Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate Sen. Lee On The Foreign I

Government doing those things. Among those many protections can be found provisions of the bill of rights, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution. A Fourth Amendment reminds us, its our right, our fundamental inalienable rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and any warrants have to be backed by probable cause and any probable causebased warrant has to include with particul particularity, a description of the places and persons to be searched and to be seized. This is a tradition that reaches not just back a couple of centuries, it reaches back much farther than that. It has its origins not only in our own country, but in our mother country, in the united kingdom. By the time john wilks was serving in parliament in the 1760s, there had been a long established tradition and understanding in fact, a series of laws ena enacted to make sure that warrants were not abused and to make sure that the rights of english subjects would not be infringed. Ong other things, there was an understanding and a set of laws m place that would make clear that those conducting searches and seizures would be subject to a warrant requirement. In other words, they would lose any immunity that they would otherwise have as government officials if they didnt obtain a warrant and if that warrant were not valid. In 1763, the home of john wilks was searched an i aggressively. John wilks while serving as a member of parliament had become critical of the administration of king george and he had participated in the publication of a weekly circular known as the north britain. Although the north britain was not one likely to engage in excessive fawning praise of the reigning monarch, it wasnt until the publication of north britains number 45 in 1763 that the administration of king george decided to go after john wilks. His home was searched. It was searched pursuant to a general warrant. A general warrant was something that basically said in that instance find out who had anything to do with the authorship and publication of north britain number 45. You see, north britain 45 accused among other things king george, and those who served in his government, of laying aggressive taxes on the people, taxes they knew couldnt adequately be enforced or collected without intrusive measures that would involve kicking open peoples doors, rummaging through their drawers and doing things that couldnt be justified through the use of a warrant laid out with particularity. John wilkes in that circumstance was arrested. Within a matter of a few weeks, he won his freedom albeit on something of a technicality at the moment. He asserted parliamentary privilege and was released. He basically had become subjected to multiple searches using general warrants, wilkes sued lord halifax and those who participated in the searches and seizures in question. He was able to obtain a large award, a large judgment consisting of money damages. John wilkes at the time became famous, really on both sides of the atlantic. The name of john wilkes was celebrated in taverns, saloons and other Public Places in england and in the nascent United States of america. The colonies in north america would later become the worlds greatest republic. John wilkes example was something that helped solidify a longstanding legal tradition, with unthat would in time make its way to our constitution through the Fourth Amendment. You see, we have to remember that government is simply force. Its the organized collective, official use of force. When john wilkes and those who worked with him on the north britain culminating in north britain number 45, criticized the king too much, questions excessively in their judgment, a collection and imposition of taxes, the administration of king george decided that that had gone too far and that it was time for john wilkes to pay a price. Fortunately for john wilkes and both sides of the atlantic, john wilks emerged victorious. Today, we doesnt have general warrants. At least nothing masquerading under that title in the United States. The fact that we have a Fourth Amendment is a testament to his vigorous defense of the rights of english subjects. What we do have is something that ought to concern every american. We have a foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which we know has been abused and weve known for a long time is ripe for opportunities for abuse among government officials. In fact, what weve seen is that the current president of the United States has himself become the target of abuse under fisa. Back in 2016 when this started being abuse and when we saw the emergence of things Like Operation crossfire hurricane, you had the campaign of a man who become the 45th president of the United States targeted and singled out quite unfairly, using these practices, these procedures that were designed originally for use in detecting and thwarting the efforts of agents of foreign powers. As the name of the law implies, the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act is not something thats intended to go after american citizens. Its certainly not something thats intended to be used as a tool for bullying a president ial candidate. And now that it has been used to bully and surveil