Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask to call up and make pending the Lee amendment No. 2162.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my amendment would clarify that parents--not the Federal Government--are the primary educators of their children. It would ensure that parents may allow their children to opt out of federally mandated tests. Now, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is right that States should be free to make their own tests mandatory if they so choose. However, that is not what this bill allows. This bill mandates that States give these tests and requires them to get the content of such tests approved by the Secretary of Education. My amendment is silent on the question of State tests. It simply clarifies that tests mandated by this Congress are, in fact, voluntary, and that parents--not politicians or bureaucrats--will have the final say on whether individual children take Federal tests. It also ensures that the Federal Government cannot punish a State by restricting Federal funding for education should parents choose to opt out their children from these tests. Thank you.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, parents and teachers all across America are frustrated by Washington, DC's heavyhanded, overly prescriptive approach to public education policy. I have heard from countless moms and dads in Utah who feel as though anonymous Federal Government officials, living and working 2,000 miles away, have a greater say in the education of their children than they do. One of the most frustrating issues for parents is the amount of standardized tests that their children are required to take, particularly the tests that are designed and mandated by the Federal Government. It is not just the frequency of those tests that is frustrating. Too often parents do not know when these federally required assessments are going to take place, and they do not even find out until after the fact. It is important to recognize that this is not a partisan issue. The notion that parents should not be expected to forfeit all of their rights to the government, just because they enroll their children in the public school system, is not a Democratic idea nor is it a Republican idea. It is simply an American idea. That is why several States, including States as distinct as California and Utah, have passed laws that allow parents to opt out of federally required tests. But there is a problem. Under current law, States with opt-out laws risk potentially losing Federal education dollars if a certain portion of parents decides opting out is best for their children, because schools are required to assess 95 percent of their students in order to--and as a condition to--receive Federal funds. The bill before the Senate today, the Every Student Achieves Act, does not fix this problem. My amendment does. Here is how. My amendment would protect a State's Federal funding for elementary and secondary schools by removing the number of students who opt out of Federal tests from the number of non-assessed students. In other words, the number of students opting out of federally required tests could not threaten a State's eligibility to receive Federal funds. My amendment would also give parents more information about tests mandated by the Federal Government, ensuring that parents are notified of any federally required assessment that children are scheduled to take. It would allow parents to opt out their children from such assessments. It is important to note that this amendment would have no effect on assessments that are required by the State, local education agency, school or teachers. Nor does it prohibit a State from expanding their parental opt-out laws to apply to a broader set of assessments if they choose to do so. This amendment would not jeopardize a State law that provides parents the opportunity to opt out their children and it would allow the State to continue to use its own process that allows parents to take such action. Whether you believe the bill before the Senate today strikes the appropriate balance between Federal and State control, I think all of my colleagues can support this amendment. I believe all of us can agree that parents should have the final say in their child's education and should have access to information about the testing that is taking place before that testing takes place, and they should be able to decide whether their child will be part of that testing. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Paul be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the work the Senate is engaged in this week is long overdue. The last time the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was updated was 14 years ago. Congress gave the country No Child Left Behind, a policy that by all accounts has been a failure. That is why in 2012 the Obama administration began offering waivers to States, allowing them to opt out of the coercive and ineffective requirements that No Child Left Behind imposed on America's school districts and classrooms. But State and local school boards quickly learned, just as parents and teachers did, these so-called waivers didn't solve the fundamental problems created by No Child Left Behind; they further entrenched that problem. These weren't waivers in any meaningful sense because they came with a new set of strings attached that only reinforced the authority of Washington, DC, to micromanage the policies and the curriculum of classrooms all around the country. They did not give State and local policymakers the freedom and flexibility to use education funding in a way that would best meet the needs of students and truly empower every child to succeed. No. Instead, they forced teachers, school boards, and State officials to choose between the lesser of two evils--either, on one hand, abide by the Federal mandates of No Child Left Behind or, on the other hand, accept the Federal mandates prescribed by common core and Race to the Top. The underlying bill we will vote on next week makes the same