on the implementation of the fisa statute. the three authorities reauthorized by this legislation have been debated extensively on this floor and in this congress since they came up for reauthorization in 2009. every single national security official to come before the congress in the past two years has testified that these provisions are vital to protect america and has urged their reauthorization. it's very hard, i think, to vote no in face of what we have been told in classified intelligence, in hearings, by officials from the attorney general's office and the f.b.i. in fact, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence wrote a letter to leaders reid and mcconnell today, may 23, expressing their strong support for the immediate enactment of the legislation we're now considering, and i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that this letter be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: let me point out there are no recent cases of abuse of these authorities. no recent

as every roving wiretap must be approved by a fisa court judge. if a target changes a cell phone and the f.b.i. moves to surveil a new phone, the court is notified of that change. all of the prebz -- protections for u.s. person information that apply to any other fisa wiretap also applies to roving wiretaps. in short, while this authority is a tremendous asset for the f.b.i. and has been used 140 times over the past five years, it poses no additional civil liberties concerns and it should be renewed without delay. with regard to section 215, the business records act, over the past several years, the rallying cry against the patriot act has centered on section 215, fisa business records authority. section 215 allows the f.b.i. to seek fisa court authority to obtain business records such as hotel information or travel records. as with each one of the expiring provisions, the f.b.i. must meet the statutory standard of proof. the inspector general from the department of justice conducted several audits of the f.b.i.'s use of section 215 orders and fou

the fisa court predates the patriot act, the 19/11 attacks. it was a product of the 1970's and the desire to have more oversight over the intelligence apparatus. it is a mechanism for oversight, just not one that the public as much exposure to or any exposure to what it is doing. host: palm beach county, florida, republican line. caller: my question is in regards to out what other things beyond it the intention of the warrants or whenever is discovered, what would be the outcome? my two examples would be the first example would be if someone had a wiretap on a cell phone or a series of the cell phones, and someone realized that the person who other than the persons who were being investigated, criminal activity was discovered. the other example is, what if, in a series of all these wiretaps, they realize that there has already been a wiretap, and that other nations are spying on americans, like israel and all kinds of people in europe and england -- host: ok. is that stern. -- seth stern. guest: there is a demarcation between using it for crim

it's called the fisa complete it's been around since the late-1970's, not one warrant was ever turned down before the patriot act. but they say we need more power, we need more power given to these agencies, and we don't need any constitutional restrain anymore. but my question is, the fourth amendment said you had to have a probable cause, you had to name the person and the place. well, how do we change and get rid of probable cause and change it to a standard of relevance -- how do we do that and amend the constitution without actually amending the constitution? these are important constitutional questions. but when the patriot ability came up, we were so frightened by 9/11, that it just flew through here. no senat read the patriot act t didn't go through the standard procedure. look at what's happening here. ten years later you'd think the fear and hysteria would have gotten to such a level that we could go through the committee process. senator leahy's bill went to committee, it was deliberated upon, it was discussed, it was debated, it was passed out with bipartisan support, it c

gain control over our own resources responsibility for the problems with fisa. and we'll be able to stand up and speak to the issues that matter to us. charge at home and making sure that we have a voice abroad revenues from oil and gas in the north sea are worth an estimated twenty one billion dollars to the u.k. treasury every year scotland says the reserves are in their waters it's hard to imagine the u.k. would let the oilfields go without a fight particularly as westminster wouldn't be legally obliged to honor a yes vote of the scottish people the union jacks days flying outside the scottish parliament could be numbers scotland's ditching the united kingdom would mean the u.k. treasury lost valuable oil and gas revenues and it could be the inspiration for historically less peaceful independence movements in europe like the basques and the northern irish to follow suit and further destabilize an already weak you the s.n.p. would support other european movements in their own struggles for independence including wales and northern ireland if they so choose for