incorrectly the 45th president of the United States, we need to do something about it, thats what the leeleahy amendment does. Background on this particular law. We have three provisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act that expired march 15th, 2020, just a few weeks ago. One provision known as section 215. Another known as lone wolf and another provision known as roving wire taps. On march 16th, the Senate Passed a bill to reauthorize those provisions through may 30th, 2020. Which would give us a few weeks to debate and discuss reforms that need to happen under fisa. In order to pass this bill, the senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement for votes on three amendments to the pelos pelosinadlerschiff bill, and one of those, i referred to, leeleahy bill, by myself and senator leahy from vermont. The house never passed that shortterm extension measure, the three i mentioned, lone wolf, wire taps and 215 have been expired for almost two months. Now, this is not for lack of trying. On the part of us, the part of those of us who really want to see meaningful fisa reform. In fact, just a few days before these authorities were set to expire, i came down here to the senate floor and i asked a series of unanimous consent requests to consider the house pass reauthoritization bill with a landf handful of relevand i believe necessary amendments. Unfortunately my friend and distinguished colleague, senator burr, objected. The department of justice Inspector General horowitzs december report on crossfire hurricane proved what many of us reformers have been saying now for years. In my case, ive been working on this and trying to call out the dangers, inherent in provisions of fisa now for a decade. But what the horowitz report in december demonstrated was that fisa really is ripe for opportunities for abuse. Inspector general horowitz not only found out the fisa process was abused to target president Trumps Campaign, he found evidence that basic procedures meant to protect the rights of the United States persons, that is to say, u. S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States, were not being followed. And so just as we see that john wilkes, through his publication of north britain number 45 solidified a preexisting set of rights available to all english subjects. We see that president number 45, Donald John Trump has the opportunity to strengthen this right, protected in our Fourth Amendment, harkening back to the example of john wilkes in the publication of north britain number 45. My amendment with senator leahy would make reforms to applications for surveillance across the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, including both section 215, the authority that recently expired, and under title one, which happens to be the authority that was abused in order to surveil president Trumps Campaign. First the amendment would strengthen the role of the friend of court provision, the amicus provision we adopted in 2015 in connection with the usa freedom act introduced by senator leahy and myself back then, would strengthen these amic amicus cureyea or friend of the Court Provisions and make them applicable in circumstances in way there are sensitivities inherently at play. Now, these friends of the court are people who had contemplated under a proposed legislation would primarily be experts. Would they have some knowledge or expertise of fisa, Civil Liberties, secure communications and other fields that are important to the fisa court. They would also be people who would have clearance to review matters of concern from a National Security standpoint. These are essential because you see, the fisa court is a secret court which by its very design operates on an ex parte basis, meaning without the presentation of opposing council. Youve got Government Council and the judges themselves and thats it. The friend of the Court Provisions, that im describing, provide the opportunity for the fisa court to hear from a fresh perspective. A neutral trusted perspective, one that comes with some expertise, with National Security clearance, but without presenting the threat to upending the National Security investigations entrusted to the fisa court. And so, thats why theyre so necessary and so important. In the absence of opposing counsel, we have to strengthen the provisions that provide for these, to ensure that there is some advocate somewhere in front of the court who is in a position to say, wait a minute, what happens if we do this . Wait a minute, is this what the law authorizes . Wait a minute, isnt there a constitutional concern implicated here especially where theyre dealing with the rights of american citizens. The december, 2019 Inspector General report on the surveillance of president Trumps Campaign staffer, carter page, demonstrates the significant need for an outside expert legal advocate. Especially when a fisa application involves a sensitive investigative matter. For a candidate or an elected official or that elected officials staff. If the leeleahy moment was, there would be one appointed in that case. Would she have raised some of the issues . We now see regarding the credibility of the steele dossier. Its quite possible. In fact, i think its quite likely. I think its almost unimaginable that had there been