Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2013.

This legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to improve the flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento area. The improvements will safeguard hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses.

There is a pressing need to improve levees in Sacramento.

The Army Corps perpetually cites the city as one of our nation's most at-risk for severe flooding. A quick review of the Corps' National Levee Database will tell you why. Of the nearly 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento the Corps has deemed 94 miles of levees, or 32 percent, ``unacceptable.'' An unacceptable designation means the levee is deficient to the point where it does not provide the protection it is supposed to.

The Corps has deemed 29 miles of levees, only 10 percent, ``minimally acceptable.''

The Corps has yet to even review the remaining 172 miles, 58 percent.

None of the 300 miles of levees within 10 miles of Sacramento received the passing grade of ``acceptable.''

But even in this high-risk city, there are priority areas. And the Natomas basin, which lies between the American and Sacramento rivers, is the top priority for Sacramento flood control.

More than 100,000 people in the Natomas flood plain are at high or moderate risk of flooding.

The vast majority of these homes would be inundated with more than 10 feet of water should a levee break.

In some places, inundation levels would exceed 20 feet.

The risks are clear. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the damage from a single flood could top $7 billion.

Recognizing the need to upgrade the Natomas levees, the Corps of Engineers completed a Chief's Report in December 2010 that identified $1.1 billion in essential levee improvements.

According to the report, the principal levee modifications include the widening of 41.9 miles of existing levees; installation of about 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall; installation of 8.3 miles of seepage berms, and bridge remediation on State Route 99.

In addition, the report recommends the creation of 75 acres of canal habitat, 200 acres of marsh habitat, and 60 acres of woodland habitat to ensure the project complies with the Endangered Species Act.

The cost of these improvements will be significant, but the burden will be shared.

Understanding the urgency of this work, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA, and the California Department of Water Resources have begun work on the levee. They have invested more than $400 million in the Natomas Basin project, far more than their share, and completed about 18 miles of the basin's 42 miles of levees.

I want to recognize SAFCA and the people of Sacramento for this good work. They have done the right thing, moving ahead before the federal authorization, because people's lives and property are in danger.

I am proud to say the people of Sacramento have really stepped up and contributed. On two occasions county voters approved special tax assessments to begin paying for the repairs on the levee system, first in 2007 and again in 2011.

The most recent assessment passed overwhelmingly with 84.5 percent of voters supporting the measure.

This kind of local commitment should be a model for the Nation. When such major vulnerabilities exist that threaten a community, it is imperative to act quickly.

If the Sacramento levees fail, the results will be devastating Sacramento International Airport, which serves 4.4 million passengers per year and is the primary air-cargo hub for the region, will be largely underwater.

Interstate 5, Interstate 80 and State Route 99 will be closed or restricted. These roads serve as freight arteries and facilitate the passage of more than 2,500 trucks per day.

Access to the Port of West Sacramento, the city's primary seaport, will be jeopardized.

Just months ago Super-storm Sandy slammed into the East Coast. The destruction in New York and New Jersey reminded us that unpredictable weather events can overwhelm our infrastructure with devastating consequences.

But with well-placed timely investments, much of worst damage can be averted. That's why even during the worst economic downturns in a generation, Sacramento voters stood together and passed the local tax- measure to fund this critical project.

We don't know when the next flood will occur, but we do know Sacramento has a well-documented history of catastrophic flooding.

Record-breaking storms hit the region in 1956, 1964, 1986 and 1997.

During the 1997 storm, levee failures in the nearby cities of Olivehurst, Arboga, Wilton, Manteca and Modesto caused mass evacuations and millions of dollars in damage.

Going back even further, an even more devastating flood in 1861 occurred when the American River Levee failed. California's newly elected Governor, Leland Stanford, was forced to take a row-boat to his inauguration at the State Capitol. The flooding was so bad the state government was temporarily relocated to San Francisco.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists now believe that the 1861 storm may have been an atmospheric river storm, or ``ARkStorm.'' These events, which occur every 200 to 400 years, can produce truly devastating floods.

In 2011, the USGS conducted a study about the impacts of a large ARkStorm in California's Central Valley. The results were shocking.

The storm would cause a 300 mile long, 20 mile wide flood zone across much of our nation's most productive agriculture lands. It would force the evacuation of 1.5 million residents and cause hundreds of landslides damaging roads, highways, and homes. The study estimates the cost to private homeowners and businesses would be $725 billion, nearly three times the cost of a major earthquake in the State.

The bottom line is this: the infrastructure currently in place will not stand up to a storm of this magnitude.

And the Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 is one small step toward preparing for such a disaster.

This legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced with my friend and colleague Senator Boxer, the Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, last Congress. The only change is that the current bill does not include language from the previous bill that specifically allowed ``credits'' for non-federal work on the project.

This modification should not be interpreted to reflect a change my support for the work of the local entities; I believe they have done the right thing by beginning construction on this project, and I support them receiving credit for their work.

Instead, the modification was included to comport with work being done by Chairwoman Boxer on the upcoming Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. That bill will generically address non-Federal crediting provisions and I will work with Chairman Boxer to ensure that Sacramento can still receive credits for the work they have completed.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of John Kerry to be our next Secretary of State.

As a friend and colleague for more than 20 years, I can think of no one who is more qualified and better prepared to be our Nation's chief diplomat.

He has the intelligence, judgment, compassion, determination, and above all, leadership experience to help the administration confront and find common sense solutions to the multitude of foreign policy challenges now before us.

His story is well known to those of us who have worked side by side with him for so many years.

The son of a distinguished foreign service officer, his understanding of the

world and America's critical role in it began at an early age. He learned the value of American diplomacy and the indispensable role played by our diplomats here in Washington and at our consulates and embassies around the world.

He served with distinction and honor in Vietnam, earning a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts. He saw first hand the costs of war, and he recognized that military force must be used wisely and only after all other options have been exhausted.

After 2 years as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, he came to the Senate in 1985 and took his place on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rising to the position of chairman in 2009.

As a member of that committee and its leader, he demonstrated the qualities that will serve him well as Secretary of State.

He did his homework, and he asked tough questions. He traveled the world and engaged key leaders, gaining their respect and confidence. He developed an admirable track record of listening carefully to both sides of an issue and developing the relationships on both sides of the aisle necessary to forge bipartisan agreements.

From re-establishing diplomatic relations with Vietnam and organizing the ratification of the New START Agreement to managing our relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan, fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and addressing the threat posed by climate change, Senator Kerry has clearly left his mark on United States foreign policy.

As President Obama noted, ``John has played a central role in every major foreign policy debate for nearly 30 years.''

And that experience will serve him well as Secretary of State.

Indeed, we live in challenging and constantly evolving times.

We have ended the war in Iraq, and our mission in Afghanistan is winding down. But the threat of global terror endures.

We have seen the Arab Spring topple autocrats and bring hope for a new future. But the ultimate fate of those countries and their commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law remains uncertain.

We have enacted a robust set of bilateral and multilateral sanctions on Iran and launched a diplomatic initiative through the P5+1 process, but its nuclear program continues.

We have built a close and mutually beneficial relationship with China, but there are lingering questions about its human rights record and its growing military assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea.

And we have seen how our humanitarian and development assistance programs can lift people out of poverty in the developing world; yet nearly 2.5 billion people still live on less than $2 a day.

These are just some of the items that will be on Senator Kerry's agenda as Secretary of State.

I know he understands that in facing these challenges American leadership is essential but we will also need the help and cooperation of our friends, allies, and partners in the international community.

I know he understands that the strength of this country lies not just in our military but in the power of our ideas.

And I know he understands that in order for the United States to lead, we must maintain a strong and effective international affairs budget.

We will certainly miss Senator Kerry's leadership and experience in the Senate. But I am heartened to know that he will continue to serve his country and bring those skills to the State Department, representing the United States around the world.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kerry's nomination to be our next Secretary of State.

