[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 154 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7715-S7716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
USA FREEDOM ACT
Mr. HELLER. I would also like to briefly discuss current National
Security Agency practices, including its bulk data collection programs
and the implication these programs have for the privacy of Nevadans and
millions of other law-abiding citizens.
Due to published reports in newspapers around the world, Nevadans are
well aware that the Federal Government has been collecting phone data
of law-abiding citizens without their knowledge through a process known
as bulk collection. These practices are mostly authorized by section
215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Specifically, section 215 permits the FBI to seek a court order
directing a business to turn over certain records when there are
reasonable grounds to believe the information sought is relevant to an
authorized investigation of international terrorism.
``Relevance'' has been found by the courts to be a broad standard
that, in effect, allows large volumes of data to be collected. These
same records can be combed through in order to identify smaller amounts
of information that are relevant to an ongoing investigation. In other
words, it has been established that section 215 allows for massive
amounts of data to be collected in order to find the tiny amount of
data that would solve an investigation regarding international
terrorism. The court's reasoning that this is permitted is because,
when submitted, it is likely that the data will produce information
that will then help the FBI.
Millions of Americans' call records are collected and stored by the
NSA because a few numbers may solve an authorized investigation.
Supporters of bulk collection practices have defended this program as
an important tool in the fight against terror. They have said this is a
mechanism to access the logs quickly, and they are not actually
listening to the content.
President Obama even said:
When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to
your telephone call. Instead, the government was just sifting
through this so-called metadata.
The President is correct. They are not listening to the actual calls
like the FBI conducting a wiretap, but let me outline that the
government can figure out what is going on from those call logs.
For example, they will know that an American citizen in Ely, NV,
received a call from the local NRA office and then called their
Representative and Senators. But they claim that the content of that
call remains safe from government intrusion or they will also know that
a Nevadan from Las Vegas called a suicide prevention hotline and spoke
to an individual for 12 minutes, but they will not know what that
person discussed.
The question I have is this: Why does the Federal Government have to
house this data? I believe it is because Congress has authorized a
massive surrender of our constituents' privacy.
I want to be clear: I share the concerns of all Americans that we
must protect ourselves against threats to the homeland. I also believe
we must continue to understand that terrorism is very real and that the
United States is the target of those looking to undermine the freedoms
we hold as a core of our national identity. Are we sacrificing our own
freedoms in the process? Are we sacrificing our constitutional rights
that are afforded under the Fourth Amendment? If so, this is a steep
price to pay to protect Americans from terrorism.
So the next question must be: If the price to protect Americans from
terrorism is an incredible loss of individual privacy, what are the
results of this program?
What has the bulk collection program provided in tangible results
that justifies a privacy intrusion of this level?
The answer is that two cases have been solved in the collection of
millions of records through the use of the program authorized by
section 215. We know that because on October 2, 2013, the chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, asked the NSA Director
Keith Alexander the following question:
At our last hearing, the deputy director, Mr. Ingliss,
stated that there's only really one example of a case where,
but for the use of Section 215, both phone records
collection, terrorist activity was stopped. Was Mr. Ingliss
right?
To which Director Alexander responded, ``He's right. I believe he
said two, Chairman.''
Congress has authorized the collection of millions of law-abiding
citizens' telephone metadata for years, and it has only solved two
ongoing FBI investigations. Of those two investigations, the NSA has
publicly identified one. In fact, that case would have easily been
handled by obtaining a warrant and going to that telephone company. The
case involved an individual in San Diego who was convicted of sending
$8,500 to Somalia in support of al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization
claiming responsibility for the Kenyan mall attack. The American phone
records allowed the NSA to determine
[[Page S7716]]
that a U.S. phone was used to contact an individual associated with
this terrorist organization.
I am appreciative that the NSA was able to apprehend this individual,
but it does not provide overwhelming evidence that this program is
necessary. As Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon noted, the NSA could have
gotten a court order to get the phone records in question.
In essence, Congress has authorized a program that invades the
privacy of millions of Americans with little to show for it. The
results simply do not justify this massive invasion of our privacy, and
that is why I want to end bulk collection practices authorized under
section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
I joined Senator Leahy to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral USA
Freedom Act. This legislation, among other things, will rein in the
dragnet collection of data by the National Security Agency. It will
stop the bulk collection of Americans' communication records by ending
the authorization provided by section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Some in this Chamber will argue this removes a massive tool for the
NSA to assist the FBI. I disagree with that. All this legislation does
is shut down the collection of millions of Americans' metadata by the
NSA. If the FBI needs a telephone number, they can go to a FISA judge
and get a warrant. The phone company can still provide that data.
Chances are a major phone provider will have that data as they keep all
detailed records for at least 1 year.
When talking broadly about how certain technological developments
should be incorporated in our justice system, Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court William Douglas once said:
The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled
away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually,
each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a
whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we
have seen--a society in which government may intrude into the
secret regions of a person's life.
Here in the Congress it is our responsibility to take great care to
acknowledge each possible step that could whittle away our privacy. We
must examine its necessity carefully and reasonably. In this case, I do
not believe such practices are warranted.
We can continue to protect Americans from threats of terrorism
without infringing on individual privacy that the Constitution protects
under the Fourth Amendment. We should shut down bulk collection
practices.
With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The minority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________