Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 3, 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the May 3, 2017 hearing "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "Director Comey, welcome and thank you for all the FBI does to keep Americans safe. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the FBI since the last time you were here in 2015. In March, you publicly acknowledged that the FBI is investigating allegations of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Under President Obama's order, former DNI [Director of National Intelligence] Clapper had been in charge of the Intelligence Community's review of that interference. Mr. Clapper testified that President Obama asked the intelligence community to compile all available information. After he left office, Mr. Clapper said there was no evidence of collusion whatsoever. The New York Times also reported that American officials had found no proof of collusion. So, where is all this speculation about collusion coming from? In January, Buzzfeed published a dossier spinning wild conspiracy theories about the Trump campaign. Buzzfeed acknowledged that the claims were unverified, and some of the details were clearly wrong. It has since been sued for publishing them. Since then, much of the dossier has been proven wrong, and many of its outlandish claims have failed to gain traction. For example, no one's looking for moles or Russian agents embedded in the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. Yet some continue to quote parts of this document as if it were gospel. And according to press reports, the FBI has relied on it to justify its current investigation. There have even been reports that the FBI agreed to pay the author of the dossier--who paid his sources, who also paid their 'sub sources.' Where did the money come from and what motivated the people writing the checks?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: James B. Comey.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2017-05-03
• United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security [website]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  This is the website for the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, the jurisdiction of which includes: "(1) Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws; (2) Oversight of the immigration functions of the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Ombudsman Citizenship and Immigration Services; (3) Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor; (4) Oversight of international migration, internally displaced persons, and refugee laws and policy; and (5) Private immigration relief bills." The site includes information about the chairman and ranking member, as well as hearings and news.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
• S. Rept. 110-442: State Secrets Protection Act, Report together with Minority Views to Accompany s. 2533, August 1 2008

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a report on the State Secrets Protection Act submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. "The 'state secrets privilege' is a common law rule of evidence that the Federal Government can invoke to prevent materials from being publicly disclosed in civil court proceedings, if the Government establishes that such disclosure would harm the Nation. In the early 1970s, Congress considered including a state secrets provision in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it ultimately decided not to include any privileges. Although numerous laws govern the handling of classified documents and other information that may implicate state secrets in specific contexts, the state secrets privilege has never been codified in statute. […] The State Secrets Protection Act allows the United States to preserve its commitment to constitutional rights and the rule of law, without compromising its national defense or foreign policy objectives. Rather than invent new tools or procedures for Federal courts in reviewing claims of the state secrets privilege, the bill draws on existing practices to make judicial review more regular and more rigorous--and to protect all legitimate state secrets."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2008-08-01
• United States Senate: Committee on the Judiciary [website]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  One of the Senate's original standing committees, the Committee on the Judiciary was first authorized on December 10, 1816. The Committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in the Senate, ranging from criminal justice to antitrust and intellectual property law.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
• Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the Commitment to Victims of Human Trafficking: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred and Twelfth Congress, September 14, 2011

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the September 14, 2011 hearing, "The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act: Renewing the Commitment to Victims of Human Trafficking," before the U.S. Senate on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, this Committee considers the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, and how best to continue and improve our efforts to end once and for all human trafficking at home and abroad. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery in which victims are forced into labor or sexual exploitation. Traffickers prey on the most vulnerable members of society, and no country is immune. It happens even here, in our own backyard. […] Today's hearing aims to highlight the important anti-human trafficking work that the Federal Government is doing as a result of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We also hope to discover ways we can do this crucial work better and more efficiently in the future. Today we have witnesses from three Federal agencies that play key roles in Federal efforts to end human trafficking. The Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security investigate human trafficking crimes, use diplomatic tools to stop human trafficking in other countries, and ensure that trafficking victims receive crucial assistance and resources to assist law enforcement and begin to the long process of recovery." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Mary Lou Leary, Luis CdeBaca, and Kelly Ryan.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2011-09-14
• Radical Islamic Terrorist Attacks and Plots in the United States Since 9/11