mistake, and unless it is amended, we can expect it in turn to have the same disappointing results. More kids will be trapped in failing schools, their opportunities in life predetermined by their parents' ZIP Code rather than their God-given talents and their own individual desire to learn and succeed. More teachers can be rewarded on the basis of the number of years they have been on the job rather than on the basis of the number of kids they have helped to graduate. And more parents will regrettably but understandably lose faith in the public education system, knowing it is designed to serve the ideological whims of Federal politicians and Federal bureaucrats instead of the educational needs of their children. That is why I am here this morning to offer my support and to encourage my colleagues to offer their support for an amendment to the proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an amendment that would help us avoid the serious mistakes of the past. The basic premise, the basic animating principle behind the bill before the Senate, as it now stands, and the basic premise, basic principle behind No Child Left Behind and common core is that when it comes to running the classroom, Washington bureaucrats and politicians know better than America's teachers, parents, and local school boards. The principle behind the A-PLUS amendment is essentially the opposite; that no one is in a better position to make decisions about a child's education than his or her parents, guardians, teachers, counselors, and principals. If you believe in this principle as I do--and as experience instructs all of us to do--then you must support the A-PLUS Act because it empowers every child's parents, guardians, teachers, counselors, and principals to make the greatest impact on their education and on their lives, and it would do so without eliminating any Federal mandates-- coercive and ineffective though they may be--and would simply give States the choice to opt out of them, no strings attached. Here is how the A-PLUS act works. If a State's legislators determine that the Federal Government's approach to education reform has not improved academic achievement in their State, they have an alternative. They can submit to the U.S. Department of Education a declaration of intent outlining their State-directed education reform initiatives. In States that choose to opt out, education officials will no longer have to spend all of their time complying with onerous one-size-fits-all Federal mandates. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to listen and respond to the needs and recommendations of parents, teachers, principals, and school boards. They will be able to make their education funds go further by consolidating programs and funding sources, and they will be able to improve the educational opportunities to disadvantaged children by designing their State's policies to be more responsive and more targeted. This amendment isn't about States' rights so much as it is about children's rights, such as the right to a good education. It would secure those rights by empowering America's teachers and parents to pursue innovative policies, such as charter schools and school vouchers and pay-for-success initiatives that have proven to be successful in classrooms all around the country. The bill the Senate will vote on next week may be well-intentioned in its reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but it misdiagnoses the problem of the status quo. Our education system needs to be reformed, not in spite of excessive Federal control but because of it. The A-PLUS Act recognizes this fact, and it takes critical steps to rebuild our education policy around it. I urge my colleagues to support the A-PLUS amendment. The success of America's children depends upon it. I thank my friend and distinguished colleague from Montana and yield my time back to him.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Elder Boyd K. Packer, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Latter-day Saints, who passed away on July 3, 2015, at the age of 90. Boyd K. Packer was both a man of principle and a man who knew the power of principles. He taught that talking about principles and doctrines changes behavior far better than talking about behavior changes behavior. He boldly stood as a ``watchman on the tower,'' proclaiming the principles that lead to faithful families, strong communities, and ultimately better nations. Trained as an educator, Elder Packer was truly a teacher first, last, and always. Whether interacting with an individual, speaking in front of thousands, writing one of his many insightful books, or simply spending time with one of his beloved children, he was forever teaching. And to be clear, he wasn't preaching; he was teaching-- teaching principles that would instruct, inspire, and improve all who came within the sound of his distinct and powerful voice. Boyd K. Packer understood the important influence of simple stories in teaching. He masterfully wove priceless principles into powerful modern-day parables, keen observations from everyday living, and spiritual lessons that were meaningful and memorable. Experiences such as tuning an old radio, getting his boys to stop wrestling in the living room, visiting a small church in Denmark, carving and painting birds, learning about crocodiles in Africa, or observing the pleadings for help from an orphan boy while serving as a serviceman in Japan, all emerged as foundational stories from which to teach life-changing principles. Faith and family were always at the center of Elder Packer's teaching, and he often illustrated that the intersection of faith and family is where critical lessons are taught. He illustrated that this intersection between faith and family is precisely where critical lessons are taught and learned and where children are prepared to live nobly and serve selflessly. In describing how to prepare children for the challenges of life, he thought that children should be provided with a shield of faith and that forming