[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16600-16601]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 16601]]

  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.

                          ____________________