COATS TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. SENATORS WILL VOTE AROUND 10:00 A.M. EASTERN ON WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS NOMINATION. MOUSE MUCH LATER TODAY BECAUSE OF THIS NO ISSUES ON THE EAST COAST. THE GUY WAS LATER TODAY. LEGISLATIVE WORK AT 4:30 EASTERN FOR A COUPLE BILLS. TODAY ON C-SPAN2 WILL COVER LATER TODAY IN THE STREET THIS AFTERNOON WITH AUTOMAKERS AND UNION MEMBERS AND TONIGHT A RALLY IN NASHVILLE. WE WILL HAVE THAT RALLY LIVE HERE ON C-SPAN2 BEGINNING AT 7:00 EASTERN. OTHER LESS COVERAGE TODAY INCLUDES FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR JANICE YELLEN. HERDER'S CONFERENCE WILL FOLLOW THAT. THAT WILL BE ON C-SPAN 3 BEGINNING AT 2:30 THIS AFTERNOON. LIVE NOW TO THE SENATE FLOOR HERE ON THE STAND TWO. -- C-SPAN2 THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE: THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. THE CHAPLAIN, DR. BARRY BLACK, WILL LEAD THE SENATE IN PRAYER. THE CHAPLAIN: LET US ...

PRAY. OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, CLOTHED

IN DAZZLING SPLENDOR, AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MR. McCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MAJORITY LEADER. MR. McCONNELL: A FEW SHORT MONTHS AGO OUR COLLEAGUE, DAN COATS, RETIRED FROM HIS POST HERE IN THE SENATE. AT THAT TIME I HAD A CHANCE TO REFLECT ON OUR FRIEND'S IMPRESSIVE CAREER, AND I NOTED THAT WE COULD EXPECT HIM TO RISE TO THE OCCASION IF CALLED TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY ONCE AGAIN. WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DAN COATS IS DOING NOW. THIS TIME HE'LL BE TAKING ON THE ROLE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE AN EXCELLENT CHOICE IN SELECTING DAN FOR THIS JOB. OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE FROM INDIANA HAS SERVED HIS NATION IN THE ARMY, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS THE AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY, AND OF COURSE HE'S ALSO SERVED AND STAYED HERE IN THE SENATE WHERE HE WAS A LEADER ON ISSUES REGARDING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE SENATE CONFIRMING HIM TODAY. WE'RE ALSO WORKING TOWARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT ANOTHER OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXCEPTIONAL SELECTIONS, LIEUTENANT GENERAL H.R. ...

McMASTER, HIS CHOICE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE CALLED HIM AN OUTSTANDING CHOICE, A MAN OF GENUINE INTELLECT, CHARACTER AND ABILITY. HE WILL NOW BE TASKED WITH ADAPTING HIS VAST EXPERIENCE TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COORDINATING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY AT A TIME WHEN OUR NATION FACES MYRIAD THREATS AND CHALLENGES. I KNOW EACH OF US APPRECIATES THE WILLINGNESS OF BOTH FORMER SENATOR COATS AND GENERAL McMASTER TO TAKE ON THESE CHALLENGING POSITIONS AND FOR THEIR CONTINUED EFFORTS TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE. NOW, ON ANOTHER WELL-QUALIFIED NOMINEE WE'LL ADVANCE SOON. NEXT WEEK JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH L WILL COME BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR HIS HEARING ON HIS NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT. SENATORS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM HIM DIRECTLY, ASK QUESTIONS AND LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, ABILITIES, AND CHARACTER. I KNOW WE'RE ALL LOOKING FORWARD TO HIS HEARING AND TO LEARNING EVEN MORE ABOUT THIS EXCEPTIONAL NOMINEE. BUT HERE'S WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT JUDGE GORSUCH. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AN ORGANIZATION THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER AND FORMER DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAVE DEEMED THE GOLD STANDARD FOR EVALUATING JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE? THEY'VE AWARDED HIM ITS HIGHEST RATING, UNANIMOUSLY WELL QUALIFIED. LEADING LIBERAL LAWYERS LIKE FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL, NEAL KATYAL, AND FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LEGAL MENTOR, PROFESSOR LAURENCE TRIBE SING HIS PRAISES. MR. KATYAL SAYS JUDGE GORSUCH IS AN EXTRAORDINARY JUDGE AND MAN WHOSE YEARS ON THE BENCH REVEAL COMMITMENT TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE. PROFESSOR TRIBE SAYS JUDGE GORSUCH IS A BRILLIANT, TERRIFIC GUY WHO WILL DO THE COURT'S WORK WITH DISTINCTION. TO THAT LIST YOU CAN NOW ADD FORMER LAW PARTNER AND LONG-TERM DEMOCRAT DAVID FREDERICK WHO IS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE LIBERAL AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OF THE A.C.S. INCLUDING PEOPLE LIKE FORMER OBAMA SOLICITOR GENERAL DON SHRILLEY AMONG OTHERS. SO THE A.C.S. IS ANYTHING BUT A CONSERVATIVE GROUP BUT ITS BOARD MEMBERS BACKED JUDGE GORSUCH'S NOMINATION. IN AN OP-ED PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON, JUDGE GORSUCH IS CALLED BRILLIANT, OPEN-MINDED AND THOUGHTFUL. HE WENT ON TO SAY GORSUCH'S APPROACH EMBODIES A REVERENCE FOR OUR COUNTRY'S VALUES AND LEGAL SYSTEM. THE FACTS DEVELOPED IN A CASE MATTER TO HIM. THE LEGAL RULES ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATURES AND THROUGH PRECEDENT DESERVE DEEP RESPECT. AND THE IMPORTANCE OF TREATING LITIGANTS, COUNSEL AND COLLEAGUES WITH CIVILITY IS DEEPLY INGRAINED IN HIM. MR. FREDERICK, WHO PRACTICED LAW WITH JUDGE GORSUCH, STATES THAT OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER, GORSUCH HAS REPRESENTED BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS. HE'S DEFENDED LARGE CORNTIONS BUT ALSO -- LARGE CORPORATIONS BUT ALSO SUED HIM. HE PREVAILED WITH CLASS ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS. WE SHOULD, MR. FREDERICK NOTES, APPLAUD SUCH INDEPENDENCE OF MIND AND SPIRIT IN SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. AND AS THE JUDGE ON THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, MR. FREDERICK OBSERVES JUDGE GORSUCH HAS NOT BEEN THE HARD-EDGED CONSERVATIVES MANY DEPICT HIM TO BE. AS THIS SELF-PROCLAIMED LONG-TERM SUPPORTER OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND PROGRESSIVE CAUSES POINTS OUT, JUDGE GORSUCH WILL BE THE TYPE OF JUSTICE EACH OF US SHOULD WANT ON THE HIGH COURT. AND THOUGH HE KNOWS HE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH NEIL GORSUCH'S RULINGS AS A JURIST ON THE SUPREME COURT, FREDERICK SAYS WE NEED JUSTICES LIKE NEIL GORSUCH WHO APPROACHES CASES WITH FAIRNESS AND INTELLECTUAL RIGOR AND WHO CARE ABOUT PRECEDENTS AND THE LIMITS OF THEIR ROLES AS JUDGES. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM HIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL REASON TO VOTE NO. NO PRINCIPAL REASON TO VOTE NO. LET ME REPEAT THAT. THE SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM GORSUCH, FREDERICK SAID, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL REASON TO VOTE NO. THIS IS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE LEFT FLAGSHIP LEGAL GROUP IN AMERICA. AND ON THIS POINT, HE HAPPENS TO BE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. SO AS COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES WILL CONTINUE TO FIND NEXT WEEK'S HEARINGS, THERE IS SIMPLY NO PRINCIPLED REASON TO VOTE NO WHEN JUDGE GORSUCH'S NOMINATION COMES BEFORE THE FULL SENATE. NOW ONE FINAL MATTER, LAST YEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HIS SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW HAD REAL PROBLEMS. HE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE HURT BY PREMIUM INCREASES OR LACK OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE. PRESIDENT CLINTON CALLED IT, QUOTE, THE CRAZIEST THING IN THE WORLD. END QUOTE. AND THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA SAID THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE FOR INCREASING NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. SO EVEN DEMOCRATS RECOGNIZED THAT THE OBAMACARE STATUS QUO IS UNACCEPTABLE. COSTS HAVE CONTINUED TO CLIMB HIGHER, INSURERS HAVE DROPPED OUT OF THE MARKETPLACE. OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER AND IS GOING TO KEEP GETTING WORSE UNLESS WE ACT. MY HOME STATE OF KENTUCKY, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE. REPUBLICANS PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RELIEF FROM OBAMACARE, AND WE'RE WORKING HARD TO KEEP THAT PROMISE. THE LEGISLATION THE HOUSE INTRODUCED OF REPEAL AND REPLACE IS ALREADY MOVING THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS. HERE ARE SOME THINGS THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE JUST SAID ABOUT IT. IT WILL LOWER PREMIUMS BY DOUBLE DIGITS. IT WILL HELP STABILIZE THE HEALTH CARE MARKET. IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE TAXES ON FAMILIES AND LOWER THE DEFICIT BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS WELL. THESE ARE THE THINGS WE HEARD FROM C.B.O. AND INSTEAD OF FORCING AMERICANS TO BUY SOMETHING THEY MAY NOT WANT, LIKE OBAMACARE DOES, IT WILL ACTUALLY GIVE AMERICANS THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE TYPE OF COVERAGE THAT'S RIGHT FOR THEM. I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THE HOUSE IS DOING TO ADVANCE THIS LEGISLATION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING IT HERE IN THE SENATE. WHEN WE DO, I EXPECT TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS AS PART OF OUR ROBUST DEBATE. BUT REMEMBER, THIS BILL IS ONLY ONE PART OF A THREE-PRONGED STRATEGY TO HELP BRING RELIEF TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE FIRST PRONG, THIS BILL. THE SECOND PRONG, EXECUTIVE ACTION. PRONG THREE, MORE LEGISLATION TO REFORM THE HEALTH CARE MARKET AND MAKE IT MORE COMPETITIVE FOR CONSUMERS. THE ONE THING WE SHOULDN'T DO IS NOTHING. OBAMACARE IS A FAILED LAW THAT IS HURTING THE MIDDLE CLASS, MAINTAINING THE CURRENT OBAMACARE STATUS QUO IS REALLY NOT A GOOD OPTION. WE'RE FULFILLING OUR PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I WOULD URGE ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES TO JOIN US. MR. SCHUMER: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE DEMOCRAT LEADER. MR. SCHUMER: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. FIRST, ON THE REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE BILL -- AND MY GOOD FRIEND, THE REPUBLICAN LEADER SAYS THERE SHOULD BE AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR. ...