Mr. President, Dr. Carl Everett Drake, Sr. died peacefully of natural causes at his home in Sacramento Thursday evening. He was 99. Carl Drake was born on August 21, 1913 in Neptune, NJ, the second son of James and Lucy Bingham Drake. Carl was educated in the public schools where he was an outstanding student and even better multisport athlete. His State high school long jump mark of 21' 10'' stood for over 25 years. His talents brought him to the attention of coaches from Morgan State College in Baltimore, MD, the top ranked college football program available to African American players in the 1930s. His combination of size, speed, and ferocity won him a starting spot on the championship football team. At 6' 1'' and 205 pounds--huge at the time--he was a bruising, standout guard, playing both offense and defense. The team went undefeated for his entire career. He was team captain, had the honor of wearing jersey No. 1, and held the team ball in the national championship photos.

At Morgan he was active in several student organizations, including the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, which he joined in 1933. He began dating an attractive and studious coed who worked as the dean's secretary, even joining the glee club to demonstrate to her his ``softer'' side. Carl and Beatrice Hayes were married in September 1937. They settled in Baltimore, she began work as a social worker, and he, having left school after football a few credits short of graduation, took a job in the post office. Professional football was not available, but his training made him valuable at handling mail sacks. Two children, Carl Jr., 1939, and Beatrice, 1940, followed, along with a chronic back injury that led to a job shift that relied more on his college schooling than his strength.

Ruled out of active military service due to his back injury, he re- enrolled in school to complete his college degree, and in 1944, at the urging of Bea, applied to medical school. He could not attend the segregated University of Maryland, but under the ``separate but equal'' concept of Jim Crow laws, the State of Maryland instead paid his tuition to attend Meharry Medical College, in Nashville, TN, one of the two medical schools in the county to educate more than the occasional person of color.

He moved to Nashville to begin study, working an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. graveyard shift as a hospital orderly to save enough money to send for his wife and family, which he was able to do by 1946. He finished Meharry in 1949 and moved to New York City to begin internship at Harlem Hospital. He had wanted to return to Baltimore, but the city hospital there paid interns $15 per month with free room. Harlem paid $50 per month, enough to rent a one bedroom apartment for the family. After internship and a new baby--Michael, 1950--the family moved across the George Washington Bridge to Englewood, NJ. Carl began his life as a working physician with a grueling schedule that consisted of steady employment in the ER at Harlem Hospital, a graveyard shift, 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., followed by a junior partnership in a local New York physician's office from 9 to noon, then home to Jersey to sleep, dinner at 6, and then a few private patients seen in a room converted to a makeshift medical office in the house until 9, before returning to work for the 11 p.m. shift in Harlem. When asked later about this level of commitment he replied that he was mainly ``grateful for a chance to actually work.''

This schedule was of course unsustainable, and a fascination with the newly emerging field of psychiatry led him to, at 40, begin training in psychiatry at Graystone State Hospital. During residency he continued his home office practice after dinner to help support a family that had grown to four children with the addition of Barry in 1952. In 1957, after completing residency he looked nationally, and made the bold decision to move to Sacramento to join a newly burgeoning State mental health system. Prior to this, no one in the family had ever been west of Tennessee. Arriving in Sacramento in July 1958, he worked for the State during the day, and as had always been the case set up a small private practice in rented space in the evenings. Financial obligations included supporting a son in college and stiff mortgage payments on a modern house in an upscale, and for the first time integrated, neighborhood.

In Sacramento Carl and Bea joined a small circle of middle class African Americans who had also moved west to make a new life. A handful of doctors, lawyers, a defense contractor, and a funeral home owner formed a social group anchored by the ``Couples Club,'' which met on Saturdays once a month for a rotating house party. There were also civic activities like the Lions Club, competitive chess, and the NAACP, as well as the local chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc. The names of these pioneers: Colley, Jones, Morris, Morrissey, Nance, Rutland, Stewart, Trent, West, and a few others, are now a part of Sacramento history. In 1967 a reduction in State supported mental health services affected clinics, including the Sacramento branch where Carl was chief of psychiatry. The new Medicare and Medicaid programs made private practice more viable for physicians caring for low income patients. He converted to full time private practice, and the late 1960s and 1970s became a time of relative prosperity. A pool was added to the backyard, and Carl learned, for the first time, to swim. He remained health conscious, and he and Bea were in the pool everyday from May to October until they were both in their 90s.

With the children finally grown and on their own Carl and Bea travelled--Alaska, Mexico, Hawaii, and Scandinavia were highlights-- entertained friends, and watched their ever expanding cadre of grandchildren and great grandchildren grow. Bea retired in 1975, but Carl kept his active practice going, seeing patients five days a week until he was 90. Bea suffered from mild macular degeneration and progressive Alzheimer's disease, ultimately requiring full time supervision. Carl closed his practice--regretfully--to come home to care for her. He moved from many patients to just one. They continued to play backgammon as long as she could, exercised in the pool, and when that was no longer safe took walks around the courtyard, until Bea passed away in March 2008. They had been married for just over 70 years.

In the months following Bea's death, Carl, now 94, began a series of home refurbishing projects including a new roof and painting inside and out. His oldest grandson John, a professional house painter, came north to help, and ultimately moved in to help manage the house and yard. In August 2008 Carl renewed his medical license and his driver's license as he put it ``just in case.'' He became active in his fraternity once again. He did a few legal consultations in 2009, and then with John to type reports on the new computer, began seeing patients again, on a regular basis, working for the State of California as he had when he moved to Sacramento in 1958, this time doing disability evaluations. He pulled the office shingle bearing the name ``Carl E. Drake, Sr. MD'' from the garage--the same shingle used at the house in New Jersey 60 years ago--and mounted it near the back door. The kitchen table became his consultation office. He scheduled a light but steady stream of patients, three or four a week. He saw his last patient on December 12, 2012, before taking a break for the holidays. New visits were on the books for January 2013.

On December 26, all four of his children, along with five grandchildren and two daughters-in-law, visited without fanfare for a traditional post-Christmas gathering. He was in great spirits, holding court, albeit with less energy than usual. On December 27, after a light dinner, he walked into the living room to sit in his favorite easy chair and watch a few bowl games. He dozed off, never to wake again.

Dr. Carl Drake left this life as he lived it, with great dignity and grace. He came through the Depression, was an All-American athlete, educated himself, raised a family, and was an active working psychiatrist until the very last days of a life that spanned the 20th century and more. He was calm, open, and cheerful, always. His physical stature was imposing, but his gentle steadfastness and serenity were the traits that made him a joy to be with. He never raised his voice; he never needed to. He was universally admired, respected, and loved. He is survived by 4 children, 11 grandchildren, 17

great grandchildren, 16 great-great grandchildren, and thousands of patients. He lived to see his 100th Christmas; he leaves the world a better place.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.

Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken? Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20 sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never be the same.

I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating: Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took place in 2012.

These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have become tragically common in our society.

For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people

never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.

The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine or drum.

These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.

I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.

As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee.

The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in 2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it; scientific studies bear this about.

The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in 2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined by more than 2/3--70 percent.

The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.

The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of assault weapons since the ban expired.

Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would have been expected had there been no ban.''

Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the research found that it did just that.

A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.

Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever- more-powerful military-style assault weapons.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994 law, allowing it to be even more effective:

The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will be much more difficult to work around.

The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.

The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.

It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools, such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to close this loophole.

Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically- named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons by name.

The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large- capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire.

Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.

The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is protected by

the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.

However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly: ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''

The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid- fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon; it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

Let me conclude with these thoughts:

The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to provide for their safety.

When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.

Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is always the guns.

These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.

When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home, he has lost his freedom.

When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons Ban.

I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so many organizations and public officials:

Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police, Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne, Police Chief, San Diego;

Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA; Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA; Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA; Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill, CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA; Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas; City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;

Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;

Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National Education Association; and 20 Children;

Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA; Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren; Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;

Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons; American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National Association of School Nurses;

Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar Association; Black American Political Association of California; Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media; VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.

But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.

It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.

Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken? Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20 sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never be the same.

I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating: Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took place in 2012.

These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have become tragically common in our society.

For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people

never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.

The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine or drum.

These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.

I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.

As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee.

The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in 2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it; scientific studies bear this about.

The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in 2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined by more than 2/3--70 percent.

The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.

The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of assault weapons since the ban expired.

Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would have been expected had there been no ban.''

Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the research found that it did just that.

A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.

Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever- more-powerful military-style assault weapons.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994 law, allowing it to be even more effective:

The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will be much more difficult to work around.

The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.

The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.

