On the recordJune 2, 2015
I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont and to emphasize some of the points that he has just made. But first let me thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and his courage on this issue of foreign intelligence surveillance reform. He has helped to lead this effort, long before I was in the Senate, in favor of more transparency and accountability. Those are among the overarching objectives here. My colleague from Vermont, who shares with me a background as a prosecutor, rightly makes a point that warrants and other means of surveillance when prosecutors seek them are sought ultimately from judges. I want to speak to some of the myths and misconceptions here that endanger this key reform. Our colleague from Texas, whom I greatly respect, has argued that the FISA Court is like a grand jury. In fact, he has said that an amicus should not be appointed, in effect, to intervene with a body that is like a grand jury. Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a grand jury, as my colleague from Oregon has said very well. The FISA Court makes law. It interprets the law in ways that are binding as legal precedents. Far from being like a grand jury, as a truly investigative tool of the court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a court.…