that shield of faith was of necessity a cottage industry. In his own words: We can teach about the materials from which a shield of faith is made: reverence, courage, repentance, forgiveness, compassion. . . . We can learn how to assemble and fit them together in many places. But the actual making of and fitting on of the shield of faith belongs in the family circle. Otherwise it may loosen and come off in a crisis. As a ``watchman on the tower,'' Boyd K. Packer was perpetually ahead of his time. He could see around difficult societal corners and had a clear view of the blessings and benefits that flow from principled living. What some may have interpreted as a stern and serious speaking style was simply Elder Packer teaching out of both love and urgency because he could see and he could sense what was on the horizon. It has been said that the ability to see ahead is both a blessing and a tremendous burden. It is a blessing because you can prepare, and it is a burden because often the people you are trying to help can't see what you can see. Elder Packer's ability to see ahead was unrivaled, occasionally underestimated, but always an unmatched lesson for those who chose to follow the visionary principles he taught. Elder Packer was indeed a master teacher because he followed, he studied, and he came to know the Master Teacher. I am confident that the principles Boyd K. Packer shared with the world will continue to impact and improve behavior for generations to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Peter Blair has been a highly valued and trusted member of my staff from the time I took office in 2011. He was part of the team that did the heavy lifting of getting the Senate office off the ground and was instrumental in establishing the systems, structure, and disciplines necessary to support the Senate office and serve the people of Utah. Peter has filled a wide range of roles and responsibilities in our office, from administrative duties to correspondence and constituent services, from strategic relationships and outreach to the vital role of handling our veterans' affairs. He has approached each of these with a firm commitment to excellence, an eye toward challenging the status quo, and a determination to deliver an experience that is meaningful and memorable. Assigning something to Peter is not only to consider it done but to know that it will be done right. His commitment to serve the office at anytime, day or night, and in whatever way is needed is extraordinary. He has been vital to the office running on all cylinders. Late night votes, townhalls, serving constituents and veterans, and coordinating with the hardworking people who really make the Senate function, were all part of a day's work for Peter. Peter has a unique and innovative way of looking at tasks, projects and long-term opportunities--one I wish more people in Washington would embrace. Peter is a servant leader--a street-smart and savvy servant, who understands strategy, structure, and discipline and is simply determined to deliver regardless of circumstances or setbacks. Peter is a forever learner. His quest to find a better way to do things and his inner drive to make a difference has had an impact on every aspect of my office. He is a trusted colleague who is more concerned about getting things done and done right than he is about who gets credit. Ronald Reagan often made the comment, ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' I would add that there is no limit to Peter's impact and where he can go in the future, because he doesn't care who gets the credit. It has been a blessing for me, my family, and my staff to have Peter as a member of our team. Having Peter around, from the early days of my service in the Senate, has given me great confidence and peace of mind. Nothing has been better than knowing that the moment an assignment was given to Peter it had begun, would soon be done, and above all, be done right.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Ryan McKeon has served as my chief advisor on economic policy for the past several years and has been an indispensable member of my staff. The old saying, ``still water runs deep,'' is a good metaphor for Ryan. Many on Capitol Hill race about trying to call attention to themselves or create a torrent of activity to prove how smart or important they are. Ryan, on the other hand, has a style that is indicative of the depth of his substance. He is concerned with properly informing, not impressing, and is less interested in entertaining than he is in engaging in deeper dialogue on issues that matter. I have trusted Ryan's wisdom and keen insight on a wide range of policy issues and have always had complete confidence in his thorough briefings and recommendations. He has been the driving force behind an expanding and more meaningful economic policy reach from my office. Ryan is very perceptive. His understanding of core disciplines, principles, and policies, as well as the nuances and subtleties of his issue areas, has been priceless. Ryan is aware of not only the principle and policy ramifications of congressional business but the likely results and down-stream effect of the decisions made. Ryan's stillness allows him to present information in a concise, clear manner that informs me of vital data and impact points while filtering out the noise and chatter typical of Washington, DC, debate. Everyone in my office knows they can approach Ryan to have him run the numbers on any piece of legislation. He understands the big picture and regularly worked in tandem with our communications team to ensure our messaging was congruent with what we had introduced legislatively. Ryan has worked well with other offices, as well as with academics and highly specialized policy experts outside of my office. While so much of Ryan's work is centered in serious issues and tough topics, he also knows the value of some well placed humor, a wry comment, and a little levity. Ryan is committed to adding value and making a difference. I greatly appreciate what he has done for me, for the people of Utah, and for our nation. There is a confidence that comes of stillness, a strength that comes from serenity, and quiet determination that comes from depth. Ryan McKeon runs deep, and I am confident his influence will continue to ripple and roll on in the years ahead.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask for regular order with respect to Vitter amendment No. 1473. Amendment No. 1687 to Amendment No. 1473, as Modified

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

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEE. I send a second-degree amendment, Lee amendment No. 1687, to the desk as a second-degree amendment to Vitter amendment No. 1473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. I will.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Elder L. Tom Perry, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Elder Perry passed away on Saturday, May 30, 2015, at the age of 92. L. Tom Perry was a giant of a man with an even larger soul. His enthusiasm for life energized and inspired all who came under his extraordinary influence. It has been said that ideas go booming through the world like cannons, thoughts are mightier than armies, and principles have achieved more victories than horsemen or chariots. Inspiring ideas, transformational thoughts, and powerful principles-- these were the driving forces in Elder Perry's life and ministry and what made him such a positive force for good throughout the world. It is true Elder Perry's booming voice carried his words far and wide, but it was his spiritual strength and positive perspective that set his cherished ideas on faith, family, and freedom booming to the four corners of the world and into the hearts of millions. As a marine, as a businessman, and as an ecclesiastical leader, Elder L. Tom Perry was committed to helping people elevate their thoughts and lives. He was a man who knew what it meant to dream big, to be bold, and to never accept anything less than your best. His passion for life, people, and service was contagious. He was among the wave of marines to arrive in Japan as World War II drew to a close. Though he entered as a member of the occupation forces, his thoughts were focused on elevating those around him. He convinced a number of his fellow servicemen to spend their free time rebuilding a decimated Protestant chapel. Later, while in Saipan, he similarly lifted others by repairing a Catholic orphanage. Throughout his service as an LDS apostle, he was known for praising positive performance. Yet he also made sure that thoughts and sights were forever lifted up so individuals, families, and entire communities would strive to do, be, and become better. Elder Perry proved that thoughts are indeed mightier than armies. L. Tom Perry was a man of principle and a man who recognized that believing in, living by, and teaching true principles was the key to success in every area of life. He taught that the family is the bulwark of society and central to the strength and vitality of communities and nations. He believed the principle of freedom was universal and that all people should have the privilege to live in liberty. He declared that freedom was not a spectator sport and that we all have a sacred duty to defend and protect it. His faith carried him through difficult days and trying times. The principle of faith helped him help others. Elder Perry simply believed. He believed simply and showed that positively and enthusiastically believing was simply a better way to live. He believed in people, even--no, especially when they didn't have the faith to believe in themselves. His life demonstrated that true principles have achieved more victories than horsemen or chariots. Elder Perry often claimed he was just an ordinary man. Yet his ideas, thoughts, and principles enabled him to live an extraordinary life. As an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he traveled the world sharing his profound testimony of Jesus Christ and his love for people from every walk of life. Elder Perry reminded us that we are to live our lives not by days but by deed, not by seasons but by service. I am thankful for the life and ministry of Elder L. Tom Perry. He made a difference for his family, his community, his church, and our Nation. Mr. President, I would like to finish where I began: Ideas go booming through the world like cannons, thoughts are mightier than armies, and principles have achieved more victories than horsemen or chariots. The booming legacy of Elder L. Tom Perry will echo in the hearts, reverberate in the minds, and warm the souls of many for generations to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I agree that the new requirement for a ``specific selection term'' in the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 is separate from the requirement of ``relevance.'' I would like to clarify one last point. Section 104 of the bill authorizes the FISA Court to impose additional, particularized minimization procedures for information obtained under section 501 of FISA. That section provides that the FISA Court may impose additional procedures related to ``the destruction of information within a reasonable time period.'' That provision therefore provides authority for the FISA Court to specify a time period within which the government must destroy information.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 7 minutes, to be divided between Senator Leahy and myself.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I first want to thank my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, for his tireless work on this issue. Senator Leahy and I, along with Senator Heinrich and so many others who are participating in this process, have worked together to develop a legislative strategy that is both bicameral and bipartisan. This legislation we are about to vote on today was passed with an overwhelming supermajority in the House of Representatives--338 votes to 88 votes. This is a testament to the fact that in so many instances there is more that unites us than divides us in today's political environment. This is an example of the type of win-win situation we can develop. This bill protects America's national security, and it does so in a way that is respectful of the privacy interests and both the letter and the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. The American people understand intuitively that it is none of the government's business whom they are calling, when they are calling them, who calls them, and how long their calls last. The American people intuitively understand what graduate researchers have confirmed, which is that this type of calling data--even just the data itself, not anything having to do with recorded conversations, just the data-- reveals a lot about an individual, about his or her political preferences, religious views, marital status, the number of children the person may have, and all kinds of interests that are none of the government's business. Moreover, the way this data is collected is inconsistent with the way our government is supposed to operate. Rather than going out and demonstrating some type of connection between the data set requested and a particular investigation, under the current system the government simply issues orders saying: Send us all of your data. Send us all your data on all calls made by all of your customers. We want all of it. If that means 300 million phone numbers, we want all of that regardless of its connection to any suspected terrorist operation. That is wrong. Our bill would change that, and it would change it quite simply by requiring the government to request information connected to a particular phone number--a phone number that is itself suspected of being involved in some type of terrorist activity. This bill represents a good compromise. This bill represents reason. This bill would protect America's national security while also protecting privacy. This bill, in so doing, recognizes that our privacy is not and ought not ever be deemed to be in conflict with our security. Our privacy is, in fact, part of our security. We are, unfortunately, considering this bill with too little time left. In effect, we are considering this bill after the PATRIOT Act provisions at issue have expired. This is unfortunate. It was unnecessary, and it represents a longstanding bipartisan problem within the Senate--a problem pursuant to which we establish cliffs. We establish these artificially designed deadlines. We have known about this particular deadline for 4 years. For 4 years, we knew these provisions were going to expire. We should have taken up these provisions far in advance of now. Many of us tried. We did so unsuccessfully. Senator Leahy and I and others have been working on this legislation for years. We have been ready, willing, eager, and anxious to do so, and we haven't been able to do so until very recently. Now, because of the fact that these provisions have expired, it is incumbent upon us to move these things forward in all deliberate speed. Whatever the outcome of this vote and of those votes which will follow later today, the American people deserve better than this. Vital national security programs that touch on our fundamental civil liberties deserve a full, open, honest, and unrushed debate. This should not be subject to cynical, government-by-cliff brinksman- ship. If Members of Congress--particularly Republican Members of Congress--ever want to improve their standing among the American people, then we must abandon this habit of political gamesmanship. Finally, it is time for us to pass this bill--this bill which passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, this bill which carefully balances important interests the American people care deeply about. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, this week the Senate will consider the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, H.R. 2048. I am proud to have introduced the Senate companion to this bill, S. 1123, along with Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have worked closely with our partners in the House of Representatives, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers, and Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner and Jerrold Nadler. Since revelations in June 2013 that the National Security Agency was secretly and indiscriminately collecting Americans' telephone records, Senator Leahy and I have worked together on legislation to end this mass surveillance program and to enact greater transparency and oversight over the government's intelligence gathering operations. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 is the result of that 2-year collaboration, and it contains strong reforms. Most importantly, it would definitively end the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata and ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act pen register statute and the national security letter statutes cannot be used to justify bulk collection. On May 13, 2015, the House passed the USA FREEDOM Act by an overwhelming, bipartisan 338-to-88 vote. More than 80 percent of House Republicans and 75 percent of House Democrats voted for the bill, including the chairmen and ranking members of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, as well as the leadership of both parties. The resounding vote in the House is a direct result of the commonsense and meaningful reforms contained in the bill. It is also a testament to the will of the American people, who have been unequivocal in their demand for reform and their demand that the NSA stop the indiscriminate collection of their private records. As our colleagues in the Senate consider the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Senator Leahy and I want to detail the extensive legislative process undertaken to develop this bill and provide additional clarity on the bill's provisions. Senator Leahy, I know that you have a long history of pushing for meaningful oversight and transparency of our government's intelligence gathering operations.