It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools, such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to close this loophole.

Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically- named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons by name.

The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large- capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire.

Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.

The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is protected by

the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.

However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly: ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''

The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid- fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon; it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

Let me conclude with these thoughts:

The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to provide for their safety.

When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.

Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is always the guns.

These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.

When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home, he has lost his freedom.

When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons Ban.

I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so many organizations and public officials:

Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police, Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne, Police Chief, San Diego;

Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA; Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA; Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA; Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill, CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA; Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas; City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;

Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;

Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National Education Association; and 20 Children;

Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA; Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren; Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;

Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons; American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National Association of School Nurses;

Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar Association; Black American Political Association of California; Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media; VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.

But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.

It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my support for Carol Galante, who is from my home State of California, in her nomination for Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration and Assistant Secretary for Housing.

The FHA Commissioner is directly responsible for oversight of the FHA insurance portfolio, which includes single family, multifamily housing and insured health care facilities. Carol Galante has been serving in an acting capacity since last year, but it is critical that she be confirmed by the Senate today.

While Acting FHA Commissioner, Carol Galante has made improvements to the long term health and position of the FHA. It is important that we confirm her to this position because continuing in an acting capacity adds to overall uncertainty in the market regarding the role of the

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to issue a public report within 90 days, assessing the impact of the FISA Amendments Act and its surveillance authorities on the privacy of U.S. persons.

That sounds benign, but it is not. The goal of this amendment is to make information public about a very effective intelligence collection program that is currently classified. All of the information has already been made available to the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. It is available to all Members. All they have to do is read it. It is hundreds of pages of material.

Senator Wyden has raised a number of issues that all concern the potential for surveillance conducted pursuant to authorities to result in what is called ``incidental collection.'' Section 702 authorizes the executive branch to go to the FISA Court--that is a Federal court, Federal district judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--and obtain annual approval for the certifications of the Attorney General and the DNI that identify categories of foreign targets. These are what I call a program warrant, to conduct surveillance on non-U.S. persons; in other words, individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who are located outside the United States.

It is possible there can be some incidental collection of communications of

or concerning those who are U.S. persons. This potential for incidental collection does not mean the intelligence community is intentionally conducting surveillance on U.S. persons. In fact, doing so would be a violation of the law.

Here is the key point to understand about incidental collection. Although the government may, under the right circumstances, be authorized to retain the communication between--as an example--known terrorists and a presumptive U.S. person or persons, including the phone number he relayed to the terrorist, the government cannot place the U.S. number on surveillance and start collecting the calls to and from the U.S. number without first obtaining an individual court order or a warrant. To do so would be to target a U.S. person, which I will explain is reverse targeting.

Let me answer another common question: Can the government use section 702 to target a U.S. person? This is important. The answer is no. The law specifically prevents the use of section 702 to direct collection against U.S. persons. This prohibition is codified in 702(b), which states that the section may not be used to ``intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States'' or to ``intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located inside the United States.''

Another frequent question: Is there a loophole or backdoor that allows the government to use 702 to target U.S. persons by searching incidental collection? Answer: No. The Department of Justice, the DNI's offices, the FBI, and NSA have all advised that limiting the ability of intelligence analysts to review and analyze information already in the government's possession under section 702 would make these agencies less able to respond quickly during a developing terrorist plot.

In sum, review of the information already collected enables the government to protect against a terrorist attack on this Nation.

Regarding the level of oversight conducted on these authorities, as of October 7, 2011, the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees received over 500 pages of information from the Department of Justice that specifically relate to matters covered by the Wyden amendment. The Senate Intelligence Committee held a closed hearing in October 2011 on these issues. The senior Senator from Oregon attended. These were the issues specifically discussed. In December of 2011, the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees received in excess of another 100 pages of material relating to these issues.

We held another closed hearing on February 9, 2012, which the Senator from Oregon attended, where these issues were discussed. The inspectors general for the intelligence community and NSA have both provided classified and unclassified responses to letters written by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Colorado, explaining why it is not feasible to estimate the number of people inside the United States who have had their communications collected or reviewed under the authorities granted by section 702. Finally, the DNI sent a letter in August on this issue.

Here is the point. If we want to talk about oversight, all of the information exists, and it is up to Intelligence Committee of the Senate to do its oversight and Members have to go in and read the material.

I believe very strongly that what this amendment aims to do is make public a program that should not be made public at this time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Finally, I request that a letter from General Alexander, head of the National Security Agency--which essentially explains remarks he made-- be printed in the Record. I would also like to have the letter to the general from the Senator from Oregon printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor to the vice chairman for the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, we have how many minutes?

I will use 1 minute.

The fact is, we do an intelligence authorization bill every year. If there is a need to change the law, we can change it there, so this isn't the last opportunity to effect any change on the FISA Amendments Act for 5 years. I believe that it is the last opportunity to see that this program continues on without interruption.

I would also point out that one of the areas in which the administration has really made an effort is to bring leaders of the Intelligence Community--whether it is the DNI or representatives from the Department of Justice--to the Hill and explain to individual Members how this program works.

With respect to the classified material, any Member has access to it; any Member can go up and read this material. The staff of the Intelligence Committee, which helps us conduct this oversight, can read this material. The Members of the Intelligence Committee can read this material. As chairman, if someone finds an irregularity, I am happy to look at it, to have a hearing on it. But to adopt this amendment that would change this program at this time has my very strong opposition. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield to the vice chairman.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their coming to the floor over the past 2 days for a good debate on the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, which the Senate approved today by a vote of 73-23.

As I described a number of times during this debate, this electronic surveillance tool is among the most important intelligence collection measures we have for identifying and thwarting terrorist plots, as well as stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks against the United States, and for intelligence collection to advise policy decisions. Authorizing the statute for another 5 years will put the Nation's intelligence community on strong ground.

I also would like to reiterate the offer I made during the debate to make sure that any Senator interested in getting additional, classified information on the FISA Amendments Act can get that information. In particular, I look forward to working with Senator Merkley to see that significant decisions of the FISA Court--or summaries of those decisions--are reviewed and made public in a way that does not compromise classified information. I also will work with Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to seek any additional reviews by the relevant inspectors general to complement the oversight that is already done every year on FISA programs. I will continue to work with Senators Wyden and Udall on the committee to help pursue their oversight requests and interests.

Lastly, but very importantly for me, I would like to thank the staff who have worked over the past four years to conduct oversight of the FISA Amendments Act and who worked to get this legislation approved. Their work includes countless hours of meetings with officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and even more time reading and analyzing reports, answers, and communications from those departments and agencies.

On the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to note first and foremost the dedicated efforts and counsel of Christine Healey, the committee's general counsel, and Eric Losick, counsel on the majority side who have been my main advisors on this legislation. I also appreciate their Republican counterparts, Jack Livingston and Kathleen Rice, with whom we have worked closely and collaboratively in this effort.

My appreciation as well goes to Mike Buchwald, my designee on the committee, for his tireless staff work; to Mike Davidson, who was the committee's general counsel during part of this past 4 year period and who set the structure of the committee's ongoing oversight; and to David Grannis, the committee's staff director.

Finally, I deeply appreciate the efforts of the majority leader's people and the floor staff--Tommy Ross, Serena Hoy, Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, and Tricia Engle--who got this bill to the floor before the expiration of the FISA Amendments Act and who helped guide it through to passage.

Thanks to the Senate's vote today, this critical intelligence tool will continue to be available to the Nation's intelligence community. The Senate's oversight of it will continue as well, as I intent to continue the committee's careful review of the program for the next 5 years.

Mr. President, one of the things I have learned from the Energy and Water Subcommittee, which is the committee that handles appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers, is how difficult it is to get projects started, funded, and constructed. I am one-- particularly in view of storms, earthquakes, floods, and damages--who believes we also need to do the mitigation, because if it happens once, there is a heavy likelihood it could happen again. So I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The provision the Senator from Oklahoma proposes would essentially take a Corps project that has been authorized and a study is being done. Once the study has concluded and it is cost-effective, the Corps proceeds to construction. With respect to mitigation, what this amendment does is--as I understand it--remove that authorization.