IF THE BILL, ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT MATTER, IT WOULD BE ASTOUNDING IF WE DIDN'T HAVE COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE VOTES ON SUCH A BILL. I KNOW THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO RUSH IT THROUGH. BUT IF IT'S SUCH A FINE PRODUCT, IT OUGHT TO WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY OF HEARINGS AND OF MARKUPS IN THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES. TO RUSH IT THROUGH IS AN INDICATION THAT THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL, THE SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL ARE NOT VERY PROUD OF IT. AND THAT'S A THEME THAT HAS CONTINUED WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. C.B.O. , AS WE KNOW, ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD CAUSE 24 MILLION FEWER AMERICANS TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. I DON'T HEAR THE REPUBLICAN LEADER MENTION THAT, OF COURSE. WHILE RAISING PREMIUMS IN THE SHORT TERM AND JACKING UP THE PRICE OF HEALTH CARE FOR OLDER AMERICANS. ACCESS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT. NO, IT ISN'T. ACCESS DOESN'T GET YOU HEALTH CARE. I HAVE ACCESS TO WALK IN TO A LAMBORGHINI DEALER AND LOOK THE A A LAMBORGHINI, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD ONE. THAT'S TRUE OF AVERAGE AMERICANS, AND THAT'S TRUE OF HEALTH CARE AS WELL. ACCESS DOESN'T GET YOU HEALTH CARE, AND IT IS A FAR CRY FROM WHAT PEOPLE NEED. AND YESTERDAY, BECAUSE THE BILL HELPS SO MANY FEWER AMERICANS, BECAUSE THE BILL SEEMS TO BE A TAX BREAK FOR THE WEALTHY ABOVE ALL, IT'S HAVING ITS TROUBLE, AND NOBODY SEEMS TO REALLY WANT TO EMBRACE IT. THAT'S WHY REPUBLICANS ON BOTH ENDS OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE DON'T WANT THEIR NAME NEAR ANY END OF THE BILL. AS I SAID, YESTERDAY SPEAKER RYAN DOESN'T WANT TO CALL IT RYANCARE EVEN THOUGH HE WROTE THE BILL. PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T WANT TO CALL IT TRUMPCARE. IF IT'S SO GOOD, WHY DOESN'T ANY REPUBLICAN WANT TO PUT THEIR NAME ON IT? IT'S ABBOTT AND COSTELLO. YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON IT. NO, YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON IT. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING -- THAT'S NOT AN INDICATION THAT PEOPLE ARE PROUD OF THIS LEGISLATION. AND IT'S PARTICULARLY IRONIC WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT TRUMP SLAPS HIS NAME ON BUILDINGS AND TIES AND STEAKS, HOTELS AND GOLF CLUBS, BUT NOT ON A BILL THAT HE SUPPORTS IN HIS DAILY TWEETS. HE HAS SPENT 30 YEARS OF HIS BUSINESS CAREER TRYING TO PUT HIS NAME ON NEARLY EVERYTHING, BUT NOT THIS HEALTH CARE BILL. EVEN THOUGH HE'S INVITING WARY REPUBLICANS TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO TRY AND SELL THEM ON IT. TODAY HIS VICE PRESIDENT IS HERE ON THE HILL LOBBYING RECALCITRANT REPUBLICANS. HE DISPATCHED H.H.S. SECRETARY PRICE, THE PERSON HE PICKED, TO LOBBY FOR THE BILL. HIS OWN PRESS SECRETARY SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN FULL SELL MODE. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S BILL, AND HE SHOULD BE STRAIGHT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IT. WE CALL IT TRUMPCARE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. NOW ON ANOTHER MATTER, MR. PRESIDENT, NEXT WEEK THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL BEGIN ITS HEARINGS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT, JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH. AS -- AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, WE IN THE SENATE HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT THIS NOMINEE, JUDGE GORSUCH, WILL TIP THE SCALES ON THE COURT IN FAVOR OF BIG BUSINESS AND POWERFUL SPECIAL INTERESTS OVER AVERAGE AMERICANS. THE COURT HAS STEADILY BEEN MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION UNDER JUSTICE ROBERTS. MY COLLEAGUE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE AND THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SENATOR FEINSTEIN HAVE DOCUMENTED IN 5-4 CASES OVER THE LAST DECADE THAT THE COURT HAS ALMOST ALWAYS TILTED IN FAVOR OF THE POWERFUL AND AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE AVERAGE AMERICANS. IN FACT, THE COURT UNDER JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS BEEN JUDGED THE MOST CORPORATE, PRO-CORPORATE COURT SINCE WORLD WAR II. SO THIS COUNTRY CAN ILL AFFORD ANOTHER JUSTICE WHO WILL SIDE WITH THE POWERFUL. JUDGE GORSUCH MAY ACT LIKE A STUDIED, NEUTRAL JUDGE, BUT HIS RECORD SUGGESTS HE ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT-WING, PRO-CORPORATE SPECIAL INTEREST AGENDA. AND IN TODAY'S "NEW YORK TIMES" THIS MORNING, WE LEARNED THAT JUDGE GORSUCH'S CAREER HAS BEEN NURTURED BY A FAR-RIGHT BILLIONAIRE AND CORPORATE TITAN, PHILLIP ANCHES, WHO HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO FUND HARD RIGHT JUDICIAL CAUSES INCLUDING THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION. PRESIDENT TRUMP OUTSOURCED HIS CHOICE OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEES TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS. AND THEY RECOMMENDED JUDGE GORSUCH. NEIL GORSUCH REPRESENTED MR. ANCHES' FIRM AS A YOUNG LAWYER. HE HAS EARNED HIS PATRONAGE EVER SINCE. IT WAS ANCHES' TOP LAWYER, SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTED ANCHES HERE ON THE HILL, WHO LOBBIED GORSUCH TO GET THE SPOT ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT. AND JUDGE GORSUCH HAS BEEN PARTNERS IN AN L.L.C. WITH TWO OF ANCHES' TOP ADVISORS, BUILDING A VACATION HOME TOGETHER. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. ANYONE CAN BE PARTNERS, BUT IT GOES TO SHOW THE LONG-STANDING INTERTWINED TIES BETWEEN ONE OF THE LEADING ADVOCATES FOR A HARD RIGHT, PRO-CORPORATE AGENDA, MR. ANCHES, AND JUDGE GORSUCH. THE LONG HISTORY OF TIES BETWEEN JUDGE GORSUCH AND MR. ANCHES SUGGEST A JUDGE WHOSE FUNDAMENTAL ECONOMIC AND JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS FAVORABLE TO THE WEALTHY AND THE POWERFUL AND THE FAR RIGHT. NOW, JUDGE GORSUCH MAY SOMETIMES EXPRESS SYMPATHY FOR THE LESS POWERFUL VERBALLY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RULE, WHEN THE CHIPS ARE DOWN, HE IS DOOR -- HE HAS FAR TOO OFTEN SIDED WITH THE POWERFUL FEW OVER EVERYDAY AMERICANS TRYING TO GET A FAIR SHAKE. HE'S REPEATEDLY SIDED WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO WANTED TO DENY DISABILITY BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES. IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES, BLOOMBERG FOUND HE DECIDED WITH EMPLOYERS 66% OF THE TIME. IN ONE OF THE FEW CASES WHERE HE SIDED WITH AN EMPLOYEE, IT WAS A REPUBLICAN WOMAN WHO ALLEGED SHE WAS FIRED FOR BEING A CONSERVATIVE. AND ON MONEY IN POLITICS, THE SCOURGE, THE POISON OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, UNDISCLOSED DARK MONEY, JUDGE GORSUCH SEEMS TO BE IN THE SAME COMPANY AS JUSTICES THOMAS AND SCALIA, WILLING TO RESTRICT THE MOST COMMONSENSE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. JUDGE GORSUCH'S RECORD DEMONSTRATES HE PREFERS C.E.O. 'S OVER CITIZENS, EXECUTIVES OVER EMPLOYERS, CORPORATIONS OVER CONSUMERS. LATER THIS MORNING, I'LL BE MEETING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THE REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS OF JUDGE GORSUCH'S DECISIONS. ALPHONZO MADDEN FROM MICHIGAN, A TRUCK DRIVER WHO WAS FIRED BECAUSE HE LEFT HIS VEHICLE WHEN FREEZING. PATRICIA CAPLANDER FROM MISSOURI WHO SUED MEDTRONIC AFTER BEING INJURED BY A MEDICAL DEVICE IMPLANTED IN A NON-F.D.A.-APPROVED MANNER. AND DAVID WONG AND KATHERINE WONG, WHOSE LATE MOTHER, PROFESSOR GRACE WONG, SUED KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY AFTER BEING FIRED FOLLOWING A SIX-MONTH LEAVE FOR CANCER AND REQUESTING TO WORK AT HOME BECAUSE OF A FLU EPIDEMIC. THEIR STORIES ILLUMINATE THE REAL-WORLD EFFECTS OF A JUDGE WHO SIDES WITH ANSCHUTZ-LIKE INTERESTS OVER EVERYDAY AMERICANS LIKE MISS CAPLANDER AND THE WONG FAMILY. MY FRIEND SAYS THERE IS NO PRINTED REASON TO BE OPPOSED TO JUDGE GORSUCH. YEAH, IF YOUR PRINCIPLES SAY THAT THE LAW SHOULD BE USED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO SUPPORT POWERFUL CORPORATE INTERESTS OVER AVERAGE AMERICANS, MAYBE THERE'S NO PRINTED OBJECTION, BUT FOR MOST AMERICANS, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WHOM WANT THE COURTS TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS POWER AND THE COURT IS THEIR LAST RESORT, THERE'S PLENTY OF PRINTED REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST JUDGE GORSUCH. BECAUSE OF STARKLY UNEQUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF WEALTH AND EVER-INCREASING CORPORATE POWER AIDED AND ABETTED BY DECISIONS LIKE CITIZENS UNITED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SKEWED THE PLAYING FIELD EVEN MORE DECISIVELY TO SPECIAL INTERESTS AND AWAY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN, WE NEED A NOMINEE WHO WOULD REVERSE THAT TREND, NOT EXACERBATE IT. DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGNED ON HELPING AVERAGE PEOPLE. HIS NOMINEE SIDES WITH CORPORATE INTERESTS AGAINST AVERAGE PEOPLE LIKE MR. MADDEN, MISS CAPLANDER AND THE WONG FAMILY OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO FROM ALL INDICATIONS, JUDGE GORSUCH IS NOT THE KIND OF NOMINEE WHO HAS SYMPATHY AND HELPS AVERAGE AMERICANS WHEN IT COMES TO JUDGING IN THE LAW. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR AND -- NO. OKAY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP TIME IS RESERVED. MORNING BUSINESS IS CLOSED. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING NOMINATION WHICH THE CLERK WILL REPORT. ...

