Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the title of this amendment is the ``Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale.''

The Fourth Amendment is no mere limitation of government power. The Fourth Amendment is fundamental to the concept of American liberty. The Fourth Amendment was a response to the British writs of assistance, which served as general warrants and permitted almost limitless searches of homes and ships of colonies. In 1761, an attorney named James Otis forcefully attacked the writs of assistance, and John Adams described that he was so inspired by Otis and the arguments that, then and there, the ``child of Independence'' was born.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits these kinds of general warrants. For a search to be reasonable, the Fourth Amendment dictates that the government must identify the individual, the items, and the location to be searched, but, today, all it takes to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment is some cash. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act already requires the government to seek a court order before compelling service providers to disclose contents and records, but this law does not restrict providers from voluntarily selling that information to nongovernmental third parties.

Due to this loophole in the law, American Government has effectively resurrected the idea of general warrants that the Founding Fathers were so appalled by. Thankfully, the House of Representatives voted to close that loophole. The House voted overwhelmingly this week for the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.

I am so glad that the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act is popular; that Senator Schumer has been a cosponsor of this. I hope he will vote with us tonight.

But if he chooses not to vote with us tonight, the bill has passed the House. All he would need to do is bring it up in the next few weeks, and we could actually put it on the books.

Leaders of both parties from across the political spectrum have come together to say you shouldn't be able to buy your way around the Fourth Amendment. The Senate must not prove itself to be less concerned about the Fourth Amendment. I hope that we will take this up.

The data you transmit can reveal much about your life, such as where you work, where you drop off your child for daycare, whether you visit a gun range, who you associate with, your health data. Some of these applications sell that data to third-party brokers who then sell it to the government.

It may be concerning that some of your information is traded away, but we should insist that the Fourth Amendment should be respected so that individuals are not tracked and investigated without a warrant.

When law enforcement suspects you of a crime, the supreme law of the land is clear: Officers must demonstrate to a neutral judge in an open court that probable cause of a crime exists. In fact, if you want to find the people in our country who respect the Fourth Amendment, meet with any local police officer, any local sheriff. They know they don't come into your house. What has happened is the politicized aspects of our intel Agencies don't have the same respect for the Fourth Amendment that local law enforcement does.

According to Professor Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah, after the Supreme Court prohibited warrantless collection of cell phone location data in Carpenter v. United States, the government Agencies just began buying that information anyway. They were told not to by the Supreme Court. So they just went and purchased it and eviscerated a Supreme Court decision. This is something we should not tolerate.

A recent report by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security demonstrated that several DHS Agencies, including the Secret Service, bought Americans' phone location data without a court order. The IRS purchases location data without a court order. The FBI purchases your location data without an order--to just name a few. The NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency--all have bought Americans' location data without a court order.

The embrace of this tactic proves that the feds will zealously exploit any loophole and test the limits of their authorities, to the detriment of our constitutionally protected liberties.

It is time to end the use of cash to purchase general warrants that the Fourth Amendment should have abolished over two centuries ago. Let's ensure that the Fourth Amendment is truly not for sale.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1829 and ask that it be reported by number.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. The idea that we don't have time is a specious one. The only reason we wouldn't have time is because the supporters of this bill delayed to the last hour. We have 5 years to renew this. We delayed it until we have 4 hours left, and then we are told we can't amend it because we don't have enough time. That is a false argument.

The House is still here. They are going to be voting tomorrow. We should pass the good amendments today, send them to the House tomorrow. This is an argument that has been forced upon us by the supporters of FISA who want no debate, and they want no restrictions. They want no warrants, and they want nothing to protect the Americans. They want to allow whatever goes, whatever happens to happen, and to hell with the American individual citizen and the Bill of Rights.

I say: Don't listen to the people who don't want amendments and don't want debate, and let's pass this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 1829
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. I call up my amendment No. 1828.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for security might wind up with neither, but somewhere along the way, we lost our courage. It takes courage to defend the Constitution. It takes courage to defend the Fourth Amendment. It takes courage to understand that, even when people are guilty of crimes, we let them have lawyers. We have open courts. We have an adversarial process.

People think: Well, gosh, a murderer gets a lawyer.

Yes, everybody in our system gets a lawyer, at least under the system of the Fourth Amendment. But as we became fearful of terrorists, we said: Well, we can't exist under the Constitution. We have to lower the standard of the Fourth Amendment.

So in 1978, we set up FISA, and it went after foreigners under a different standard. It was probable cause, not of a crime but probable cause that you are associated with a foreign government.

And for even myself, I am fine with that for foreigners. But for Americans, we still have the Constitution. So my amendment would simply say this: You can investigate all the foreigners you want under 702, under FISA, whatever you wish for foreigners, but for Americans you go to an article III court. They work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. We have prosecuted over 300 terrorists in article III courts, and we could do it.

My amendment says that FISA would only be utilized on foreigners, not Americans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source