I can understand how the language before was overly broad. What Senator Boxer and I did in an earlier amendment was narrow that language, and we have addressed the shortcoming of the provision by striking it with an earlier amendment. We took amendment No. 3421 and replaced it with new text. This new text no longer authorizes an undefined set of projects; rather, it directs funding to be utilized to construct projects in areas that suffered direct inundation impact from Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac. It provides a defined scope for the work the Corps can construct with the funds provided. It requires the projects to be undertaken must be cost-effective, technically feasible, and environmentally acceptable.

I hope my friend would agree that should be the goal of all Corps projects we fund. Voting for his amendment, as I understand it, would undo the defined requirements and scope for the projects we previously voted for.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, among the unfinished business before the Senate is the consideration of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I am asking today for unanimous consent to approve this legislation with a managers' amendment worked out both with vice chairman Chambliss and the chairman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in consultation with the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported its Fiscal Year 2013 bill, S. 3454, with its accompanying report, S. Rpt. 112-192, on July 30, 2012 by a vote of 14-1. The bill and report have been publicly available since it was reported. The classified annex reported from the Committee was also available for all Senators to review in the Committee's office.

S. 3454 as reported from our Committee was not without controversy, especially with regard to provisions in the bill that were meant to address the wholly unacceptable and large-scale disclosures of classified information to the media.

Since the bill was reported out, the Committee has received thoughtful comments from our colleagues, media organizations, and from organizations that advocate for greater governmental transparency. As a result of these comments, and technical suggestions received from the Executive Branch, we have decided to remove ten of the twelve sections in the title of the original bill that addressed unauthorized disclosures of classified information so that we might ensure enactment this year of the important other provisions of the bill.

Unfortunately, I am certain that damaging leaks of classified information will continue, and so the Committee will need to continue to look for acceptable ways to address this problem.

Let me briefly describe the managers' amendment and where we have made modifications in what was reported from the Committee.

As always, the intelligence authorization bill has two pieces: the legislative text, which is unclassified, and a classified annex that contains the Committee's authorization of intelligence spending.

The bill contains a number of legislative provisions requested by the Administration to give the intelligence community the authorities and flexibilities it needs to continue protecting the American people and providing policymakers information for foreign policy and security decisions, as well as for the effective and appropriate functioning of our intelligence apparatus.

Among other things, this bill includes:

Repeal of four recurring reporting requirements burdensome to Intelligence Community agencies when the information in such reports is duplicative, or is provided to the Congress through other means. We regularly hear from intelligence officials that they spend so much time writing reports that it interferes with collection, analysis, and management of intelligence activities.

Modification of personnel authorities to facilitate more ``joint duty'' assignments within the Intelligence Community that will create shared knowledge across different elements of the IC.

These provisions, and several others that are mainly technical in nature, were requested by the director of National Intelligence and incorporated into the bill.

Other sections were initiated by the Committee to assist Congressional oversight efforts. These include, for example, a requirement for corrective action plans to be developed to address

the issue of improper payments made by intelligence agencies. We also require notification to the congressional intelligence committees under certain circumstances with respect to certain disclosures of national intelligence information.

As this managers' amendment represents the combined efforts of the Senate and House, we have also included three provisions from the House-passed bill which were not in the Committee's original bill. These address security clearance reciprocity, subcontractor business opportunities in the Intelligence Community, and a report on supply chain vulnerabilities.

I am attaching at the end of this statement a section-by-section analysis that describes each of the sections of this managers' amendment.

It is my hope that the provisions in this bill will continue to aid the Intelligence Community as it conducts its missions, ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and support the thousands of civilians and military employees who work throughout the Intelligence Community.

As I mentioned, this managers' amendment also includes modifications to the classified annex and the Schedule of Authorizations, modified to represent the consensus of both congressional intelligence committees. I am unable to describe in detail the Committee's classified schedule and annex, but it is available to all Senators for their review in the Committee's spaces. The Committee has sought to ensure that funding is authorized to continue and enhance important intelligence collection and analysis programs, covert actions, and counterintelligence. At the same time, we have cut funding for programs that were functioning poorly or at expenditure rates below expectations, and to shift funding from lower priorities to higher ones.

As always, the Committee has held numerous hearings and briefings on the President's spending request. As was announced in late October, intelligence spending decreased slightly in Fiscal Year 2012, and that trend will continue in Fiscal Year 2013. Our annex contains an overall funding level that is very close to the President's request, and we have attempted to find places to reduce spending that will not sacrifice any important work of the intelligence agencies.

I believe we have addressed all of the concerns that have been brought to our attention by our colleagues and the public. I thus urge passage of this managers' amendment and enactment of this important legislation before the end of the session.

I ask unanimous consent that the section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to make an opening statement, as the committee chair, on the bill that is before the Senate.

This bill is a simple bill. This is a House bill that extends, reauthorizes the FISA Amendments Act. FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House bill reauthorizes the FISA Amendments Act for 5 years, until December 31, 2017. That is all it does.

Without Senate action, these authorities to collect intelligence expire in 4 days. That is the reason it is the House bill before us, and that is the reason I urge this body to vote no on all amendments and send this reauthorization to the President where it will be signed. If it goes past the 31st, the program will be interrupted.

This is important. Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act has the support of the Director of National Security, Jim Clapper; the Attorney General, Eric Holder; and other national security officials who have made clear the importance of this legislation.

Following my remarks, I would like to enter letters into the Record from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, saying this reauthorization is the highest legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.

Let me explain what the expiring provisions of the FISA Amendments Act do. I assume that is agreeable with the President that these letters go into the Record following my remarks.

Let me describe what these provisions do and why they are necessary to reauthorize.

What will expire on December 31 is title VII of FISA, which is called the FAA, the FISA Amendments Act. This authorizes the executive branch of the government to go to the FISA Court, which is a special court-- and most people don't know this--of 11 Federal District Court judges appointed by the Supreme Court who review government requests for surveillance activities and obtain annual approval for a program to conduct surveillance on non-U.S. persons, in other words, surveillance on individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who are located outside the United States.

Under current law, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may submit an application to the FISA Court. I call this a program warrant. It identifies the category of foreign persons against whom the government seeks to conduct surveillance. This application is accompanied by targeting and minimization procedures that establish how the government will determine that someone targeted for surveillance is located outside the United States; and, secondly, how it is going to minimize the acquisition and retention of any information concerning U.S. persons who are accidentally caught up in this.

If the FISA Court finds the procedures to be consistent with both law and the fourth amendment, they enter an order authorizing this kind of surveillance for 1 year--and the judges on the FISA Court have found both--and they have authorized the program to continue.

The process that follows allows the intelligence community to collect the communications of international terrorists and other non-U.S. persons who are located outside the country by, for example, acquiring electronic communications such as phone calls and e-mails sent to or from a phone number or an e-mail address known to be used by the person under surveillance.

Without this authority, the intelligence community would need to return to the process of going to the FISA Court in every individual case involving collection directed at a non-U.S. person and to prove in each case there is probable cause to believe the individual is part of or working for a foreign power or a terrorist group.

Now, here is the question: Can the government use section 702 of FISA to target a U.S. person? The answer to that is no. The law specifically prohibits the use of section 702 authorities to direct collection against--that means target--U.S. persons. So no one should think the targets are U.S. persons.

This prohibition is codified in section 702(b), which states that surveillance authorities may not be used--and let me quote the law-- ``to intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States or to intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.''

Now, if the government wants to engage in electronic surveillance targeting a U.S. person for foreign intelligence purposes, it must go back to the FISA Court and it must get a specific order from that court. In an emergency, the surveillance can commence before the court order is issued, but the government still must have probable cause to believe the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power.

Let me take a few moments to address the principal concerns some of my colleagues have expressed about this legislation, which is the effect this one provision--Section 702--may have on the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. And let me say that 13 members of the Intelligence Committee who have voted in favor of the extension of the FISA Amendments Act--and against previous amendments from Senator Wyden--do not believe privacy is being eliminated under the law this bill would reauthorize.

As I have discussed, section 702 establishes a framework for the government to acquire foreign intelligence by conducting electronic surveillance on non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States under a program that is annually approved by the court. The privacy concerns stem from the potential for intelligence collection directed at non-U.S. persons located abroad to result in the incidental collection of or concerning communications of U.S. persons. I understand these concerns, and I would like to explain why I believe the existing provisions are adequate to address them.

