[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 79 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            USA FREEDOM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MIKE ROGERS

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 2014

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by 
thanking Chairman Goodlatte, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the other Judiciary 
Committee sponsors, and Leader Cantor for all of their hard work coming 
to a compromise with the Intelligence Committee that enacts meaningful 
change to FISA while preserving operational capabilities.
  It is commendable that we have found a responsible legislative 
solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program 
so that we may move forward on other national security legislative 
priorities. Our obligation to protect this country should not be held 
hostage by the actions of traitors who leak classified information that 
puts our troops in the field at risk or those who fear-monger and 
spread mistruth to further their own misguided agenda.
  Following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last 
June, the Section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject 
of intense, and often inaccurate, criticism. The bulk telephone 
metadata program is legal, overseen, and effective at saving American 
lives. All three branches of government oversee this program, including 
Congress, inspectors general, and internal compliance and privacy and 
civil liberties offices in executive branch agencies.
  Despite the effectiveness of the program, and the immense safeguards 
on the data, many Americans and many Members of this body still have 
concerns about a potential for abuse. The legislation we are 
considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflects 
hundreds of hours of Member and staff work to negotiate a workable 
compromise.
  In March, Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Ruppersberger and I 
introduced legislation that was designed to accomplish these main 
priorities: We committed to ending bulk metadata collection of 
communications and other types of records. We committed to providing 
more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put America at risk. We 
committed to providing an even more robust judicial review process for 
the program. And we committed to providing more transparency into the 
FISA process and the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court. The revised USA Freedom Act accomplishes the same goals, as 
well.
  This legislation is intended to prohibit ``bulk'' collection 
activities under the authorities in question. ``Bulk'' collection means 
the indiscriminate acquisition of information or tangible things. It 
does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communications 
records or other tangible things. Rather, the prohibition applies to 
the use of these authorities to engage in indiscriminate or ``bulk'' 
data collection. These changes are intended to respond to concerns that 
these authorities could be used to permit a bulk data collection 
``loophole.''
  The bill bans bulk collection by introducing the requirement for a 
``specific selection term.'' The ban on bulk collection, however, is 
not intended to limit acquisition of information through the 
traditional, targeted types of FISA or National Security Letters. The 
list of examples of what may constitute a specific selection term is 
non exhaustive, and we anticipate there will be other forms of 
discriminants than those contained in the legislation.
  The legislation also creates a new mechanism for obtaining call 
detail records on a continuing basis for up to 180 days to protect 
against international terrorism. The legislation is not intended to 
affect any current uses of Section 501 outside of the bulk context, 
including for records related to foreign intelligence information not 
concerning a U.S. person and clandestine intelligence activities.
  We also assured that the language we are considering today permits a 
return of two hops to include using records identified by the 
government as the basis for the second hop. Additionally, it is 
important that when records are produced to the government they are 
produced in a form that will be useful--meaning that the government can 
set conditions on their production, including by determining the format 
and manner for production. This does not, however, mandate that 
companies change their business practices to store data in any 
particular form.
  The USA Freedom Act provides the meaningful change to the telephone 
metadata program that Members of the House have been seeking. If we had 
the fortune of having a Commander in Chief firmly dedicated to the 
preservation of this program as is, we may have been able to protect it 
in its entirety. With that not being the case, I believe this is a 
workable compromise that protects the core function of a 
counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world.
  I urge Members to support this legislation.

                          ____________________