Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet spoke out in favor of the USA FREEDOM ACT, of which he was one of the main co-sponsors.

“The bill before us prohibits the intelligence community from engaging in bulk data collection within the United States,” said Congressman Nadler. “This practice – the dragnet collection, without a warrant, of telephone records and internet metadata – is the contemporary equivalent to the writs of assistance that early American revolutionaries opposed, and that the Fourth Amendment was drafted to address. It has never complied with the Constitution, and must be brought to an end without delay.”

“The government’s interpretation of Section 215 ‘relevance’ to mean ‘everything’ is obviously wrong, could only have been advanced in secret, and cannot withstand the public scrutiny to which it is now subjected,” Congressman Nadler continued.  “The Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out this notion last week, and now we must do so as well… In the future, if the government advances a similarly dubious legal claim, the public will know about it almost immediately -- and the responsibility will lie with us to correct it just as quickly.”

The bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act was introduced by Congressman Nadler, Ranking Member of the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee, along with Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich).  

Below is the full statement from Congressman Nadler, delivered on the House floor, regarding the USA FREEDOM Act:

“The USA FREEDOM Act represents a return to the basic principle of the Fourth Amendment – the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  

“Before the government may search our homes, seize our persons, or intercept our communications, it must first make a showing of individualized suspicion.  

“In most instances, it must make this showing to a court.  The intrusion it requests must be as targeted and as brief as circumstances allow.  The Fourth Amendment demands no less.

“That is why we are here today.  We have learned that the government has engaged in unreasonable searches against all of us.  They have gathered an enormous amount of information about every phone call in the United States.  They have deemed all of our phone calls ‘relevant’ to an investigation.  It is intolerable to our sense of freedom.

“Today, we are acting to stop it.  The bill before us prohibits the intelligence community from engaging in bulk data collection within the United States.  

“This practice—the dragnet collection, without a warrant, of telephone records and internet metadata—is the contemporary equivalent to the writs of assistance that early American revolutionaries opposed, and that the Fourth Amendment was drafted to address.

“It has never complied with the Constitution, and must be brought to an end without delay.

“The legal theories that justified these programs in the first place were developed and approved in secret—and that practice must also come to an end.  

“The government’s interpretation of Section 215 ‘relevance’ to mean ‘everything’ is obviously wrong, could only have been advanced in secret, and cannot withstand the public scrutiny to which it is now subjected.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out this notion last week, and now we must do so as well.

“This bill further requires the government to promptly declassify and release each novel or significant opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  

“In the future, if the government advances a similarly dubious legal claim, the public will know about it almost immediately—and the responsibility will lie with us to correct it just as quickly.

“Before I close, I want to be clear: not every reform I would have hoped to enact is included in this bill.  

“We must do more to protect U.S. person information collected under Section 702 of FISA.  We must act to reform other authorities—many of them law enforcement, rather than intelligence community authorities—to prevent indiscriminate searches in other circumstances. I will continue to fight for these reforms, among others, and I know that I will not be alone in taking up that challenge in the days to come.

“But I am grateful for the opportunity to take this first step to restore the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

“I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Conyers for their continued leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.”

###