a amicn amicus curea prese someone would say, wait a minute, we have got a problem. Wait a minute, youve got evidence thats unreliable. Wait a minute, youve got huge credibility problems with the evidence backing up what youre asking for. Our moment would require the fisa court to present an amicus when it involves a quote, unquote, sensitive investigative matter, such as the investigation of candidates and their staff. And religious organizations and permanent individuals in the organizationses and domestic news media, what are the argument made by those who oppose fisa reform, if the appointment of an amicus would somehow slow down the surveillance and the fisa order application process, which, so the argument goes, could then harm our National Security and those instances where there could be an imminent attack. Anytime this argument is made, its important for the American People to listen. Listen carefully. Its an important argument, its not one that we want to treat lightly. At the same time we have to remember the immense harm thats been inflict the not only on our own society, but elsewhere, when people suggest dont worry about this, its a matter of National Security. Dont worry about it, we have the experts covering it. Dont worry about it, your liberty is not to concern you. We know the risk, mr. President. We know that we have to ask the difficult questions and thats what were doing here. In any event, the argument doesnt work here. The argument falls apart under its own weight here, you see, because our amendment allows for the fisa court to have flexibility. And the fisa court under the amendment may decline to appoint an amicus, if the Court Concludes it would be inappropriate to do so under the circumstances. All it has to do is make that finding. Is this too great an intrusion . On the ability. U. S. Government to collect information on u. S. Citizens . I think not. Especially as were dealing with this sensitive investigative matter, one involving an elected official or candidate for elected office or religious officials, media organizations. We know in our hearts, mr. President , these are areas where the foreign Intelligence Surveillance authority ought to give way. Ought to at least to recognize the rights of individual americans. Our amendment also provides the amicus with more access to information regarding applications, and requires the government to make available the supporting documentation underlying assertions made in applications if requested by the amicus, or by the fisa court itself. Now, this information is, to be sure, required by the fbis internal operating procedures, including its socalled woods procedures to be maintained in a series of documents known collectively as the woods files. But the fbis failure to correctly maintain the supporting documentation or in some cases to assembly it in the first place, the documentation underlying these fisa applications, to surveil u. S. Persons, that is. This failure was itself the subject of the Inspector Generals most recent memorandum to fbi director christopher wray. That memorandum proved among other things that the governments failure to provide the evidence, especially the evidence that undermined the governments case before the fisa court when considering the application to surveil Trump Campaign advisor carter page was not an isolated incidents. Quite to the contrary, after sampling surveillance of u. S. Persons, the Inspector General, mr. Horowitz found an average of 20 errors per application with most applications having either missing or inadequate woods files, leading the Inspector General to conclude, quote, we do not have confidence that the fbi has executed its woods procedures in compliance with fbi policy, closed quote. This, mr. President , is absolutely unacceptable. In any republic, but especially in ours, with the existence of the Fourth Amendment. Were not talking about the failure to create or maintain some obsolete piece of paper work, just for the sake of having them, no, no, this is much more than that, and were not talking here about exculpatory evidence being withheld as to suspected foreign terrorists. These are applications to surveil United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who themselves have Constitutional Rights and also have an expectation that their government will not secretly spy on them in violation of that what is rightfully theirs under the constitution of the United States. So you cant look at this and credibly, relybly say, its okay. Let the fbi take care of it. The fbi is working on it. Weve been hearing that for years. Ive been hearing that for 10 years the entire decade ive been an n a there have been abuses of the sorts that many of us predicted for a long time would inevitably and repeatedly arise in the absence of reform. This doesnt require us to undertake a dismal view of humanity, no, its not that at all. Its simply that government is best understood as the organized official collective use of force, officially sanctioned as part of a government. And as James Madison explained, in federalist 51, if men were angels, we wouldnt need government. If we had access to angels to run our government, we wouldnt need rules about government. But were not angels, we dont have access to them so we instead have to rely on