THE CLERK: NOMINATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DANIEL COATS OF INDIANA TO BE DIRECTOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE TIME UNTIL 10:00 A.M. WILL BE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN THE USUAL FORM. ...

THE SENATOR FROM NORTH

CAROLINA. MR. BURR: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO SUPPORT SENATOR DAN COATS, OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE AND A FRIEND AS THE PRESIDENT'S NOMINEE TO BE THE NEXT DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. ...

DAN COATS HAS BEEN ASKED TO LEAD OUR NATION'S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OF OVER 100,000 INDIVIDUALS DURING, I THINK, THE MOST PROFOUND PERIOD OF THREATS AND CHANGE. AND LET ME SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, IT'S A JOB THAT DAN COATS IS WELL PREPARED TO DO. AFTER GRADUATING FROM WHEATON COLLEGE, DAN SERVED HONORABLY THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND -- IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY BEFORE SERVING THE STATE OF INDIANA AS A HOUSE MEMBER, AS A SENATOR AND FOR NOT ONLY INDIANA BUT THIS COUNTRY AS AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY. WHILE IN THE SENATE, DAN WAS ENGAGED AND WAS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HE DEDICATED COUNTLESS HOURS TO UNDERSTANDING AND OVERSEEING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. IN ESSENCE, ONE OF 15 PEOPLE THAT CERTIFIED FOR 85 OTHERS AND FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE, BUT WE DO IT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE RULE OF LAW. HE'S WELL VERSED IN THE OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES AND AUTHORITIES. HE UNDERSTANDS THE THREAT WE'RE FACING AT HOME AND ABROAD. HE UNDERSTANDS THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO COLLECT AGAINST OUR ADVERSARIES, AND DAN WILL BE A FORCEFUL ADVOCATE FOR INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION. BUT AGAIN, NEVER JEOPARDIZING THAT LINE OF WHAT IS LEGAL AND WHAT IS NOT. DAN'S LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE ALSO TRANSLATES TO HIS UNDERSTANDING AND HIS APPRECIATION OF THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY WITH THE APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WITH THE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DAN'S INTELLECT, HIS JUDGMENT, HIS HONORABLE SERVICE AND HIS COMMITMENT TO THE WORK FORCE MAKE HIM A NATURAL FIT AS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. I HAVE ABSOLUTE TRUST THAT HE WILL LEAD THE COMMUNITY WITH INTEGRITY AND ELLEN SURE THAT THE INTELLIGENCE ENTERPRISE OPERATES LAWFULLY, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY. SO TODAY I RISE IN THIS AUSTERE BODY TO URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. MR. PRESIDENT, WE ARE NOW IN MARCH AND WE'VE GONE FROM JANUARY UNTIL MARCH WITH ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POSTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION UNFILLED. CONGRESS MUST ACT QUICKLY, AND IT'S MY HOPE THAT MEMBERS BEFORE THE END OF THIS DAY WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE IN PLACE. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS NOMINATION. I YIELD THE FLOOR AND SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: ...

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE. MR. ALEXANDER: I ASK TO VITIATE THE QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT

OBJECTION. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE. 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 DEBATE ON THE NOMINATION OF DANIEL COATS TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, SIGNED BY 17 SENATORS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, THE MANDATORY QUORUM CALL HAS BEEN WAIVED. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT DEBATE ON THE NOMINATION OF DANIEL COATS OF INDIANA TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SHALL BE BROUGHT TO A CLOSE. THE YEAS AND ...

NAYS ARE MANDATORY UNDER THE RULE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. VOTE: VOTE: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? IF NO, THE YEAS ARE 88, THE NAYS ARE ...

11. AND CLOTURE IS INVOKED. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA. MR. WARNER: MR. PRESIDENT, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, FOR GIVING ME THE COURTESY OF LETTING ME GET IN MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE NOMINATION OF OUR FORMER SENATOR, DAN COATS, TO SERVE AS THE FIFTHING DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE POSITION RECOMMENDED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHED BY THE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004. ...

DAN COATS IS A FRIEND OF MINE AND MANY IN THIS BODY. HE REPRESENTED INDIANA IN BOTH THE U.S. HOUSE AND FOR SEPARATE TERMS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. HE WAS ALSO U.S. AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY FROM 2001 TO 2005. AS MENTIONED, FOR SIX YEARS I SERVED WITH THE NOMINEE ON THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE. I'VE ALWAYS FOUND DAN TO BE FAIR-MINDED AND KNOWN TO BE AN ADVOCATE FOR STRONG OVERSIGHT OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. HE BELIEVES IN THE NEED FOR INTELLIGENCE THAT IS TIMELY, RELEVANT AND FREE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. DURING MY PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH HIM, AS WELL AS DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING, SENATOR COATS COMMITTED TO FIND AND FOLLOW THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT LEADS. AGREEING THAT HIS PRIMARY JOB WILL BE, QUOTE, SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER TO THE PRESIDENT, TO POLICY AND MILITARY LEADERS, AND TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. I KNOW THESE ARE TRAITS THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY IF CONFIRMED AS THE NEXT DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. DURING THE MOST RECENT TENURE OF THE D.N.I. , JAMES CLAPPER, DURING HIS SIX YEARS HE PUT IN PLACE SOME FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN HOW THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OPERATES. HE REORIENTED THE OFFICE OF THE D.N.I. TO FOCUS ON INTELLIGENCE INTEGRATION WITH AN EMPHASIS ON MISSION. HE OFTEN WAS WILLING TO ROLL UP HIS SLEEVES AND TAKE ON THE HARD CHALLENGES OF TRYING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, GET ALL THE INTEL COMMUNITY TO OPERATIVES ON -- OPERATE ON THE SAME I.T. BACKBONE SYSTEM. IF CONFIRMED I HAVE ENCOURAGED SENATOR COATS TO BUILD UPON CLAPPER'S EFFORTS WHICH ARE BUILT UPON MAKING SURE POLICY-MAKERS, WAR FIGHTERS AND NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICERS RECEIVE INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS THAT ARE TIMELY, RELEVANT AND OBJECTIVE. OF COURSE, IF CONFIRMED, DIRECTOR COATS WILL TAKE ON THE JOB AS THE NATION'S CHIEF INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, LEADING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DURING A VERY DIFFICULT TIME BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PRESIDENT, ALONG WITH HIS CLOSEST ADVISORS, HAS REPEATEDLY AND UNFAIRLY DISPARAGED THE PROFESSIONALISM AND ACTIONS OF THE NATION'S INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS. THESE ARE MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND INTEGRITY THEY SACRIFICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY OFTEN IN THE FACE OF GRAVE PERSONAL DANGER. AS D.N.I. , SENATOR COATS IS COMMITTED TO DEFENDING THE VALUES AND INTEGRITY OF THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, EVEN WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE MAY NOT WANT TO HEAR. ANOTHER CHALLENGE THAT SENATOR COATS WILL FACE ON HIS FIRST DAY ON THE JOB IS TO EFFECTIVELY SUPPORT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. LAST WEEK I WENT TO C.I.A. HEADQUARTERS IN LANGLEY ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE BEGINNINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S -- THE RAW INTELLIGENCE THAT LED THE COMMUNITY TO CONCLUDE THAT RUSSIA MASSIVELY INTERFERED INTO OUR LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. BOTH IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE, SENATOR COATS HAS PROMISED THAT HE WILL SUPPORT THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION TO THE FULLEST. WE WILL HOLD HIM TO THAT COMMITMENT. ON THIS TOPIC, INTERTO REITERATE ON THE SENATE FLOOR TODAY WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SAID NUMEROUS TIMES, THIS INVESTIGATION IS NOT ABOUT BEING A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN, NOR ABOUT RELITIGATING THE 2016 ELECTION. THE INVESTIGATION IS ABOUT UPHOLDING THE CORE VALUES AND SANCTITY OF DEMOCRACY THAT ALL AMERICANS HOLD DEAR. IT'S ALSO ABOUT HOLDING RUSSIA ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND ARMING OUR ALLIES, ONE OF WHICH HAS AN ELECTION TODAY, WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY RUSSIA IN OUR ELECTIONS SO THEY CAN USE THAT INFORMATION TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR OWN ELECTORAL PROCESSES. WE'LL WORK TO ENSURE THAT THIS CRITICAL INVESTIGATION IS DONE RIGHT, IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER, FREE OF ANY POLITICAL INTERFERENCE, AND AS THE CHAIRMAN AND I HAVE BOTH REITERATED, IT FOLLOWS THE FACTS WHEREVER THEY MAY LEAD. I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SENATOR COATS WILL BE FORTHCOMING IN SUPPORTING THIS INVESTIGATION. IF AT ANY POINT IT BECOMES CLEAR TO ME THAT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO KEEP UP THESE COMMITMENTS, I AM PREPARED TO SUPPORT ANOTHER PROCESS. FINALLY, LET ME ACKNOWLEDGE TWO OTHER THINGS. DURING SENATOR COATS' CONFIRMATION HEARING, HE WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS ROLE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLE'S COMMITTEE. HE ASSURED US THAT HE WILL BE ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATING ACTIVELY, DESPITE THE CONFUSION CREATED BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT APPEARED TO DISINVITE THE D.N.I. FROM THESE MEETINGS. IF HE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THESE MEETINGS, I'LL EXPECT TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND THE REASON WHY. SENATOR COATS HAS ALSO COMMITTED TO ME PERSONALLY AND TO THE COMMITTEE THAT HE WILL NOT SUPPORT THE RETURN OF WATERBOARDING AND OTHER SO-CALLED ENHANCED INTERROGATION PRACTICES, NOR WILL HE SUPPORT RE-ESTABLISHING SECRET DETENTION SITES INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. HE REASSURED THE COMMITTEE THAT HE WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT NOW STANDS, AND HE WILL NOT ADVOCATE FOR CHANGES TO THE LAW OR RECOMMEND A REINTERPRETATION OF THE LAW BASED ON ANY PERSONAL BELIEFS. THE LAW IS CLEAR. NO INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES OUTSIDE THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL ARE ALLOWED. FINALLY, SENATOR COATS HAS ALSO REASSURED ME AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IF CONFIRMED, HE WILL ALWAYS PRESENT TO THE PRESIDENT HIS CABINET, ADVISORS AND TO THOSE OF US IN CONGRESS THE UNVARNISHED FACTS AS REPRESENTED BY THE BEST JUDGMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT ANALYSIS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT, WITH US IN CONGRESS OR ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT BE SEEING THEM. FOR THESE REASONS, I SUPPORT MOVEMENT. I WAS GLAD TO SEE 88 MEMBERS OF THIS BODY SUPPORTED DAN'S MOVEMENT FORWARD. I BELIEVE HE WILL BE A GREAT FIFTH DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AGAIN, I THANK MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, FOR GIVING ME TIME. MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO THANK MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA, WHO IS VICE CHAIR OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE FOR HIS REMARKS. I, TOO, SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OF DAN COATS TO SERVE AS THE NEXT DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUCCEED JAMES CLAPPER WHO HAS BEEN IN THE INTELLIGENCE BUSINESS FOR 50-PLUS YEARS. ...