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document, compiled by Senator Chuck Grassley for his statement during the "Remaining Vigilant Against Terrorist Attacks" hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a list of terrorist attacks and plots in the United States since 9/11. The document is divided into three parts: 1) Successful Attacks; 2) Unsuccessful Attacks and Plots; and 3) Criminal Cases Involving Individuals in the United States Attempting to Join ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The full text and a video of Senator Grassley's statement is available at the following link: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-speech-terrorist-attacks-against-united-states.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  Grassley, Charles

  2015-11-23
• Reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Hearing before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, September 16, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the September 16, 2015 hearing on "Reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act " held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) twenty -nine years ago, when most Americans communicated on land lines, when call waiting was novel, and when few had heard of email. Yet Congress anticipated that the new world of electronic communications would need privacy protections. ECPA provided just that. Since 1986, technology companies have continued to create new ways of communicating. But the privacy rules governing this critical area are simply outdated. As the statute reads today, government agencies can obtain the contents of an email without a warrant if that email is more than 180 days old. But we do not expect our private letters or photos stored at home to lose Fourth Amendment protection simply because they are more than six months old. Neither should our emails, texts, or other documents we store in the cloud. If I send Senator Grassley a birthday note tomorrow, its long -term constitutional protection should not depend on whether I give him a card that he puts in his desk, or send him a text that is stored in the cloud." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Elana Tyrangiel, Andrew Ceresney, Daniel Salsburg, Richard Littlehale, Richard Salgado, Chris Calabrese, and Victoria A. Espinel.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-09-16
• Oversight of the Administration's Criminal Alien Removal Policies, Hearing Before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, December 2, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony is from the December 8, 2015 hearing, "Oversight of the Administration's Criminal Alien Removal Policies," held before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. From the statement of Chuck Grassley: "When first preparing for this hearing, several administration officials informed this committee that they were unable to testify because the hearing wasn't 'in response to a particular crisis.' Congressional oversight isn't contingent on a crisis. And when you listen to the testimony today, keep in mind that there are 179,027 undocumented criminals with final orders of removal at large in the United States today, thousands of victims, and many of the agency's own officers who are unable to do the job they signed up to do." Statements, letters, and other materials submitted for the record include the following: Chuck Grassley, Sarah Saldana, Jessica Vaughan, Jonathan F. Thompson, Marc R. Rosenblum.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-12-02
• Protecting the Constitutional Right to Counsel for Indigents Charged with Misdemeanors, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, May 13, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation of the May 13, 2015 hearing "Protecting the Constitutional Right to Counsel for Indigents Charged with Misdemeanors" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chairman Chuck Grassley: "Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on indigent misdemeanor representation. According to the Sixth Amendment Center, and certainly in my memory, this is the first time the Senate Judiciary Committee has ever held a hearing on this subject. The Sixth Amendment provides criminal defendants with the assistance of counsel. For more than 50 years, following the Gideon decision, it has been clear that it is necessary to give people wi thout financial means accused of crimes the right to a lawyer to help them navigate the system, preserve their rights, and make sure innocent people don't go to jail. Clarence Gideon himself, when retried with a lawyer representing him, was acquitted. And that landmark ruling was extended in 1972 to misdemeanor defendants for good reason. The overwhelming majority of people who face criminal charges are prosecuted for misdemeanors. In Iowa, for example, 80% of all criminal prosecutions are for misdemeanors, among the highest rate in the country. Some states have adhered to the Constitution. In Iowa, t he county courts do an excellent job of providing counsel to misdemeanor defendants. I am pleased that Chief Justice Cady of Iowa is with us today. Last month, his court extended the right to counsel by not permitting uncounseled convictions to be used a s sentencing enhancements in subsequent crimes. Uncounseled convictions must exist in Iowa, however, or the decision wouldn't be necessary. But many states are not providing counsel as the Constitution requires. It is a widespread problem. In reality, the Supreme Court's Sixth Amendment decisions regarding misdemeanor defendants are violated thousands of times every day. No Supreme Court decisions in our history have been violated so widely, so frequently, and for so long." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mark S. Cady, David A. Singleton, Neil Fulton, Robert C. Boruchowitz, and Erica J. Hashimoto.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-05-13
• War on Police: How the Federal Government Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement,

