Usa Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1584 and ask that it be reported by number.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Madam President, it has been an honor and a privilege to work with my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, on this issue. Senator Leahy and I have, over the past decade, worked together on a number of projects including this one, including the USA FREEDOM Act.

Senator Leahy and I come from different political parties and different ends of the political spectrum, and yet we share much in common, including a devotion to our families, a devotion to God, a devotion to this great country, and a devotion to the Constitution that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. It is an honor and a privilege to stand with Senator Leahy in defense of the Fourth Amendment and the other rights articulated in our Constitution.

Senator Leahy and I have confronted many opponents, and many opponents to the Lee-Leahy amendment have made arguments that I think need to be mentioned one final time before we vote on this matter. Many of them are arguing that this amendment would somehow hamper the ability of the FISA Court to approve applications quickly in the case of an emergency. This is simply untrue. In all these circumstances in which it would apply, our amendment would allow the FISA Court to issue a finding saying the appointment of amicus would, in that circumstance, be inappropriate. This the FISA Court could do in a single sentence.

The FBI or some of its proclaimed self-appointed defenders also complain that this might make it harder for them to get surveillance applications approved. Let me just remind everyone that we are talking about the rights of U.S. persons--that is, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States. These are rights that deserve to be protected. We have to remember that the purpose of the Constitution is not to make it easier to govern. The purpose of the Constitution is to provide structure and limitations on government because governments sometimes make mistakes.

I find it especially tone deaf that the very agency--the very Bureau--that has now been found to have been in violation of its own policies and procedures--in not just one but two inspector general reports in the past year--for failing to follow its own policies is now the agency that many people are trying to defend in saying that we can't inform the American people of what is going on and we can't improve the process by which that agency operates.

Power is always vulnerable to abuse. Warnings were made when this process was put into place, and exactly the kinds of abuses that we have now seen are the types of abuses that have occurred over and over or are the same ones that were foreseen.

This isn't an indictment of any one agency or administration or person or political party. It is an affirmation of the Founding Fathers' trust in the checks and balances that they put in place in our founding document. James Madison so eloquently expressed this principle in Federalist 51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: We must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

We cannot--notwithstanding the urging of many--simply wave our hands and say: No, we don't have to worry about this. It is OK because we have to worry about national security or it is OK because this is about foreign intelligence or this is about foreign intelligence gathering.

We know that what the Lee-Leahy amendment is designed to protect are the rights of the American people--of U.S. persons--U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Reforms in this amendment do not take anything away from the National Security Agency--nothing. We are just injecting greater fairness and accountability into this process.

Insofar as we decide to have these programs, we have to have someone accountable in them. We have to have a process by which the information brought to bear within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court is accountable and reviewable by someone.

It makes sense to expand incrementally, mildly, but necessarily, the amicus curiae provisions that were put in place 4 years ago with the USA FREEDOM Act.

I truly believe that we can find a proper balance here between privacy and security. I also believe that our privacy and our security are not at odds. Our privacy is, indeed, a part of our security and our security part of our privacy. You cannot have one without the other.

The Lee-Leahy amendment brings us closer to that balance. I invite all my colleagues to support it and look forward to the moment, not far from now, when we will pass it.

Vote on Amendment No. 1584
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source