HE HAS GOT BIG SHOES TO FILL, BUT I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT DAN COATS CAN DO THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS I HOPE HE LOOKS AT IS POST-9/11 WHEN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS CREATED, WE BASICALLY CREATED ANOTHER LAYER IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHER MEMBERS KNOW, THE D.N.I. , THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICE HAS GROWN BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS, AND I JUST HOPE HE TAKES A GOOD, HARD LOOK AT THE LAYERS THAT WE'VE CREATED, PERHAPS THE DUPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY MAKE OUR INTELLIGENCE ANY BETTER, BUT DO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS IN MANAGING WHAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT -- A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT OFFICE THROUGH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND CERTAINLY TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. ON ANOTHER MATTER, MR. PRESIDENT, IN SPITE OF THE SNOW YESTERDAY, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THIS IS SUNSHINE WEEK. SUNSHINE WEEK IS A MOVEMENT CREATED TO HIGHLIGHT THE NEED FOR MORE TRANSPARENT AND OPEN GOVERNMENT. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IS ALSO OFTEN QUOTED WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND THE CORNS TO A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY WHEN HE SAID THAT SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT. AS A CONSERVATIVE, I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR, KNOWING THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE GOING TO BE PUBLIC RATHER THAN PASS NEW LAWS, NEW REGULATIONS. TO ME, KNOWING THAT THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO BE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE TYPICALLY ON THEIR BEST BEHAVIOR, AND I THINK THAT'S THE REASON I SUPPORT JUSTICE BRANDEIS' COMMENT THAT SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT. I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE. I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO KEEP THAT SENTIMENT IN MIND THAT PRESSES TOWARDS MORE OPENNESS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT LESS. THAT'S BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY GROWS STRONGER, I BELIEVE, WHEN OPERATING UNDER THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN OPEN GOVERNMENT IS THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY. OF COURSE, WHEN VOTERS KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS DOING, THEY ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO CHANGE ITS DIRECTION IF THEY DISAGREE WITH IT OR TO REAFFIRM THAT DIRECTION BY CASTING THEIR VOTE AS AN INFORMED MEMBER OF THE ELECTORATE. DEMOCRACY CAN ONLY WORK WHEN THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT GOVERNMENT IS DOING AND CAN HOLD IT ACCOUNTABLE, SO I'M GLAD TODAY THAT AT THIS TIME OF YEAR WE CAN LOOK BACK AT SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS THAT WE HAVE MADE TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY WHILE LOOKING AHEAD TO DO MORE. LAST CONGRESS, I INTRODUCED THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IMPROVEMENT ACT, A LAW THAT STRENGTHENS THE EXISTING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, THE COUNTRY'S CHIEF OPEN GOVERNMENT LAWS, THAT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO OPERATE UNDER A PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO RELEASE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION IN THEIR CUSTODY. WE PASSED IT LAST SUMMER AND PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED IT INTO LAW. THIS IMPORTANT NEW LAW ACCOMPLISHES SOME OF THE MOST SWEEPING AND MEANINGFUL REFORMS THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IN ITS HISTORY, AND IT'S ALREADY MAKING A DIRECT IMPACT BY HELPING THE PUBLIC ACCESS MORE INFORMATION. BECAUSE OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IMPROVEMENT ACT LAST OCTOBER, THE C.I.A. RELEASED A PORTION OF ITS OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE BAY OF PIGS INVASION, WHICH HAS BEEN KEPT CLASSIFIED FOR DECADES. THIS IS A CRITICAL PART OF OUR NATION'S HISTORY THAT'S WORTH KNOWING. AND I BELIEVE IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY TO KEEP IT UNDER WRAPS IN ORDER TO PROTECT AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY. BUT THIS SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS LAW AND OTHERS LIKE IT. TO BUILD UPON THE IDEA THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS RECOGNIZED HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, THAT A TRULY DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM DEPENDS ON AN INFORMED CITIZENRY TO HOLD THEIR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE. THAT'S AN IDEA THAT EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE CAN AGREE UPON. I'M THANKFUL TO THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM VERMONT, SENATOR LEAHY, FOR WORKING WITH ME ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IMPROVEMENT ACT AND MAKING IT A PRIORITY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SENATOR LEAHY HAS BEEN MY PARTNER ON A NUMBER OF OUR EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE BOTH BEEN IN THE SENATE IN THIS IMPORTANT AREA. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP OF CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR STEWARDING THIS BILL THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND TO LEADER McCONNELL FOR MAKING SURE THIS WAS A PRIORITY FOR THIS CHAMBER. LOOKING AHEAD, I WILL CONTINUE WORKING WITH CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY TO MAKE SURE THE FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE IMPLEMENTING THIS LAW IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO DOING MORE TO STRENGTHEN GREATER GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY MEASURES IN THE FUTURE. FINALLY, MR. PRESIDENT, NEXT WEEK, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL TAKE UP THE NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO FILL THE SEAT VACATED BY THE DEATH OF JUSTICE SCALIA. THAT PROCESS, OF COURSE, BEGINS WITH HEARINGS TO CONSIDER HIS QUALIFICATIONS AND HIS CREDENTIALS, BUT HEADING INTO NEXT WEEK, WE ALREADY KNOW A LOT ABOUT HIS RECORD. HE HAS BEEN PRAISED BY PEOPLE ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, FROM LIBERALS TO CONSERVATIVES, AS A HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXCEPTIONAL JUDGE WITH IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY. HE'S SERVED WITH GREAT DISTINCTION ON THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BASED OUT OF DENVER FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS AFTER HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THIS CHAMBER UNANIMOUSLY. HIS HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER, "THE DENVER POST," ENCOURAGED THE PRESIDENT TO NOMINATE JUDGE GORSUCH BEFORE HIS NOMINATION WAS EVEN ANNOUNCED. THIS, OF COURSE, IS THE SAME NEWSPAPER THAT ENDORSED HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT. CLEARLY, JUDGE GORSUCH HAS WON THE RESPECT OF THOSE ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. LAST WEEK, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCED THEIR UNANIMOUS DECISION TO GRANT JUDGE GORSUCH THE HIGHEST RATING AVAILABLE, THAT OF WELL-QUALIFIED AS A NOMINEE TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. I SHOULD POINT OUT, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT BOTH THE MINORITY LEADER AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM VERMONT, HAVE CALLED THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S RATING SYSTEM THE, QUOTE, GOLD STANDARD, CLOSE QUOTE, WHEN IT COMES TO ASSESSING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES. JUDGE GORSUCH WILL ALSO BRING DECADES OF EXPERIENCE ON THE BENCH, AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, AND HE SERVED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AS WELL AS AN ATTORNEY WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND OF COURSE AS A FEDERAL JUDGE. SO IT'S TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PRESIDENT'S NOMINEE TO FILL THE SEAT LEFT OPEN BY THE DEATH OF THE LATE JUSTICE SCALIA, AND I BELIEVE THAT JUDGE GORSUCH IS JUST THE MAN TO FILL IT. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM HIM NEXT WEEK AS WE CONSIDER HIS NOMINATION TO THIS IMPORTANT POSITION. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY AND THE RANKING MEMBER, SENATOR FEINSTEIN, FOR THEIR EFFORTS THUS FAR IN PUTTING THESE HEARINGS TOGETHER, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE GORSUCH STARTING NEXT MONDAY, MARCH 20. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? ...