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation of the November 17, 2015 hearing on "War on Police: How the Federal Government Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement, " held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts. From the opening statement of John P. Walters: "United States law is unitary, but has role differentiation by agency, by jurisdiction, and by authority. Effective integration of programs, capacities, and activities across the various dimensions of federal, state, local, and tribal arenas is a critical responsibility in all circumstances, and can become imperative under certain circumstances, such as when the nation is confronted by threats that themselves contain multiple levels of operation. When properly structured and constrained under Constitutional guidance, the federal role in law enforcement can be a positive and even necessary adjunct for achieving justice and public safety. Below, I will review the challenges which make a federal role essential in coordinating the totality of our efforts, and provide examples where the proper functioning of federal programs has been important." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Vanita Gupta, Ronald L. Davis, Heather Mac Donald, Sherrilyn Ifill, John P. Walters, Cedric L. Alexander, Robert N. Driscoll, and Andrew C. McCarthy.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-11-17
• "Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs," Testimony of Leslie Harris, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, January 10, 2007

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document contains the testimony of Ms. Leslie Harris, Executive Director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, on privacy implications regarding government data mining.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2007-01-10
• Terrorism and the EMP Threat to Homeland Security

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This hearing includes testimony on the electromagnetic pulse, which is an effect of the detonation of a nuclear device, and its potential impact as a tool of terrorism.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2005
• Two Years After 9/11: Keeping America Safe

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This report addresses a wide range of national security issues. Sections in the report have the following subjects: Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Radical Islamist Influence Over U.S. Military and Prison Chaplains, First Responders, Keeping Terrorists Out of the United States, Narco-Terrorism, Database Security, Document Security, Cyber Terrorism, "Lone Wolf" Fix to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Pretrial Detention of Terrorists.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2004-03
• Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, February 27, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the February 27, 2013 hearing, "Hearing on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of John Walsh: "Senator Feinstein, and Members of the Judiciary Committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of Justice. As the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, I am pleased to speak with you about the Department of Justice's views on limiting gun violence and protecting the American public by restricting access to dangerous military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. These are common sense, constitutional measures that a majority of Americans have supported for years, and now, more than ever, want to see reinstituted. Although the Department of Justice does not yet have a position on any particular legislative proposal, we are confident that renewed restrictions can be implemented in a manner that enhances public safety without interfering with the constitutional rights of every law-abiding American citizen." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Dianne Feinstein, John Walsh, Edward Flynn, Neil Heslin, William Begg, Nicholas Johnson, David Hardy, Sandy Adams, and Michael Nutter.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-02-27
• Interim Report on FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Charles Grassley, and Senator Arlen Specter, February 2003

