Marco Rubio Wants to Permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance

The Florida Republican and likely White House contender is further separating himself from other 2016 hopefuls in the Senate.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 13: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during a National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon May 13, 2014 in Washington, DC. Sen. Rubio delivered a policy speech on social security and answered questions during the luncheon. 
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
Jan. 27, 2015, 7:36 a.m.

Sen. Marco Ru­bio wants Con­gress to per­man­ently ex­tend the au­thor­it­ies gov­ern­ing sev­er­al of the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s con­tro­ver­sial spy­ing pro­grams, in­clud­ing its mass sur­veil­lance of do­mest­ic phone re­cords.

The Flor­ida Re­pub­lic­an and likely 2016 pres­id­en­tial hope­ful penned an op-ed on Tues­day con­demning Pres­id­ent Obama’s coun­terter­ror­ism policies and warn­ing that the U.S. has not learned the “fun­da­ment­al les­sons of the ter­ror­ist at­tacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Ru­bio called on Con­gress to per­man­ently reau­thor­ize core pro­vi­sions of the post-9/11 USA Pat­ri­ot Act, which are due to sun­set on June 1 of this year and provide the in­tel­li­gence com­munity with much of its sur­veil­lance power.

“This year, a new Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity in both houses of Con­gress will have to ex­tend cur­rent au­thor­it­ies un­der the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Act, and I urge my col­leagues to con­sider a per­man­ent ex­ten­sion of the coun­terter­ror­ism tools our in­tel­li­gence com­munity re­lies on to keep the Amer­ic­an people safe,” Ru­bio wrote in a Fox News op-ed.

Ru­bio for years has po­si­tioned him­self as a vo­cal de­fense hawk in Con­gress, and he has re­peatedly de­fen­ded the NSA’s spy pro­grams re­vealed to the pub­lic by former agency con­tract­or Ed­ward Snowden.

But Ru­bio’s call to per­man­ently ex­tend the leg­al frame­work that al­lows the NSA to col­lect the bulk U.S. phone metadata—lan­guage that Con­gress has tweaked and in many cases made more per­missive since 9/11—is par­tic­u­larly force­ful. It comes in the wake of ter­ror­ist at­tacks by Is­lam­ic ex­trem­ists in France at a satir­ic­al news­pa­per and a kosh­er deli that left 17 dead—vi­ol­ence that has promp­ted European of­fi­cials to pub­licly con­sider wheth­er more force­ful sur­veil­lance laws are needed.

It also un­der­scores the di­vi­sions among Ru­bio and his fel­low Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors ex­pec­ted to jockey for the White House—namely, Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Ken­tucky.

Cruz was one of only four Re­pub­lic­ans to join with Demo­crats in Novem­ber in vot­ing to pass the USA Free­dom Act, a bill that would have re­formed sev­er­al as­pects of the NSA spy­ing re­gime and would have barred the gov­ern­ment from drag­net col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords. Ru­bio voted against the meas­ure, and so did Paul—though for di­ver­gent reas­ons. While Ru­bio warned that the bill could hamper in­tel­li­gence agen­cies and bol­ster ter­ror­ists, Paul voted it down be­cause he said it did not go far enough.

Paul has vowed to work to block the Pat­ri­ot Act’s reau­thor­iz­a­tion en­tirely this year, though many pri­vacy and civil-liber­ties ad­voc­ates have ques­tioned the le­git­im­acy of his strategy.

Many sup­port­ers of the Pat­ri­ot Act have said one of the bill’s strongest points is that its peri­od­ic sun­sets force Con­gress to re­con­sider the au­thor­it­ies as it strives to bal­ance civil liber­ties with se­cur­ity.