humans. Humans are flawed and make mistakes and also, sometimes decide for nefarious or political or other reasons to flout the law. Hence the need for the light watchman. Hence the need for rules that restrict their ability to do that. So, i find it entirely unsatisfactory when people say just let the fbi deal with this. First of all, they havent dealt with it. They havent dealt with it even as abuses have become more and more known under various provisions of fisa, even as were still coming to determines with language that was adopted nearly two decades ago, itself overly broad at the time and abused since then. Were not go to trust that the Organization Able to operate entirely in secret with the benefit of protection of National Security laws, with the benefit of overclassification of documents, were not simply going to assume likely theyre going to fix it because they havent and they wont and they dont want to. I understand why they might not want to. All of us can appreciate that when we do a job, if somebody else adds requirements to that job, we might be naturally resistant to it, but that doesnt mean we dont need to do it here. That doesnt mean our oath to uphold the Fourth Amendment<\/a> to the United States<\/a> constitution. A Fourth Amendment<\/a> reminds us, its our right, our fundamental inalienable rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and any warrants have to be backed by probable cause and any probable causebased warrant has to include with particul particularity, a description of the places and persons to be searched and to be seized. This is a tradition that reaches not just back a couple of centuries, it reaches back much farther than that. It has its origins not only in our own country, but in our mother country, in the united kingdom. By the time john wilks was serving in parliament in the 1760s, there had been a long established tradition and understanding in fact, a series of laws ena enacted to make sure that warrants were not abused and to make sure that the rights of english subjects would not be infringed. Ong other things, there was an understanding and a set of laws m place that would make clear that those conducting searches and seizures would be subject to a warrant requirement. In other words, they would lose any immunity that they would otherwise have as government officials if they didnt obtain a warrant and if that warrant were not valid. In 1763, the home of john wilks was searched an i aggressively. John wilks while serving as a member of parliament had become critical of the administration of king george and he had participated in the publication of a weekly circular known as the north britain. Although the north britain was not one likely to engage in excessive fawning praise of the reigning monarch, it wasnt until the publication of north britains number 45 in 1763 that the administration of king george decided to go after john wilks. His home was searched. It was searched pursuant to a general warrant. A general warrant was something that basically said in that instance find out who had anything to do with the authorship and publication of north britain number 45. You see, north britain 45 accused among other things king george, and those who served in his government, of laying aggressive taxes on the people, taxes they knew couldnt adequately be enforced or collected without intrusive measures that would involve kicking open peoples doors, rummaging through their drawers and doing things that couldnt be justified through the use of a warrant laid out with particularity. John wilkes in that circumstance was arrested. Within a matter of a few weeks, he won his freedom albeit on something of a technicality at the moment. He asserted parliamentary privilege and was released. He basically had become subjected to multiple searches using general warrants, wilkes sued lord halifax and those who participated in the searches and seizures in question. He was able to obtain a large award, a large judgment consisting of money damages. John wilkes at the time became famous, really on both sides of the atlantic. The name of john wilkes was celebrated in taverns, saloons and other Public Places<\/a> in england and in the nascent United States<\/a> of america. The colonies in north america would later become the worlds greatest republic. John wilkes example was something that helped solidify a longstanding legal tradition, with unthat would in time make its way to our constitution through the Fourth Amendment<\/a>. You see, we have to remember that government is simply force. Its the organized collective, official use of force. When john wilkes and those who worked with him on the north britain culminating in north britain number 45, criticized the king too much, questions excessively in their judgment, a collection and imposition of taxes, the administration of king george decided that that had gone too far and that it was time for john wilkes to pay a price. Fortunately for john wilkes and both sides of the atlantic, john wilks emerged victorious. Today, we doesnt have general warrants. At least nothing masquerading under that title in the United States<\/a>. The fact that we have a Fourth Amendment<\/a> is a testament to his vigorous defense of the rights of english subjects. What we do have is something that ought to