Statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte
Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing will examine the various recommendations to reform programs operated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Last summer’s unauthorized public release of these classified programs has sparked a national debate about the extent of these programs and whether they pose a threat to Americans’ civil liberties and privacy.
There have been myriad proposals to reform or end these programs. We are here today to vet these proposals and discuss their impact on America’s national security and their value in enhancing civil liberty protections.
Following last year’s leaks, Obama Administration officials appeared before this and other committees in Congress to defend these programs and urged Congress not to shut them down, including the bulk metadata collection program operated under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. But just two weeks ago, President Obama announced that he supports “a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.”
I am glad the President has finally acknowledged what I and many others concluded long ago, namely, that the Section 215 bulk metadata program is in need of significant reform in order to restore the trust of the American people and to protect Americans’ civil liberties.
But I am disappointed that the President was unable or unwilling to clearly articulate to Congress and the American people the value of this information in thwarting terror plots. Instead, he simply declared that it is “important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved,” while simultaneously announcing that he was ending the program as it currently exists.
The five-year storage of bulk metadata by the NSA is arguably the most critical and the most controversial aspect of the Section 215 program. But transferring storage to private companies could raise more privacy concerns than it solves. We need look no further than last month’s Target breach or last week’s Yahoo breach to know that private information held by private companies is susceptible to cyber-attacks. And transferring storage to private companies would require the government to request data from multiple companies to connect the dots it currently stores, thereby complicating its ability to quickly and efficiently compile valuable intelligence.
Of equal importance is the impact such a storage mandate would have on the ability of American companies to compete in a global market. American technology companies are experiencing a lack of customer trust and a loss of international business as a result of the Snowden leaks based upon the fear that information about their customers is readily and routinely turned over to the American government. I suspect requiring these companies to now house the data specifically so the government can access it will only reinforce those fears.
American companies, in fact, have sought permission to publicly report national security requests from the government to inform, and hopefully assuage the concerns of, their American and foreign customers. To that end, I am pleased the Justice Department worked jointly with American companies to identify information that can be publicly reported about the size and scope of national security requests. This is one step that will help provide greater transparency to the American people about the nature of our intelligence-gathering programs.
On January 17th, President Obama also announced his desire to transfer the query approval of metadata from the NSA to the FISA Court. I am interested to hear from today’s witnesses whether such a reform will, in fact, result in greater privacy protections without weakening national security.
President Obama also endorsed additional privacy protections for foreigners overseas. He “instructed the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to take the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for the American people to people overseas.” Specifically, President Obama called for limiting the duration that personal information about foreign nationals is stored while also restricting the use of this information. Is it wise to restrain our national security agencies by extending to foreigners the rights and privileges afforded Americans?
In addition to President Obama’s proposed reforms, two panels – the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board – have issued reports with their own proposals and conflicting legal analysis.
On December 12th, the Review Group issued its report. While the Review Group questioned the value of the bulk collection of telephone metadata by the government, the Review Group did conclude that the program is constitutional, legal, and has not been abused and recommended the program continue with third-party or company storage. A majority of the PCLOB, however, issued a report on January 23rd that questioned whether the program is constitutional and concluded that it has operated illegally under the statute since 2006, and recommended the metadata program end entirely. I look forward to a discussion today of the constitutional and statutory analysis and recommendations of these two panels.
The House Judiciary Committee has primary jurisdiction over the legal framework of these programs and has conducted aggressive oversight on this issue. Any reforms Congress enacts must ensure our nation’s intelligence collection programs effectively protect our national security and include real protections for Americans’ civil liberties, robust oversight, and additional transparency.