Mr. LEE. Since November 2014, Senator Leahy and I have been engaged in conversations with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Nadler to develop a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act. After extensive negotiations with the administration, intelligence community officials, privacy and civil liberties groups, the technology industry, and other stakeholders, we introduced the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, S. 1123/H.R. 2048, on April 28, 2015. Of course, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 was not introduced in a vacuum. Nearly 2 years ago, on June 5, 2013, the Guardian newspaper published an article and posted a classified FISA Court order revealing that the U.S. Government had been engaging in the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata. One day later, on June 6, 2013, the Washington Post published an article and posted further classified information about a separate government surveillance program called PRISM involving the collection of the contents of Internet communications. The administration subsequently acknowledged that the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata was being conducted pursuant to section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The NSA's PRISM program to collect the contents of Internet communications of certain overseas targets was being conducted pursuant to section 702 of FISA, which was enacted as part of the FISA Amendments Act. Once these programs were revealed, then-Chairman Leahy convened a number of hearings so that the American people could better understand what the NSA was doing. Senator Leahy, can you remind us of the Judiciary Committee's activities in the 113th Congress?

Mr. LEE. On May 5, 2014, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte announced that he had agreed with Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers on a new version of the USA FREEDOM Act. On May 7, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report this revised USA FREEDOM Act. The next day, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence convened a markup to consider the version of the bill reported by the House Judiciary Committee and voted unanimously to report the bill to the full House. Following action by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, further changes to the text of the reported bill were considered and a substitute amendment to the USA FREEDOM Act was unveiled on May 20, 2014, when the House Rules Committee adopted a rule for floor consideration. Following the release of the substitute amendment, some concerns were raised that the substitute amendment did not effectively prohibit bulk collection, even though that was clearly its intent. On May 22, 2014, the House of Representatives passed the amended version of the USA FREEDOM Act by a vote of 303 to 121. Many of those who voted no on the bill did so because they were concerned that its reforms did not go far enough. After the House passed its version of the USA FREEDOM Act, Senator Leahy and I worked hard to build on that legislation. Senator Leahy, can you talk about what led to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, S. 2685?

Mr. LEE. It did. On May 7, 2015, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously concluded that the NSA's bulk collection program is illegal. The court held that section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize bulk collection of Americans' private records and roundly rejected the argument that all of our phone records can be ``relevant'' to any particular authorized investigation. In ACLU v. Clapper, the Second Circuit provided a detailed statutory and legal analysis of section 215 and the bulk collection program. It stated that the government's ``expansive'' interpretation of ``relevance'' in the context of Section 215 ``is unprecedented and unwarranted.'' The court further stated: The interpretation that the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle. The same rationale that it proffers for the ``relevance'' of telephone metadata cannot be cabined to such data, and applies equally well to other sets of records. If the government is correct, it could use Sec. 215 to collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including e- mail and social media information) relating to all Americans. Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans. The court also rejected the government's attempt to compare the NSA's section 215 orders for bulk collection of telephony metadata to grand jury subpoenas, citing the expansive scope and breadth of the information requested. The court correctly noted: The sheer volume of information sought is staggering; while search warrants and subpoenas for business records may encompass large volumes of paper documents or electronic data, the most expansive of such evidentiary demands are dwarfed by the volume of records obtained pursuant to the orders in question here. . . . The government can point to no grand jury subpoena that is remotely comparable to the real- time data collection undertaken under this program. While the Second Circuit held that the NSA bulk collection program was illegal, it did not issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the program. The Second Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court to consider whether an injunction was appropriate in light of the upcoming June 1, 2015, expiration of section 215 and ongoing efforts in Congress to enact legislation before the sunset. As both Senator Leahy and I have mentioned, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 passed the House of Representatives less than a week later by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 338 to 88. In order to aid Senators' consideration of this bill, and to prevent misinterpretations of Congress's intent, we want to state clearly that we agree with the section-by-section analysis contained in House Report 114-109, ``UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY FULFILLING RIGHTS AND ENSURING EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE OVER MONITORING ACT OF 2015,'' to accompany H.R. 2048 as adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on May 8, 2015. There are a few additional matters that Senator Leahy and I should take an opportunity to clarify. Senator Leahy?

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Although we have gone past the June 1 sunset date by a few days, our intent in passing the USA FREEDOM Act is that the expired provisions be restored in their entirety just as they were on May 31, 2015, except to the extent that they have been amended by the USA FREEDOM Act. Specifically, it is both the intent and the effect of the USA FREEDOM Act that the now-expired provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, will, upon enactment of the USA FREEDOM Act, read as those provisions read on May 31, 2015, except insofar as those provisions are modified by the USA FREEDOM Act, and that they will continue in that form until December 15, 2019. Extending the effect of those provisions for 4 years is the reason section 705 is part of the act.

Mr. LEE

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