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Working in a bipartisan manner in the 107th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the first comprehensive oversight of the FBI in nearly two decades. That oversight was aimed not at tearing down the FBI but at identifying any problem areas as a necessary first step to finding constructive solutions and marshaling the attention and resources to implement improvements. The overarching goal of this oversight was to restore confidence in the FBI and make the FBI as strong and as great as it must be to fulfill this agency's multiple and critical missions of protecting the United States against crime, international terrorism, and foreign clandestine intelligence activity, within constitutional and statutory boundaries. Shortly after the Committee initiated oversight hearings and had confirmed the new Director of the FBI, the Nation suffered the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the most serious attacks on these shores since Pearl Harbor. While it is impossible to say what could have been done to stop these attacks from occurring, it is certainly possible in hindsight to say that the FBI, and therefore the Nation, would have benefitted [sic] from earlier close scrutiny by this Committee of the problems the agency faced, particularly as those problems affected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') process. Such oversight might have led to corrective actions, as that is an important purpose of oversight. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Congress and, in particular, the Senate Judiciary Committee responded to demands by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI for greater powers to meet the security challenges posed by international terrorism. We worked together to craft the USA PATRIOT Act to provide such powers. With those enhanced powers comes an increased potential for abuse and the necessity of enhanced congressional oversight. Our oversight has been multi-faceted. We have held public hearings, conducted informal briefings, convened closed hearings on matters of a classified nature, and posed written questions in letters in connection with hearings to the DOJ and FBI. Although our oversight has focused primarily on the FBI, the Attorney General and the DOJ have ultimate responsibility for the performance of the FBI. Without both accountability and support on the part of the Attorney General and senior officials of the DOJ, the FBI cannot make necessary improvements or garner the resources to implement reforms."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2003-02
• Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744: Hearing Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, April 22, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the April 22, 2013 hearing, "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today's hearing is our fifth immigration hearing this year. It will add to the more than 40 hearings Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Coons, Senator Hirono and I have chaired during the last few Congresses on these matters. On Friday, we received testimony about the economic impact of the bill. Today we will hear about how the bill will impact our farming, construction, service, and technology industries. We will hear the views of those who have long fought for immigration reform and those who oppose the proposal. We will hear from the religious community and the business community. We will hear from scholars, law enforcement, and advocates. We will also hear from witnesses who believe that equality for all under our immigration system is not only right, but in our Nation's interest." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Patrick Leahy, Arturo Rodriguez, Charles Conner, Alyson Eastman, Megan Smith, Jim Kolbe, Tamar Jacoby, Rick Judson, Brad Smith, Ron Hira, Neeraj Gupta, Fred Benjamin, Gaby Pacheco, Janet Murguia, David Fleming, Mark Krikorian, Laura L. Lichter, Kris Kobach, Mark Shurtleff, Bill Vidal, Janice L. Kephart, Chris Crane, Steven Camarota, and Grover Norquist.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-04-22
• How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families: Hearing Before the United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, March 18, 2013

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the March 18, 2013 hearing, "How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should Address the Needs of Women and Families," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today the Committee will examine ways comprehensive immigration reform can address the needs of women and families. For years, long visa backlogs in our immigration system have prevented families from being together. An estimated 4 million close family members of U.S. citizens and green card holders are waiting to join their relatives in America. Some of these families, predominantly from Mexico and the Philippines, have waited more than 20 years to be reunited. This is simply unacceptable. While preserving family unity is a core tenet of our immigration policy, our broken immigration system is instead hurting families. This has devastating consequences, especially for the women and children who bear the brunt of the unsettled environment our immigration system causes. New immigrants often face the reality of spending prolonged periods of time without their loved ones because the broken immigration system has little to no flexibility. Beyond that, it is punitive to families seeking to lawfully enter the United States because lawful permanent residents must wait over two years to be reunited with their spouse or children. Newly naturalized citizens must wait over seven years to be reunited with their adult children and over ten years for their siblings. I believe that families should be protected. Our immigration system must honor the love that binds spouses and children. It should come as no surprise when spouses, desperate to reunite with their loved ones, overstay a tourist visa or cross the border without authorization." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Mazie Hirono, Patrick Leahy, Ai-jen Poo, Karen Panetta, Mee Moua, Susan Martin, and Jennifer Ng'andu.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-03-18
• Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire for Non-Judicial Nominees: Questionnaire for James B. Comey, Jr.