A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OREGON. MR. WYDEN: MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW BOTH SIDES ARE WORKING ON TRYING TO GET AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE VOTE. I ALSO WANT TO TELL MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS THAT I LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY TO HIS REMARKS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT. HE'S HAD A LONG INTEREST IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE LIKE. I NOTED THAT HE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE BAY OF PIGS WHERE INFORMATION IS STILL CLASSIFIED. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE MY DAD WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE SUBJECT. ...

AND MY HOPE IS THAT MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS AND HIS INTEREST IN TRANSPARENCY WILL ALSO EXTEND TO SOME OTHER AREAS. AS I INDICATED, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH MY COLLEAGUE'S RECORD WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ISSUES, AND IT REALLY IS IMPRESSIVE, AND I HOPE TO GET HIM INVOLVED IN SOME OTHER AREAS OF TRANSPARENCY, PERHAPS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND THE ISSUE I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY, GETTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE INFORMATION AFTER SIX YEARS OF STONEWALLING ON HOW MANY LAWFUL AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN WHAT WILL BE DAN COATS' TOP PRIORITY, THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT REAUTHORIZATION. SO I WANTED MY COLLEAGUE TO KNOW THAT BEING VERY MUCH AWARE OF HIS GOOD WORK ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ISSUES, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO CONSCRIPT HIM INTO SOME OTHER TRANSPARENCY ISSUES AS WELL. MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE -- MR. CORNYN: COULD I ASK THE SENATOR WHETHER HE WOULD YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF BRIEF CONSENT REQUESTS? MR. WYDEN: OF COURSE. IF I COULD TELL MY COLLEAGUE WHAT THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY HAVE AGREED TO IS AS SOON AS THOSE CONSENT REQUESTS ARE READY, THEN WE WILL TAKE A TIME OUT FROM MY REMARKS AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT MATTER IS ...

RESOLVED. MR. PRESIDENT, AS WE WAIT FOR THE MATTER SENATOR CORNYN HAS MENTIONED, I WANT TO BEGIN DISCUSSION OF THE NOMINATION OF DAN COATS TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. I HAVE KNOWN SENATOR COATS FOR MANY YEARS. HE HAS BEEN THE LEAD COSPONSOR OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFORM PROPOSAL, THE BIPARTISAN FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFORM PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN A SPECIAL PRIORITY OF MINE, AND I WOULD JUST SAY TO THE PRESIDENT AND COLLEAGUES I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE UNITED STATES SENATOR WHO DOES NOT LIKE SENATOR COATS. HE IS HONEST, HE IS A STRAIGHT SHOOTER, HE IS GRACIOUS, SO MY REMARKS ARE NOT ABOUT MY PERSONAL AFFECTION FOR SENATOR COATS. THE REASON I'M VOTING AGAINST THE NOMINATION IS BECAUSE OF THE MATTER THAT I JUST TOUCHED UPON WITH THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, AND THAT IS FOR SIX YEARS, MR. PRESIDENT AND COLLEAGUES, IT HAS BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE THE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INFORMATION THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO THE DEBATE ON REAUTHORIZING THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. FOR SIX LONG YEARS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS -- BOTH IN THIS BODY AND IN THE OTHER BODY -- HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS INFORMATION. AND SO THIS MORNING I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD BE SENATOR COATS' TOP PRIORITY, AS HE SAID IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, I WANT THE SENATE AND THE COUNTRY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT. AND I'M GOING TO START MY REMARKS WITH THE OBSERVATION -- I'M HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY FRIEND. MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS. MR. CORNYN: I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FOR YIELDING FOR A BRIEF UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ENTIRE SENATE. MR. ...

PRESIDENT, I INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT NOT WITHSTAND -- ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE McMASTER NOMINATION BE WITHDRAWN AND THAT THE TIME UNTIL 1:45 P.M. BE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN THE USUAL FORM ON THE COATS AND MASTER NOMINATION CONCURRENTLY. AND AT 1:45 P.M., THE SENATE VOTE ON THE COATS NOMINATION FOLLOWED BY A VOTE ON THE McMASTER NOMINATION AND THAT IF CONFIRMED THE PRESIDENT BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS, THAT NO INTERVENING -- OF THE SENATE'S ACTIONS WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE. I FURTHER ASK THAT ONE HOUR OF MINORITY DEBATE TIME BE RESERVED FOR SENATOR WYDEN. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION? WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D ALSO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS ON TUESDAY, MARCH 12,THE SENATE PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING NOMINATIONS: EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 21 AND 22. I ASK CONSENT THAT THE TIME UNTIL 12:00 NOON BE EQUALLY DIVIDED AND THAT L FOG THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME, THE SENATE VOTE ON THE NOMINATIONS EN BLOC WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE. THAT IF CONFIRMED, THE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER BE CONSIDERED MADE AND LAID ON THE TABLE EN BLOC, THE PRESIDENT BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE SENATE'S ACTIONS AND THAT NO FURTHER MEXICOS BE IN ORDER AND THAT ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE NOMINEE NAILS BE PRINTED IN THE RECORD. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION? WITHOUT OBJECTION. ...

MR. CORNYN: MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FOR YIELDING FOR THOSE CONSENT REQUESTS.

MR. WYDEN: I THANK MY COLLEAGUE. AND NOW, AS WE CONSIDER

SENATOR COATS' NOMINATION AND RECOGNIZE THAT HIS TOP PRIORITY BY HIS ADMISSION WOULD BE THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