concern every american. We have a foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act, which we know has been abused and weve known for a long time is ripe for opportunities for abuse among government officials. In fact, what weve seen is that the current president of the United States<\/a> has himself become the target of abuse under fisa. Back in 2016 when this started being abuse and when we saw the emergence of things Like Operation<\/a> crossfire hurricane, you had the campaign of a man who become the 45th president of the United States<\/a> targeted and singled out quite unfairly, using these practices, these procedures that were designed originally for use in detecting and thwarting the efforts of agents of foreign powers. As the name of the law implies, the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act is not something thats intended to go after american citizens. Its certainly not something thats intended to be used as a tool for bullying a president ial candidate. And now that it has been used to bully and surveil incorrectly the 45th president of the United States<\/a>, we need to do something about it, thats what the leeleahy amendment does. Background on this particular law. We have three provisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act that expired march 15th, 2020, just a few weeks ago. One provision known as section 215. Another known as lone wolf and another provision known as roving wire taps. On march 16th, the Senate Passed<\/a> a bill to reauthorize those provisions through may 30th, 2020. Which would give us a few weeks to debate and discuss reforms that need to happen under fisa. In order to pass this bill, the senate entered into a unanimous consent agreement for votes on three amendments to the pelos pelosinadlerschiff bill, and one of those, i referred to, leeleahy bill, by myself and senator leahy from vermont. The house never passed that shortterm extension measure, the three i mentioned, lone wolf, wire taps and 215 have been expired for almost two months. Now, this is not for lack of trying. On the part of us, the part of those of us who really want to see meaningful fisa reform. In fact, just a few days before these authorities were set to expire, i came down here to the senate floor and i asked a series of unanimous consent requests to consider the house pass reauthoritization bill with a landf handful of relevand i believe necessary amendments. Unfortunately my friend and distinguished colleague, senator burr, objected. The department of justice Inspector General<\/a> horowitzs december report on crossfire hurricane proved what many of us reformers have been saying now for years. In my case, ive been working on this and trying to call out the dangers, inherent in provisions of fisa now for a decade. But what the horowitz report in december demonstrated was that fisa really is ripe for opportunities for abuse. Inspector general horowitz not only found out the fisa process was abused to target president Trumps Campaign<\/a>, he found evidence that basic procedures meant to protect the rights of the United States<\/a> persons, that is to say, u. S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States<\/a>, were not being followed. And so just as we see that john wilkes, through his publication of north britain number 45 solidified a preexisting set of rights available to all english subjects. We see that president number 45, Donald John Trump<\/a> has the opportunity to strengthen this right, protected in our Fourth Amendment<\/a>, harkening back to the example of john wilkes in the publication of north britain number 45. My amendment with senator leahy would make reforms to applications for surveillance across the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act, including both section 215, the authority that recently expired, and under title one, which happens to be the authority that was abused in order to surveil president Trumps Campaign<\/a>. First the amendment would strengthen the role of the friend of court provision, the amicus provision we adopted in 2015 in connection with the usa freedom act introduced by senator leahy and myself back then, would strengthen these amic amicus cureyea or friend of the Court Provisions<\/a> and make them applicable in circumstances in way there are sensitivities inherently at play. Now, these friends of the court are people who had contemplated under a proposed legislation would primarily be experts. Would they have some knowledge or expertise of fisa, Civil Liberties<\/a>, secure communications and other fields that are important to the fisa court. They would also be people who would have clearance to review matters of concern from a National Security<\/a> standpoint. These are essential because you see, the fisa court is a secret court which by its very design operates on an ex parte basis, meaning without the presentation of opposing council. Youve got Government Council<\/a> and the judges themselves and thats it. The friend of the Court Provisions<\/a>, that im describing, provide the opportunity for the fisa court to hear from a fresh perspective. A neutral trusted perspective, one that comes with some expertise, with National Security<\/a> clearance, but without presenting the threat to upending the National Security<\/a> investigations entrusted