mention of the fact that the intelligence leadership has not exactly been straight with the american people on these issues. and i want to emphasize that we are not talking about the thousands and thousands of law-abiding, patriotic dedicated, wonderful people who work in the intelligence, you know field -- day in and day out, they do so much for our country. we're so appreciative of all that they do. they're the ones who do the hard work, for example to capture osama bin laden and day in and day out make us safer. but the intelligence leadership, on the other hand, as noted by our colleague from kentucky, hasn't always been straight with the american people. i spent many, many months trying to decipher what the former n.s.a. director meant when he said the government doesn't collect any dossiers on millions of americans. i pointed out -- i had been on the intelligence committee a long time and i'd never heard

the term "dossier" used. so i tried to learn more about it used private opportunities public opportunities just couldn't get the information. so finally mr. president i said i've got to ask this question in public. on the intelligence committee you don't get but perhaps 20 or 25 minutes a year to ask questions in public to hold intelligence leaders accountable on policy matters not secret operations, because secret operations have to stay secret. but policy matters. and so after being stonewalled for many, many months -- many months -- i finally said, i've got to ask this question in public. so as to make sure no one would feel ambushed, i sent the question to the head of the national intelligence department mr. clapper i sent

it a day ahead of time. and then i didn't hear anything about it being inappropriate or in violation of classification rules. so i asked in public, i said, does the public collect any type of data at all on mols or -- on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? and i was told no. and that answer was obviously false. and i tried to get it corrected. and we still couldn't get it corrected. and, of course, then mr. snowden spoke out publicly, pointed that out, and since that time, mr. president, the head of national intelligence and his representatives have given at least five different explanations for why that answer was given. so that's why you've got to ask the hard questions. you've go to to got to ask the hard questions about these issues. and i see my friend and

colleague, senator heinrich, has joined us here tonight. and i am so pleased that he has joined the intelligence committee because senator heinrich is one of those senators who subscribes to that view that i just mentioned that it's our job to ask the hard questions. it may be uncomfortable it's not designed to in any way convey disrespect. but we see it as our job to ask the hard questions. and i'd be interested in my colleague's thoughts with respect to this issue and having him being given a chance to participate in this colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: first off, i want to thank my friend from oregon and to recognize the substantial leadership he's shown on this issue over the years, long before i came to the

intelligence committee and long before edward snowden began to steal documents. senator wyden along with senator mark udall and others, were doing everything they could without disclosing classified information to shine a light on the fact that the u.s. government was collecting massive volumes of data on millions of law-abiding american citizens. my friend from oregon deserves our thanks for that leadership. now, after the bulk call data program was revealed to the public the government defended it and defended it vigorously. it took a number of months for the intelligence community and the rest of the administration to take a deep breath and really assess whether bulk metadata collection was necessary whether it was effective and to consider whether there were

other less intrusive more constitutionally grounded ways to accomplish these same goals. starting with the president's review group on intelligence and communications technologies, the administration began to agree that -- quote -- "some of the authorities that were expanded or created in the aftermath of september 11 unduly sacrificed fundamental interests in individual liberty entrepreneurial privacy -- personal privacy and democratic governments." and they recommended changing those authorities in order to -- quote -- "strike a better balance between the competing interests in providing for the common defense and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." end quote. following that multiple efforts have been made to update and reform fisa and to update and reform the u.s.a. patriot act.

none of those have been successful. but now we are forced to come to a resolution through a combination of, frankly process crassty nation and i think -- procrastination and i think misguided hope that the american public would look the other way while the government would continue to story their information and data as part of a program that even the intelligence community acknowledges can be accomplished through less intrusive means. i'll be honest, mr. president the current u.s.a. freedom act isn't what i consider perfect. for example i'd prefer it include strong reform of section 702 collection. but i accept that circumstances require us to be pragmatic require us to govern and move forward and to work with one another in both parties to find compromise. that's what the u.s.a. freedom

act is. it's a product of bipartisan compromise. that's why it passed the house of representatives by a vote of 338-88. and, let's be blunt many of those who voted against it didn't do so because they support bulk collection. they did so because they want to see section 215 wither and die in its entirety. that's the political reality that we face today and we need to accept it rather than demand a continuation of a program that the appeals court has determined is illegal. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague for his statement and would just want to explore this a little bit further. i hope that those who are following this debate understand that my colleague from new mexico a