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This document is the completed questionnaire received by the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary from James B. Comey, Jr. and includes his personal and professional information as necessary and required by the questionnaire in his pursuit of the position as the director of the FBI.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-06-26
• Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 11, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the June 11, 2014 hearing on "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security" held before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "I welcome Jeh Johnson today to the Judiciary Committee for his first oversight hearing as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. For the past seven months, he has led an agency that plays a vital role in protecting our national security, providing disaster relief, and ensuring cybersecurity. The Department of Homeland Security also has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing our Nation's immigration laws -- a system that Secretary Johnson himself acknowledges is broken. One year ago, this Committee came together after weeks of exhaustive deliberations to pass bipartisan legislation to fix that broken immigration system. That bill, which ultimately passed the Senate, will unite families, spur the economy, and help protect our borders. We knew last year that the cost of inaction was too great, and members of this Committee and the full Senate passed historic legislation that would create a system worthy of our American values." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of Jeh Johnson and Eleanor Acer.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2014-06-11
• Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation of Numerous Allegations of Wrongdoing by the U.S. Marshals Service

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Committee began investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) approximately three years ago. Throughout the investigation, the Committee identified a culture of mismanagement, reckless spending, favoritism, and a general lack of accountability at the USMS. In what has been described by whistleblowers as a 'frat' style of management, senior officials appear to act with impunity while lower level employees are held to a stringent standard. According to the more than 100 current and former employees who have contacted the Committee since early 2015, the actions of managers have a demoralizing effect on the brave men and women of the Marshals Service, and thus tend to undermine the public's trust in America's oldest law enforcement agency. This memorandum summarizes the Committee's work and provides a status update on the Committee's ongoing investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by the USMS. Many of these investigations are still ongoing; therefore, certain topics lack the finality or conclusory results of a completed investigation."

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2018-12-21
• Encryption and Lawful Access: Evaluating Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, December 10, 2019 [video]

  Show summary     Open resource [html]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the December 10, 2019 hearing, "Encryption and Lawful Access: Evaluating Benefits and Risks to Public Safety and Privacy," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Dianne Feinstein: "Today's hearing provides an opportunity to examine how technology companies and law enforcement can work together to obtain encrypted information that is vital to investigating and prosecuting serious crimes while protecting people's privacy[.] Encryption technology is a very important part of maintaining security and personal privacy. It protects personal information by using a scrambled code and allows users to send sensitive financial or other information over the internet. At the same time, it is equally important to acknowledge that law enforcement has historically been able, under strict legal requirements, to intercept and obtain communications in order to investigate crimes." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Matt Tait, Erik Neuenschwander, and Jay Sullivan. The duration of this video is 2 hours, 21 minutes, and 14 seconds.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2019-12-10
• Hearing on Closing Guantanamo: The National Security, Fiscal and Human Rights Implications: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, July 24, 2013 [webcast]