FOREIGN INVESTIGATION ACT, I WANT TO BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION TODAY BECAUSE IT IS BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS STONE STONEWALLED DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN BOTH THIS BODY AND THE OTHER BODY FOR SIX YEARS ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO DO GOOD OVERSIGHT THAT I HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR TO OUTLINE WHAT I THINK THIS CENTRAL ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT. AND I'M GOING TO BEGIN MY REMARKS, MR. PRESIDENT, BY WAY OF SAYING THAT AT A TIME WHEN AMERICANS ARE DEMANDING POLICIES THAT GIVE THEM MORE SECURITY AND MORE LIBERTY, INCREASINGLY WE'RE SEEING POLICIES COME FROM BOTH THIS BODY AND THE OTHER BODY THAT PROVIDE LESS OF BOTH. A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE WEAKENING STRONG ENCRYPTION. WEAKENING STRONG ENCRYPTION IS BAD FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, IT'S BAD FROM A LIBERTY STANDPOINT. AND WHEN GOVERNMENT CREATES POLICIES THAT GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LESS OF BOTH, LESS SECURITY, AND LESS LIBERTY, OBVIOUSLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO REACT WELL. MY VIEW IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT -- PARTICULARLY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES -- DON'T LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT LARGE-SCALE SURVEILLANCE OF LAW- LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, OUR PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIABLY APRIL DEGREE. AND WHEN THE -- ARE JUSTIFIABLY ANGRY. AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO KEEP THIS INFORMATION SECRET, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT ON THIS FLOOR BEFORE, IN AMERICA THE TRUTH ALWAYS COMES OUT. LEVELING WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THE ONLY WAY FOR AGENCIES TO HAVE THE CREDIBILITY AND THE LEGITIMACY TO EFFECTIVELY DO THEIR JOBS, AND THEY HAVE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT JOBS IN KEEPING OUR PEOPLE SAFE FROM THREATS. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO SENATOR COATS, AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING, SINCE HE SAID THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT WOULD BE HIS TOP PRIORITY, I ASKED OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE HOW MANY AMERICANS -- INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS -- HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SWEPT UP IN THE SURVEILLANCE PROGR KNOWN AS SECTION 702 OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. UNDER SECTION 702, THE GOVERNMENT CONDUCTS WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE OF FOREIGNERS WHO ARE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE OVERSEAS. IT DOES THIS WORK BY COMPELLING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO PROVIDE THE CONTENT -- PHONE CALLS AND E-MAILS AND OTHER INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS. NOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THIS HAPPENS, AND I WILL GET TO THAT IN THE COURSE OF THESE REMARKS. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS GOES TO THE CONTINENT TENT OF COMMUNICATIONS. -- TO THE CONTENT OF COMMUNICATIONS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT METADATA COMMUNICATION. AND THE SENATE REFORMED THAT IN THE U.S.A. FREEDOM ACT. THIS IS SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT ANY WARRANTS, AND ONCE THE FISA COURT SIGNS OFF ON THE OVERALL PROGRAM, THE DETAILS ARE UP TO THE GOVERNMENT. NOW, THIS WAS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. FOR DECADES, INDIVIDUAL WARRANTS WERE REQUIRED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT NEEDED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTRY'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIRMS. THEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CREATED A SECRET, ILLEGAL, WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING PROGRAM. AFTER THE PROGRAM WAS REVEALED, THE GOVERNMENT THEN WENT TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT COURT TO GET APPROVAL. BUT P WHEN THE GOVERNMENT RAN INTO SOME TROUBLE WITH THE COURT, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ARGUED THAT THE CONGRESS SHOULD CREATE THE CURRENT PROGRAM. IT WAS FIRST PASSED IN 2007 UNDER THE NAME "PROTECT AMERICA ACT." THAT BECAME THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT AMENDMENTS IN 2008. NOW, FORTUNATELY, THE CONGRESS INCLUDED A SUNSET PROVISION, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION IN 2012, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION THIS YEAR, AND THIS YEAR IT IS SENATOR COATS' TOP PRIORITY, IF CONFIRMED. WHOEVER IS HEAD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WILL BE THE POINT PERSON FOR THIS LEGISLATION. BUT I WANT IT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE REASON THAT I'M GOING THROUGH THIS BACKGROUND IS THAT I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FULLY INFORMED DEBATE ABOUT THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT REAUTHORIZATION. YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT DEBATE -- YOU CANNOT ENSURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SECURITY AND LIBERTY UNLESS YOU KNOW THE IMPACT OF SECTION 702 OF THAT BILL ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. SO FOR SIX YEARS, MR. PRESIDENT, IN THIS BODY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS -- IN THE OTHER BODY, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS -- HAVE BEEN ASKING THE SAME QUESTION: HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE HAVING THEIR COMMUNICATIONS SWEPT UP IN ALL OF THIS COLLECTION? WITHOUT EVEN AN ESTIMATE OF THIS NUMBER, I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO JUDGE WHAT SECTION 702 MEANS FOR THE CORE LIBERTIES OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION, THE CONGRESS CAN'T MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO REAUTHORIZE SECTION 702 OR WHAT KIND OF REFORMS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES OF INNOCENT AMERICANS. AT SENATOR COATS' NOMINATION HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, I ASKED SENATOR COATS WHETHER HE WOULD COMMIT TO PROVIDING CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC WITH THIS INFORMATION INFORMATION, AND I SAY, MR. PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF MY RESPECT FOR SENATOR COATS AND OUR LONGTIME COOPERATION ON ISSUES LIKE TAX REFORM AND A VARIETY OF, YOU KNOW, OTHERS, I HOPE THAT SENATOR COATS WOULD BE THE ONE, AFTER SIX YEARS OF STRUGGLING TO GET THIS INFORMATION -- I HAD HOPED THAT SENATOR COATS WOULD MAKE A COMMITMENT TO DELIVER IT TO THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BEFORE WORK ON THE REAUTHORIZATION BEGAN. INSTEAD, SENATOR COATS SAID, AN I QUOTE, I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO WORK WITH ADMIRAL ROGERS AT THE N.S.A. TO GET YOU THAT NUMBER. IF CONFIRMED, I HOPE THAT HAPPENS. BUT AFTER ASKING FOR THE NUMBER OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO GET SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES FOR YEARS AND GETTING STONEWALLED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, HOPING TO GET THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO DO REAL OVERSIGHT IS JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH. THE PROBLEM -- THE LACK OF INFORMATION ON THE IMPACT OF THIS LAW ON THE PRIVACY OF AMERICANS -- GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ORIGINS OF THE AUTHORITY. IN DECEMBER OF 2007, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN ITS STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON THE FISA AMENDMENT ACT STATED THAT IT WOULD LIKELY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS WERE REVIEWED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN APRIL OF 2011, OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE, SENATOR MARK UDALL, AND I THEN ASKED THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, JAMES CLAPPER, FOR AN ESTIMATE. IN JULY OF THAT YEAR, THE DIRECTOR WROTE BACK AND SAID, AND I QUOTE, IT WAS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. HE SUGGESTED REVIEWING THE CLASSIFIED NUMBER OF DISSEMINATED INTELLIGENCE REPORTS CONTAINING A REFERENCE TO A U.S. PERSON, BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. MR. PRESIDENT, HOW MANY LAW- LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS -- INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES? AND IT WILL BE AN INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ISSUE, AS THE NATURE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES CONTINUES TO CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS NOW A FIELD THAT IS GLOBALLY INTERCONNECTED. WE DON'T HAVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS JUST STOPPING AT NATIONAL BORDERS. SO GETTING THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS THE PREREQUISITE TO DOING REAL OVERSIGHT ON THIS LAW AND DOING OUR JOB AT A TIME WHEN IT IS BEING REAUTHORIZED AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT BOTH SECURITY AND LIBERTY AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. SO, MR. CLAP, DIRECTOR CLAPPER THEN SUGGESTED REVIEWING THE CLASSIFIED NUMBER OF TARGETS THAT WERE LATER DETERMINED TO BE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES. BUT THE QUESTION HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT THE TARGETS OF SECTION 702, ALTHOUGH THE MISTAKEN TARGETING OF AMERICANS AND THE PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY IS ANOTHER SERIOUS QUESTION. THE QUESTION THAT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ASKING IS ABOUT HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE BEING SWEPT UP BY A PROGRAM THAT, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, IS SUPPOSED TO ONLY TARGET FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS. SO LET ME REPEAT THAT. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS. THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT SAYS THAT THE TARGETS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS. AND DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY LAW- LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO MIGHT RESIDE IN ALASKA OR OREGON OR ANYWHERE ELSE ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES. SO THIS BIPARTISAN COALITION HAS KEPT ASKING. IN JULY OF 2012 ANTICIPATING THE FIRST REAUTHORIZATION OF SECTION 702 OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, I AND 11 OTHER SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES WROTE DIRECTOR CLAPPER. WE WROTE THIS BIPARTISAN GROUP, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO CALCULATE THIS NUMBER WITH PRECISION, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO ACCEPT THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH EVEN A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THIS NUMBER. IF GENERATING A PRECISE ESTIMATE WOULD REQUIRE AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF LABOR, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCEPT AN IMPRECISE ONE. SO WE ASKED ABOUT IMPRECISE ESTIMATES. HOW MANY PEOPLE, JUST A BALLPARK, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES THAT THE LAW SAYS ARE DESIGNED TO TARGET FOREIGNERS? SO WE ASKED ABOUT ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. IS THE NUMBER CLOSER TO A HUNDRED OR A HUNDRED THOUSAND OR A HUNDRED MILLION? WE STILL GOT NO ANSWER. AND SECTION 702 WAS REAUTHORIZED WITHOUT THIS NECESSARY INFORMATION. SO LAST YEAR LOOKING AT THE PROSPECT OF THE LAW COMING UP, THERE WAS A RENEWED EFFORT TO FIND OUT HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES OF FOREIGNERS. IN APRIL 2016 A BIPARTISAN LETTER FROM MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKED THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR A PUBLIC ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS OR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING UNITED STATES PERSONS ARE COLLECTED UNDER SECTION 702 ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THIS LETTER COMING FROM THE HOUSE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, AGAIN ASKED FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE. THIS BIPARTISAN GROUP SUGGESTED WORKING WITH DIRECTOR CLAPPER TO DETERMINE THE METHODOLOGY TO GET THIS ESTIMATE. IN DECEMBER THERE WERE HINTS IN THE NEWS MEDIA THAT SOMETHING MIGHT BE FORTHCOMING, BUT NOW WE'RE HERE WITH A NEW ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERING THE NOMINATION OF THE NEXT HEAD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO HAS SAID THAT REAUTHORIZING SECTION 702 IS HIS TOP LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY AND THAT THERE IS NO ANSWER IN SIGHT TO THE QUESTION DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR OVER SIX YEARS. HOW MANY INNOCENT LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES UNDER A LAW THAT TARGETS FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS? NOW, HAVING DESCRIBED THIS HISTORY, I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT. STARTING WITH THE MANY WAYS IN WHICH INNOCENT AMERICANS CAN BE SWEPT UP IN SECTION 702 SURVEILLANCE. THE FIRST ARE TARGETING MISTAKES IN WHICH CONTRARY TO THE LAW, THE TARGET TURNS OUT TO BE AN AMERICAN OR SOMEONE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE FULL IMPACT OF THESE MISTAKES ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS IS NOT READILY APPARENT. THE MOST RECENT PUBLIC REPORT ON SECTION 702 NOTED THAT THERE WERE COMPLIANCE INCIDENTS INVOLVING SURVEILLANCE OF FOREIGNERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND IT HAPPENS. THE SECTION WAY IN WHICH AMERICANS CAN BE SWEPT UP IN SECTION 702 COLLECTION IS WHEN THEY COMMUNICATE WITH AN OVERSEAS TARGET. THIS IS USUALLY CALLED INCIDENTAL COLLECTION, AND IT IS OFTEN MISCHARACTERIZED. I HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES THAT THE PROGRAM IS INTENDED TO FIND OUT WHEN AMERICANS ARE COMMUNICATING WITH, QUOTE, BAD GUYS. AND I WANT IT UNDERSTOOD I'M NOT INTERESTED IN SOME KIND OF BAD GUYS CAUCUS. I KNOW OF NO SENATOR WHO IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY FROM THOSE KINDS OF THREATS. IF A KNOWN TERRORIST OVERSEAS IS COMMUNICATING WITH SOMEONE IN THE UNITED STATES, WE OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. BUT SECTION 702 IS NOT JUST A COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAM. THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE COLLECTION BE CONDUCTED, QUOTE, TO ACQUIRE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. AS IMPLEMENTED THE STANDARD FOR TARGETING INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE PROGRAM IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THESE PERSONS POSSESS OR ARE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE OR ARE LIKELY TO COMMUNICATE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. OBVIOUSLY THAT IS BROAD. IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE THAT A TARGET BE SUSPECTED OF WRONGDOING. SO IF SOMEONE TELLS YOU THAT YOUR COMMUNICATIONS WILL ONLY BE COLLECTED IF YOU'RE TALKING TO AL QAEDA OR ISIS, THAT IS JUST FACTUALLY WRONG. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM COLLECTING COMMUNICATIONS ONLY WHEN THE SENDER OF AN E-MAIL AND EVERYONE RECEIVING THAT E-MAIL ARE IN THE UNITED STATES. SO AN AMERICAN IN THE UNITED STATES CAN SEND AN E-MAIL TO ANOTHER AMERICAN IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT IF THE E-MAIL ALSO GOES TO AN OVERSEAS TARGET, IT'S GOING TO BE COLLECTED. SO THAT THEN BRINGS US TO THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COLLECTION UNDER SECTION 702 AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE LIBERTIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT WAYS. IN ONE FORM OF COLLECTION KNOWN AS PRISM, THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER TO PROVIDE THE GOVERNMENT WITH MESSAGES TO AND FROM A SPECIFIC E-MAIL ADDRESS. THEN THERE IS SOMETHING KNOWN AS UPSTREAM COLLECTION WHICH IS WHEN THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE COLLECTED OFF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET BACKBONES. IN OTHER WORDS, PHONE CALLS AND E-MAIL MESSAGES ARE COLLECTED IN TRANSIT. THIS KIND OF COLLECTION RAISES A NUMBER OF OTHER CONCERNS, A NUMBER OF OTHER REASONS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP. FOR ONE, IT IS THROUGH UPSTREAM COLLECTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN COLLECT E-MAILS THAT ARE NEITHER TO OR FROM A TARGET. THE E-MAIL MERELY HAS TO BE ABOUT A TARGET, MEANING, FOR EXAMPLE, IT INCLUDES THE TARGET'S E-MAIL ADDRESS IN THE CONTENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT CAN COLLECT E-MAILS TO AND FROM AMERICANS, NONE OF WHOM ARE OF ANY INTEREST TO THE GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER AS LONG AS THE TARGET'S E-MAIL ADDRESS IS IN THE CONTENT OF THE E-MAIL. THE LAW ONLY REQUIRES THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE COMMUNICATION WHO AGAIN COULD BE ANOTHER AMERICAN IS OVERSEAS AND EVEN THAT REQUIREMENT IS HARD FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MEET IN PRACTICE. SO THE IMPLICATIONS HERE OUGHT TO BE PRETTY OBVIOUS. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TARGETS TO BE SWEPT UP IN FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT COLLECTION. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH A FOREIGNER. YOU OR SOMEBODY E-MAILING YOU JUST NEEDS TO REFERENCE A TARGET'S E-MAIL ADDRESS. SO, I'VE NOW MENTIONED THAT THIS TARGET IS NOT NECESSARILY A TERRORIST BECAUSE THE LAW ALLOWS FOR SURVEILLANCE TO ACQUIRE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. THAT'S BEEN INTERPRETED TO ALLOW THE TARGETING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO THE GOVERNMENT HAS REASON TO BELIEVE POE SAYSES OR EXPECT -- POSSESSES OR EXPECTED TO RECEIVE OR LIKELY TO COMMUNICATE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. IT'S A BROAD STANDARD, AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD THEN COLLECT THE COMMUNICATIONS OF ALL KINDS OF FOREIGNERS AROUND THE WORLD. SO THINK ABOUT HOW EASY IT WOULD BE FOR AN AMERICAN BUSINESS LEADER TO BE IN CONTACT WITH A BROAD SET OF POTENTIAL TARGETS OF THIS PROGRAM. CONSIDER HOW EASY IT WOULD BE FOR AMERICANS COMMUNICATING WITH OTHER AMERICANS TO FORWARD THE E-MAILS OF THESE PEOPLE. ALL OF THIS COULD BE COLLECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE UPSTREAM COLLECTION ALSO INCLUDES THE COLLECTION OF WHAT ARE CALLED MULTICOMMUNICATIONS TRANSACTIONS. THIS IS WHEN THE N.S.A. COLLECTS AN E-MAIL THAT IS TO, FROM, OR ABOUT A TARGET, BUT THE E-MAIL IS EMBEDDED AMONG MULTIPLE OTHER COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE NOT. THESE COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TARGET, BUT THE GOVERNMENT JUST KIND OF SORT OF ENDS UP WITH THEM. AND SOME OF THEM ARE SENT AND RECEIVED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. THESE ARE THE WAYS IN WHICH LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, INNOCENT LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG BOTH OVERSEAS AND IN THE UNITED STATES CAN HAVE THEIR COMMUNICATIONS COLLECTED UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. THESE ARE LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, INNOCENT AMERICANS, AND THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY SUSPECTED OF ANYTHING. AND IT IS THEIR PRIVACY AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT HAS CAUSED DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HERE IN THIS BODY AND IN THE OTHER BODY TO SEEK THE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO TARGET FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS. NOW, THE REASON THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT, MR. PRESIDENT, IS THE PROGRAM IS GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER. EXACT NUMBERS ARE CLASSIFIED, BUT THE GOVERNMENT'S PUBLIC REPORTING CONFIRMS STEADY INCREASES IN COLLECTION. AT SOME POINT THE SIZE OF THE PROGRAM, THE EXTENT TO WHICH AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS ARE BEING COLLECTED RAISES OBVIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE QUESTION IS NOT IF THE PROGRAM RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS BUT WHEN. AND THAT GETS TO THE HEART OF WHAT OUR BIPARTISAN COALITION HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT. IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE SENATE TO KNOW AS PART OF REAUTHORIZING THIS LAW HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE BEING SWEPT UP BY THIS PROGRAM, YOU CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS CROSSED A CONSTITUTIONAL LINE. NOW, THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD, THIS IS AN AGENCY THAT THE CONGRESS HAS TASKED TO LOOK AT THESE ISSUES, THIS AGENCY HAS RAISED THE VERY SAME CONCERNS I'M OUTLINING THIS MORNING. IN THE 2014 REPORT BY THE BOARD, A NONPARTISAN ORGANIZATION TASKED BY THE CONGRESS, THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS UNDER SECTION 702 HAMPERS ATTEMPTS TO GAUGE WHETHER THE PROGRAM APPROPRIATELY BALANCES NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS WITH THE PRIVACY OF U.S. PERSONS. AND THEY WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE PROGRAM IS CLOSE TO THE LINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REASONABLENESS. AT THE VERY LEAST TOO MUCH EXPANSION IN THE COLLECTION OF U.S. PERSONS' COMMUNICATIONS OR THE USES TO WHICH THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE PUT MAY PUSH THE PROGRAM OVER THE LINE. THEY RECOMMENDED, MR. PRESIDENT, EXACTLY WHAT OUR BIPARTISAN COALITION HAS BEEN CALLING FOR, THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE TO THE CONGRESS AND TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL SECURITY THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS GET DATA ON THE COLLECTION OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. NOW, THE MOST FREQUENTLY HEARD ARGUMENT AGAINST WHAT OUR BIPARTISAN GROUP OF HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR IS THAT WHATEVER NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS ARE BEING COLLECTED ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, IT IS MINIMIZED WHICH IMPLIES THAT INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICANS IS HIDDEN. AND THIS IS A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ISSUE, MR. PRESIDENT. I'VE HEARD MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TALK FREQUENTLY. WELL, YOU KNOW, IF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE HAVING THEIR COMMUNICATIONS SWEPT UP, WE SHOULDN'T GET ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THIS ARRAY OF AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS IS BEING MINIMIZED, AND SOMEHOW THAT MEANS THAT IT'S NOT GETTING OUT. IT'S BEING HIDDEN. THAT'S NOT WHAT NECESSARILY HAPPENS. TO BEGIN WITH, ALL THAT COLLECTION DOES NOT STAY AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY. ALL THE E-MAILS COLLECTED THROUGH THE PRISM COMPONENT OF SECTION 702 GO TO SEVERAL OTHER AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE C.I.A. AND THE F.B.I. THEN YOU HAVE THOSE THREE AGENCIES IN PARTICULAR AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT SEARCHES THROUGH ALL THE DATA FOR COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE TO, FROM, OR ABOUT AMERICANS. LOOK FOR AN AMERICAN'S NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER, E-MAIL ADDRESS, EVEN A KEY WORD OR PHRASE. THEY CAN DO THAT WITHOUT ANY WARRANT. THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EVEN A SUSPICION, EVEN A SUSPICION THAT AN AMERICAN IS ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF WRONGDOING. THE F.B.I. 'S AUTHORITIES ARE EVEN BROADER. THE F.B.I. CAN ALSO CONDUCT SEARCHES FOR COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE TO, FROM, OR ABOUT AN AMERICAN TO SEEK EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. UNLIKE THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, THE F.B.I. DOESN'T EVEN REPORT HOW MANY SEARCHES FOR AMERICANS IT'S CONDUCTING. MOREOVER, NEITHER THE F.B.I. NOR THE C.I.A. REPORTS ON THE NUMBER OF SEARCHES FOR AMERICANS IT CONDUCTS USING METADATA COLLECTED UNDER SECTION 702. NOW, THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SEARCHES FOR AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS IN SECTION 702 DATA IS NEW. BEFORE 2011, THE FISA COURT PROHIBITED, PROHIBITED QUERIES FOR U.S. PERSONS. I'M GOING TO REPEAT THAT. UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONDUCT THESE BACK-DOOR, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS. THEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE RULES AND OBTAINED AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THEM. IN APRIL, 2014, THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MYSELF AND SENATOR MARK UDALL PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED THESE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, AND MY JUNE, THE HOUSE VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO PROHIBIT THEM. THAT PROHIBITION DIDN'T BECOME LAW, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT'S SURE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS REAUTHORIZATION, AND THE HOUSE VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY, OVERWHELMINGLY TO PROHIBIT THESE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PRIVACY IMPACT OF THESE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR AMERICANS? IN 2014, I MANAGED TO EXTRACT FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SOME BUT NOT ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE SEARCHES. THAT WAS A STEP FORWARD, BUT WHAT THE DATA DOESN'T TELL US IS WHO ARE THE SUBJECTS OF THESE SEARCHES, AND