First, this section is narrowly tailored to ensure that it may only be used to target non-U.S. persons located abroad. It includes specific prohibitions on targeting U.S. persons or persons inside the United States and prohibitions on engaging in so-called reverse-targeting, which means targeting a non-U.S. person abroad when the real purpose is to obtain their communications with a person inside the United States. That is prohibited.

Anytime the intelligence community is seeking to collect the communications of an American, it has to demonstrate that it has probable cause and get an individual FISA Court order.

Second, Congress recognized at the time this amendments act was enacted that it is simply not possible to collect intelligence on the communications of a person of interest without also collecting information about the people with whom and about whom that person communicates, including, in some cases, non-targeted U.S. persons. The concern was addressed when the FAA was originally drafted. Specifically, in order to protect the privacy and civil liberty of U.S. persons, Congress mandated that for collection conducted under 702, the Attorney General adopt and the FISA Court review and approve procedures that minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of nonpublic information concerning unconsenting U.S. persons.

Third, numerous reports and assessments from the executive branch that I will describe in a moment provide the committee with extensive visibility

into how these minimization procedures work and enable both the Intelligence and the Judiciary Committees to see how these procedures are effective in protecting the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons.

Oversight by the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of the government over the past 4 years has been very thorough. There are procedures and requirements in place under current law that provide protection for the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. Those entrusted with the responsibility to collect the oversight, the committees of jurisdiction, the FISA Court, and the executive branch agencies together remain vigilant and continue to review the operations of these agencies.

Let me give a quick summary of the 702 reporting requirements under current law.

They include a semiannual assessment by the Attorney General and the DNI. Every 6 months the AG and the DNI are required to assess compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures and the acquisition guidelines adopted under Section 702. They are both further required to submit each assessment to the FISA Court and the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

The inspector general of the Department of Justice and the inspector general of each element of the intelligence community are also authorized review compliance with Section 702. The IGs are required to provide copies of such reviews to the Attorney General, to the Director of National Intelligence, and the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. So we have the AG reviewing, we have the IGs reviewing, and then we have separate reviews by the agency heads.

The head of each element of the intelligence community must conduct an annual review which includes the following:

First, an accounting of the number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to the U.S. person's identity. As a matter of fact, Members can go into a classified room at the offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee and review these reports. Any Member has access to that review.

Second, an accounting of the number of U.S. person identities subsequently disseminated by that element in response to requests for identities that were not referred to by name or title in the original reporting. Members can review that.

Third, the number of targets who were later determined to be located in the United States and, to the extent possible, whether communications of such targets were reviewed. Members can go in the Intelligence Committee offices and review that.

Fourth, a description of any procedures developed by the head of such element of the intelligence community and approved by the Director of National Intelligence to assess the extent to which acquisitions under 702 acquire communications of U.S. persons, and the results of any such assessment.

So you see, the reporting requirements go on and on.

Then there is a semiannual report. Every 6 months, the AG is required to fully inform the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees concerning the implementation of Title VII of FISA, and there is a whole list of things that must be reviewed and recounted. Then there is a semiannual Attorney General review on FISA. There is also the provision for documents from the FISA Court relating to significant construction or interpretation of FISA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this list.

So, Mr. President, it is not a question of this oversight not being done. I must respectfully disagree with the Senator from Oregon on that point. There is clearly rigorous oversight, and we have done hearing after hearing, we have looked at report after report, and any Member of this body who so wishes can go and review this material in the offices of the Intelligence Committee.

Now, let me talk about a protection that does exist for privacy, but will expire if this bill is not passed. That is section 704. Under this section, the intelligence community is required to get a specific judicial order before conducting surveillance on a U.S. person located outside the United States.

Before this provision was enacted in 2008 as the product of Senators who were concerned--and they were listened to, and this was enacted-- the intelligence community could conduct intelligence collection on U.S. persons outside the country with only the approval of the Attorney General but without a requirement of independent judicial review. Section 704 provides that judicial review by the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This will only be preserved if title VII of this act is reauthorized. If it isn't, the privacy provision goes down with it.

Now, let me talk a bit more about the oversight that we have done. If you listen to some, there has been little oversight, but that is not the case. We have held numerous hearings with Directors of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Jim Clapper; with the head of the NSA, General Alexander; and with Bob Mueller at the FBI. We have had Eric Holder appear before the committee to discuss this, and we have heard from intelligence community professionals involved in carrying out surveillance operations, the lawyers who review these operations, and, importantly, the inspectors general who carry out oversight of the program and have written reports and letters to the Congress with the results of that report.

The intelligence committee's review of these FAA surveillance authorities has included the receipt and examination of dozens of reports concerning the implementation of these authorities over the past 4 years, which the executive branch is required to provide by law. We have received and scrutinized all the classified opinions of the court that interpret the law in a significant way.

Finally, our staff has held countless briefings with officials from the NSA, the DOJ, the Office of the DNI, and the FISA Court itself, including the FBI. Collectively, these assessments, reports, and other information obtained by the Intelligence Committee demonstrate that the government implements the FAA surveillance authorities in a responsible manner, with relatively few incidents of noncompliance.

Let me say this. Where such incidents of noncompliance have arisen, they have been inadvertent. They have not been intentional. They have been the result of human error or technical defect, and they have been promptly reported and remedied. That is important. Through 4 years of oversight, from all these reports, from all the meetings, from all the hearings, we have not identified a single case in which a government official engaged in a willful effort to circumvent or violate the law.

Keep in mind the oversight performed by Congress--that is, both Houses--and the FISA court comes in addition to the extensive internal oversight of the implementation that is performed by the Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence, and multiple IGs.

There is a view by some that this country no longer needs to fear attack. I don't share that view, and I have asked the intelligence committee staff to compile arrests that have been made in the last 4 years in America on terrorist plots that have been stopped. There are 100 arrests that have been made between 2009 and 2012. There have been 16 individuals arrested just this year alone. Let me quickly review some of these plots. Some of these may arrests come about as a result of this program. Again, if Members want to see the specific cases where FISA Amendments Act authorities were used, they can go and look at the classified background of these cases.

First, in November, 1 month ago, two arrests for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and use a weapon of mass destruction. That was Raees Alam Qazi and Sheheryar Alam Qazi. They were arrested by the FBI in Fort Lauderdale, FL. The next case is another conspiracy to provide material support. Arrested were Ralph Deleon, Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali. These three men were planning to travel to Afghanistan to attend terrorist training and commit violent jihad; third, was a plot to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank; fourth, a plot to bomb a downtown Chicago bar; fifth, a conspiracy to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union; sixth, a plot to carry out a suicide bomb attack against the U.S. Capitol in February of 2012; seventh, a plot to bomb locations in Tampa, FL; eighth, a plot to bomb New York City targets and troops returning from combat overseas; ninth, a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States; and it goes on and on and on.

So I believe the FISA Amendments Act is important and these cases show the program has worked. As the years go on, I believe good intelligence is the most important way to prevent these attacks.

Information gained through programs such as this one--and through other sources as well--is able to be used to prevent future attacks. So, in the past 4 years, there have been 100 arrests to prevent something from happening in the United States, some of these plots have been thwarted because of this program. I think it is a vital program. We are doing our level best to conduct good oversight and keep abreast of the details of the program and to see that these reports come in. I have tried to satisfy Senator Wyden but apparently have been unable to do so.

I am hopeful the Senate Intelligence Committee's 13-to-2 vote to reauthorize this important legislation will be considered by all Members.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy on the House bill.

It states that the administration strongly supports H.R. 5949, and it goes on to say what the bill

would do. It says it is vital and it produced and continues to produce significant information that is vital to defend the Nation against international terrorism and other threats.

I am very hopeful this bill will pass without amendment and thereupon can go directly to the President for signature.

I yield the floor.

exhibit 1

Inspector General of the

Intelligence Community,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2012.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mark Udall,

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden and Senator Udall: Thank you for your 4

May 2012 letter requesting that my office and the National

Security Agency (NSA) Inspector General (IG) determine the

feasibility of estimating ``how many people inside the United

States have had their communications collected or reviewed

under the authorities granted by section 702'' of the FISA

Amendment Act (FAA). On 21 May 2012, I informed you that the

NSA Inspector General, George Ellard, would be taking the

lead on the requested feasibility assessment, as his office

could provide an expedited response to this important

inquiry.