to the fisa court. And so, thats why theyre so necessary and so important. In the absence of opposing counsel, we have to strengthen the provisions that provide for these, to ensure that there is some advocate somewhere in front of the court who is in a position to say, wait a minute, what happens if we do this . Wait a minute, is this what the law authorizes . Wait a minute, isnt there a constitutional concern implicated here especially where theyre dealing with the rights of american citizens. The december, 2019 Inspector General<\/a> report on the surveillance of president Trumps Campaign<\/a> staffer, carter page, demonstrates the significant need for an outside expert legal advocate. Especially when a fisa application involves a sensitive investigative matter. For a candidate or an elected official or that elected officials staff. If the leeleahy moment was, there would be one appointed in that case. Would she have raised some of the issues . We now see regarding the credibility of the steele dossier. Its quite possible. In fact, i think its quite likely. I think its almost unimaginable that had there been a amicn amicus curea prese someone would say, wait a minute, we have got a problem. Wait a minute, youve got evidence thats unreliable. Wait a minute, youve got huge credibility problems with the evidence backing up what youre asking for. Our moment would require the fisa court to present an amicus when it involves a quote, unquote, sensitive investigative matter, such as the investigation of candidates and their staff. And religious organizations and permanent individuals in the organizationses and domestic news media, what are the argument made by those who oppose fisa reform, if the appointment of an amicus would somehow slow down the surveillance and the fisa order application process, which, so the argument goes, could then harm our National Security<\/a> and those instances where there could be an imminent attack. Anytime this argument is made, its important for the American People<\/a> to listen. Listen carefully. Its an important argument, its not one that we want to treat lightly. At the same time we have to remember the immense harm thats been inflict the not only on our own society, but elsewhere, when people suggest dont worry about this, its a matter of National Security<\/a>. Dont worry about it, we have the experts covering it. Dont worry about it, your liberty is not to concern you. We know the risk, mr. President. We know that we have to ask the difficult questions and thats what were doing here. In any event, the argument doesnt work here. The argument falls apart under its own weight here, you see, because our amendment allows for the fisa court to have flexibility. And the fisa court under the amendment may decline to appoint an amicus, if the Court Concludes<\/a> it would be inappropriate to do so under the circumstances. All it has to do is make that finding. Is this too great an intrusion . On the ability. U. S. Government to collect information on u. S. Citizens . I think not. Especially as were dealing with this sensitive investigative matter, one involving an elected official or candidate for elected office or religious officials, media organizations. We know in our hearts, mr. President , these are areas where the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> authority ought to give way. Ought to at least to recognize the rights of individual americans. Our amendment also provides the amicus with more access to information regarding applications, and requires the government to make available the supporting documentation underlying assertions made in applications if requested by the amicus, or by the fisa court itself. Now, this information is, to be sure, required by the fbis internal operating procedures, including its socalled woods procedures to be maintained in a series of documents known collectively as the woods files. But the fbis failure to correctly maintain the supporting documentation or in some cases to assembly it in the first place, the documentation underlying these fisa applications, to surveil u. S. Persons, that is. This failure was itself the subject of the Inspector General<\/a>s most recent memorandum to fbi director christopher wray. That memorandum proved among other things that the governments failure to provide the evidence, especially the evidence that undermined the governments case before the fisa court when considering the application to surveil Trump Campaign<\/a> advisor carter page was not an isolated incidents. Quite to the contrary, after sampling surveillance of u. S. Persons, the Inspector General<\/a>, mr. Horowitz found an average of 20 errors per application with most applications having either missing or inadequate woods files, leading the Inspector General<\/a> to conclude, quote, we do not have confidence that the fbi has executed its woods procedures in compliance with fbi policy, closed quote. This, mr. President , is absolutely unacceptable. In any republic, but especially in ours, with the existence of the Fourth Amendment<\/a>. Were not talking about the failure to create or maintain some obsolete piece of paper work, just for the sake of having them, no, no, this is much more than that, and were not talking here about exculpatory evidence being withheld as to suspected foreign terrorists. These are applications to surveil United States<\/a> citizens and lawful permanent residents who themselves have Constitutional Rights<\/a> and also have an expectation that their government will not secretly spy on them in violation of that what is rightfully theirs under the constitution of the United States<\/a>. So you cant look at this and credibly, relybly say, its okay. Let the fbi take care of it. The fbi is working on it. Weve been hearing that for years. Ive been hearing that for 10 years the entire decade ive been an n a there have been abuses of the sorts that many of us predicted for a long time would inevitably and repeatedly arise in the absence of reform. This doesnt require us to undertake a dismal view of humanity, no, its not that at all. Its simply that government is best understood as the organized official collective use of force, officially sanctioned as part of a government. And as James Madison<\/a> explained, in federalist 51, if men were angels, we wouldnt need government. If we had access to angels to run our government, we wouldnt need rules about government. But were not angels, we dont have access to them so we instead have to rely on humans. Humans are flawed and make mistakes and also, sometimes decide for nefarious or political or other reasons to flout the law. Hence the need for the light watchman. Hence the need for rules that restrict their ability to do that. So, i find it entirely unsatisfactory when people say just let the fbi deal with this. First of all, they havent dealt with it. They havent dealt with it even as abuses have become more and more known under various provisions of fisa, even as were still coming to determines with language that was adopted nearly two decades ago, itself overly broad at the time and abused since then. Were not go to trust that the Organization Able<\/a> to operate entirely in secret with the benefit of protection of National Security<\/a> laws, with the benefit of overclassification of documents, were not simply going to assume likely theyre going to fix it because they havent and they wont and they dont want to. I understand why they might not want to. All of us can appreciate that when we do a job, if somebody else adds requirements to that job, we might be naturally resistant to it, but that doesnt mean we dont need to do it here. That doesnt mean our oath to uphold the United States<\/a>, doesnt compel us here. We know that the fbi is not going to fix it because the fbi has in the past adopted procedures to prevent this kind of manipulation, this kind of chicanery from arising, including most notably the woods procedures and yet we know that the woods procedures have been openly flouted. Can we walk away and prevent that the 45th president of the United States<\/a> didnt have his own rights abused, his own campaign is your veiled abusively by fbi itself . No, we cant. And i dont know anyone, democratic or republican, liberal or conservative or libertarian or something else, who could look at that and say, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Makes a lot of sense we should use unfettered, unreviewable discorrection for those could operate in secret. Leeleahy amendment would require the government to turn over any and all Material Information<\/a> in its possession, including something that might undermine its case in the fisa application. And this would be available to the amicus curae upon request and any officer requiring application for electronic surveillance or physical search to surt phi that the officer has collected and reviewed for accuracy and for completeness supporting documentation for each factual assertion contained in the application. If were going to require people to go to fisa court at all to get an order, if were going to call it a court, ought we not require that such evidence bibled assembled and make sure that the job is actually being done . The leeleahy moment requires officers to certify in each applications that theyve employed accuracy procedures put in place by the attorney general and the fisa court to confirm the certification before issuing an order. Finally, the leeleahy amendment requires the department of justice Inspector General<\/a> to file an annual report regarding the accuracy of fisa applications and the department of justices compliance with its requirements to disclose any and all material evidence that might undermine their case. Now, mr. President , while i have a lot of ideas for reform, many of which are included in the usa freedom reauthorization act that senator leahy and i introduced a couple of months ago, we were limited in this circumstance for our purposes to just one amendment, to the pelosinadlerschiff bill, thats this amendment, one ive been describing to the leeleahy amendment. We believe ours is an approach to enact those reforms that we believe most essential to protecting the rights and the privacy of americans from a system that by its very nature, in some instances by design, is rife with opportunities for abuse. Its not perfect, but it will go a long way if we pass it towards forestalling this kind of abuse. We have to remember that although we live in the greatest republic ever known to human beings, and although our rights are by and large respected in in country, were by no mean