mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i rise just to thank the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee for his views and for his very constructive actions to move this bill to fruition. i think we both think it's an important bill. we know the subject that senator cotton has raised is also important. i think there has been a good discussion on it and understanding of the pros and cons. so i think now that we can wait until wednesday, an hour after we come in for the vote, and we'll see what the will of the senate is. but i just want the chairman to know that i'm very grateful for the actions that he has taken because this is enabling us to pass the bill and see it enacted into law, we hope. so thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. during our break, mr. president, last thursday, "the new york times" ran a story that was as heart-rending and gut wrenching as i have rea

mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. i'd like to begin by extending my congratulations to our chairman. and you really are a distinguished chairman, and it really has been a great pleasure for me to work with you. i think we have accomplished a task which hopefully sets an example for other bills that will be shortly forthcoming, but more importantly than not -- than anything, it's really, i think, the integrity and sincerity and earnestness with which you go about this job of sharing this subcommittee, and i am just very pleased to be your tonto to your lone ranger. so thank you very much for that. the things in the bill, and the chairman has been very, i think, distinct in his remarks in pointing out some of the major features, but we have one major infrastructure program in our bill, and that of course is the army corps of engineers, other than i should say the highway bill. and that is $1.4 billion over the budget request. so i think that's a very good number that should enable more projects that are filth all across

mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for told holding this hearing, because it does give us a little bit of an advance on the hearings that will be held certainly next year. i want to commend those who serve on the p-club board, thank you for your surveillance. matt olson, goold to see you again, and thank you so much for your service. it's very much appreciated. as a long-term member of the intelligence committee, about 15 years now, we see the value of this program frequent ly. the problem is the government has been reluctant to declassify sufficient numbers of cases so the public gets an understanding of the value of the program. and the zazi case has been used in the 215 situation, it's used intensively in the 702 situation. so for anyone that is listening, it is really important to cle death classify more of these to show the value of this program. those of us that meet two afternoons a week and go over intelligence and hold hearings and read the intelligence, see the value of the program, bu

feinstein? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. because of some of the discussion, i just wanted to bring to everybody's attention two documents. the first is a joint unclassified statement of bob lit, the general counsel for the office of director national intelligence stuart evans deputy assistant ag and the assistant director for counterterrorism division of the fbi. on page three, they discussed targeting procedures. and i would like to read a short part to insure compliance with the provisions. they've set up a number of steps in the preceding paragraph. section 702 requires targeting procedures minimization procedures and acquisition guidelines. these are designed to insure that the government targets non-u.s. person outside the united states. and also that it does not intentionally acquire domestic communications. moreover the targeting procedures insure that targeting of foreign persons is not indiscriminate. instead, targeted at non-u.s. persons outside the united states. who are assessed to possess expected to receive or

feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. it does give us a little bit of an advance on the hearings that will be held certainly next year. so i very much -- i want to commend those who serve on the p club board, thank you for your service. matt olsen, it's good to see you again. thank you so much for your service. it's very much appreciated. as a long-term member of the intelligence committee, about 15 years now, we see the value of this program frequently. the problem is that the government has been reluctant to declassify sufficient numbers of cases so the public gets an understanding of the value of the program. and the zazi case has been used in the 215 situation, it's used intensively in the 702 situation. for anyone that is listening, it is really important to declassify more of these to show the value of this program. those of us who meet two afternoons a week and go over intelligence and hold hearings and read the intelligence see the value of the program. but i think the general public does not. i see it as practica

feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. because of some of the discussion i just wanted to bring to everyone's attention to documents. the 1st is a joint unclassified statement of general counsel for the office of the director of national intelligence. stuart evans, deputy assistant ag, and assistant director for counterterrorism division of the fbi. on page number three they discussed targeting procedures. and i would just like to read a short part, to ensure compliance with these provisions, and they set up a number of steps in the preceding paragraph, section 702 requires targeting procedures, minimization procedures, and acquisition guidelines. these are designed to ensure the government targets non-us persons outside the united states and also that it does not intentionally acquire domestic communications. moreover, the targeting procedures ensure that targeting a foreign persons is not an discriminate but instead targeted at non-us persons outside the united states who are expected to receive more likely to communicat

. >> senator feinstein has spoken strongly on this and joined by senator casey of pennsylvania. >> fate you very much mr. chairman. to those you have testified testified, i can say i knew you before you do grey here i hope it was in the federal government that put it there but there probably was. [laughter] >> but it is one of the failings that has bothered me meeting for a substantial period of time, the united states supreme court of they four / four position would rigo the court is divided and what impact that will have many of us estimate it will be a year and a half by the time you get through the vetting process so i want to ask a question what happens when the court to is tied in the lower courts are split and cannot resolve a case? we keep -- we have already see that already the public sector labor case and the death penalty case the state sovereignty case and gender discrimination case. this week the court deferred if those nonprofits could hold contraceptive coverage that is vitally important nationwide solid like to have your view of what happens with a four / four split? >> that it is affirm