The NSA IG provided a classified response on 6 June 2012. I

defer to his conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was

beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient

additional resources would likely impede the NSA's mission.

He further stated that his office and NSA leadership agreed

that an IG review of the sort suggested would itself violate

the privacy of U.S. persons.

As I stated in my confirmation hearing and as we have

specifically discussed, I firmly believe that oversight of

intelligence collection is a proper function of an Inspector

General. I will continue to work with you and the Committee

to identify ways that we can enhance our ability to conduct

effective oversight. If you have any questions concerning

this response, please contact me.

Sincerely,

I. Charles McCullough, III,

Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

Well, wait a minute.

I object, if it is time on our side that will be used.

Mr. President, let me do something I do sometimes-- correct myself. If the Senator is offering to use the time on his side, that is fine with me. As long as it is not using the time for the bill on our side.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to clarify this question of secret law. This code book I am holding is the law. It is not secret. This is all of the code provisions which guarantees the legality of what the intelligence community does. There is a whole section on congressional oversight. There is a whole section on additional procedures regarding persons inside the United States and persons outside the United States. This, in fact, is the law. We can change the law, and Senator Wyden had something to do with adding section 704. He did, in fact, change the law to put additional privacy protections in and those privacy protections are up for reauthorization in this bill before us.

I wish to address, if I could, what Senator Merkley said in his comments. I listened carefully. What he is saying is opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should, in some way, shape or form, be made public, just as opinions of the Supreme Court or any court are made available to the public. To a great extent, I find myself in agreement with that. They should be. Why can't they be? Because the law and the particular factual circumstances are mixed together in the opinion, so the particular facts and circumstances are possibly classified. Hopefully the opinion can either be written in a certain way for public release or the Attorney General can be required to prepare a summary of what that opinion said for release to the public.

There is one part of Senator Merkley's amendment which I think we can work together on regarding the FISA Court opinions, and that is on page 5, lines 3 to 11, where the amendment says:

. . . if the Attorney General makes a determination that a

decision may not be declassified and made available in a

manner that protects the national security of the United

States, including methods or sources related to national

security, the Attorney General shall release an unclassified

summary of such decision.

I have talked to Senator Merkley about this, and I have offered my help in working to establish this. The problem is, we have 4 days, and this particular part of the law expires, the FISA Amendments Act. I have offered to Senator Merkley to write a letter requesting declassification of more FISA Court opinions. If the letter does not work, we will do another intelligence authorization bill next year, and we can discuss what can be added to that bill on this issue.

I am concerned that what is happening is the term ``secret law'' is being confused with what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issues in the form of classified opinions based on classified intelligence programs. As I have made clear, the law is public and when possible, the opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should be made available to the public in declassified form. It can be done, and I think it should be done more often.

If the opinion cannot be made public, hopefully a summary of the opinion can. And I have agreed with Senator Merkley to work together on this issue.

I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during debate on the FISA bill be equally divided between the proponents and opponents.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, is the Senator going to call up his amendment?

Amendment No. 3436

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is extraordinarily broad. It is much broader than FISA, and in the course of my remarks, I would hope to address how broad it is. It essentially bars Federal, State, and local governments from obtaining any information relating to an individual that is held by a third party unless the government first obtains either a warrant or consent from the individual. This is also not germane to FISA. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over this matter. For that reason alone, I would vote against it. Also, it impedes the timely reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act.

I also oppose the substance of the amendment. The amendment is titled the ``Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act.'' In reality, it seeks to reverse over 30 years of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the fourth amendment.

In 1967 the Supreme Court established its reasonable expectation of privacy test under the fourth amendment, in the case of Katz v. United States. Nine years later, in a case known as U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court held:

[T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of

information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to

Government authorities.

So already you have a Supreme Court case saying that the fourth amendment does not prohibit the use of this kind of information by the government.

The Miller case involved the government obtaining account records from a bank. But in 1979, just 3 years after Miller, the Supreme Court took up the issue of third-party collection in a case involving the installation and use of pen registers, which are electronic devices that enable law enforcement to collect telephone numbers dialed from a particular phone line without listening to the content of those calls. The 1973 case is known as Smith v. Maryland, and in it the Court held:

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual

expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All

telephone users realize that they must ``convey'' phone

numbers to the telephone company, since it is through

telephone company switching equipment that their calls are

completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone

company has facilities for making permanent records of the

numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance

(toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . . Telephone users .

. . typically know that they must convey numerical

information to the phone company; that the phone company has

facilities for recording this information; and that the phone

company does in fact record this information for a variety of

legitimate business purposes. Although subjective

expectations cannot be scientifically gauged, it is too much

to believe that telephone subscribers, under these

circumstances, harbor any general expectation that the

numbers they dial will remain secret. . . . This Court

consistently has held that a person has no legitimate

expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns

over to third parties.

More recently, in the Court's 2012 decision in U.S. v. Jones, some Justices have questioned whether the time has come to revisit Miller and Smith in some form. Now, perhaps they are right, but this amendment isn't the form they had in mind. And this isn't the time to do so.

This amendment is so broad that the police could not use cell phone data to find a missing or kidnapped child without a warrant or the consent of the missing child--impossible to get. Similarly, they could not ask the phone company to provide the home address of a terrorist, drug dealer, or other criminal without consent or warrant. They could not ask a bank if such criminals had recently deposited large sums of money. In fact, as written, this amendment would prohibit law enforcement from looking up the name, address, and phone number of a criminal suspect, witness, or any other person online unless they obtained a warrant or the consent of the criminal suspect. As you can see, the amendment is too broad.

As I have already stated, the FAA authorities expire in 4 days. If those authorities are allowed to lapse, our intelligence agencies will be deprived of a critical tool that enables those agencies to acquire vital information about international terrorists and other important targets overseas, plus what they may be plotting in the United States. It is imperative that we pass a clean reauthorization of these authorities without amendments that will hamper passage in the House.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam President, in listening to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also reading the amendment, I want to

make clear that there are parts of this amendment to which I would agree. However, the House bill is now before us, which would extend the sunset of the FISA Amendments Act 5 years versus 2\1/2\ years in the Leahy Amendment. So, before us is the 5-year authorization period which the House has already passed. We have 4 days before the FISA Amendments Act essentially end. I cannot support that shorter time but I support the 5-year extension.

The part of the amendment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I do agree with is the expanded mission of the inspector general of the Intelligence Community. Since the chairman is now becoming the President in rapid promotion, I will be happy to address my remarks to him.

(The PRESIDENT pro tempore assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know we have spent large amounts of time on the particular issue of Section 702 reporting. For example, the law requires semiannual Attorney General and DNI assessments of section 702. Every 6 months they assess compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures. The law also requires the inspector general of Justice and the IG of every element of the intelligence community authorized to acquire foreign intelligence information to review compliance within Section 702. In addition, the IGs are required to review the number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to a U.S.-person identity and the number of U.S. person identities subsequently disseminated. The law also already requires annual reviews by agency heads of Section 702. It also requires a semiannual Attorney General report on Title VII every 6 months to fully inform the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. And there is another semiannual report on FISA required for the Attorney General to submit a report to the committees. Finally, there are requirements for the provision of documents relating to significant construction or interpretation of FISA by the FISA Court.

So it is clear that there are many reporting requirements on FISA and specifically section 702. I would also add that the Intelligence Committee has had hearings with the DNI, with Attorney General Holder, with Director of FBI Mueller on how Section 702 is carried out. I will also tell you the Intelligence Committee staff spends countless hours going over the reports in meetings with representatives of the departments. However, I would say to Chairman Leahy that what I would like to do is look at your amendment and see how it compares to what is currently being done and possibly add some parts of your amendment to our authorization bill next year.

I would urge that we have your staff and the Intelligence Committee staff work together to see what we can do. The real reason to oppose all of this at this time is that these authorities expire in 4 days. I remember the vote in the Judiciary Committee on this amendment very well. Had the bill come to the floor over the summer, after it passed out of Committee, then we might have had time to convince the House to consider these changes to current law. But here we are where we have a 5-year House bill in front of us and only 4 days to extend the sunset. As I am opposing all amendments, I would respectfully and, not quite sorrowfully but almost, have to oppose your amendment with the caveat I added, Mr. Chairman.