immune to the type of abuse that can take hold in any system of government, especially a system of government with a whole lot of resources at its disposal to gather information, including efforts to gather information from that governments own citizenry. If we remember, about 45 years ago there was a committee put together, headed by a senator from idaho named frank church that looked at abuses of telephone surveillance by the government and concluded that basically in every administration dating back to the rise of the common usage of the telephone, that our intelligence gathering resources, within United States<\/a>, have been utilized to engage in what was essentially political espionage. Now, since the late 1970s, when the Church Committee<\/a> issued its report, we have had exponential growth in the ability of government and the ability of everyone else for that matter to obtain and process data and information. And in most ways this has been a real blessing. Its a great thing. Its also important for us to keep in mind the extent to which our persons, our papers, and effects, are no longer found exclusively within physical file cabinet files, within someones home or office. In many instances they can be found elsewhere in electronic form. Our security and our liberty need not ought never to be viewed i remember reconcileable with each other. As many privacy experts and liberty experts join together in an effort a few yearsing a, that the privacy and Civil Liberties<\/a> oversight board, concluded a few years ago, our privacy and our liberty are not at odds with each other, in fact, our privacy is part of our liberty. Were not truly free unless our personal effects, our private information can belong to us and not simply be open game for the government. It is sad and tragic that in order for this to come to light, it took an assault on freedom, so bold and so shameless as to loop in the president of the United States<\/a>. With this and other revelations that have come to light in recent, days, weeks and months, over the last few years, we cant forget that these entities are still run by human beings with their own political views, with their own agendas, and in some cases, unfortunately, rare cases, i hope, people who, while charged with protecting the people in their liberty, may in some cases be inclined to be at odds with it. So its unfortunately unfortunate that the 45th president of the United States<\/a> has become a victim of this. I ask the question, what if your information were on the line and what if you had been targeted, maybe for political reasons, maybe for reasons nothing to do with politics, maybe for reasons just had to do with a personal vendetta someone had against any american . Its far less likely that this would ever have come to light. In this circumstance, it did come to light. We cant ignore it. Nor can we pretend that it couldnt happen to any one of us. I dont mean as members. U. S. Senate, i just mean as americans. In fact, each and every one of us is less capable of standing up to this and less likely to discover the abuse in the first instance. Not all of us happen to be the president of the United States<\/a>. Im grateful that president donald j. Trump has been willing to speak truth to power, has been willing to call out flagrant abuse of fisa and others in the government. Its our obligation, its our solemn duty to do something about it. The leeleahy amendment does something about it and i invite my colleagues. Thank you, mr. President. With the final work throughout d. C. And throughout the country us the contacts for governors, federal agencies, order your copy at cspan store. Org. Sunday night on q a, journali journalist suzanna discusses a book the great pretender, an experiment led by the stanford psychology testing the legitimacy of psychiatry hospitals. Because he had an influence on so much of what we contend with today, so much of the Mental Health<\/a> crisis that we see today was touched in some ways by this study and a lot off Public Opinion<\/a> about sepsychiatry and f the institutions were shaped by the study. I think in questioning it, we have to go back and question some of our assumptions and i hope that this gives us an opportunity to kind of go back and reassess in a way to move forward because you cant move forward on a Rotten Foundation<\/a> and if this study wasnt up to snuff, wasnt legitimate, we have to rethink some of the conclusions presented. Sunday night at 8 eastern on cspans q a. The u. S. Senate today is working on the fisa reauthorization bill to fund and reform foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> program that expired march 15th. There are several that they will be voting on today. Live to the senate floor here on cspan2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Black, will","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia802903.us.archive.org\/10\/items\/CSPAN2_20200513_132500_U.S._Senate_Sen._Lee_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_FISA\/CSPAN2_20200513_132500_U.S._Senate_Sen._Lee_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_FISA.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200513_132500_U.S._Senate_Sen._Lee_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_FISA_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}