setback to says he's confident of winning the ballot in june to stay as president of governing body fisa despite england's football association of straining from the elections angle a chance to withdraw after the recent allegations of corruption during last year's world cup close blatter has given the office for almost thirteen years now only challenger is the president of the asian football confederation had been a month from qatar while seventy five year old blatter has said before he wants the new forced to be his last on. and elsewhere formula one team ferrari have announced they've extended fernando alonso his contract until the end of twenty sixteen but two time world champion seen here on the right says he'll finish his career with the italian team he was runner up last year in the drivers' championship and is currently fifth this year state of. now russia's olympic boss alexander zuckoff says twenty five goals is their plan for the fast approaching london games to corfu is currently overseeing the country's preparations for their own winter olympics in sochi in twenty fourteen wa

we have to go through a farsa -- a fisa court to get those warrants. i've done that for 12 years what we are hearing from the other side is not true about warrantless searches. the senate approved 990 with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. it is time for the house to do the same thing. time is of the essence. we have until midnight tonight to help keep america safe because the terrorists are out there continuing to work. these are commonsense provision that is have worked effectively for 10 years to prevent terrorist attacks. protect the american people and preserve civil liberties. they need to be extended for another four years. the terrorist threat we face as a nation has not expired, neither should these important provisions thatville helped keep us safe from terrorist attacks. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this national security bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. there being no other requests for time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house rule 281, the previous question is ord

on me while occasions have been made in the british parliament for fisa members sought bribes in return for backing england's failed twenty eighteen world cup there in last december's vote a member of parliament claims that evidence indicates east of cameroon and the mark of the ivory coast will pay one half million dollars to vote the cats are we won the right to host the twenty twenty team tournament for morphy for members have been accused of asking for bribes in return for their votes gala. ations came from former english football chief lord treason who plans to next take is evidence to fee for england is carrying out a parliamentary investigation into their failed bid for the twenty eighteen world cup they were widely regarded as one of the front runners but managed only two votes out of twenty two winning vote went to russia bend over and elsewhere greek olympic medal winning sprinters cost us going there this and katherina running have been found guilty of perjury and received suspended sentences for staging an accident to avoid a doping test in two thousand and four the pair had

world this spring and the situation in libya basically word for word it says he must go about get out fisa leaders did agree upon that we're hearing now from officials that the debate was quite heated it's no secret that russia in the west have very different ways of approaching the situation russia in fact like you said was asked to come in and broker the situation we are hearing from from the different russian officials that they will most likely accept that we don't have confirmation yet we're expecting a news conference from president it's me three minutes we did and he most certainly will be asked whether or not russia we would agree to actually be the broker who spoke to me film arguello the head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of the russian parliament this is what he said about russia's future on its feet. we did not have any illusions about the character of the ba'ath regime and we did not have any illusions about the bill for himself as. all the european nations we were trying to build bridges with gadhafi when he was playing by the rules. now he's not playing

quotas never implemented and we were allegations have been made in the british parliament that for fisa members sought bribes in return for backing england's pails twenty eighteen world cup bid in last december's vote a member of parliament claimed that evidence indicates. a cameron and the mark of the ivory coast were paid one and a half million dollars to vote the carrot on one of the right to host the twenty twenty two tournament while four more people members have been accused of asking for brides in return for their votes the allegations came from former english football chief lord treason who plans to take his evidence to sea for england is carrying out a parliamentary investigation into their failed bid for the twenty eighteen world cup they were widely regarded as one of the front runners but managed only two votes out of twenty two or the winning votes went to russia. now moving to the pitch and in the english premier league mexico drake escort his second hat trick in three games as liverpool try and find to follow on monday night to boost their hopes of reaching next season's

they have to go to the fisa court. also, there has to be a connection to national security interests or to a foreign government. we've got that level of protection. when he they go and make these requests, then they can go and gain access to a record. now these are business records. these aren't records in my basement or your basement. these are records that a company has, like a phone company or a bank, but used in only the limited case where a judge first grants permission. so what does that mean? that means that it is constitutional in that the individual americans do process rights that are observed because a federal agent first has to go to a judge, a judge has to apply due process to that request and then from there, then access can be given to records, not in an individual's house, but from a business. and then during the course of an investigation, again remembering, as if there is a threat of a national security threat only, then during the course of an investigation, it's understood, if we are investigating a

is called the fisa court. the fisa court has been around since the late 1970s. d not warrant was ever turned down before the patriot act. but they say we need more power we need more power given to these agencies and we don't need any constitutional restraint ann more. but my question is, the fourth amendment said you have to have a probable cause. and you had to name the person in the place. we chan how do we change and get rid of probable cause and change it to a standard of relevance? how do we do that and amend the constitution without actuallyre amending the constitution? impta these are important constitutional questions but when the patriot act came up wea were so frightened by 9/11 that it just slough through here. i there aren't enough copies to be read. there was one copy at the time. no senator read the patriot act. it didn't go through thedd standard procedure and look atla what is happening now, 10 years later. you think the fear and hysteria would have gotten to such a level that we could goat through the committee process. senator leahy's bill wen

it's called the fisa court, it's been around since the 1970s. before the patriot act, the fisa court never turned down a warrant. you say these people are awesome. we just have to get them off of the street. doesn't matter, i just want it done. unfortunately, that's been the attitude of the majority of the people up here and the majority of americans after 9/11. people were so frightened. they said do anything. i don't compare. the problem with that attitude is even if you want to argue that it hasn't been abused yet, what happens when people are elected to your government who decide they don't like your religion or you believe in a certain kind of marriage, and you want to say this, they want to investigate you. there's no step to stop that. there's no step to say your church believes in the unorthodox believe or the belief that we don't call politically correct or no longer acceptable. we want to investigate the banking records and see if they can take away the irs number or tax exception. if you don't have any restraint to these activities, s

committee considers the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill so that any amendments to fisa can be considered at that time, and the fact is that we do not usually have amendments to the intelligence authorization bill, but the majority leader, i believe, will do his best to secure a future commitment, if such is needed, for a vote on any amendment. i have not agreed to support any amendment because at this stage it is hypothetical, and we need to look very deeply into what these senators have said sand pointed out last night with specificity and get the response to it from the intelligence committee, have both sides hear it, and then make a decision that's based not only on civil liberties but also on the necessity to keep our country safe. and i believe we can do that. i'm very appreciative of their agreement to enter into this colloquy. mr. wyden: i thank the distinguished chair of the intelligence committee for proposing this course of action for addressing the secret law issue. obviously, colleagues would like more information on that, and they're going to be in a positi

we could name them to the fisa commission. i do not object to them being named and the name being redacted. the name should be presented to the judge who is making the decision. and i want a judges to make the decision. james otis, part of our revolution for the 20 years leading up to the american revolution, was debate about warrants. they issued what were called writs of assistance. they're also geneva warrants. they withstand -- they're also called general warrants. they didn't tell you what crime you were accused of. the soldiers came into your houses and they would enter without warrants. the fourth amendment was a big deal. we passed the fourth amendment and it was one of the -- it was one of the primary grieve annals of our founding fathers. i don't think we should give up so easily. i don't think we should be cowered by feared and so fearful of attack that we give up our lishts. if we do we become more different than the rest of the countries that have no liberties. our liberties are what make us essentially different

organizations around the world largely in developing countries and they provided a lot of technical level fisa and robinette work together and so she was working as of policy and research director for the world banking and this was in the run-up to the conference what it's called, the world conference on the women, remember the conferences every ten years and this was the one that was going to be in beijing and they were doing a lot of the work she did during this period was working to bring these disparate microfinance organizations to get your and again the whole reaching across the all thing, get a group of organizations that had been traditionally been competing with each other to work together to come up with a platform for a microfinance planned for the platform and the conference on women so she played a central part of that. there's a chapter in the book about that whole episode in her life, and what did that happening is that hillary clinton went to beijing and spoke famously about microfinance and that is the moment microfinance kind of blasted into the world consciousness. it had be

it's called the fisa complete it's been around since the late-1970's, not one warrant was ever turned down before the patriot act. but they say we need more power, we need more power given to these agencies, and we don't need any constitutional restraint anymore. but my question is, the fourth amendment said you had to have a probable cause, you had to name the person and the place. well, how do we change and get rid of probable cause and change it to a standard of relevance -- how do we do that and amend the constitution without actually amending the constitution? these are important constitutional questions. but when the patriot ability came up, we were so frightened by 9/11, that it just flew through here. no senator read the patriot act t didn't go through the standard procedure. look at what's happening here. ten years later you'd think the fear and hysteria would have gotten to such a level that we could go through the committee process. senator leahy's bill went to committee, it was deliberated upon, it was discussed, it was debated, it was passed out with bipartisan support, i

we did fisa amendments. we did intelligence reform, but we haven't thought through how all the pieces fit together and i don't know we would agree and i don't know that this is the best time for congress to do this since there is an excess amount of partisanship in congress at the moment that if ever there was a time to give this committee adequate jurisdiction to hold that debate and do broader legislation, not just moving boxes around for the dni, but really thinking about in a new world with 21st century threats, how should americans deal with the tension, interrogation, investigation of americans on american soil, racial profiling or other activities that are -- how should we do this comprehensive way? i think this is the time and this is a huge service you could perform. i think the hearings you were holding right now are very helpful, and i'm very happy to participate in one, but i would urge the congress to play its role as a co-equal branch of government to thoroughly assess what is the right way of

we did fisa amendments. we did intelligence reform, ut we haven't thought through how all the pieces fit together and i don't know we would agree and i don't know hat this is the best time for congress to do this since there is an excess amount of partisanship in congress at the moment that if ever there was a time to give this committee adequate jurisdiction to hold that debate and do broader legislation, not just moving boxes around for the dni, but really thinking about in a new world with 21st century threats, how should americans deal with the tension, interrogation, investigation of americans on american sl, racial profiling or other activities that are -- how should we do this comprehensive way? i think this is the time and this is a huge service you could perform. i think the hearings you were holding right now are very helpful, and i'm very happy to participate in one, but i would urge the congress to play its role as a co-equal branch of government to thoroughly assess what is the right way of the

we did fisa amendments. we did intelligence reform, but we haven't thought through how all the pieces fit together and i don't know we would agree and i don't know that this is the best time for congress to do this since there is an excess amount of partisanship in congress at the moment that if ever there was a time to give this committee adequate jurisdiction to hold that debate and do broader legislation, not just moving boxes around for the dni, but really thinking about in a new world with 21st century threats, how should americans deal with the tension, interrogation, investigation of americans on american soil, racial profiling or other activities that are -- how should we do this comprehensive way? i think this is the time and this is a huge service you could perform. i think the hearings you were holding right now are very helpful, and i'm very happy to participate in one, but i would urge the congress to play its role as a co-equal branch of government to thoroughly assess what is the right way of

information how should proceed were immediately repute with claims that they could not provide for egullet fisa. when i looked back on the way the office of children's issues orientated me on how to handle the abduction of my son i have little doubt that they were essentials and setting me up for the failure of the application for my son's return. by not providing the some very basic and essential facts degree is essentially guiding me down a path that would lead to the resolution of the hague proceedings the would inevitably result in the denial of my sons repatriation. .. and i had waited too long to file an application for his return. in order to further prove during my appeal that my wife provided criminally fraudulent testimony in mexican courts i requested the u.s. state department obtained copies of her entry and exit records to united states. in the conversations that ensuedensued, i escalated this issue to the abduction unit chief who claimed they could not give me this information because it would violate my wife's privacy in spite of the fact we remained legally married and the in th

reauthorization act of 2005, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 20 2004, and the fisa amendments act of 2008. signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that upon conclusion of morning business on monday, may 23, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1038. that at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. further, that the time for debate on the motion to proceed be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i appreciate, mr. president, my friend, the senior -- junior senator from iowa, allowing me to interrupt him. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i thank the leader. mr. president, we know that student outcomes for the general population at

fannie and freddie were not government agencies tasked with consumer protection and fisa wasn't test of consumer protection either. >> i know my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the ranking member mr. quigley is recognized. >> thank you. dr. evans, professor levitin come i actually appreciate the disagreements here. our judicial system is built on zealous advocates, disagreeing because from that we like to think that we move towards the truth. so, towards that end, while i recognize we are not going to hold hands and sing kumbaya dhaka, it's good to see this warm and fuzzy moment. dr. evans, the professor's comments about transparency, while you may disagree with much of what this agency is about, can you talk about how transparency might help this industry and if you agree or what part of transparency would you improve things from the consumer's point of view as he would be unhappy with the strong competition? >> that's a very fair question and i appreciate it. let me take that and just start out by saying i'm certainly not suggesting there are not problems to be solved.

we can name them to the fisa tte commission. fis i do not objecta to them being named and the name being redacted but it should bename sr presented to the judge who's making the decision, and i wante a judge to make a decision. james otis, part of ourre revolution for the 20 years leading up to the americanbout revolution was a debate aboutssw warrants.eralle the issue what were called writs of the system there also called general warrants, they were not specific, they didn't tell you what crimes were accused of ande the soldiers came into yours house is the but lodge soldiersd and our houses and enter intotht our houses without a warrant. we pas the fourth amendment was a big deal. we passed the fourth amendmentre and was one of the primary grievances of our founding fathers. i don't think we should give upd so easily.e i don't feel we should be told d by fear and so fearful of the attack the week of our do liberties. if we do we become no different than the rest of the countries that have no liberties the liberties are what ma

the second study on investor and pfizer -- investor and fisa examination has to do with how to do a better dog at the sec up covering investor adviser -- do a better job at the sec of covering investor adviser investigations. -- and pfizer examinations. this study was geared toward helping us bigger out how we could have better coppers. one of the options is extension of authority to those who are regulated and registered as broker-dealers. the third option is to find a way for the sec to have a dedicated source of funding for investor adviser examination programs. we are continuing to look at all those options. they all require legislation to move lower. that will be something -- that will not be something we can do on our own initiative. >> thank you. you mentioned when we were having coffee that you will testify for the 30th time next week in the congress. that is just during your chairmanship of the sec and that during your other opportunities previously. there have been a number of different subjects you have addressed. one that has been of great concern has to do with the adequacy of

on the implementation of the fisa statute. the three authorities reauthorized by this legislation have been debated extensively on this floor and in this congress since they came up for reauthorization in 2009. every single national security official to come before the congress in the past two years has testified that these provisions are vital to protect america and has urged their reauthorization. it's very hard, i think, to vote no in face of what we have been told in classified intelligence, in hearings, by officials from the attorney general's office and the f.b.i. in fact, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence wrote a letter to leaders reid and mcconnell today, may 23, expressing their strong support for the immediate enactment of the legislation we're now considering, and i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that this letter be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: let me point out there are no recent cases of abuse of these authorities. no recent

quite simply, there is a process in theory in which a court known as the fisa court makes a determination, but they make the determination upon this standa standard. then this standard is relevant to an investigation. now, the interpretation of that clause is done in secret. i would defy you to show me a circumstance where a secret interpretation of a very minimal standard is tightened in that secret process. but we don't know, because we're not being told. this is why i support senator wyden's amendment. senator wyden said we shouldn't have secret law, secret interpretation of clauses that may result in the opposite of what we believe is being done, and that is a very important amendment. but that amendment will not be debated on the floor of the senate. now, it won't be debated because a very clear mechanism has just been put -- a very clever mechanism has just been put into play to prevent amendments from being offered and debated on the floor of the senate on the four-year extension of the patriot act. and, quite frankly, i'm very disturbed by that mechanism, a parliamentary move, in