FISA

Floor Speech

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the recent beheading of U.S. citizen Peter Kassig was the latest reminder of the brutal tactics employed by ISIL, a murderous terrorist organization and insurgency that slaughters the innocent and routinely employs suicide bombers and IEDs in its campaign of terror.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant slaughtered Sunni tribe members in Anbar Province, executed prisoners, and captured key terrain in cities such as Mosul.

Americans know ISIL is lethal, but it is also versatile. It has associates and sympathizers in countries across the West, some self-radicalized on the Internet, including not only in Europe and Canada but right here in the United States. The ISIL fighting force continues to grow more numerous--now numbering at least 20,000 strong--with its success on the battlefield having drawn more extremists to the fight from many of the same places, including, again, right here in America.

At its core, ISIL includes many seasoned veterans who once fought under the banner of Al Qaeda in Iraq and either survived the U.S. military detention or el uded our military altogether during the years of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Many of these fighters are familiar with America's intelligence capabilities, and many are savvy with communications. These are terrorists who know how to use encryption, and they know how to change devices frequently. That is part of the reason I am strongly opposed to legislation offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that would end one of the Nation's critical capabilities to gather significant intelligence on terrorist threats. This is the worst possible time to be tying our hands behind our backs.

The threat from ISIL is real. It is different from what we faced before. If we are going to overcome it, if our aim is to degrade and destroy ISIL, as the President has said, then it is going to require smart policies and firm determination. At a minimum, we should not be doing anything to make the situation worse. Yet that is what this bill would do.

Most damagingly, it would hinder the ability of intelligence community analysts to query a database to determine links between potential terrorists. Instead, the Leahy bill would have this data be held by telephone companies. It would make it far harder for records to be gathered for a specific selection term. Under the Leahy bill, the telephone companies would face no statutory requirement to even hold the relevant data.

There is a legitimate debate to be had over the proper balance to strike in our democracy. We continue to have that debate, and we should. But the opponents of this collection program have not provided any examples--no examples--of the National Security Agency intentionally spying on innocent civilians--no examples of that. In fact, the NSA, the courts, and the Congress have put in place detailed oversight procedures to protect both privacy and national security. Moreover, the only data captured under this program is the telephone number dialed--the telephone number dialed--the number from which the call was made, and the length of the call. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the content of the call is not captured. So I think the programs we have in place strike an appropriate balance between protecting our civil liberties and keeping our Nation safe. I think the bill before us would upend that delicate balance completely.

What is more, legislation with such far-reaching effects should be given the closest possible scrutiny, but this bill was never even considered by the Judiciary Committee or the Intelligence Committee. So it is unclear why the majority leader is moving to it now rather than taking up a bipartisan measure such as the FISA Improvements Act that passed the Intelligence Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 11 to 4.

With the current law not even expiring until next June, it is unclear why the majority leader wants to rush this untested bill through in this lameduck session rather than after a reasonable consideration by relevant committees and by the newly elected Members who will actually be responsible for overseeing the program's operation.

The point is that the authorities we enacted after September 11, 2001, which were crafted to ensure that we integrated intelligence gathered overseas and here in the United States, are acutely relevant right now. We live in a dangerous world. Threats such as ISIL only make it more so. At a moment when the United States is conducting a military campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat ISIL, now is certainly not the time to be considering legislation that takes away the exact tools we need to combat ISIL.

Our intelligence community is working to track foreign fighters returning from fighting in Syria, to prevent others from traveling to the battlefield, and to keep those within Syria from radicalizing their friends and families back home. It makes little sense to pass legislation that hinders our intelligence community--legislation that has yet to receive any committee consideration.

On that note, today's Wall Street Journal features an excellent opinion piece offered by former Federal judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Gen. Michael Hayden, the former Director of the CIA and the NSA. I recommend their column, ``NSA Reform That Only ISIS Could Love.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy be printed in the Record at this point.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source