[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            USA FREEDOM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 22, 2014

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, which I cosponsored at 
introduction. I am troubled by the changes that were made to the bill 
behind closed doors that stripped key protections and opened the door 
to bulk collection. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 
found the NSA's bulk collection of metadata to be illegal and called 
for it to be stopped. The legislation before us today includes language 
that raises the specter of the programs continuing in some limited 
form. This is not what the law or the American people demand.
  I had intended to support the USA FREEDOM Act, which at introduction 
would have brought an end to the NSA's bulk metadata program, however, 
changes that were made to the measure, outside of the committee 
process, behind closed doors, at the insistence of the NSA undercut the 
bill. In its current form, the ban on bulk collection is watered down 
and potentially exploitable by proponents of these programs. In the 
original bill, the phrase ``specific selection term'' was narrowly-
defined as ``a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity or 
account.'' In the version before us today, that definition was 
significantly re-written to allow the list of potential selection terms 
to be so open-ended as to encompass whole area codes or ZIP codes. In 
effect, bulk collection could continue under this definition.
  I am also troubled that H.R. 3361 no longer includes language to 
establish an independent public advocate. Such a position is essential 
to give voice to ordinary Americans in the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court (FISC), which sets the legal parameters for NSA 
surveillance. The absence of such a position means that the FISC will 
continue to hear only from the government. There would be no one to 
stand up before the court and challenge the government's legal 
positions on what surveillance is permissible and represent the 
American public, whose data is being collected.
  The arguments for ending the NSA's bulk metadata programs are strong 
one. Since it came to light last year that the NSA had assembled a 
database that includes calls made by nearly every American since 2007, 
many of us have asked tough questions about whether it was 
constitutional or even effective as a counterterrorism tool. A January 
2014 Pew Research poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe they 
should not have to give up their privacy in order to be safe from 
terrorism with a majority expressing disapproval of the NSA 
surveillance program outright. The record on the effectiveness of these 
programs is scant. Before his recent retirement, NSA Director General 
Keith Alexander testified before Congress that these bulk collection 
programs foiled ``one or perhaps two'' terrorist plots against the 
United States but provided no further detail. The Director of National 
Intelligence, James Clapper, has stated that the number of prevented 
plots is not an appropriate metric to measure whether the programs are 
necessary or useful.
  I had hoped we could come together and act on the recommendations of 
the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and 
end what the Board determined to be illegal programs. Unfortunately, 
what we have before us does not bring about the changes in the law that 
would be necessary. I appreciate that some of my colleagues will vote 
for this measure to move the ball forward and get the issue before the 
Senate. There's certainly a case to be made for such an approach but 
given that the proponents of these programs have repeatedly exploited 
ambiguities in the law to advance their own ambitions, I cannot stand 
by and let the measure pass, in its current form.
  For these reasons, I reluctantly oppose H.R. 3361.

                          ____________________