Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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 FHA. In the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble, the FHA has played a vital role in providing access to credit for worthy homebuyers looking to purchase a home. As the private mortgage insurance market pulled back, the FHA has stepped in to make sure that credit-worthy borrowers have the ability to get a mortgage. Carol Galante has taken steps as the Acting Commissioner to help FHA better manage risk, bolster the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund and streamline programs to better enable FHA to fulfill its mission of contributing to the creation and growth of stable, sustainable, inclusive communities. This includes placing a moratorium on the troubled full drawdown reverse mortgage program, increasing underwriting standards for riskier borrowers, and increasing down payment requirements and insurance premiums for higher balance mortgages. I believe that these steps will help enhance the future solvency of the FHA while allowing the agency to fulfill its mission of providing low-income and first time homebuyers with access to affordable mortgage credit. Carol Galante had decades of work experience in affordable housing development before she went to HUD to manage FHA's multifamily programs; this gives her a unique perspective on the issues facing our Nation's housing and mortgage markets. In addition to her early work in the private sector in real estate development, ownership, and management, she worked for a number of California cities as a city planner and in community economic development. These roles led to her eventual position for 25 years as president and chief executive of BRIDGE Housing Corporation, the largest nonprofit developer of affordable, mixed-income and mixed-use developments in California. While at BRIDGE, she helped create partnerships between government, private industry and nonprofits. This blend of public and private experience has been extremely valuable for the Federal Housing Administration as it deal with both the private loan and mortgage industry. Given her demonstrated and unique experience in the housing market, I strongly urge the confirmation of Carol J. Galante as Federal Housing Administration Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Housing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we have how many minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, is the Senator going to call up his amendment? Amendment No. 3436

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, wait a minute.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe his time is up.