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of the feinstein-portman amendmentnumber 3922, that it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, shortly the senate will vote on three different versions of aappropriations bills that would provide the needed money to help combat the anticipated challenges we're going to have with the zika virus, which we've talked a lot about. obviously, zika is a threat particularly to women of child-bearing age because of the horrific birth defects associated with it; most promptly microcephaly, or basically a consul that is smaller -- a skull that is smaller than normal, leading to premature death and horrific injuries. there is bipartisan support thor this legislation. first of all, the president has requested $1.9 billion. we'll have a chance to vote on that. the biggest problem -- or objection i have to that $1.9 billion is that it rea

mr. huffman: calling the bill bipartisan does not make it so. let me share with my colleagues what senator feinstein has said. she said it contains provisions that violate environmental law. california senator boxer said the bill is the same old same old and ry ignite the water wars. the state of california not only opposes these provisions but has opposed all previous incarnations of this bill. . i'll close with what the "fresno bee" said about this bill -- i'm not closing, i'll yield in a moment to ms. matsui. the "fresno bee" call this is bill a g.o.p. wish list with little to no income and a water bill draft floated by democrats. i would yield three minutes to the gentlelady from sacramento who has long fought to protect the delta and the interests of her region. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. matsui: i rise in strong opposition to the house amendment to s. 2012. though this bill contains some important provisions overall, it raises barriers to our clean energy future by reversing important progress we have made to curb emissions and combat climate c

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the energy and water subcommittee for his leadership and for his willingness to settle issues to get this bill to the point where it really is ready to be voted on by this body. i think he's made eloquently and correctly the argument against the cotton amendment. i'm very grateful for the fact that he did what i think is a noble thing in changing his vote and voting against the cotton amendment. and let me say something about this process. both the chairman and i have been here for a long time, and we were here when appropriations bills were passed. and the key to doing that is keeping poison pills off of appropriations bills. so that they can be passed quickly. in addition to the arguments made by the chairntion the white house -- by the chairman, the white house had very strong feelings and indicated they would veto this bill if it passed with this amendment. how do we start an appropriations process with the presidential vea

mr. president, senator feinstein and i said what we said before the bill but i would like to reiterate something that i'm sure she would agree with. first, i want to thank the majority leader for scheduling our bill early. he scheduled it earlier than any appropriations bill had been scheduled in the last 40 years. the reason i'm sure she agrees with that because she told me that and because not only good the majority -- did the majority leader make this a priority but so did the democratic leader senator reid. we worked hard to set an example for the senate for the next 11 appropriations bills. according to the congressional research service, this is the earliest that the senate has passed an appropriations bill in the last 40 years. more than that, the vote was 90-8 which is unusually large by partisan vote for such a large and complex bill. i think that reflects the fact that more than 80 senators made contributions to this bill. we processed more than 21 amendments and our experience is when senators have a lot of input into a bill, they're more comfortable with it and more likely to support

feinstein. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and to those with testified today i just want to say thank you, and specifically rod slater. i say i knew you before you had gray hair into a. i hope it wasn't the federal government that put it there, but it probably was. will come back. it's good to see you. >> thank senator. >> i would like to ask this question because it's one of the things that has really bothered me, and that has to do with leaving for a substantial period of time. the united states supreme court in a tight position, i 4-4 position when we know the court is divided. and what impact that's going to have. i think there are many who estimate that the time is likely to be a year and a half by the time you get through the vetting process and all of this, that you can process another nominee. so i wanted to ask the question as to what happens when the court accepts, when the lower, what happens when the court is tied and the lower courts are split and is unable to resolve a case? we have seen that already in for a tie

mr. alexander: i am pleased to report to the senate on behalf of senator feinstein and myself that basically we're finished with our work on the energy and water aprogressions bill. -- appropriations bill. the final vote, all that remains to be done, that will be set whenever the majority leader and the democratic leader gley it can be. -- agree that it can be. i'll nor say about the bill tomorrow, by i want it thank senators for their cooperation with this. this will be, if we're able to pass it tornlg the first time we've taken this bill, the energy and water appropriations bill, across the floor in the regular order since 2009. what that means is, every single senator has had a chance to weigh in on it, first in the committee where we received recommendations for policy from 80 or so senators on bodge sides of the aisle -- on both sides of the aisle and we processed another 21 amendments here on the floor. i hope this is a good model for the other 11 appropriations bills would we have, and i was pleased to see that when we voted for the fourth time on whether to end debate on the bill, th

mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number. the presidinheitkamp 3903, barr, mikulski-shelby 3919, feinstein-portman 3922, franken-tillis 3921 as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from maine ms. collins proposes amendments en bloc numbered 3903, 3909, 3917, 3919, 3922, and 3921 as modified. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now vote on these amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. no further debate? ms. collins: i know of no further debate on these amendments. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendments are agreed to en bloc. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i now ask nawx that -- unanimous consent that the cornyn amendment number 3899 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the amendment is modified. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the blunt am