MORE TO THE POINT, IT DOESN'T TELL US HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE POTENTIALLY THE SUBJECT OF THESE SEARCHES. IF THE NUMBER IS SMALL, THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE SMALLER. IF THE NUMBER IS LARGE, JUST THE OPPOSITE. POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IS MUCH GREATER. WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIZE OF THE POOL FROM WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CAN PULL THE COMMUNICATIONS OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, THERE IS JUST NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW EASY IT WOULD BE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO USE THIS LAW AS A MEANS TO READ THE E-MAILS OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT, A BUSINESS LEADER, A JOURNALIST OR AN ACTIVIST. I NOW WANT TO TURN TO THE ULTIMATE FORM OF ABUSE, AND THAT IS SOMETHING CALLED REVERSE TARGETING. PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT'S DEFINED AS COLLECTION. IF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION IS TO TARGET A PARTICULAR KNOWN PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS A PROHIBITION THAT ALSO APPLIES TO U.S. PERSONS. THE QUESTION, THOUGH, IS HOW IS THIS DEFINED AND HOW CAN THE PUBLIC BE ASSURED IT'S NOT HAPPENING? IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, YOU CAN SEE WHY THERE HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN CONCERN. THE COLLECTION IS ONLY PROHIBITED IF THE PURPOSE IS TO GET THE COMMUNICATIONS OF AMERICANS. THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY HAS ARISEN WHAT IF GETTING THE AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS IS ONLY ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING ON AN OVERSEAS TARGET? WHAT IS ACTUALLY ACCEPTABLE HERE? THIS ISSUE WAS CONCERNING IN 2008 WHEN THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT AMENDMENTS PASSED WITH A PROHIBITION ON REVERSE TARGETING, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE THE CONGRESS KNEW ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF E-MAILS THAT ARE ONLY ABOUT A FOREIGN TARGET AND THAT COULD BE TO AND FROM AMERICANS. THAT WAS BEFORE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR COMMUNICATIONS TO, FROM AND ABOUT AMERICANS OUT OF SECTION 702 PRISM COLLECTION. AND THAT MAKES AN IMPORTANT POINT TO ME, MR. PRESIDENT. THIS BIPARTISAN COALITION OF WHICH I HAVE BEEN PART OF HAS FOUGHT BACK AGAINST EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH, WHETHER IT IS DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION OR A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION. AND I CITED THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA BROUGHT BACK SOMETHING WITH A GREAT POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH SAID HE WANTED NO PART OF. SO AS WE LOOK AT THESE ISSUES, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM IS. EACH OF THE AGENCIES AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THESE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, THE N.S.A. , THE F.B.I. , THE C.I.A., ARE ALSO AUTHORIZED TO IDENTIFY THE OVERSEAS TARGETS OF SECTION 702. THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED AN INTEREST IN AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS AND ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE THE SAME AGENCIES THAT ARE IN A POSITION TO ENCOURAGE ONGOING COLLECTION OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS BY TARGETING THE OVERSEAS PARTY. SO I BELIEVE, OUR BIPARTISAN GROUP BELIEVES THAT THERE IS VERY SUBSTANTIAL POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE, AND BECAUSE OF THESE DECISIONS TAKING PLACE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW. NOW, TO QUOTE THE PRIVACY OVERSIGHT BOARD, SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THE COMMUNICATIONS OF U.S. PERSONS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND A CONTINUING SOURCE OF PUBLIC CONCERN. THE BOARD NOTED THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS RESPONDED WITH ANY NUMBER OF EXCUSES FOR WHY IT COULDN'T PROVIDE A NUMBER OF HOW MANY INNOCENT LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS GET SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES. ONE EXCUSE HAS BEEN THE SIZE OF THE PROGRAM, BUT AS MEMBERS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY, AN ESTIMATE, PERHAPS BASED ON A SIMPLE, IS SUFFICIENT. NOBODY IS DICTATING HOW THIS WOULD BE DONE. ANOTHER EXCUSE HAS BEEN THAT DETERMINING WHETHER INDIVIDUALS WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ARE AMERICAN WOULD ITSELF BE INVASIVE OF PRIVACY. NOW, THIS IS SOMETHING OF A HEAD SCRATCHER, AND I WILL JUST SAY THE VALUE OF KNOWING HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS GET SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES, THAT PRIVACY ADVOCATES HAVE STATED THAT THIS FAR-FEECHED THEORY, FAR-FETCHED EXCUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING IT DOESN'T ADD UP IN TERMS OF THE BENEFIT OF FINDING HOW MANY AMERICANS ARE SWEPT UP IN THESE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. THE GOVERNMENT IS GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS OF CALCULATING THE NUMBER. I AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, HAVE BEEN WILLING AND WE HAVE RENEWED THIS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY, YOU KNOW, UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE MONTHS AHEAD -- IN THE MONTHS AHEAD, THE SENATE IS GOING TO BE DEBATING A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATING TO THIS TOPIC, SUCH AS U.S. PERSON SEARCHES, REVERSE TARGETING AND THE COLLECTION OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE JUST ABOUT THE TARGET. THE SENATE IS GOING TO DISCUSS HOW TO STRENGTHEN OVERSIGHT BY THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT, THE CONGRESS PRIVACY BOARD. THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WILL BE RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE DEBATE, AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED, AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION THAT THIS BODY NEEDS TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO DO REAL OVERSIGHT HERE. THE CENTER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT INVOLVES ONE QUESTION -- HOW MANY INNOCENT LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SWEPT UP IN THIS PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND DEVELOPED TO TARGET FOREIGNERS OVERSEAS. CONGRESS' JUDGMENT ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SECTION 702 DEPENDS ON GETTING THIS NUMBER. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM'S CONSTITUTIONALITY RESTS ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT IT HAS ON AMERICANS. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF AMERICANS REQUIRES KNOWING HOW MANY AMERICANS' COMMUNICATIONS ARE BEING SEARCHED THROUGH. COUNTLESS QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROGRAM ALL REQUIRE THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE THIS INFORMATION. AND I'M JUST GOING TO CLOSE BY WAY OF SAYING WHAT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO DO REAL OVERSIGHT OVER A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PROGRAM, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE INFORMATION TO RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS. THE QUESTIONS ARE SHOULD THERE BE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST REVERSE TARGETING? SHOULD THE CONGRESS LEGISLATE ON UPSTREAM COLLECTION, COLLECTION OF COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT TARGETS BECAUSE IT RAISES UNIQUE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OF LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS? ARE THE RULES RELATED TO THE DISSEMINATION AND USE AND RETENTION OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS ADEQUATE? SHOULD THERE BE LIMITS ON THE USE OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS BY THE F.B.I. FOR NONINTELLIGENCE PURPOSES? JUST THINK ABOUT THAT ONE FOR A MINUTE, MR. PRESIDENT. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PEOPLE IN OUR PART OF THE WORLD WHERE PEOPLE FEEL THAT LIBERTY AND SECURITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO INSIST ON BOTH, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THEM ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE OUGHT TO BE LIMITS ON THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION BY THE F.B.I. FOR NONINTELLIGENCE PURPOSES? THAT'S EXACTLY THE KIND OF QUESTION THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK. I'M HEADING HOME TODAY FOR TOWN HALL MEETINGS IN RURAL AREAS, AND THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT OREGONIANS ASK. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DANGEROUS TIME. THAT'S NOT AT ISSUE. IF YOU SERVE ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND ALONG WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN, I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE LONGER SERVING MEMBERS. THE FACT THAT THIS IS A DANGEROUS WORLD IS NOT A DEBATABLE PROPOSITION. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DO NOT WISH OUR COUNTRY WELL. BUT WHAT I SAY TO OREGONIANS, WHAT I WILL SAY AGAIN THIS WEEKEND, ANY POLITICIAN WHO TELLS YOU YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY TO HAVE SECURITY IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO'S WORKING IN YOUR INTEREST, BECAUSE SMART POLICIES GIVE YOU BOTH. THAT'S WHY I STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF STRONG ENCRYPTION, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR SECURITY, CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR LIBERTY. AND THESE QUESTIONS ARE ONES THAT I DON'T THINK ARE PARTICULARLY PARTISAN. THAT'S WHY A BIG GROUP OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HERE AND IN THE OTHER BODY HAVE BEEN SEEKING THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS GET CAUGHT UP IN THESE EFFORTS TO TARGET A FOREIGNER OVERSEAS, AND WE ARE NOW AT A CRITICAL MOMENT. A GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WITH VERY OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRIVACY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IT'S UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION BY THE END OF THE YEAR. WHILE MORE INFORMATION MAY BE PART OF THE ANSWER, WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE THE BEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS THAT I JUST OUTLINED. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT CONGRESS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF QUESTIONS THAT GO RIGHT TO THE HEART OF OUR HAVING POLICIES THAT PROMOTE BOTH THEIR SECURITY AND THEIR LIBERTY. I THINK THE PUBLIC EXPECTS A FULL DEBATE. YOU CAN'T HAVE A FULL DEBATE. YOU CANNOT HAVE A FULL AND REAL DEBATE OVER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME SENSE OF HOW MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ARE GETTING SWEPT UP IN THESE SEARCHES OF FOREIGNERS. I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT SERIOUS OVERSIGHT THROUGH IT. THEY WANT ASSURANCES THAT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING VOTED ON, AND AFTER YEARS OF SECRET SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS BEING REVEALED ONLY IN THE NEWS MEDIA, I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS RIGHTLY INSISTED ON MORE OPENNESS AND MORE TRANSPARENCY. SO GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED TODAY THAT WILL DEAL WITH SENATOR COATS' TOP PRIORITY, REAUTHORIZING THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT IS A CRITICAL FIRST STEP. ONCE THE SENATE KNOWS THE IMPACT OF THIS PROGRAM ON AMERICANS, THEN YOU CAN HAVE A FULL AND REAL DISCUSSION, A REAL DEBATE IN CONGRESS WITH THE PUBLIC AND WITH THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. I TOOK THE VIEW IN THE COMMITTEE, MR. PRESIDENT, DESPITE VERY MUCH LIKING DAN COATS AND HIS BEING THE BIPARTISAN COSPONSOR OF WHAT IS STILL THE ONLY FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFORM PROPOSAL WE'VE HAD IN THE SENATE SINCE THE 1986 LAW WAS AUTHORED. I SAID THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT ANY NOMINEE TO BE THE HEAD OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IF THAT NOMINEE WILL NOT GUARANTEE THAT BEFORE THIS REAUTHORIZATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE SENATE AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO DO OUR JOBS, TO DO REAL OVERSIGHT, TO SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO COME UP WITH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE SECURITY AND LIBERTY AND FOR THAT REASON, DESPITE MY FRIENDSHIP FOR SENATOR COATS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE NOMINATION AND I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I WOULD NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM ...