[国会记录第162卷162，100号（2016年6月22日星期三）] [参议院] [第S4433-S4456]商业，司法，科学和相关机构拨款法案，2016年[...]修正案No.4787先生leahy。主席先生，作为拨款委员会的成员，我担心待定的修正案，麦凯恩修正案4787。我们本周早些时候有一系列选票对明智的枪支安全措施。我们通过所有的投票都知道，绝大多数美国人支持这些措施，但他们被参议院共和党人封锁了。现在看来共和党领导力希望改变主题。他们正在诉诸恐吓战术来转移美国人民的注意力，无法应对大规模枪击事件。让我们清楚我们需要安全的东西。我们需要普遍背景检查枪支购买，我们需要向FBI提供拒绝恐怖主义嫌疑人的权力。参议院共和党人本周早些时候拒绝了那些争议措施，但我们仍然有机会给予执法实际和有效的工具。我们应该加强我们的法律，使起诉枪械贩运者和秸秆购买者更容易。 I am a gun owner. I know if I go in to buy a gun in Vermont--even though the gun store owner has known me most of their life--I have to go through a background check. But you can have somebody who has restraining orders against them, warrants outstanding against them, or who could have been convicted of heinous crimes, and they can walk into a gun show, with no background check, and buy anything they want. We also know they can go and buy all kinds of weapons to sell at a great profit to criminal gangs that couldn't buy them otherwise, and of course to those who are going to commit acts of terrorism and hate crimes. [[Page S4435]] We also need to fund the FBI and the Justice Department so they have the resources to combat acts of terrorism and hate. Those are the elements of the amendment that Senators Mikulski, Baldwin, Nelson and I filed yesterday. In contrast, Republicans are proposing to reduce independent oversight of FBI investigations, and make permanent a law that as of last year had never been used. The McCain amendment would eliminate the requirement for a court order when the FBI wants to obtain detailed information about Americans' Internet activities in national security investigations. You can almost hear J. Edgar Hoover, who loved to be able to spy on any American he didn't like, asking: Why didn't I have that when I was the head of the FBI? The McCain amendment could cover Web sites Americans have visited; extensive information on who Americans communicate with through email, chat, and text messages; and where and when Americans log onto the Internet and into social media accounts. Over time, this information would provide highly revealing details about Americans' personal lives, Americans who are totally innocent of any kind of criminal activity, and they get all of this without prior court approval. That is why this amendment is opposed by major technology companies and privacy groups across the political spectrum, from FreedomWorks to Google, to the ACLU. Senator Cornyn and others have argued that we cannot prevent people on the terrorist watch list from obtaining firearms without due process and judicial review. Yet at the same time they are proposing to remove judicial approval when the FBI wants to find out what Web sites Americans are visiting. The FBI already has the authority to obtain this information if it obtains a court order under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. None of us would feel comfortable if the FBI or any law enforcement agency could just walk into our home, rifle through our desks, and go through the notes of whom we have called or whom we have talked to. But they are saying because we have done it electronically and through the Internet, we ought to be able to just ignore any right of privacy and go into it. So rather than trying to distract us from their opposition to commonsense gun measures, such as their opposition to requiring somebody who has criminal indictments pending against them from being able to go to a gun show and buy guns, Republicans should support actions that will help protect us, such as those in the amendment filed by Senators Mikulski, Baldwin, Nelson, and myself. Instead of kowtowing to a very well-organized special interest lobbying group, why not listen to the lobby of the American people and do what Americans want. I hope Senators will oppose the McCain amendment. I hope they will support measures that will actually help keep our country safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Oregon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He and I have worked on this. He is really outlining the hypocrisy behind what has been going on over the past few days. Mr. President, due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the Internet activity of millions of Americans. My view is that the country wants policies that promote safety and liberty. Increasingly, we are getting policies that do not do much of either. Supporters of this amendment, the McCain amendment, have suggested that Americans need to choose between protecting their security and protecting their constitutional right to privacy. The fact is, this amendment doesn't improve either. What it does is, it gives an FBI field office new authority to administratively scoop up Americans' digital records, their email and chat records, their text message logs, Web-browsing history, and certain types of location information without ever going to a judge. The reason this is unnecessary--and it is something I believe in very strongly and worked hard for it in the FREEDOM Act--there is a very specific section in the FREEDOM Act, which I worked for and authored in a separate effort in 2013, that allows the FBI to demand all of these records--all of the records I described--in an emergency and then go get court approval after the fact. So unless you are opposed to court oversight, even after the fact, there is no reason to support this amendment. The FBI has not, in any way, suggested that having this authority would have stopped the San Bernardino attack or the massacre at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando. That is because there is no reason to think that is the case. The Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for a good reason. We can protect security and liberty. We can have both. Somehow, the sponsors of the McCain amendment have said: You can really only have one or the other. Mr. President and colleagues, the other argument that was made yesterday--some have said, we have to have this amendment because it will just fix a typo in the law. That is not true. I urge colleagues to take a look at the record on this. The record makes it clear that this provision was carefully circumscribed, was narrowly drawn. The notion that this is some sort of typo simply doesn't hold water. The fact is, the Bush administration--hardly an administration that was soft on terror--said this was not needed, this was not something they would support; that the national security letter statute ought to be interpreted narrowly just the way the authors in 1993 envisioned. I see my friend, the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee. I know we are going to hear how this is absolutely pivotal in order to protect the security of the American people. I will recap. No. 1, never once has the FBI suggested this would have prevented Orlando; No. 2, in the face of an emergency under the legislation I authored, the government, in an Orlando or San Bernardino issue, can go get the records immediately and then after the fact settle up; No. 3, this was not a typo. This was what the authors had suggested; No. 4, the Bush administration, hardly soft on terror, didn't believe what this amendment was all about was necessary. This is an amendment that would undermine fundamental American rights without making our country safer. In my view, undermining the role of judicial oversight, particularly when it doesn't make the country safer and we have a specific statutory provision for emergencies to protect the American people, this amendment defies common sense. I hope my colleagues will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do so. I think it is going to be very hard to explain to the American people how an approach like the one behind this amendment, that would allow any FBI field office to issue an administrative subpoena for email and chat records, text message logs, web-browsing history, location information--that you ought to be able to do it without judicial oversight, when you have a specific law that says government has the right to move quickly in an emergency. I think it is going to be pretty hard to explain to the American people how you are going to have an arrangement like this that does not make us safer and certainly jeopardizes our liberties. I am for both, and this amendment doesn't do much of either. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Mr. BURR. Mr. President, as I grew up, I remember listening daily to Paul Harvey on the radio. Paul Harvey's motto was, ``and now the rest of the story.'' That is where we are. I give Senator Wyden a tremendous amount of credit for consistency. He is consistently against providing the tools that law enforcement needs to defend the American people. That is fine, if that is your position, but let's talk about fact. This statute was changed in 1993, and in one subpart of that legislation, it was not carried over about the ISP--Internet service provider--responsibility to provide this information when requested by law enforcement. From 1993 until 2010, every technology company, when requested by the FBI, continued to provide this information. This is not a new expansion. [[Page S4436]] It is clearly something that continued from 1993 until 2010, 6 years ago, when all of a sudden a tech company looked at it and said: Boy, it is in this subpart, but it doesn't state it in that subpart so we are not going to provide it for you anymore. Myth: We have never asked for this. We have never had this. No, we have had it for a long time, and until 2010, every company supplied it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All of a sudden, one company's general counsel said: We don't see it in this subpart; therefore, we are not bound to provide that for you. We are either going to fight terrorism and prosecute criminals or we are not going to do it. We can take away every tool because we use this excuse that technology now forbids us from accessing information. Let me say about this, we get no content. To get content, you have to go to a judge on a bench, and that judge has to give you permission to actually read the content. We are talking about addresses, locations, times that, in the case of reconstruction or in the case of trying to prevent an attack, could be crucial. The one fact I heard from my colleague from Oregon is that this wouldn't have stopped San Bernardino or Orlando. He is 100 percent correct. But I hope there is no legislation we are considering in the Senate that is about a single incident. This is about a framework of tools law enforcement can use today, tomorrow, and into the future; it is not about looking back and saying: But it didn't exist here. Let me just explain what happens if, in fact, this inadvertent change isn't made. It means the FBI goes from a 1-day process of getting this vital information to over a month. To go to the FISA Court and get approval to seek the information--over a month. If it had to do with a terrorist attack, boy, I hope the American people are comfortable with saying: As long as the FBI figures this out a month in advance, then we are OK. But when you look at the MO of attacks around the world, in most cases, we had no notice. In most cases, maybe another thread of information might have given us the preventive time we needed. In many cases, connecting the dots is also a matter of time. Director Comey came and had a session with all Members of the Senate last week. His comment about expediting this information into the public domain was because he wanted to assure the American people that they had reviewed as much as they could to certify that there was not another cell, that the American people could sleep safe that night. Well, this is part of that process--being able to access the information you need in a timely fashion. You know something he forgot to say is that this is the Obama administration's language. We can talk all we want to about Bush or Clinton or whatever; this is the Obama administration--the one that has the responsibility today to keep the American people safe. It is the administration that has come to the Senate, provided the language, and asked for this clarification to be made because it was inadvertently left out in 1993. So we are here today to fix something that is broken, not to expand in any way, shape, or form the powers or to intrude into privacy, because there is no content collected. This is simply to provide law enforcement with tools that enable them to fulfill their mission, which is to keep America safe. In addition to the ECTA fix, let me say there is a lone-wolf provision that extends the lone wolf permanently. The lone wolf provision provides the government's ability to target non-U.S. persons--foreigners only--who engage or attempt to engage in international terrorism but do not show specific links to a foreign power or terrorist organization to be under the lone-wolf provision. It is too important to let it expire. This provision is not about addressing or responding to a single specific threat--particularly one that has already manifested itself-- any more than the underlying bill is. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The American people need it, law enforcement needs it, and the Obama administration wants it. It is what we operated under from an understanding from 1993 until 2010, when a general counsel in one company decided to buck the system and say: Spell it out for me or we are not going to do it. Let's spell it out for them and give law enforcement this tool. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remains. Mr. McCAIN. I won't take the entire 10 minutes. I notice the Senator from Oregon, and I would be glad to yield to him 3 minutes of the 10 minutes remaining so he can speak in his usual articulate fashion. Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for the time. Mr. McCAIN. I yield 3 minutes of my 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to come back again to the argument I made earlier. The Senator from North Carolina said the FBI would have to wait around if there was something that really had the well-being of the American people at stake. That is simply inaccurate. In the USA FREEDOM Act, I was able to add a provision I feel very strongly about, which says if the FBI thinks the security and well-being of the American people are on the line, the FBI can move immediately to collect all the information we have been talking about. So there is no waiting. There is no dawdling under the amendment we put in the FREEDOM Act. The government can go get that information immediately and come back and then settle up later with the judge. Frankly, that was something I felt extremely strongly about because I wanted it understood that there is not a debate about privacy versus security. This is about ensuring that we have both, and that is why that emergency provision is so important. My colleague made mention of the fact that the FBI would be waiting around if the country's safety and well-being were on the line. No way--not because of the specific language in the USA FREEDOM Act I offered and my colleague supported. This is about ensuring that the American people can have both security and liberty. We have heard the lone-wolf provision referred to. That was extended for 4 years in the USA FREEDOM Act. I supported that as well. So what we are talking about today is not making the country safer but threatening our liberty. And I did draw a contrast between this and the issue with respect to guns. Our colleagues said we ought to have due process as it relates to guns. I certainly support the idea of due process, but it shouldn't be a double standard--we are going to have due process there, and we are not going to have due process as it relates to these national security letters. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes. Mr. WYDEN. If I could have 10 additional seconds, and I appreciate my colleague's courtesy. Mr. McCAIN. Certainly. Mr. WYDEN. The amendment gives the FBI field office authority to scoop up all this digital material without judicial oversight. That is a mistake. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who knows as much about this issue as any Member of Congress or anyone else, and I appreciate the great job he is doing and his important remarks. Look, this is pretty simple. The amendment has the support of the National Fraternal Order of Police; the Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Association, which is the largest national professional law enforcement association; and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association. Literally every law enforcement agency in America supports this amendment so they can do their job and defend America. Ronald Reagan used to say that facts are stubborn things. The fact is, according to the Director of the CIA, according to the Director of National Intelligence, right now Baghdadi, in Raqqa, is calling people in and saying: Get on this. Get on this and get back to the United States or Europe and contact us then and we will attack. [[Page S4437]] There will be more attacks, according to both the Director of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence. Right now there are, unfortunately, young people in this country who are self-radicalizing. And what vehicle is doing the self- radicalization? It is the Internet. We are not asking for content here; we are just asking for usage, the same way we can do with financial records, the same way we can do with telephone records. This is an important tool. How could anyone--and I say this with great respect for the Senator from Oregon. He is a passionate and articulate advocate for what he believes in, and he has my respect and friendship. But I ask, in all due respect, after the events of the last few days, when we know that attacker was self-radicalized--and what did he use for it? He used the Internet. I don't know if that attack could have been prevented, but I know that attacks can be prevented because that is the view of the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, who are not interested in taking away our liberties but are interested in carrying out their fundamental responsibilities, which happen to be to protect this Nation. So all I can say to my colleagues is that we need to protect the rights of all of our citizens. We can't intrude in their lives. This constant tension will go on between the right of privacy and national security, and I think there are gray areas we need to debate and come to agreement on finally over time, but this issue is, honestly, a no- brainer. When the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who is probably one of the most respected individuals in America, admired and respected by all of us, is saying this is one of his highest priorities in order to protect America, then I think we should listen to him. When the Director of the CIA says they are planning further attacks on the United States of America and Europe, we should give them the tools they need to prevent that. When the Director of National Intelligence testifies before the Committee on Armed Services that there will be further attacks, shouldn't we give them this rudimentary tool, which, according to the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, was basically an oversight? Shouldn't we correct that, and can't we protect the rights of every individual and every American and still enact this really modest change, which, although in some ways modest, according to the Director of the FBI, is of his highest priorities? So let's listen. Let's listen to those whom we entrust our Nation's security to after going through the confirmation process and the approval or disapproval of the Members of this body, who are then entrusted with the solemn obligation of defending this Nation. They are saying unanimously that they need this authority in order to carry out their responsibilities. Mr. President, we are going to vote here in a couple of minutes, and I would urge my colleagues to respect the views--maybe not mine, maybe not the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but let's respect the views of those who are entrusted with defending this Nation. I believe we should give them this authority. This debate will go on, I say to my friend from Oregon. There will be other areas where there is tension between the right of every citizen to privacy and the requirement to defend this Nation because we are facing a challenge the likes of which we have never seen before, and that is this whole thing of self-radicalization and people who are sneaking into this country to commit acts of terror, which has the entire American public concerned--San Bernardino, Orlando. I hope the Senator from Oregon and those who will vote no on this amendment understand that in the view of the experts on terrorism in this world--absolutely are convinced there will be further attacks. Shouldn't we give them this fundamental tool, this basic tool they have asked for? I believe they respect all Americans' right to privacy as well. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment, and then we can move on to other ways to help our enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies defend this Nation against this threat, which is not going away. Mr. President, I believe my time has expired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, has all the time expired? The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Mr. HEINRICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes. Mr. McCAIN. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Cloture Motion Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state. The bill clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment No. 4787 to amendment No. 4685 to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 2578, an act making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Orrin G. Hatch, John Thune, Thad Cochran, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Deb Fischer, Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito, Johnny Isakson. The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on amendment No. 4787, offered by the Senator from Kentucky for the Senator from Arizona, to amendment No. 4685 to H.R. 2578, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk called the roll. Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.] YEAS--58 Alexander Ayotte Barrasso Blunt Boozman Burr Capito Casey Cassidy Coats Cochran Collins Corker Cornyn Cotton Cruz Enzi Ernst Fischer Flake Graham Grassley Hatch Heitkamp Hoeven Inhofe Isakson Johnson King Kirk Klobuchar Lankford Manchin McCain McCaskill Mikulski Moran Nelson Perdue Portman Reed Reid Risch Roberts Rounds Rubio Sasse Scott Sessions Shelby Sullivan Thune Tillis Toomey Vitter Warner Whitehouse Wicker NAYS--38 Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Booker Boxer Brown Cantwell Cardin Carper Coons Daines Durbin Franken Gardner Gillibrand Heinrich Heller Hirono Kaine Leahy Lee Markey McConnell Merkley Murkowski Murphy Murray Paul Peters Sanders Schatz Schumer Shaheen Stabenow Tester Udall Warren Wyden NOT VOTING--4 Crapo Donnelly Feinstein Menendez The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 38. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The Republican leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [...] Amendment No. 4787 Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Arizona yield for a question? Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Arizona, before lunch we had a vote on a very important amendment the Senator sponsored, along with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that received a majority vote of the Senate but not enough to get us to the 60-vote threshold. I know the majority leader has put in a motion to reconsider, which will allow him to bring that up because of some absenteeism. I want to ask my friend, during the time the shooter in Orlando was under surveillance by the FBI and was actually put on a watch list, the authority they had to gather information about him and particularly his computer usage by issuing a subpoena to the Internet service provider in order to identify IP addresses and perhaps email addresses, not content--they were denied the opportunity to get that kind of information. Does the Senator have any idea whether perhaps the FBI might have been tipped to the fact that this shooter--let's say he was accessing YouTube videos of Anwar al-Awlaki like Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood was before he committed his terrorist attack there, or let's say one of the email addresses they were able to collect was one of a known terrorist or somebody the FBI suspected was complicit in terrorism, obviously, under the Senator's amendment, in order to get the content of that, the FBI would have to go to the FISA Court and establish probable cause. Does the Senator have an opinion whether that kind of information, to which the FBI was blinded by the lapse in this authority--whether that would be helpful information in identifying potential threats like we saw in Orlando? Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend and colleague who has done so much hard work on trying to achieve a careful balance and compromise that all of us could agree to on the issue of weapons, I appreciate the question and I appreciate his work. I can't specifically state I know for a fact that the failure of the ability of the FBI to monitor and know about use of the Internet--not content but use of the Internet, such as the Senator mentioned IP addresses and others. I can't say that would have prevented it. What I can say, and the Senator knows, the Director of the FBI said this is the most important tool he needs to defend this country against further attacks. Is there anyone now in America who doesn't believe there is going to be another self-radicalized or instructed individual who will try to attack the United States of America? Of course not. In their wisdom, a majority of my colleagues over there and a group of my colleagues over here have rejected the urgent request from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have seen a lot of strange votes around here, I would say to my friend from Texas, but to see Republicans, who advertise themselves as trying to protect the people of this Nation, not give the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the tool he needs the most to counter what is clearly coming, frankly, is one of the most puzzling and disappointing actions that have been taken by my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator. I would merely add, this is not a partisan issue. As the Presiding Officer and as the Senator from Arizona knows, the Intelligence Committee has voted in a bipartisan way, with only one Senator dissenting in the Intelligence reauthorization bill, to reinstate this very authority the amendment of the Senator from Arizona pertained to. I believe, of all the votes we have had this week, the vote on Senator McCain's amendment was the one with the greatest potential to stop future terrorist attacks like we saw in Orlando--because we all know the shooter in Orlando was under two separate FBI investigations and he was put on a watch list. With so much discussion about watch lists, he was no longer on a watch list so the FBI was not notified when he went in and purchased the two firearms he used in this attack. We also know he was a licensed security guard, and he actually had a license to own firearms. This is a complicated and complex and confusing picture we have all been presented, and we are all trying to figure out what is the solution or what could we do to help reduce the possibility that something like this might happen in the future? I can guarantee one thing. It is not to limit the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That is not going to stop future terrorist attacks. If we fail to give law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities the means by which to identify these self-radicalized terrorists before they kill--if we don't do that, then shame on us. This is not partisan, as I said, because a bipartisan majority--with one dissenting vote--on the Intelligence Committee voted for this provision, but we need to get serious about this. I know, because of some absenteeism today-- necessary, I am sure--we didn't have every Senator here present and voting. [[Page S4454]] I hope in the interim, from the time of that failed cloture vote on the McCain-Burr amendment until the time we vote on this again when the majority leader moves to reconsider, we can have some serious discussions and serious efforts at trying to make our country safer and protecting innocent Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. If we deny the FBI Director the No. 1 legislative priority of the agency, as he has told us time and time again--most recently in the SCIF, in the secure facility. Obviously, that part is not classified, but he said this is a very important tool. If we are going to ask the FBI and our counterterrorism authorities to connect the dots, well, they can't connect the dots unless they can collect the dots. Again, this is with proper and appropriate regard, under the Fourth Amendment, for American citizens when it comes to searches of their property or seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, we know there has to be established probable cause that a crime has been committed, established before an impartial judge. We are not talking about the content. We are saying, if there are enough dots to connect together to raise a reasonable suspicion on the part of our counterterrorism authorities, they ought to then have the opportunity to go to a judge and get the content of that communication under appropriate constitutional Fourth Amendment procedures. If they don't even have access to the basic information, then they can't connect the dots because they can't collect them. So of all the votes we have had this week, I believe the vote on the McCain-Burr amendment was the most important because I think it was the one most likely to produce additional tools that our counterterrorism authorities could use in an investigation to identify self-radicalized terrorists in the United States before they strike. It is too late after they strike, when we are all asking the question: What can we possibly do in order to prevent something like this from happening again? We now know what we can do. It may not be a panacea, but it is making sure our law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI, have the tools they need in order to conduct these investigations, again to collect the dots so they can connect those dots. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there is a lot going on around here. Before lunch, we finished a vote that I was very disappointed did not reach the 60-vote threshold so we could proceed to debate and vote on what I think is one of the more important issues we are dealing with; that is, our ability to stop terrorist attacks. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, we have had the opportunity to meet several times with Director Comey, the head of the FBI, asking him if they have the tools necessary to prevent terrorist attacks against innocent Americans. Simply because of changes in technology, a tool they had before--and by ``tool,'' a method they had before to try to determine who is trying to do us harm--works for one type of technology, but new technology, basically because of an omission in the language that was never intended by the Congress, does not give us the ability to so-call connect the dots to give us the opportunity to then go and seek a warrant for further investigation. This was the vote we had on the floor. We came up just one or two votes short. I know the majority leader made a motion to reconsider so we will be taking this up again. I hope my colleagues who did not vote for this will take the opportunity as a Member of the U.S. Senate to come to the Intelligence Committee to sit down, look at the classified information, and assure themselves this does nothing that invades anyone's privacy rights. There seems to be a lack of information as to what is being asked for. In that regard, hopefully during this next few days, we will have the opportunity for our colleagues to come and understand this. Frankly, it is something many had voted for but were not aware of this glitch in the language that has put us in this particular position. I will be happy to accompany any of my colleagues to a place where we can look through, on a classified basis, why this is so important. [...]