Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the FISA Legislation Debated by the Senate
As Prepared for Delivery
From the Senate Floor
Download the video (Windows
Media, Quicktime)
August 3, 2007
"Mr. President, let me just respond a bit to what
the senator from Connecticut just indicated. At times of war we don't
give up our responsibility in the U.S. Senate to review and make laws.
The notion that we simply defer this to the Director of National Intelligence
and whatever he says is an abdication of our duties especially in
time of war. In fact, let's remember why this is here. The senator
regrets we're debating this and some of these very important matters
that are generally kept secret are being discussed, I agree, but why
aren’t they secret? Because the administration was conducting
an illegal wiretapping program, and somebody inappropriately blew
the lid on it. That wasn’t the doing of anybody in this body.
That was due to the incompetence and inappropriate conduct of this
administration in the first place. So that’s why we're here,
with this kind of debate. It’s not because of anything anybody
did here. And by the way this horrible conflict we’re having
with those who attacked us on 9/11 - this conflict is something that
we all agree on and not a single senator doesn't think that we should
be able to get at these foreign calls. Not a single senator doesn't
want to give the Admiral what he has asked for that is reasonable.
We simply want protections for the civil liberties of people that
have done absolutely nothing wrong. So, let's be sure what this debate
is about. I want to thank the Majority Leader and Senator Rockefeller,
Senator Levin, Senator Leahy and especially Senator Whitehouse who
put tremendous effort into this, for trying to make this as good as
possible.
“I am going to vote for the Rockefeller-Levin
bill. I’m concerned that we’re moving too fast and that
we have not necessarily come up with the right answer to the problem
that we all recognize exists. But I am prepared to vote for this because
I think it is, at least, a reasonable approach to addressing legitimate
problems without unduly compromising the civil liberties of Americans.
I do so, I must say, with great reluctance and with the expectation
this is an experiment with a short expiration date, an experiment
that we can assess and modify as we move forward.
“But we cannot pass the Bond-McConnell proposal.
This bill would go way too far. It would permit the government with
no court oversight whatsoever to intercept communications of calls
to and from the United States as long as it is directed at a person
- any person, not a suspected terrorist, any person - reasonably believed
to be outside the United States. That means giving free reign to the
government to wiretap anyone including U.S. citizens who live overseas,
service members such as those in Iraq, journalists reporting from
overseas or even members of Congress who are overseas and call home
to the U.S. and this is without any court oversight whatever. That
is unacceptable. It goes far, far beyond the identified problem of
foreign to foreign communications that we all agree on. And it goes
far, far beyond the public descriptions of the president's warrantless
wiretapping program.
“What little judicial review the bill does provide
is essentially meaningless. The FISA court would decide only whether
the government certification that it has put reasonable procedures
in place to direct its surveillance against people reasonably believed
to be abroad is “clearly erroneous.” That's basically
a standard that’s nothing more than a rubber stamp and it ignores
the real issue here, which is protecting the rights of Americans who
may be calling or e-mailing friends, family or business partners overseas
and who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Let me point out that
the so-called court review in the Bond bill will never happen because
the court only has to rule within 180 days of enactment and there
is now a sunset on the bill after 180 days. Mr. President, a six-month
sunset does not justify voting for this bad version of the bill. We
can't just suspend the Constitution for six months. So, I strongly
oppose the Bond bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.”
