What do three Democrats and one Tea Party member have in common? Probably not too much, other than the fact they are in constant disagreement.

However, in these bizarre times, the 113th Congress has unintentionally put Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, Richard Blumenthal and Rand Paul on a mission. Their goal is to address surveillance reform, an issue now at the top of the political agenda in light of major controversy surrounding the National Security Agency.

The surveillance argument is one that Democrats and Republicans alike actually seem to agree on. In a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans said they believe the NSA spying programs infringe on privacy rights.

But even if this bill does pass and defies Congress’ normal inability to act, the bill’s goal is still extremely ambitious. After all, how can you check the NSA’s power when we don’t know what we’re checking?

Right now, the lofty bill has three goals in mind.

First on the agenda is to put an end to Bulk Collection, section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allowed the NSA to sift through people’s personal phone and Internet data, in hopes of catching prospective acts of terrorism.

Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, believes there is no correlation between the NSA having this data and preventing terrorist attacks. Ending bulk collection would force the NSA to get warrants when conducting these activities.

The reform also looks to create a public advocate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is the secret court that grants the NSA spying approval. This special delegate would be present for major policy issues and would urge the court to look at cases from a privacy rights perspective.

The bill then transitions over to the section highly advocated by Rand Paul. It hopes to make suing the government, and therefore the NSA, actually possible.

This part of the bill, which lacks specifics, looks to counter the Supreme Court decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International. In this case, the judges ruled that people do not have the standing to sue the NSA.

In other words, people cannot sue the NSA because of assumptions; they need actual proof that the NSA spied on them. As one might imagine, finding evidence against the NSA is not as easy as Edward Snowden made it look.

Of course, the reform is necessary. But is it plausible?

Past efforts to alleviate the power of NSA have failed.

In 2011, surveillance reform advocates thought they achieved a huge victory by shutting down one of the NSA’s massive data collection programs.

However, shortly after, the victory was essentially canceled out when a relatively unpublicized loophole was instituted, allowing the NSA warrantless searches on phone and Internet records of law-abiding Americans.

The current bill will first have to get through opposing Congress members not so likely to just give in to the American public.

Wyden is expecting a battle from what he calls the “business-as-usual” brigade. This group is made up of intelligence officials, their friends in Congress, think tanks and the media.

They will attempt to argue that the media has exaggerated rumors regarding the NSA, and that NSA programs are not as intrusive as people think.

Although not thought to be possible, the final barrier the bill will have to pass through might prove an even greater challenge than Congress. The bill has to get by the foreign intelligence agencies, also known as the most paranoid individuals alive.

And quite honestly, it is pretty unrealistic to think the NSA would actually change our national security.

Bram Berkowitz is a senior advertising and entrepreneurship and emerging enterprises major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on October 17, 2013 at 2:07 am