| |
 |
| February 29th, 2008 |
|
Media Contact(s): Mark Eddington or Jared Whitley, (202) 224-5251 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
[  ] Watch Television Clip |
|
SEN. HATCH CALLS ON HOUSE TO VOTE ON FISA MODERNIZATION BILL
|
| |
Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch today called on House leaders to quit playing politics with national security and allow a vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) modernization bill.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Hatch said U.S. counterintelligence experts are being kept in the dark about terrorists’ intentions since Democratic leaders stalled the measure in the House.
Highlights from Hatch’s speech on the Senate floor follow:
• “During a debate about strategy of how to defeat al-Qaida, goal number one should be figuring out their plans. What are their tactics? What are their targets?
• How do we do this? We use our technological advantages to get this information. That’s what the FISA modernization bill allows us to do.”
• “Why doesn’t the House leadership allow a vote on this bill? Could it be because they know it will pass? But we can’t have that; heaven forbid democracy is free to run its course.
• “That’s the irony of this situation. It’s OK if we kill terrorists overseas with missiles, but we can’t listen to the phone calls of new terrorists without demonstrating ‘probable cause.’ ”
• “A bipartisan majority of the House was ready and eager to vote on this bill, and was prohibited from voting. While numerous lawmakers stated that they would stay in Washington for as long as it took to get this bill passed, the leadership from the House forced them to go on vacation.”
Hatch’s prepared remarks follow:
During a debate about strategy of how to defeat al-Qaida, goal number one should be figuring out their plans. What are their tactics? What are their targets?
How do we do this? We use our technological advantages to get this information. That’s what the FISA modernization bill allows us to do.
This Congress has been working on FISA modernization since April 2007, over 300 days ago. But I guess 300 days is not enough time for a bill of this magnitude, right? But wait, the Constitution of the United States was written in about 115 days, and that included travel time on horseback for the Founding Fathers. So the entire Constitution was written in one-third of the time we’ve spent on FISA modernization. Congress has had plenty of time to debate this issue.
Given that the executive strategy in this instance is paramount, the next President’s decisions will be critical.
Like many people, I’ve watched many of the Presidential debates. One thing amazes me: Out of at least 32 Presidential debates and forums, the candidates have yet to receive one question on FISA. Not one. So here we are, continuing to talk about the most important bill in the entire 110th Congress, which is apparently not important enough to come up during over 50 hours of discussion with our next commander in chief.
But I did hear an interesting comment during the most recent debate. A decision to utilize military strikes to kill al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan was seemingly supported. And that’s the irony of this situation. It’s OK if we kill terrorists overseas with missiles, but we can’t listen to the phone calls of new terrorists without demonstrating “probable cause.”
But we have to ask what probable cause is and why it exists at all. That will tell us to whom it belongs. Probable cause is a check on government power rooted in the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Who may claim such due process protection under the Constitution of the United States? United States citizens, not foreign citizens overseas.
We’re constantly hearing from leadership in Congress about the need to “bring people together.” Yet at every turn, they seem to be willing to set aside bipartisanship in favor of the preferred policies of extreme political organizations. If Democrats really want to change the tone in Washington they are going to have to, at some point, say no to the more radical elements of their base.
With the current stalemate on FISA modernization legislation, we’ve seen both political parties blaming each other for the delay. We’ve heard notions that we are not in any danger due to the lapse of the Protect America Act. While our opinions on this issue will remain in disagreement, the solution to these problems is quite easy. In fact, it should take about 15 minutes to solve this problem.
Here is the answer, it’s just four words: Let the House vote. That’s it. It doesn’t take a genius to come up with this solution. All of the disputes will go away and a bipartisan majority of the House will approve this bill if given the chance to do so.
Is this a novel concept? The House of Representatives has been voting on bills since 1789, over 219 years ago. Will we ever be in a situation as complicated as this again, where the solution to every problem is allowing our elected officials to vote?
Back on Dec. 17, on this very floor, I asked one of my Democratic colleagues if he agreed with me that should the FISA bill pass, it would be one of the best examples of bipartisanship in the whole 110th Congress. He agreed with this notion, and months later this worthy goal came to fruition.
As we all know, the Senate approved a FISA modernization bill by a supermajority, a veto-proof margin. Senators from both sides of the aisle engaged in lengthy and informative debate, and came together to pass a bill that met the goals of modernizing FISA.
This rare demonstration of unity came to a crashing halt on Feb. 14. Rather than allow a bipartisan majority of the House to vote on this bill, the House leadership refused to allow a vote. The House spent its last legislative day before their weeklong vacation debating and voting on a contempt resolution to further a partisan fishing expedition that has led to no credible evidence of wrongdoing. House Democrats had been sitting on these resolutions since July, for over 201 days, yet they determined that they were so important that they superseded the needs of our intelligence community and the American public.
So a bipartisan majority of the House was ready and eager to vote on this bill, and was prohibited from voting on the bill. While numerous lawmakers stated that they would stay in Washington for as long as it took to get this bill passed, the leadership from the House forced them to go on vacation. So they were prohibited from voting on a bipartisan bill to protect our country, but were mandated to take a vacation.
You want to stay and vote on this bill. Too bad. We would rather you take some time off. Go back to your districts. Take a break. Don’t worry about our intelligence community; they have all of the tools they need.
That’s what House members heard.
These Representatives didn’t need to be patronized; they needed to given the chance to vote. The Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official of the United States, and the Director of National Intelligence, say that the lapse of the Protect America Act caused us to previously miss information. These officials have more institutional knowledge on this topic than anyone, and they dispute the notions that “the intelligence community has everything it needs.”
With all due respect to all of us who serve as politicians, I am going to trust in the expertise of the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence over the assurances of politicians in an election year.
So why doesn’t the House leadership allow a vote on this bill? Could it be because they know it will pass? But we can’t have that; heaven forbid democracy is free to run its course.
So rather than vote on this bill, we are hearing that the House leadership wants to conference this bill. Conferences are about resolving disagreements between the chambers. But remember, a bipartisan majority from both chambers have no disagreements on this bill. There are no disagreements to resolve between the majority of the Senate and the House. So a conference is entirely inappropriate in this situation.
I’ve also heard an argument that the House needs more time to review the immunity provision. I want to make sure everyone is perfectly aware; the immunity provision has been publically available and completely unaltered for 133 days! It has not been hidden, it’s been available to everyone in Congress, and it has been available to the world on the website of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It only takes about three minutes to read it; it should not take 133 days to analyze.
I am also amazed at the false descriptions floating around about the TSP, which is the program the President described on Dec. 17, 2005, during a radio address. We’ve all heard the terms: warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying or eavesdropping bill, the list goes on. But let’s look at what the President actually said during his radio address:
“In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.”
I don’t see anything in this statement about domestic spying? I thought the definition of the word “domestic” was pretty clear. If the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was overseas, not to mention a member of al-Qaida, then it seems fairly obvious that the calls were not domestic.
Is this such a hard concept to grasp? Last time I flew overseas, I didn’t fly on a domestic flight. I flew on an international flight. And there is a big difference between domestic calls and international calls. My last phone bill sure showed a big difference in price between the two.
“Domestic Spying” may sound catchy and mysterious, but it’s a completely inaccurate way to describe the TSP or FISA modernization. Why don’t we describe them as international spying? Isn’t that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our government.
But what about “warrantless wiretapping?” Doesn’t this sound like a bad thing? Perhaps we should read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. You’ll notice that not all searches require a warrant. Every member of the public who is up in the Gallery watching us today went through a warrantless search to get into the building. Every time an American comes into the United States at the border, they go through a highly intrusive warrantless search. Every time an American gets on a plane, they go through a warrantless search. Every time an American goes to see a rally or speech from the President of the United States, thus exercising their First Amendment rights, they go through a warrantless search. Remember, foreign citizens overseas receive no protection from the Fourth Amendment. So “warrantless wiretapping” in this instance is perfectly Constitutional.
In addition, let’s look at what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the highest court to look into this issue, previously said in a 2002 case:
“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
Given the staggering amount of misinformation in the public, how many people have incorrectly stated that the government can listen to all of their phone calls, read all of their emails, spy on American families overseas, even spy on our own military members overseas? These accusations are completely false, meant to incite fear of nonpolitical intelligence analysts who serve regardless of who the President is. Isn’t this the real fear mongering?
Terrorists killed 3000 Americans on Sept. 11, and killed hundreds of people in Madrid, London, Bali, and Kenya. They have sworn to kill more. They have said that “the streets of America shall run red with blood….casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of attacks may come at any moment.” They recently called for the President of the United States to be “receive[d] not with roses and applause, but with bombs and booby traps” during a recent Presidential trip overseas. So they wish death on all Americans, and threaten assassination of the President of the United States. And yet, if we acknowledge their threats, if we try to prepare for these attacks, we are accused of politics of fear.
But there is no problem when numerous individuals completely misinterpret how our government protects our country? Nobody is calling these tactics “fear mongering.” So it’s perfectly acceptable to question the integrity of the thousands of Americans who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, and who have dedicated their lives to preventing our great nation from suffering an attack?
I’m sorry to break it to people, but our intelligence analysts have more important things to do than look at someone’s eBay transactions and listen to phone calls from the Jones family on their family vacation in Italy. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by these conspiracy theories, given the vocal lunacy expounded by people who think the Sept. 11 attacks were an “inside job.”
The FISA modernization bill should be the best example of how meaningful legislation becomes enacted. This bill passed by a veto-proof majority in the Senate, it has support from a bipartisan majority of the House, it is supported by the intelligence community, and has the support of the executive branch. Isn’t this about as good as it gets? When a bill has support from all of these elements, there is no excuse for it being held up.
The House leadership has indicated that it intends to unveil a “compromise” FISA bill. Apparently, House Democrats are using an unconventional definition of the word “compromise.” What would they call the Senate bill? No one -- not the administration nor anyone in the Senate -- got everything they wanted with the Senate bill. All sides had to make concessions before a final solution was reached. That, Mr. President, is precisely what compromise is all about.
I simply don’t follow the logic of rejecting a bipartisan result – which is what we already have – in favor of a more partisan solution and calling it a “compromise.” I can only assume that, when House Democrats say “compromise” they really mean something else -- capitulation.
Mr. President, I don’t intend to capitulate on this issue, and I hope the Representatives in the House share this view.
I have been to this floor countless times to discuss FISA modernization. I will continue to do so. I will continue to fight for this cause.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
