mark udall and others, were doing everything they could without disclosing classified information to shine a light on the fact that the u.s. government was collecting massive volumes of data on millions of law-abiding american

citizens. my friend from oregon deserves our thanks for that leadership. now, after the bulk call data program was revealed to the public the government defended it and defended it vigorously. it took a number of months for the intelligence community and the rest of the administration to take a deep breath and really assess whether bulk metadata collection was necessary whether it was effective and to consider whether there were other less intrusive more constitutionally grounded ways to accomplish these same goals. starting with the president's review group on intelligence and communications technologies, the administration began to agree that -- quote -- "some of the authorities that were expanded or created in the aftermath of september 11 unduly sacrificed

fundamental interests in individual liberty entrepreneurial privacy -- personal privacy and democratic governments." and they recommended changing those authorities in order to -- quote -- "strike a better balance between the competing interests in providing for the common defense and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." end quote. following that multiple efforts have been made to update and reform fisa and to update and reform the u.s.a. patriot act. none of those have been successful. but now we are forced to come to a resolution through a combination of, frankly process crassty nation and i think -- procrastination and i think misguided hope that the american public would look the other way while the government would continue to story their

information and data as part of a program that even the intelligence community acknowledges can be accomplished through less intrusive means. i'll be honest, mr. president the current u.s.a. freedom act isn't what i consider perfect. for example i'd prefer it include strong reform of section 702 collection. but i accept that circumstances require us to be pragmatic require us to govern and move forward and to work with one another in both parties to find compromise. that's what the u.s.a. freedom act is. it's a product of bipartisan compromise. that's why it passed the house of representatives by a vote of 338-88. and, let's be blunt many of those who voted against it didn't do so because they support bulk collection. they did so because they want to see section 215 wither and die

in its entirety. that's the political reality that we face today and we need to accept it rather than demand a continuation of a program that the appeals court has determined is illegal. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague for his statement and would just want to explore this a little bit further. i hope that those who are following this debate understand that my colleague from new mexico a real rising star here in the senate, he and i would like the u.s.a. freedom act to go further and we both worked together on legislation that would make additional reforms. and certainly our colleagues on the intelligence committee and here in the senate can sphect -- expect to see us continuing to work together to advance these

additional reforms over the coming months and years. and for now the two of us are saying we ought to support the u.s.a. freedom act and then move on move on to other critical areas. i particularly want to see closed what's called the back door search loophole, which my colleague from new mexico talked about. what this means colleagues, is that when you are engaged in a lawful search of someone who is a threat overseas pursuant to section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act very often americans law-abiding americans can get swept up in this search and have their e-mails looked at. this is a problem today and my view is it is likely to be a growing concern in the future because increasingly

communications systems around the world are becoming globally integrated so the amount of e-mail that is viewed of americans is likely to grow. but we can't get that change here tonight. and so, as my colleague from new mexico has mentioned the u.s.a. freedom act would make several worthwhile reforms such as increasing transparency, reducing the government's reliance on secret law. but from my perspective the centerpiece of it is ending the bulk collection of americans' information under the patriot act. i have been trying to close this particular loophole for close to a decade now. now some of our colleagues have said that the bulk collection has never been abused.

no one's rights have been violated. my own view is -- i'm going to ask what my colleague thinks -- is vacuuming up all of this information, particularly when data bases get violated all the time. we've seen historically instances where there's been improper conduct by the government. i believe that dragnet surveillance violates the rights of millions of our people every day. vacuuming up the private phone records of millions of americans who have no connection to wrongdoing is simply a violation of their rights. and vacuuming up americans' e-mail records which i pointed out before my colleague came to the floor, which he and senator our former colleague senator udall and i battled that sure is a violation of the rights of americans as well. and, colleagues, that wouldn't have been pointed out at all wouldn't have been pointed out at all unless senator udall and

i, with the help of our friend from new mexico, hadn't been pushing back on it. finally one day the government said we'll get rid of it because it wasn't effective. they got rid of it because they saw they were going to get hard questions, the kinds of questions my friend from new mexico has been asking. now, with respect to the legality of this program i know my colleague and i actually filed a legal brief along with our former colleague mark udall when the court of appeals for the second circuit was examining in that program. and in our brief, it was our view that we were able to debunk many of the claims that have been made about the effect iveness of the program. and i think it would be helpful if my colleague from new mexico laid out some of that analysis here tonight. i would ask the senator from from new mexico to begin and i would encourage him to start by addressing the claim that the

bulk collection of americans' phone records is essential for stopping terrorist attacks. my question to my colleague is: is there any evidence, any real, concrete evidence that supports that claim? mr. heinrich: i want to thank my friend from oregon and begin by saying that despite what you may have heard by talking heads on the sunday shows and on the cable news networks, that the answer is, no, there is simply not evidence to support those claims. and when this mass surveillance was first revealed to the public two years ago the executive branch initially responded to questions like this by claiming that various post-9/11 authorities had resulted in the thwarting of approximately -- quote -- "54 terrorist events in the u.s. homeland and abroad."

unquote. now, a number of us, including my friend from oregon, my former colleague from colorado, senator udall, began to pull on that thread to really parse down and see just what the executive was talking about. and first of those 54 terrorist events it turned out that only 13 were actually focused in the united states. but more importantly those numbers conflated multiple different programs, including authorities under section 215 and different authorities under section 702. in june -- actually on june 19 of 2013, my colleague from oregon and senator udall pointed out that -- quote -- "it appears that the bulk phone records collection program under section 215 of the u.s.a. patriot act played little or no role in most

of these disruptions saying that these programs have disrupted -- quote -- "dozens of potential terrorist plots is misleading if the bulk of the program is providing little or no unique value. of the original 54 instances that the executive branch pointed to, every one of them crumbled under scrutiny. none of them actually justified the continued existence of the bulk collection program. i'm going to take a moment with the indulgence of our colleagues and read what was written by judge leone of the district court for the district of columbia when he ruled in the claimant vs. obama case. this is a little bit long, but i think it's important that this be part of the official record of this debate. judge leone writes, "the government does not cite a

single instance in which analysis of the n.s.a.'s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature. in fact, none of the three recent episodes cited by the government that supposedly illustrate the role that telephoning metadata analysis can play in preventing terrorist attacks involve any apparent urgency." he writes that in the first example the f.b.i. learned of a terrorist plot that was -- quote -- "still in its early stages" and investigated that plot before turning to the metadata to ensure that all potential connections were identified. assistant director holly does not say that the metadata revealed any new information much less time-sensitive

information, that had not already come to light in the investigation up to that point. the judge continues, in the second example it appears that the metadata analysis was used only after the terrorist was arrested to establish his foreign ties and to put them in context with his u.s.-based planning efforts. and in the third the metadata analysis -- quote -- "revealed a previously unknown number for a coconspirator and corroborated this connection to the target of the investigation as well as to other u.s.-based extremists." again, writes judge leone, there is no indication that these revelations were immediately useful or that they prevented an impending attack. assistant director holly even concedes that bulk metadata analysis only -- quote -- "sometimes provides information earlier than the f.b.i.'s other

investigative methods and techniques." finally, judge leone writes that given the limited record before me, at this point in the litigation most notably the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because of searching the n.s.a. data base and that it was faster than other investigative tactics, i have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism." that is where the judge leaves off. and i would turn back to the senator from oregon to address the three cases that we discussed in more detail in our amicus brief to the second circuit. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. the first of these examples -- and they really are the kind of

overblown examples about the effectiveness of bulk collection, is the case of an individual named najubullah zazi. he was a known terrorist suspect and a number of people suggested that bulk phone records collection was somehow essential to stopping him because a query of the phone records data base for numbers linked to mr. zazi returned a previously unknown number belonging to another terrorism suspect. however, since the government had already identified zazi as a terrorism suspect prior to querying the bulk phone records data base, it had all the evidence it needed to obtain the phone records of zazi and his associates using an individualized section 215 order or other legal authorities. in the second case, some have pointed to mr. mullalan, a san diego man convicted of sending

$8,500 to support shabaab in somalia. the intelligence community has indicated that information from the bulk phone records data base -- quote -- "established a connection between a phone number known to be used by an extremist overseas and an unknown san diego-based number that l belonged to mr. mullalan. yet there are ample existing authorities under which the united states can conduct surveillance on a phone number known to be used by an extremist overseas and other phone numbers in contact with that phone number. the argument that mr. mullalan's case is an example of unique value of bulk phone records collection is just not accurate. and my view is this is yet another case that offers a misleading exaggeration with respect to the effectiveness of bulk phone record collection. finally, several supporters of the bulk metadata program have

claimed that -- and i quote -- "if we had the bulk phone records program in place at the time of the september 11, 2001, attacks we would have been able to identify the phone number of one of the hijackers khalid al midar. just as in these other cases the records indicate mr. midar's phone number could also have been obtained by the government using a variety of alternate means. before september 11, the government was surveilling a safe house in yemen but failed to realize that mr. midar who was in contact with the safe house was actually inside the united states. the government could have used any number of authorities to determine whether anyone in our country was in contact with the safe house that it was already targeting. it didn't need a record of every american's phone calls to establish that simple connection.

mr. heinrich: i'd like to expound on that point a little bit, senator wyden. about the many other ways that the government can legitimately acquire the phone records of terrorism suspects, because i think it's a very important point to understand the tools that already exist that have been very effective and have proven themselves over time. there are actually a number of legal authorities that can get the same information without the government collecting billions of call records. billions of call records that in large part belong to innocent americans. for example the stored communications act permits the government to obtain precisely the same call records that are now required through bulk collection under section 215 when they are -- quote -- "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

additionally, national security letters, which i would point out do not require a court order can also be used by the government to obtain call records for intelligence purposes. further, the government can also acquire telephone -- telephony met metadata on a realtime basis from orders from regular orders for the installation of pen registers for traip and trace devices. and finally individualized orders for phone records as opposed to orders authorizing broad bulk collection, can also be obtained under section 215. i think those of us early in this debate thought that that was what was going to occur under the patriot act in the first place. but that is what the u.s.a. freedom act seeks to require while prohibiting the bulk collection of millions of personal records. it even includes emergency

authorization authority for the government to get records prior to getting court approval subject to later court approval in an emergency. the government can use many of these authorities without any more evidence than what it currently requires to use the bulk phone records database with less impact, i would point out on the privacy interests of millions of innocent americans. so i think at this point the senator from oregon and i have laid out our case as to why this dragnet bulk surveillance program fails to make our country measurably safer and why it should end. and i'm pleased to say that a number of people have finally come around to our way of thinking on this. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague and i think that i'd like to wrap up with just a couple of points and then give the last word to my friend from new

mexico on this subject. he's absolutely right that some of "the" most authoritative leaders in our country experts on terror have reached the same judgment that we have. i made mention of the president's review group on intelligence and communications, you know, technologies. and i really would encourage colleagues who are following this debate and citizens across the country that report's available on-line available in our office. page 104 of that report is very, very explicit. it says that the information that would otherwise be obtained from collecting all of these phone records millions and millions of phone records on law-abiding americans people like mike morrell former acting director of the c.i.a., and richard clark who served in two

administrations, they said it could have been obtained through conventional processes. this is a program that is not making us safer and it is not my judgment that ought to be the last word, it should be that of people like i have just quoted. i'll go on to say the privacy and civil liberties oversight board report on the phone records program said pretty much same thing. i quote here "section 215 has shown minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism. based on the information provided to the board including classified briefings and documentation." we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to our country in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterror inquiry. and i think i'll close by way of saying -- and i touched on this

before my friend from new mexico arrived -- i would like to do a lot more than i believe is likely to happen here quickly in the united states senate. i do want to see us finally throw in the dust bin of history this bulk phone records collection program because it doesn't make us safer and it compromises our liberty. but as i indicated to my friend from new mexico, i'd also like to close this backdoor search loophole in the fisa act which is going to be a bigger problem in the days ahead given the evolution of communications systems and how they've become globally integrated. and i'll close by saying one of the most important issues, "the" most important issues we are going to have to tackle in the days ahead is going to deal with encryption and encryption, of course is the encoding of data and messages so that they cannot

be easily read. the reason that this will be an enormously important issue -- and my colleague and i have talked about this -- is because of the n.s.a. overreach the collection of all of these phone records on law-abiding people. a lot of our most innovative, cutting-edge companies have found their customers raising real questions about whether their products can be used safely. and a lot of the contracts and purchasers who buy their products around the world are saying, you know, maybe we shouldn't trust them. maybe we should try to start taking control over their servers and have local storage requirements and that sort of thing. so what our companies did because they saw the effect of the overreach by the n.s.a., they started to use encryption

to protect the data and messages of the consumers who buy their products. now most recently the head of the f.b.i., mr. comey has said rather than to try to come back with a solution that protected both our privacy and our security, he said that he was interested in requiring companies to build weaknesses into their products. just think about that one requiring companies to build weaknesses into their products so the government which in effect caused this problem with an overreach in effect rather than trying to find a solution that worked for both security and liberty said we'll just start talking about requiring companies to actually build

weaknesses into their products. i and others have pointed out once you do that, hang on to your hat because when the good guys have the keys, that's one thing. but when companies are required to build weaknesses into their products, the bad guys are going to get the keys in a hurry too. and with all the cyber hacking and the risks we already have, we ought to be really really careful going where mr. comey our f.b.i. director, has proposed going. but that's not for tonight. tonight is not an occasion where we'll be able on a bipartisan basis to close the backdoor search loophole or we'll be able to come up with a sensible policy with respect to encryption where we're requiring companies to build weaknesses into their products. we're not going to be able to do that tonight. about you tell we will have a chance here in the united states senate now to take steps that

have been bipartisan, have been bipartisan both here in the senate here in the other body in the house of representatives to end the bulk phone record collection program because it doesn't make us safer and it threatens our liberty. and i always like to close by thinking about ben franklin, who said, "anybody who gives up their liberty to have security really doesn't deserve either." and i am so pleased to have a chance to serve with my colleague from new mexico on the intelligence committee whoing is going to be a thoughtful -- who is going to be a thoughtful advocate on these policies for years toly co-. i thank him for his involvement tonight and would be happy to give him the last word of our colloquy at this time. i yield to my colleague. mr. heinrich: i want to thank my friend from oregon. and i think you could not have chosen a more appropriate way to

end than to reference what ben franklin said so many years ago that great quote that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. and while many reforms still lie in front of us, i think as we move forward to approving the u.s.a. freedom act we move a lot closer to the balance that ben franklin articulated so well over 200 years ago. and i look forward to working with my colleagues from oregon and all of our colleagues to achieving that balance and standing up for our constituents mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the motion.

the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 87, h.r. 2048, an act to reform the authorities -- to inform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i have a substitute amendment at the desk that i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for himself and mr. burr proposes amendment numbered 1449. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment that is at the desk that i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 1450 to amendment numbered 1449. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 1451 to amendment numbered 1450. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the text proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 14 52 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 1449. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 1453 to amendment numbered 1452. mr. mcconnell: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on h.r. 2048, an act to inform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 1735. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year

2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1735 to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. res. 188 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 188 resolution expressing appreciation of the goals of american craft beer week, and so

forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendars 95 and 125 that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now madam president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 12:00 p.m. monday, june 1. 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 be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. finally, following morning business the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 2048. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: 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 >> and the senate meets again today eastern. to work on amendments dealing with nsa surveillance. the next vote to occur on the usa freedom act could happen as early as tuesday. if it were to be amended the house would have to vote again. otherwise, the number of provisions remain expired.

you can watch the senate live on c-span2. the house also meets at noon eastern for general speeches. live coverage here on c-span. >> on today's washington journal, neil talks about the congressional agenda, including over the weekend. also a look at recent moves by congress to limit the pensions of ex presidents. he is theater director of presidential that she is the director for presidential studies. and michael greenberger talks about the cost of federal disaster relief. we will take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> tonight on the communicators

public knowledge -- and harold burke scott roth on time warner cable. >> very few consumers have more than one wire in the home. hardly anybody has two broadband dividers. wireless providers are available but they cannot provide the streaming -- the question is where you get more competition? the competition is coming over that very same wire. it is the same company supervising the same -- a lot of content companies want to provide both. they want to provide services. the cable company has an incentive to favor their own product, their bundled service. lawmakers are going to have to

make sure there are no unfair benefits for cable. >> a lot of americans under the age of 30 have cut the wire. they do not have a telephone wired subscription. they get the broadband they want. they are quite broadband sophisticated. you have new companies coming online to compete broadband offerings. the idea is if there is any market power in this industry it is difficult to understand it . >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals from around

the country. this weekend we are live for the chicago tribune's lit fest. with pulitzer prize winning author lawrence wright. watch for the roosevelt reading festival. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem fair, relations flagship destinations flagship african-american fair. -- the nation's flagship african-american book fair. c-span, created by americans cable company years ago. brought to you by a public service by your satellite provider. >> certain provisions of the patriot act expired sunday.

the senate met earlier in the afternoon to try and prevent those preventions -- those provisions from lapsing. here is how things played out during the day, beginning shortly after the senate first gaveled in. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i'll have more to say about the business before the senate later but at this time i'd just like to express my sincere condolences to the entire biden family in their moment of such deep and profound loss. beau biden was known to many as a dedicated public servant a loving father of two and a devoted partner to the woman he loved. hallie. i've known the vice president for many years and i.t. hard to think of anything more important to him than his faith and his family. i hope he will find comfort in the former, as he grieves such a

terrible loss. the senate offers its presiding officer and every member of his family our prayers and our sympathy. now, mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:00 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form and the senate recess at 5:00 p.m. subject to the call of the chair. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the minority leader. mr. reid: i join in my feelings about the joe biden family. i was saddened really beyond words to figure out understand the passing of beau who was such a fine young man.

he was a devoted husband father son a dedicated servant to the people of delaware, and if a faith facilitate, honorable veteran -- faithful, honorable veteran of the united states, having served in the middle east in iraq. i, of course, have -- extend all the sympathy i'm capable of extending to his family during this very difficult time. beau left us far too soon, 46 years old. i'm certain his family will take solace knowing he lived a selfless noble life. for my friend, joe biden who i served in congress with for so many many years i extend my deepest thoughts and condolences to you joe. there's a song, "a man of constant sorrow," that certainly

if that ever aplayed applied to someone it would be our friend joe biden. not having even been sworn in to the senate, the tragic loss of his wife and little girl, and then his two sons, beau and hunter he spent time on train going back and forth to delaware virtually every night taking care of those two fine young men until he was fortunate enough to meet jill biden his beautiful wife. so mr. president i'm very, very sorry that joe has had to go through this terrible ordeal of losing a son now after having lost a daughter. but there's no question that i

repeat that delaware is a better place because of beau, our country is a better place because of beau, that the world is a better place because of beau biden. i and the entire senate family, as senator mcconnell has indicated, understand is our deepest condolences as they grieve during this tragic time. mr. president, i would ask that the next part of my remarks appear at a separate place in the record. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we are here now facing yet another manufactured crisis. with thevite lily important patriot act provisions set to expire in a matter of hours in a matter of hours. n. in fact, in less than eight hours, before the expiration of this critical national security program, that's what we're faced with. tonight's deadline but is certainly no surprise. as the junior senator from utah, republican noted "we've known for four years that this

deadline was approaching." close quote. like so many other occasions in which brinkmanship has pushed the senate and our nation to the precipice, the dilemma we now face was completely avoidable. the job of the leader is to have a plan. in this case, it is clear that the majority leader simply didn't have a plan. the majority leader had five months to introduce a bill from committee that would reform and extend the expiring patriot act provisions but instead he bypassed the committees altogether and brought this to the floor unilaterally, no committee hearing none. the majority leader recently said no more rule 14's. tbhawbut that pledge hasn't lasted very long, has it? the majority leader has i repeat five months -- in fact, speaking to my friend, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the dean of the senate he said this could have passed so easily the last two

years. the majority leader, though, had five months during the time he's been majority leader to coordinate with the house which passed fisa reform weeks ago but instead he went it alone. in fact, it appears as if house and senate republican leaders are on completely different pages. everyone saw this coming, everyone saw this coming. weeks ago it was clear that the senate didn't have the adequate time to consider trade legislation the surveillance legislation, and of course the highway bill before the memorial day recess. i said that, others saided that. listen to what one house republican -- one republican congressman said. his name is reed ribbel. "the majority leader's handling of this bill is, i quote, "could have handled it in a better way way by being more prepared in advance sms they ran out the clock basically by working on trade first. he probably should have ran the

clock out on surveillance instead. ii don't know what his strategy is here. i'm a little bit flummoxed." close quote. i say to my friend, the congressman, he's not only flummoxed, but so are we. in spite of the ology the warning signs the senate majority leader set up a collision course with no plan on how to resolve it. it seems that the only plan the majority leader had on fisa was to jam it through last friday night. this despite the fact an overwhelming majority of the house members oppose an extension. the president opposes an extension, and a dozen senate republicans oppose the extension and so voted last thursday -- i'm cork last sorry last fry friday, mr. president. is it any wonder that even the senate's own majority members felt the need to take it into their own hands.