“I voted for the Pat­ri­ot Act, but also be­lieved it was very im­port­ant that there was the ex­pir­a­tion of the Pat­ri­ot Act and the pro­vi­sions that would en­sure that we as mem­bers of Con­gress could ana­lyze it a few years down the road,” Rep. Cathy Mc­Mor­ris Rodgers, R-Wash., told at­tendees at the State of the Net con­fer­ence Tues­day. “Is this not just what we in­ten­ded, but is this work­ing ef­fect­ively?”

Some law­makers crit­ic­al of the na­tion’s sur­veil­lance pro­grams used Ru­bio’s op-ed to mock his po­s­i­tion. Demo­crat­ic Rep. Jared Pol­is called for the in­tel­li­gence com­munity to be­gin mon­it­or­ing Ru­bio 24 hours a day.

“If Sen­at­or Ru­bio be­lieves that mil­lions of in­no­cent Amer­ic­ans should be sub­ject to in­trus­ive and un­con­sti­tu­tion­al gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, surely he would have no ob­jec­tions to the gov­ern­ment mon­it­or­ing his own ac­tions and con­ver­sa­tions,” Pol­is said in a state­ment Tues­day. “Maybe after his 2016 strategy doc­u­ments are ac­ci­dent­ally caught up in a gov­ern­ment data grab, he’ll re­think the use of mass sur­veil­lance.”

Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Justin Amash, in ref­er­ence to this story, tweeted “dis­qual­i­fied.” His of­fice would not cla­ri­fy what the Michigan liber­tari­an meant by the tweet.

Crit­ics of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, in­clud­ing Snowden, in­sist that no evid­ence ex­ists to sup­port the claim that such bulk col­lec­tion of U.S. phone re­cords help pro­tect na­tion­al se­cur­ity—and may even dis­tract in­tel­li­gence agen­cies from oth­er, more use­ful in­tel­li­gence.

Ru­bio also used the op-ed to sug­gest that tech com­pan­ies such as Apple and Google should not cre­ate too-tough-to-crack en­cryp­tion stand­ards on their mo­bile devices and di­git­al ser­vices. Sev­er­al of­fi­cials, in­clud­ing At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Eric Hold­er and FBI Dir­ect­or James Clap­per, have warned that so-called un­break­able tech­no­logy could hamper law en­force­ment’s abil­ity to catch crim­in­als and threaten na­tion­al se­cur­ity.

“The U.S. gov­ern­ment should im­plore Amer­ic­an tech­no­logy com­pan­ies to co­oper­ate with au­thor­it­ies so that we can bet­ter track ter­ror­ist activ­ity and mon­it­or ter­ror­ist com­mu­nic­a­tions as we face the in­creas­ing chal­lenge of homegrown ter­ror­ists rad­ic­al­ized by little more than what they see on the In­ter­net,” Ru­bio said.

Ru­bio’s of­fice did not re­spond to a re­quest for ad­di­tion­al com­ment.

This story has been up­dated with com­ments from law­makers re­act­ing to Sen. Ru­bio’s op-ed.

Brendan Sasso contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
FCC Tightens Internet Privacy Standards
11 hours ago

Along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted to tighten privacy standards for Internet service providers. "The regulations will require providers to receive explicit customer consent before using an individual’s web browsing or app usage history for marketing purposes. The broadband industry fought to keep that obligation out of the rules."

Clinton Up 9 in USA Today Poll; Up 3 According to Fox
16 hours ago

A new USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds Clinton leads Trump by 9 points nationwide, 47% to 38%. A Fox News national poll has Clinton up just three points, 44% to 41% over Trump.

Cruz: Eight Justices Could Be an Ongoing Situation
18 hours ago

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that "there was “precedent” for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices—appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election." Speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz said: "I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

DNC Sues RNC Over Trump’s Rigged Vote Comments
21 hours ago

The Democratic National Committee sued the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in New Jersey for aiding GOP nominee Donald Trump as he argues that the presidential election is "rigged." The DNC claims "that Trump's argument is designed to suppress the vote in minority communities."

Clinton Foundation Staffers Steered Biz to Bill
1 days ago

"Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.