Congressman John D. Dingell

June 20, 2008

Washington, DC - Today, the House passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation modernizes the original FISA law (enacted in 1978), and allows the government to conduct surveillance operations targeting foreign nationals within the United States without first obtaining an individualized warrant.  The law also grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in President Bush’s unauthorized warrantless wiretap program. Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15) voted against the bill and made the following statement:

“Madam Speaker, while I cannot support the legislation before us today, I commend Majority Leader Hoyer for the work he has done to negotiate a bill that is substantially better the version that passed in the Senate.  This legislation, which will be the exclusive mechanism for the government to conduct surveillance within the United States, contains provisions that will provide greater protections against unwarranted and unconstitutional searches of American citizens. 

“Despite the many improvements Mr. Hoyer was able to obtain, I unfortunately still cannot support this legislation because it contains a provision that will grant immunity to the telecommunications companies that assisted the President with his illegal and unauthorized warrantless wiretapping program.  I have consistently said that it is not appropriate for Congress to grant these companies immunity for their actions without having an understanding of what it is that they did.  This is not only because it will hold the telecommunications companies accountable for their actions, but because it is the only way of finding out just how extensive the President’s illegal wiretapping program really was.  In other words, this provision will enable the Bush Administration to continue suppressing facts and information about the government’s own misbehavior and wrongdoing. 

“The immunity provision contained in this bill purporting to allow for judicial review to determine whether immunity is appropriate is a sham.  As drafted, courts will have no real discretion and will be forced to grant immunity so long as the government claims its actions were legal.  However, the court is under no obligation to investigate whether the government’s claims are true.  Anyone following the headlines recently, who has read about the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Administration’s argument that it has the authority to detain people indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay, or about the hearings held by Senator Carl Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee uncovering evidence that top civilian leadership at the Department of Defense authored memos arguing it was legal for the military to torture detainees, should be extremely wary of trusting President Bush to decide whether or not it is legal to spy on Americans.”