refused to allow the senate to extend the provision. but again the junior senator from kentucky didn't hide his thoughts. he came and was here on the floor for ten hours or so. i disagree with the junior senator from kentucky, but we're not in the mess today because of the junior senator from kentucky. woulder in the mess we are today because of the majority leader. the majority leader should have seen this coming. everyone else did. even those in his own party. meanwhile, the republican leader has repeatedly lectured this body as to how it should function but his actions have helped the senate not to function. we can do without more lectures and defiance statements. we can do for some more strategy planning, and open lines of communication. because the majority leader's job to have a plan must get done over what it would like to get done. in this case, my friend from kentucky sumly didn't have a plan. that's why we're here staring

down the barrel of yet another unnecessary manufactured crisis that threatens our national security. this is big-time stuff mr. president. we've heard what the head of the c.i.a. said today on the sunday show. he's afraid that something is going to happen when this act expires. and that's not just my assessment of the situation or the head of the c.i.a. even senate republicans feel the same way. the republican junior senator from montana said yesterday, "we could have done this a week ago. this is the nature of washington. always manufacturing by crisis." close quote. fortunately, there is a clear way out. pass the u.s.a. freedom act which the house overwhelmingly passed with 338 votes on a totally bipartisan basis. all we need is a few more republican senators to vote with democrats and the bill will pass. just three maybe four, maybe five but a few senators. all we need to bring this

unnecessary crisis to a screaming halt. i'm confident we can pass this bill if the majority leader would bring it to the floor for a fair vote. now, procedurally, mr. president, it's going to be extremely difficult to not have this bill -- law expire -- not a bill this law expire. any other course in just passing this bill -- than just passing this bill would require the house to act before midnight. they're not here. so it's not going to happen. there's not a quorum of house members and there are house members that will to be any unanimous consent request anyway. passing the u.s.a. freedom act is the only way that i can foresee that the patriot act provisions do not expire. now is the time for the majority leader to do what's right for the privacy and security of all americans. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senator from vermont. a senator: mr. president?

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: both senators will hold. under the previous order the leadership time is lessed. -- is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2048, which the clerk will report. under the previous order -- the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 2048, an act to reform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader -- the minority leader. mr. leahy: mr. president would the democratic leader yield to me for a comment? mr. reid: i would be happy to yield to the senator for a comment. mr. leahy: mr. president, i was struck by what the democratic leader said. and of course he laid out the history of this. we are here in a manufactured, unnecessary crisis. it's a manufactured, uncrisis.

last year by on overwhelming majority we passed improvements to the patriot act did away with the parts that have now been declared i illegal. we did that but could not get passed a filibuster. 58 votes. normally you think of 51 votes being you have to pass ssmght and the leader recalled how hard he worked to try to get that through. the republican leader said no, we'll wait until next year. well next year came. we have wasted so much time. there's not been a single hearing. there's not been anything on an alternative. but i say to my friend from nevada he's absolutely right when he says the house passed this two-to-one, overwhelming

republicans and democrats together to get rid of the illegal parts of the patriot to pass an improvement. we ought to just take it up and pass it. if we were allowed to have a straight up-or-down vote in this body i guarantee you a majority of senators, both parties would vote for it. so i just want to say that while the leader is on the floor, and i'd ask recognition in my own right. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president before i begin my comments on the u.s.a. freedom act i'm going to speak for a moment on a personal matter. marcel and i have known beau biden since he was a child. i'm the longest-serving member of this senate. when i came here, there was one

senator who was one term senior to me. that was joe biden. i knew the tragedy his family had gone through and i cherished time with his office near mine, when his sons beau and hunter would be there with him. i watched them grow up. i saw beau biden become the epitome of what a what a state's attorney general should be. that's a model that all attorneys general throughout the country could have followed. progressive, worried about improving the law improving people's lives; he did that. i know how much we appreciate when we see he and hallie at an event. when we get a chance, marcel and i can talk with them. it is like picking up a

conversation that ended just if a few minutes before. i remember one thing especially about him. i was in iraq during the war. it was a day when it was well over 100 degrees out. i was being brought to a place where there was going to be a briefing, i was being zipped into this building. there were a number of soldiers wearing t-shirts, shorts and identify -- playing in the 100 100-degree heat. one with his arm blocking his face i wasn't sure who it was but i waved back. he came to the door. it was beau biden. we gave each other a big hug. he was there as a captain of the delaware reserves decorated for his service. we talked about what he was doing. he was praising the men and women who worked there. nothing about anything that he

might do. he was praising everybody else. it was such a refreshing moment being with him. and it was so typical of what he is as a person. i told him that i have a procedure that if i'm in another country and i'm with our military if there are vermonters there i always state their names. ask if they have family back home in vermont. most of them do. i get their phone number. as soon as i get back, i call their mother or their father, their husband their wife, brother or sister, whoever it might be, and say i saw a member of your family. here's what they're doing. they look well, and all that. i told beau, look, i've known you since you were a youngster. i'll call your father as soon as i can and tell him you're behaving yourself, you're doing a good job. and we laughed at that. shortly thereafter i got on the

phone that we had available to us to go to the white house which the switchboard reached the vice president and i started to say, with the procedure i have about joe biden's son. we started to laugh. i said i got an e-mail from beau that he had seen you there. we talked about what beau was doing. you could hear the pride in his father's voice. you could hear his pride. it was a pride that was deserved. i remember joe saying when we were first here in the senate, the two of us, he was going home every night and be on the train heading home. why? not as much even that the kids needed him but he needed them. finally, when he met jill and the boys were telling him he

should marry her. so i grieve for them. marcel and i sat there and cried last night when we heard the news. i think what a wonderful family. i think about life cut too short, far too short. now, mr. president i can and will say more later. but on the matter the distinguished republican leader is talking about -- the u.s.a. freedom act -- why don't we just take it up and pass it. opponents of this bipartisan commonsense legislation have run out of excuses. this is a manufactured crisis. and it is. this matter should have been taken up and voted on up or down a month ago. and there is only one viable and

responsible path remaining. pass the u.s.a. freedom act that passed overwhelmingly in the house of representatives. pass it and send it to the president's desk and he will sign it. if we don't pass it those parts of the patriot act that we, most of us agree on are going to expire at midnight. and the irony of it is the u.s.a. freedom act of 2015 is a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise that both protects america's privacy but also keeps this country safe. before they talk about we're going to keep the country safe, but america's privacy not so much. this is a bill that does both. the legislation would end the s.n.a. bulk collection of america's phone records. it has significant new reforms that would limit government, to increase transparency but also

promote greater accountability and oversight something the patriot act did not have. and the bill is the product of countless hours of painstaking negotiations with key members of both republicans and democratic parties in the house and senate, men and women i respect so much because they want to do what's best for the country they negotiated with the n.s.a., the f.b.i. the justice department. privacy and civil liberties group, the technology industry, other key stakeholders brought everybody together. when we began we wondered if that would be possible. we did it. and that's why the u.s.a. freedom act has got such strong support. it goes across such groups as diverse as the national rifle association and the center for american progress. this broad consensus saw overwhelming support in the

house. they passed it by a vote of 338-88. some in this country say that no branch of government could have a vote that strong to say the sun rises in the east. certainly there's been no major piece of legislation in years. we've seen a vote of that, 338-88. but now a minority of the senate has twice blocked the u.s.a. freedom act from even getting a debate on the senate floor. we were sent here not to vote "maybe" but to vote "yes" or "no." last november, even though we had had all kinds of committee hearings on this, we heard complaints there hadn't been enough of a committee process on the bill, and the senate should wait to address section 215

under the new republican leadership. so the republican leader led a successful filibuster against a bill which still lad a majority of members in this body voting for it. but what's happened this congress? not a single public hearing on this issue. no committee process. then last weekend the senate was prevented from debating and the opponents was unable to produce alternatives to the bipartisan act, the bill which clears up problems of the patriot act. they have come up with no legislative alternative to that other than to create an extension which of course makes no difference because at