Water Resources Development Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. But for reasons I will explain, this is a commonsense procedure that doesn't relate to the Fourth Amendment--the constitutional right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a venue provision. This has to do with what court to go to in order to get a court order and to get permission of a court, after establishing probable cause, to conduct that search.

Senator Wyden is seeking consent to block proposed changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that have already been the product of thoughtful and lengthy consideration, including public hearing and deliberation. These rules, as all rules that are plied in the courts are, have been approved by the rules advisory committee. This is a group of judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys. Then they were approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Then, most significantly perhaps, they were endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. So if there were constitutional or other legal issues and concerns about this, one would think the highest Court in the land would have flagged those and declined to endorse them, but they didn't.

These changes have been approved because they are commonsense measures, as I said a moment ago, that relate solely to the appropriate venue for a search warrant. They simply make clear which Federal district court the government should go to in order to apply to a judge for a search warrant in cases involving sophisticated cyber criminals and people like child pornographers and even terrorists. Ultimately, that makes our government more efficient--by making it clear which courts can consider these requests for search warrants--and better equipped to stop these heinous crimes.

As I said earlier, these aren't substantive changes. This doesn't change the balance between privacy and security in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Rather, the government must still go before a judge and make the requisite showing in order to get a search warrant.

I can't understand who but the most radical of privacy advocates would say that--even after meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment before a judge establishing probable cause to get a search warrant, would say: No, we don't want that to happen. I can't imagine circumstances where we would say the Fourth Amendment is trumped by concerns about privacy, especially when the targets that must be proven up in court are cyber criminals, child pornographers, and even terrorists. We can't let that happen, and that is why these rule changes are so important.

Our colleague claims the rule changes will allow for mass hacking and forum shopping. That is the creative branding I told him I admired in the beginning. But these are the same claims that have been considered and rejected through a thoughtful, thorough process that I have already described. These changes are modernizing our laws and updating the tools government has to investigate so they can better protect us from the very real and increasing threat of cyber criminals and terrorists. The truth is, there are more things we need to do in addition to this to update and modernize our laws.

I would close by saying that I know public concerns have been raised. Indeed, I believe there have been some briefings--even today--by Federal law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community with regard to Russian activities in cyber space, even focused on our very system of electing our officials in the November 8 election. This is not a time to retreat and to allow cyber space to be run amuck by cyber criminals or people who would steal intellectual property or child pornographers or terrorists. This is a very sensible tool of venue. It just says where the search warrant can be sought, not the substantive requirements for what needs to be proven. That is preserved under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protects all of us, as it should, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source