[国会记录第161卷第172号（2015年11月30日，星期一）][参议院][第S8186-S8187页]大量电话元数据收集计划NELSON先生。主席女士，我发言的理由不同。我想谈谈国家安全局和大量电话元数据收集计划，基本上是新法接管的，这是一项改革。现在，让我解释一下昨天刚刚生效的旧法律和新法律。旧的法律已经生效了——我不知道确切的年数，但是超过5年小于8年。旧法律规定，政府可以通过向经批准的处理机密信息的法院——外国情报监视法法院（Foreign Intelligence Supervision Act court，简称FISA）——提出保留这些记录的充分理由，要求政府拥有这些记录。因此，这是根据法院命令。要保存哪些记录？这些是电话公司的业务记录。这不是电话的内容；这是说某天某时某某电话号码某某叫某某的业务记录。这就是所谓的元数据。就是这样；没有内容。自从9/11袭击事件发生以来，将近十年来，我们通过了《爱国者法案》，试图让我们的国家安全机构更有效地保护我们——如果电话公司遵守命令，这些记录将保存在数据库中。但这不是内容。这只是我刚才所说的商业记录：数字某某某某被称为某某某某。为什么这么重要？因为当我们突然得到一个迹象，我们有一个恐怖分子要袭击这里或国外，如果这个恐怖分子与某个号码有联系，我们可以看到那个潜在的恐怖分子打了什么电话给什么号码，然后那个号码又打了什么号码，我们可以打几个不同的电话。正是通过这一点，我们才能够追踪和防止一些恐怖主义行为，包括在这个国家。今年早些时候，改革随之而来。这位支持旧法律的参议员得到的选择是，要么旧法律即将到期，没有任何法律来管理这些商业记录的收集——什么都没有——要么与改革同步进行。所谓的改革是，你必须去FISA法庭获得一个关于具体数字的命令，以及为什么这个数字是你想要的东西的具体原因。这听起来很无害，除非你在某些情况下需要几秒钟、几分钟或几小时；你可能在寻找这个人，我们突然得到了一个消息，可能是来自人类的消息，他们会试图伤害我们。那么进入法庭需要多长时间？这需要几个月吗？这需要几个星期吗？天？一直以来，潜在的恐怖分子就在我们前面。我知道我们的情报机构正在努力做好准备，以便在尽可能短的时间内做到这一点，但法官必须在那里听取事实和可能的原因，然后才能下达命令，允许情报机构——在国内，可能是FBI——去获取那些商业记录。如果他们得到了商业记录，看到它从一个跳跃到另一个数字，但可能从另一个跳跃到另一个数字，从另一个跳跃到其他几个数字，根据所谓的《美国自由法案改革》，跳跃的数量是有限制的。这位参议员认为，如果我们想知道谁是坏人以及他将要做什么，就不应该限制这些跳跃。一旦我们决定了，我们就再去法庭。如果是美国公民或合法居住在美国的人，他们必须获得另一项法庭命令才能获得内容——要么听那些电话，要么在电子邮件记录的情况下，获取电子邮件的内容。我们总是说，我们的隐私权、保护我们的国家和我们自己之间应该存在这种持续的紧张关系。我们希望出现这种紧张局势，因为我们的隐私权使我们在这个国家与众不同。因此，这就是为什么我们必须诉诸法庭才能获得获得通信内容的命令。你所要做的就是看看巴黎，你会发现这些家伙真的想制造混乱。如果我们在任何方面放慢了速度，那么我认为这对我们是一个相当大的障碍。我之所以提请参议院注意这一点，仅仅是因为上周末新法案取代了旧法案。当然，当这些记录在两年前由爱德华·斯诺登（Edward Snowden）有意、不计后果地（我可以说是非法地）公开传播时，人们有一种恐惧。这让人觉得老大哥收集了我们所有的信息。这就是为什么最初的PATRIOT Act we were so careful to keep this right of privacy protected by court order for the business records and then of course for content by a court order. I believe that program was lawful, I believe it was court-approved, and I believe it has helped protect us from terrorist attacks in the past. I think the confusion in the land is because of what the bulk record was. It wasn't content. It was business record--the dates, times, length, and the numbers dialed but not their content. We have this new law. It is in place. The National Intelligence Director, Jim Clapper, and the NSA Director, ADM Mike Rogers, assured us that the new law preserved a critical counterterrorism capability, but these Paris attacks remind us how brutal ISIS really is and that the terrorist threat persists. As we look at who the terrorists in Paris were, there were four of them whom we knew of, whom we had on our no-fly list, and who were citizens of European countries. What does that mean? That means they didn't have to go into the Embassy to get a visa so their background could be checked. They are one of the visa waiver countries. But there was another one of their citizens who was one of those terrorists who was not on our no-fly list. I think the fact that the administration has already started clamping down, doing the extra checks, we certainly want to keep the Visa Waiver Program going, but it is a considerable potential threat if we are not checking and rechecking. I think from what we learned out of Paris, if the European countries will be more forthcoming to share their intelligence information with us about the potential terrorists, that will build our no-fly list for their citizens and that will be very helpful. We ought to permanently extend section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which is going to expire in another 2 years. This crucial tool provides access to electronic communications of suspected terrorists and other foreign persons located outside of the United States. As we redouble our counterterrorism efforts, we must maintain what works and make the necessary changes as the threat evolves. That means remaining vigilant and using all the tools in our toolbox--including intelligence collection, Homeland Security protections, and the fight against ISIS on the battlefield. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. ____________________