Congressional Record: February 17, 2006 (Senate)
Page S1457-S1458
WIRETAPPING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his radio address on December 17, 2005,
President Bush disclosed that after September 11, 2001, he authorized
the National Security Agency, NSA, to undertake wiretapping of American
citizens to try to prevent terrorist attacks. The President argued that
his actions were, in his words, ``fully consistent'' with his
constitutional responsibilities.
The President wrongly asserted--Mr. President, the President wrongly
asserted--that his authority to order warrantless electronic
surveillance of U.S. citizens on American soil is supported by his
inherent Presidential powers and the joint congressional resolution
that authorized the use of force after September 11.
A huge swath--a huge swath--of America, including many expert legal
minds, does not--I say, does not--agree
[[Page S1458]]
with the arguments put forth by the administration. These arguments are
transparently contrived, intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses
being served up like tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White
House.
Let me say that again. A huge swath of America, including many expert
legal minds, does not agree with the arguments put forth by the
administration. These arguments are transparently contrived,
intellectually deficient, indefensible excuses being served up like
tripe to silence legitimate criticism of the White House, a White House
so infused with its own hubris that it has talked itself into believing
that its inhabitants are above the law. But they are not. They are not
above the law. President Bush is not above the law. No President is
above the law. No United States Senator is above the law. No man is
above the law. No one in the United States of America is above the law.
Remember, this is a nation of laws, not of men.
Yesterday, the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence jettisoned
its constitutional responsibility to make certain that our laws are not
being breached, and that the spirit and text of our revered
Constitution remain in force. It is a sad day, indeed, to see such an
important committee wilt under political pressure applied by the Vice
President in partisan meetings held behind closed doors. The committee
adjourned last night without considering a Democratic proposal to begin
an investigation of the warrantless spying program, even though Senator
Jay Rockefeller, the vice-chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had
been assured that his proposal would receive a vote.
I want to commend my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. He has worked
hard to protect the people's liberties, to make sure that this
administration, even in its most secret circles, follows the law and
the Constitution. It has not been an easy task, but it is one that
Senator Rockefeller has carried diligently.
Like Senator Rockefeller, I will not sit idly by and allow the
President's possible breaking of the law to be swept under the rug. I
refuse to go quietly into the night, abdicating my responsibility as a
U.S. Senator to a secretive executive branch, which refuses to brief
the Congress of the United States on its clandestine spying on U.S.
citizens without a warrant--an administration that believes it can, on
its own, nullify constitutional provisions intended to protect the
freedoms of millions of Americans for over 200 years.
This travesty must not stand. The peeping and snooping and spying
must be investigated.
I am today announcing my intention to submit to the Congress
legislation that will establish a nonpartisan, independent, 9-11-style
commission to investigate and determine the legality of the President's
actions.
There is a critical need for a thorough investigation of all domestic
surveillance programs.
As I stated on Wednesday in my remarks on this subject, we, the
American people--not just the NSA or the White House--have a legitimate
need to know what is being done, by whom, and to whom. If there is a
justifiable and valid reason to surveil a potential terrorist in the
U.S., we certainly can find a way to do it legally. If there is a need
to provide more efficient tools to fight terror, Congress has the
responsibility to deliberate and, if warranted, to approve them. The
President should ask Congress for them; not seize new powers that have
never been enumerated by any U.S. court.
Congress would be pleased to entertain his request, as we have in the
past, by updating FISA and the PATRIOT Act, but not--I repeat, not--
before a full investigation to determine if laws have been broken--an
investigation which will give members a fuller understanding of just
what these surveillance programs entail. A little sunshine on this
process is long overdue. Congress cannot fix what the White House does
not want us to fully understand.
Congress needs to know if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
or any other U.S. law has been broken, and whether the constitutional
rights of thousands of Americans have been violated without cause. It
is essential that Congress obtain the answers to these questions, not
for partisan political reasons, but because our system of checks and
balances requires it.
James Madison advised in Federalist 47 that: the accumulation of all
powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands,
whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed,
or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
The assumption of power by an unchecked executive, who arrogantly
believes that he can seize the authority to spy on innocent Americans
and wantonly violate the fourth amendment is the beginning of the
tyranny Madison so feared.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the fourth
amendment of the Constitution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particu1arly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________