Surveillance Reform

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. I thank Senator Udall for his exceptional leadership in our effort to put together a comprehensive bipartisan reform bill. I also thank the Presiding Officer from Connecticut because, as we all know, he has really been the ringleader in the effort to ensure that when there are major constitutional arguments put in front of the FISA Court, there is somebody there to make the case for the other side. So I am very pleased that, for purposes of this colloquy, when we discuss the transparency amendment we have filed today with Senator Mikulski, we have Senator Blumenthal in the Chair because he has been an integral part of the reform effort.

I also appreciate what the distinguished Senator from Colorado said about Chairman Leahy. We have had a real partnership with him in working on these issues for a long time. We were thrilled that Chairman Leahy went on our bill and we went on his bill because it illustrates the need to try to make common cause around these issues. And as the Senator from Colorado said, we are talking about bipartisan approaches that help promote reform agenda.

As the Senator from Colorado noted, it would be pretty hard to have a full debate on this legislation about surveillance reform. Suffice it to say that there are differing views here in the Senate with respect to surveillance. The Senator from Colorado and I support comprehensive overhaul, particularly as it relates to the collection of millions of phone records of law-abiding Americans, which has come to be known as metadata. So we have supported restrictions on that in order to protect law-abiding Americans who have had their privacy intruded upon.

But having sat right next to the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee for many years--on the Intelligence Committee, and I think my friend from Colorado sits on the other side--we have heard Senator Mikulski speak eloquently about the need for transparency and accountability. My view is that this is something that can bring together all Senators around what really is a jump-start to the later debates about intelligence reform.

Senator Udall and I, with the support of the chair of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski have put together an amendment and filed it today on this legislation which takes important steps forward with respect to transparency. The amendment we have offered would require the executive branch to answer some of the major unanswered questions about domestic surveillance authorities and would require that future court opinions which find that domestic surveillance activities have violated the law or the Constitution ought to be made public. They ought to be made public to the American people, and if there is some aspect that should be held back--what is called redaction--so be it. Under our proposal, the executive branch would have the authority again to make sure that no details about secret intelligence methods or operations were in any way divulged as part of this transparency effort.

While we feel strongly about protecting secret operations, we do not believe in secret law. The American people ought to always be able to find out what the government and government officials think the law actually means. To use a basketball analogy--and folks at home know I am always fond of those--parts of the playbook for combating terrorism will often need to be secret, but the rule book our government follows should always be public. So this amendment presents a chance for Senators who may have differing views about surveillance policy to rally together behind the cause of greater transparency.

I would note at this time that Senator Mikulski has filed an additional amendment that the Senator from Colorado and I have cosponsored. It would make the Director of the NSA a Senate-confirmed position. This is a reform Senator Mikulski has been advocating for years. I think this too allows us to have a more vigorous and more open debate about these issues.

The reality is that the thousands of Americans who work in the intelligence field honor our Nation day in and day out with their dedication and their commitment to the security of our country. But, as the Senator from Colorado has noted, too often in the past the leadership of the intelligence community has said one thing in private and another in public. If our amendment which we have put together with Senator Mikulski passes, there would be a new focus on transparency, and I think that would create some very serious obstacles to those who might want to engage in the kinds of deceptions that the Senator from Colorado noted and that we have seen in our hearings.

I yield back. And we will wrap up our colloquy shortly.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. First, let me just mention in closing that this bill is directly relevant to work done at the Department of Defense, as the NSA is an integral part of the Department of Defense. In fact, this bill already contains half a dozen provisions that affect the NSA in one way or another, so it has been our view that this amendment is clearly germane to the bill.

It also directs the Comptroller General to conduct an assessment of the economic impact of recently disclosed surveillance programs. The fact is that surveillance policy does not just affect foreign relations--although clearly it does affect our foreign relations. We see practically every day accounts of how our allies are concerned about their relations with us because of questions with respect to whether the privacy of their citizens are affected.

When we are talking about allies, we are talking about partnerships we need to protect America in a dangerous world. Of course, at the same time we are talking about how in a fragile economy, some of America's leading companies, those on the cutting edge of our future--for example, with cloud technology that the distinguished Presiding Officer and I have talked about. This is an area where Americans have a big lead. We do not want to fritter it away, as we also suffer in terms of our national security, in terms of our relationships with allies. There are high stakes here. I am very hopeful we will have a chance to get a vote on this legislation.

As I say, with Senator Mikulski particularly, the role that she has played as chair of the Appropriations Committee, I think we have a chance to jump-start the broader debate about intelligence. We have a chance to set the record straight about some of the comments that the intelligence leadership has made in the past that are either wrong, misleading or kind of shrouded in intelligence-speak. This is almost incomprehensible lingo that we try to sort through in terms of what they have to say.

I am very hopeful the Senate will want to join Senator Udall, Senator Mikulski, myself--I know Senator Blumenthal and others are interested in it--in taking the next logical, commonsense approach in terms of intelligence reform; that is, to come out foursquare for this approach, which I would like to state does not ban any collection tool at all that is now used by the government, but it does require that there be basic transparency and accountability in how they are used.

(Mr. HEINRICH assumed the Chair.)

That is long overdue. Let me have my friend and colleague from Colorado wrap up and express to him how much I appreciate it.

I note somehow the Presidency of the Senate seems to be passed from one supporter of intelligence reform to another, since the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was just there. We have just been joined by Senator Heinrich, who has been a very valuable partner in these efforts as well.

I thank him and allow the last word to be offered by the Senator from Colorado.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source