In deference to you and your chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee staff will work closely with yours to see if there is anything that needs to be added to a future intelligence authorization bill.

I thank you for that and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I note the Wyden amendment has not yet been called up. Someone may wish to do so.

First of all, though vice chairman Chambliss isn't here, he said some very nice things, and I just want him to know that one of the best experiences of my Senate career has been the ability to work in a bipartisan way in the Intelligence Committee, to put things together between both sides, and to have staffs working together on both sides. Sometimes that isn't possible, but most of the time it is, and I think it is the way the Intelligence Committee was supposed to function. The fact that it does function that way, I think, is real testimony to Vice Chairman Chambliss and the work we have done together.

I find this particular amendment very frustrating because I have tried to be as helpful as I could over many years in getting information released in a classified form for Members of the committee. In fact, we have been very successful in that regard. There are approximately eight big reports a year now that present information in a classified function. There are two reports from the Attorney General and the DNI assessing compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures and the acquisition guidelines of section 702. There are also reports required on the implementation of title VII. That report includes actions taken to challenge or enforce a directive under section 702, and a description of any incident of noncompliance. There are annual reviews by each agency responsible for implementing these sections, regular reviews by the IG of the Department of Justice and the IG of each agency. It goes on and on and on. Yet there is no satisfaction from some Senators.

I believe that the Senators who support this amendment are trying to maximize the public release of this information, but I would encourage Senators to remember that this is a classified program. The information is available, but it is available in classified form.

The proponents of these amendments leave out the fact that each year the program is approved by the FISA Court. This is a court of 11 judges appointed by the Chief of the Supreme Court, all of whom are Federal district court judges.

The administration has decided the program should remain classified, and so we do our level best to provide the information on a classified basis and information is declassified when it can be. But the Wyden amendment goes a step too far. It could remove the classification from most of this program and create a way to make more information public that could well jeopardize the future of the program.

I think vice chairman Chambliss would agree with me. One of the things we have seen is that this program is valuable, and the ability to collect intelligence and use that intelligence wisely and, with oversight from appropriate agencies, this program saves lives in this country. I know there are people trying to attack this country all the time. I know in the last 4 years there have been 100 terrorism-related arrests. Therefore, the classified information, which is available--but available in a secure room for Members to read--is important. I would urge, as vice chairman Chambliss has urged, that Members go and read this information.

I would like to quote from the letter sent to Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, and Minority Leaders Pelosi and McConnell from the Director of National Intelligence on this provision, section 702, which authorizes surveillance directed at non-U.S. persons located overseas who are of foreign intelligence importance. The letter says all of the process-- and it is pages and pages--is carried out in a classified form but to inform the Members who are the ones to provide the oversight. I mean, we are the public check on the Executive Branch. We are not of the intelligence community. We are the public, and it is our oversight, it is our due diligence to go in and read the classified material.

So this amendment is an effort to make more of that information public, and I think it is a mistake at this particular time because I think it will create a risk to the program. I think it will make us less secure, not more secure.

There are parts of the collection apparatus which are classified, and at this stage they are classified for good reason. So I have a fundamental opposition to this amendment. But of more immediate concern, we have 4 days to get this bill signed by the President or this section ceases to function--4 days.

This is the House bill that is before us. It reauthorizes the program to 2017, and we have been through this before. We can make changes. I have tried to work with Senator Wyden, to the greatest extent possible, by delving

into these issues at hearings of the Intelligence Committee and by supporting his requests for information. I have offered to Senator Merkley today to work with him to consider whether his proposal should be part of our intelligence authorization bill next year. I don't know what else to do because I know where this goes, and where it goes is that there may be an intent by some to undercut the program. I don't want to see it destroyed. I want to see us do our job of oversight, which means reading and studying the classified material and, if something isn't there, getting it in a classified manner.

This is a very difficult issue that requires a great deal of study. And consider the threats that are out there. If it weren't for the FBI, Najibullah Zazi would have blown up the New York subway and it was because of intelligence received that the FBI was able to follow him and eventually arrest him and other co-conspirators.

If I thought this country was out of danger, it might be different. But I believe we are still at risk, and I believe there are people who will kill Americans if they have the opportunity to do so. One of our jobs here in Congress is to see that the intelligence apparatus within the American Government functions in a way so that intelligence is streamlined, that it gets to the right place, that it stops terrorist plots before they can be carried out.

So, I say this in good conscience to Senator Wyden. My great fear is that all of this information gets declassified and put out in public and then something that reveals sources and methods is disclosed, perhaps even inadvertently. Then, before we know it, the program is destroyed. I don't want to see this program destroyed.

I believe his time is up.

Reserving the right to object. Might I ask tomorrow when the intelligence votes will take place?

It is too classified.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment and to indicate that the administration opposes the amendment as well.

We have just 4 days to reauthorize this critical intelligence tool before it expires. That is the reason for having the House bill before us today. The House bill is a clean bill. It extends the program to 2017, when it would sunset and would need another reauthorization. I believe we must pass the House bill now. I believe 2017 is the appropriate date.

I am very worried that if we do anything else, if we pass any one of these amendments, we will jeopardize the continuation of what is a vital intelligence tool. So regretfully, I oppose the Leahy amendment.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the vice chairman of the committee opposes this amendment, as does the administration. We have only 4 days to authorize this intelligence tool before it expires. Sending this legislation to the President without amendment is the only sure way to do it.

The Director of National Intelligence is engaged in an ongoing process to declassify significant FISA Court opinions where it is possible to do so. I have agreed to work with Senator Merkley to get summaries of FISA Court decisions that can be made public.

In sum, the intelligence community strives to be as transparent as possible with the public, but legislation that would force its hand and potentially risk the exposure of classified information is both unnecessary and unwise.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, as does the vice chairman and the administration. This amendment is not germane to FISA. It has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, which would have jurisdiction over this matter. It seeks to reverse 30 years of Supreme Court precedence of interpreting the fourth amendment. According to the administration talking points received this afternoon: The amendment would severely limit the effectiveness of law enforcement authorities at all levels of government and will effectively repeal the FISA Amendments Act.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I rise to address the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 which we will vote on later today.

I will vote yes on this bill as I did on last year's bill even though nothing in it effectively addresses indefinite military detention, which 67 Members of this body are now on record opposing.

My colleagues will recall that I introduced, with a large bipartisan group of cosponsors, an amendment that provided that U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on U.S. soil cannot be detained indefinitely, without charge or trial. The Senate passed this amendment by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 67 to 29. I am saddened and disappointed that this detention amendment was dropped in conference. I don't understand why we could not ensure that, at the very least, American citizens and green card holders cannot be held indefinitely without charge or trial. As I have said over the past few days, to me this is a no-brainer and is a real missed opportunity.

The main reason I support this bill is because it authorizes $640.7 billion for fiscal year 2013 for the Department of Defense.

This funding ensures our troops deployed around the world--especially those in Afghanistan--have the equipment, resources, and training they need to defend this Nation. For example, the Defense bill fully funds the President's budget request of $5.7 billion to build the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces so those forces can take over for U.S. forces and take the security lead throughout Afghanistan by 2014.

The Defense authorization bill will also provide the resources necessary to support our defense strategies and allow our military to modernize equipment worn out after 11 years of war in the difficult battlefield environments of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Such resources include investments in our Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, which provide critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information. These aircraft have also provided crucial support for disaster response efforts, including for rescue workers in the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan.

To increase diplomatic security around the world and so that we learn from the mistakes that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, this bill requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to increase--by up to 1,000--the number of marines in the Marine Corps security guard program to be able to deploy them to troubled facilities to protect our personnel abroad.

As I mentioned, the Senate overwhelmingly passed, on a 67 to 29 vote, the amendment to ban the indefinite detention of U.S. persons--citizens and green card holders--without charge or trial.

The amendment would have updated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which clearly states:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

The amendment would have built on the Non-Detention Act of 1971 so that it applies to not just U.S. citizens but also to green card holders. It would have provided that no military authorization allows indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and green card holders apprehended inside the United States.