  Show summary     Open resource [video]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony webcast is from the July 23, 2013 hearing, "Location Change: Closing Guantanamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications" before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. This webcast discusses the potential closing of Guantanamo and the ramifications of its closure, including financial challenges, human rights implications, and national security. Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Paul D. Eaton, Joshua M. Fryday, Frank Gaffney, Elisa Massimino, Adam Smith, and Mike Pompeo.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2013-07-24
• Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, July 8, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation of the July 8, 2015 hearing on "Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "The core of the Fourth Amendment is the requirement that, with limited exceptions, when a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime, the officer must obtain an individualized warrant or court order to conduct a search that would violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. And that order must be issued by a neutral and detached judge based on facts that demonstrate probable cause. Through this brilliant framework, for over 200 years, our constitutional system has preserved the rule of law, ensured our public safety is maintained, and protected our individual privacy and civil liberties in part through the separation of powers. But recently, prominent law enforcement officials have been questioning whether the laws Congress has enacted over the years to adapt that framework to changing technology, such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, are adequate to the task today." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Sally Quillian Yates, James B. Comey, Cyrus Vance Jr., Herbert Lin, and Peter Swire.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-07-08
• FISA Amendments Act: Reauthorizing America's vi tal National Security Authority and Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, June 27, 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the June 27, 2017 hearing, "The FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act: Reauthorizing America's Vital National Security Authority and Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Chuck Grassley: "This Committee last held an oversight hearing on Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act in May 2016. Since then, the drumbeat of terror attacks against the United States and our allies has continued. A month after our hearing, a terrorist attacked an Orlando nightclub, killing 50 and wounding 53. That same month, a terrorist detonated pipe bombs in New Jersey and New York, injuring about 30. Last month, Great Britain suffered its worst terror attack in over a decade. A suicide bomber killed 22 and seriously injured many more at a concert in Manchester. Many of the dead and wounded were children and young people.These attacks underscore that the first responsibility of government is to ensure that those who protect us every day have the tools to keep us safe. And these tools must adapt to the technological landscape and the evolving security threats we face. But at the same time, of course, the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution are fixed. They require our constant vigilance to maintain. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which provides the government the authority to collect the electronic communications of foreigners located outside the United States with the compelled assistance of American companies, sits at the intersection of these responsibilities." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Stuart J. Evans, Carl Ghattas, Bradley Booker, Paul F. Morris, Matthew G. Olsen, Adam I. Klein, Elizabeth Goitein, and Elisebeth B. Collins.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2017
• Oversight and Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act: The Balance Between National Security, Privacy and Civil Liberty, Hearing Before the Committee on Judiciary, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, May 10, 2016

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the May 10, 2016 hearing, "Oversight and Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act: The Balance Between National Security, Privacy and Civil Liberty," before the U.S. Senate Committee on Judiciary. From the opening statement of Senator Patrick Leahy: "One year ago this week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the USA FREEDOM Act. Several weeks later the Senate followed suit with broad bipartisan support - including a strong majority of the members of this Committee. That legislation marked the first major overhaul of the government's surveillance authorities in decades. Following revelations about dragnet surveillance programs, Vermonters and Americans across the country demanded limits on executive power. They demanded accountability and reform, and Congress responded. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will examine the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] Amendments Act, often referred to as Section 702. This law expires at the end of 2017. I am glad the Committee is getting an early start on this process to consider significant reforms. I hope we can avoid the needless expiration of authorities we saw last year when Republican leadership refused to bring up the USA FREEDOM Act. I also am glad that this hearing is being held in the open, so that the American people can be a part of this conversation." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Kenneth L. Wainstein, Matthew G. Olsen, Elizabeth Goitein, David Medine, and Rachel L. Brand.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2016-05-10
• Responses to the Increase in Religious Hate Crimes, Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, May 2, 2017

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation made by the HSDL staff is from the May 2, 2017 hearing, "Responses to the Increase in Religious Hate Crimes" before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the statement of Chairman Chuck Grassley: "The Senate Judiciary Committee today is holding a hearing on 'Reponses to the Increase in Religious Hate Crimes'. This is a subject of great bipartisan interest in the Committee. Religious hate crimes harm victims and communities. Many of these crimes would never have been committed but for hatred. They run counter to American values such as religious freedom and tolerance. Americans have the right to be safe against those who would treat them as members of religious groups rather than as individuals. Religious hate crimes are on the rise. Crimes against Jews are the most common religious hate crimes and they have increased. Religious hate crimes against Muslims are the fastest growing category. These crimes increased by 67% between 2014 and 2015, the last year for which FBI figures are available. I have been contacted by fearful Iowans. Fear for practicing one's religion should never happen in this country. This problem has been growing for some time, and is not new." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Eric Treene, Jonathan A. Greenblatt, Prabhjot Singh, Vanita Gupta, and Will D. Johnson.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2017-05-02
• Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, April 15, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This is a testimony compilation of the April 15, 2015 hearing on "The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Rand Paul: "This Committee has an opportunity to end an injustice, an injustice that disproportionately affects minorities and the poor, by reforming civil asset forfeiture laws. According to the Washington Post's review of seizures done under federal forfeiture laws, the majority of those who had their property taken were black, Hispanic, or another minority. These laws were originally intended to disrupt criminal networks. But they have increasingly been used against innocent citizens to strip them of their property without a lawyer to defend their rights, without a day in court to hear the charges against them, and without the due process of law. Civil forfeiture turns justice on its head -- our current laws presume you are guilty until you can prove your innocence." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Chuck Grassley, Patrick Leahy, Rand Paul, Darpana Sheth, Russ Caswell, Chuck Canterbury, and Jonathan Bach.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-04-15
• Data Brokers - Is Consumers' Information Secure? Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, November 3, 2015

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the November 3, 2015 hearing on the "Data Brokers - Is Consumers' Information Secure?" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law meets to discuss an issue that has the potential to impact nearly every American --the safety and security of the vast amount of personal information that are collected, stored, and sold for profit by data brokers. As corporations reap ever greater profits from personal information about our lives, I believe we must hold them accountable for keeping it safe. I have introduced a bill, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2015, t o make sure they do. The sheer amount of information collected by data brokers is astounding. According to a 2014 report by the Federal Trade Commission, Acxiom, which is one of the largest U.S. data brokers and is here to testify before us today, maintains data on 700 million consumers worldwide, and over 3,000 pieces of information on nearly every U.S. consumer for which it has data. And Acxiom is not alone; this is a growing and largely unregulated industry. Just as astounding is the type of sensitive information data brokers collect. This includes, but is not limited to, social security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, online screen names, email addresses, marital status, political affiliation, religious information, online purchase history, web searching history, employment status, arrest records, and even medical information. What is most troubling is that the average American is completely unaware that this information is being compiled and sold to the highest bidder. " Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Justin Harvey, Pam Dixon, and Frank Caserta.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2015-11-03
• Examining the Proposed FCC Privacy Rules, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, Second Session, May 11, 2016

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the May 11, 2016 hearing, "Examining the Proposed FCC Privacy Rules," before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, of the Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Senator Chuck Grassley: "I appreciate Chairman Flake holding this important oversight hearing. We have an excellent panel of witnesses and I thank you all for being here today. I'm looking forward to hearing your testimony on how the Federal Communication Commission's [FCC] proposed privacy rules affect consumers and broadband Internet providers. It's no secret that the growth and success of the Internet is due in large measure to the flexible, handsoff approach taken by regulators, which has characterized its early existence. It's this approach that has led to incredible innovation - allowing Americans to access information and entertainment, learn, and do business in radically different ways. At the same time, the rapid growth in technology has also resulted in new threats to individual privacy in ways that many of us never imagined. As such, the Federal Trade Commission has been active in seeking to ensure that individual privacy remains protected in the ever connected Internet world that we live in today and in the future." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Thomas Wheeler, Ajit Pai, Edith Ramirez, and Maureen Ohlhausen.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2016-05-11
• Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014, Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, June 4, 2014

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This testimony compilation is from the June 4, 2014 hearing on the "Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014" held before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. From the opening statement of Patrick Leahy: "Today, the Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law will discuss Senator Franken's Location Privacy Protection Act, which he reintroduced earlier this year. I commend the Subcommittee's Chairman for holding this important hearing and for his work on consumer privacy issues. With the explosion of smart technologies and mobile applications, now commonly referred to as 'apps,' American consumers face threats to privacy now like never before. Many of us carry smart devices, such as smartphones and tablets, at all times and use them for anything from navigational and social networking purposes to shopping and playing games. While this technology has brought many new benefits to consumers, it has also raised troubling questions and presented new challenges for how to protect individuals' privacy." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Bea Hanson, Jessica Rich, Mark Goldstein, Brian Hill, Lou Mastria, Sally Greenberg, Robert D. Atkinson, and Cindy Southworth.

  United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary

  2014-06-04