On the recordJune 21, 2016
Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona--whom, as I mentioned, I have worked with often--has said, in effect, if you oppose his amendment, you are interested in privacy. The reality is, my interest is in privacy and security. I believe it is possible to have both, and I want to explain how that is the case. Something I worked on for a long time, the USA FREEDOM Act, we included section 102. Section 102 very explicitly said that if the government--if the FBI, in a situation like Orlando or San Bernardino, for example--if the government believed it needed information immediately--immediately--the government could get the information and then go back to the court after the fact. In effect, after the government had been able to get the information of its own volition, settle up immediately so as to protect the American people. This debate is about are we going to have policies that advance both our security and our liberty. I have felt very strongly--I see my seatmate, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We sit next to each other on the Intelligence Committee. We talk about these issues very often. As part of the USA FREEDOM Act, I pushed very hard to make sure the government had those emergency authorities. This is a dangerous time. Nobody disputes that. If you have been on the Intelligence Committee, as Senator Mikulski and I have been for so many years, that is not in question. This is a dangerous time. No.…
Source
govinfo.gov