The detention amendment stated:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of

war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the

detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful

permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the

United States unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes

such detention.

Unfortunately, as soon as the amendment passed, the language was misrepresented by critics on the left as well as proponents of indefinite military detention on the right, particularly after a handful of Senators who previously opposed this effort switched their vote at the last minute.

Make no mistake, the amendment is not a Trojan horse designed to surreptitiously authorize indefinite detention in the United States. The text of the amendment is clear, and the legal experts I consulted on the amendment agree.

For example, Stephen Vladeck of American University, a law professor who has litigated military detention issues in the Supreme Court and an expert on national security law, testified this year before the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act, which is almost identical to the detention amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Professor Vladeck reviewed the statements of support for the amendment by Senators Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham-- both of whom advocated indefinite military detention powers in the past.

Professor Vladeck wrote:

The Graham/Levin colloquy sought to cast [the Feinstein]

language as doing exactly the opposite of what it says, i.e.,

as confirming that U.S. citizens can be detained even within

the territorial United States pursuant to the logic of the

Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Professor Vladeck concluded that Senators Levin and Graham were ``exactly wrong'' because ``the plain text of the bill is simply irreconcilable with that understanding.''

In another article, Vladeck and Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman, another expert on military detention and national security, wrote:

If it were to be enacted, the amendment would ensure that a

future president could not construe the September 18, 2001

Authorization for Use of Force (AUMF), the FY2012 NDAA, or

any comparable statute to authorize the military detention of

citizens and LPRs [lawful permanent residents] apprehended

within the United States.

I agree with these law professors--with whom I worked, in fact, on the drafting of my bill and amendment. It is true the courts have previously reached ambiguous and conflicting decisions regarding whether U.S. persons apprehended on American soil may be subject to indefinite detention under the laws of war. However, far from adding to this ambiguity, I am confident this amendment would bring much-needed clarification to this area of the law.

The Feinstein detention amendment would have updated the Non- Detention Act of 1971 which Congress passed to repudiate the shameful Japanese-American internment experience during World War II. That 1971 landmark legislation, which liberal critics of the detention amendment have made no effort to overturn, protected only U.S. citizens from detention. In contrast, the amendment broadens protections from indefinite detention, protecting both green card holders, called ``lawful permanent residents'', as well as citizens.

At a time when civil liberties are under attack, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As Professors Lederman and Vladeck note, ``The new Feinstein amendment . . . does protect the vast majority of persons in the United States from noncriminal detention without express statutory authorization . . . .''

As I said during the floor debate on the amendment, I would support extending the protections in the amendment to all persons in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully present, but so far we have lacked sufficient support in the Senate to do this. Most Republican cosponsors of the bill said they would not support the legislation if it went that far.

Other critics misrepresent the language of the amendment by charging that it could be read to imply there is an authorization to indefinitely detain illegal immigrants and legal visitors in the United States. In doing this, they ignore the language in paragraph 3 that explicitly prevents such an interpretation. Paragraph 3 of the amendment clarifies that the text to be added to the Non-Detention Act of 1971 ``shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.'' Again, don't take my word for it. Professors Lederman and Vladeck say that the amendment ``would do nothing of the sort.''

The bottom line: Indefinite military detention is incompatible with our values, and this amendment would have been a major step forward to make sure we never return to the dark chapter of American history when we detained Japanese-American citizens out of fear during World War II.

Mr. President, some have pointed to section 1029 of the conference report and said that it accomplishes what the Feinstein amendment would have done. That is not true.

The amendment offered by Congressman Gohmert regarding habeas corpus, which is now section 1029 of the underlying conference report, does nothing except restate that constitutional rights to file a habeas claim can't be denied.

Consider the exact text of this section, which reads:

Mr. President, this month marks the retirement of Ms. Kathleen Turner after nearly 32 years in government service, specifically working in various capacities in the intelligence community. I commend her for her service to the Nation and wish her the very best in her retirement.

Ms. Turner has had a varied and distinguished career, having worked in different positions and capacities within the intelligence community. For most of that time, Kathleen worked where efforts and successes are not always rewarded publicly. I am glad we can do so here today.

I have known Kathleen mostly in her capacity as the director of the Office of Legislative Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a position she assumed in the summer of 2006. For the last 6 years, Ms. Turner has had the sometimes unenviable job of representing the intelligence community on Capitol Hill and representing Capitol Hill to the intelligence community.

Ms. Turner is the daughter of Robert and Beverly Turner, a television repair shop owner and homemaker respectively, and was born and raised in the small suburban town of Pacific Palisades, in my State of California.

Kathleen is the fifth of seven children and she went to UCLA and majored in political science and then came to the East Coast. I am willing to forgive her for this lapse in judgment. Kathleen received a master's degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. When she completed her master's, she went right into the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Ms. Turner started her professional career with DIA as an analyst of Soviet strategic forces. She served as the Intelligence Liaison Officer to the Strategic Defense Initiative Office, and later served as the Senior Analyst for

Russia and Eurasia, managing all military intelligence analysis on these regions. During the 1990s, Ms. Turner progressively served as DIA's Director of Human Resources, the Director of Administration, and the manager of the DIA and General Defense Intelligence Program and budget office. Starting in 2002, Ms. Turner served as DIA's Director of Congressional and Public Affairs.

In short, in her 24 years at DIA, Kathleen did and saw every aspect of intelligence work in one of the few intelligence agencies to perform every kind of intelligence operation.

That, combined with her outgoing personality and ability to juggle many tasks at once, made her a natural choice to join the Legislative Affairs Office for the first Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, in October 2005 as that office was standing up. She quickly became the DNI's Director of Legislative Affairs in July 2006. As Director, she was responsible for the Office of the DNI's interactions with the Congress, and informing the Office of the DNI seniors of Congressional interests and perspectives on intelligence matters. In addition, Ms. Turner provided policy guidance to all 16 intelligence community legislative affairs offices.

I got to know Kathleen in the job when I became chairman of the Intelligence Committee in January 2009, through numerous meetings with DNI Dennis Blair and then DNI Jim Clapper. She always had suggestions for ways to work through problems, and could translate issues and perspectives between intelligence-speak and congressional-speak. Kathleen could also work a room--she knew every Member on the committee and all of our staff, and knew what questions needed answers or what policies were being proposed.

I must say, it is a good thing for Kathleen that she has retired from legislative affairs, as the delay in reauthorizing FISA legislation now, only 10 days from its expiration at the end of the year, would have been keeping her up around the clock and adding one more time when Congress' special way of doing things caused stress and aggravation to all involved.

On a more personal note, Kathleen's most direct contribution to me was her idea, which she then brought to fruition, to bring together a group of senior women in the intelligence community and me for a dinner on November 7, 2011 at the Hay Adams Hotel. It was a hit. Since then, the group has gotten together three more times, twice at my house and once more at a restaurant, and we have really gotten to know each other and build a relationship beyond our meetings across the meeting or witness table.

Throughout her career and travels around the world, I know Kathleen has had the loving support of her husband, Bob Sparks, who is the son of a naval officer. Bob was educated at the Virginia Military Institute and then at the University of Virginia for law school. He currently practices law in Northern Virginia. With her retirement, Kathleen and Bob look forward to spending more time together and on the water.

I am pleased to be able to thank Kathleen Turner for her service and wish her all the very best in all her future endeavors.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I come here today to talk about my friend: Senator Danny Inouye. Danny was a friend of mine since I came to the Senate 20 years ago. He had a unique ability to connect with people, to befriend them. I know. He always helped me. He was smart, able and someone that over 20 years I grew to love.

He was a war hero who fought bravely in World War II, even at a time when many in this country actively discriminated against Japanese- Americans.

And he served in this body for 50 years--the second longest serving Senator of all time.

Danny and I worked closely together on the Appropriations Committee for many years. I often sought his counsel, and he was always an advocate for me.

I want to say something personally to his beloved wife Irene: You were married to a truly wonderful man and an American hero. Death of a loved one is hard. I know. I have been through it. But, Irene, the love does remain. I know you were so proud to be his wife, to help him share his dreams through these years.

I want you to know that you have many friends here, who now want to help you through this most difficult part of life.

Danny, you will be greatly missed.

Thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship.