Congressional Record: March 2, 2006 (Senate)
Page S1653-S1655


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS


      By Mr. BYRD:
  S. 2362. A bill to establish the National Commission on Surveillance
Activities and the Rights of Americans; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke
about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the
executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation
to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless
wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency
and other departments of Government.
  I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this
program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens.
I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of
concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the
NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the
aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and
have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against
the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution.
  Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors
of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's
program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program
appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.''
  These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of
Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that?
I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same
branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this
stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part
of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been
answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire
need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has
been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess
what, by the administration; by the administration.
  There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the
Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality
and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use
of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these
concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This
secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its
legality.
  What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about
the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of
information and records that were gleaned from this secret
eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly
complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless
information that

[[Page S1654]]

diverted their resources from pursuing important counterterrorism work.
Such complaints raise the question of whether the domestic wiretapping
program may have backfired by sending our top counterterrorism agencies
on wild-goose chases, thus making our country less secure instead of
making our country more secure.
  We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the
New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless--
domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA
Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct
domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine
wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy,
learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through
reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press.

  We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least
one of the judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department
of Justice that some of the information being presented to the court to
secure warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had
apparently circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate
tainted evidence.
  We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the
Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved
over time.''
  What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal
basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the
surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal
basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the
administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its
snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face-
saving device meant to give the administration cover for having
violated the civil liberties of Americans?
  We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of
Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he
appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless
surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted
that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and
all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to
determine the scope of the NSA's activities.
  With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is
absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this
program and any violations of law that may have occurred.
  We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that,
everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate,
including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of
Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has
refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an
investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our
Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to
establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic
surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In
this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment
rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the
actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats.
  James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that
``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed
on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
  No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything
but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost
priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in
their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights
is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that
bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill-
conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties.
  In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating
the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled,
that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10
amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better
secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever
looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say
that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of
re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government
from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to
the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from
oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you
better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will
always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party.
  In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again
under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a
powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people
out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is
confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the
public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr.
President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of
wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me
say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a
President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are
sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for
secrecy.
  But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia,
Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up
there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the
holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check
executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The
executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always
reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power,
more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn
duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to
stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it
is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It
makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on
the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at
all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us
here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we
are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the
liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times,
in times of peace and in times of war.
  History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a
hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your
freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered
in vain, resulting in little added security.
  There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be
abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish
their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could
perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if
they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of
freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is
gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by
reassurances of greater security.
  The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the
sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of
the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America
what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the
administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise
of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate
their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on
the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier
generations fought and

[[Page S1655]]

died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He regretted that he had but one
life to give, to lose, one life to lose for his country. Remember
Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he said. John Paul
Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.''
  So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won
liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we
easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To
suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is
a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with
ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of
Rights and of our laws over time.
  The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the
homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed
intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and
retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and
scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will
investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying
program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get
that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will
examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress--
not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of
American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and
clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and
perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the
sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional
executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary
Americans.
                                 ______



S 2362 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2362

To establish the National Commission on Surveillance Activities and the Rights of Americans.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 2, 2006

Mr. BYRD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To establish the National Commission on Surveillance Activities and the Rights of Americans.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

SEC. 5. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 7. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 8. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

SEC. 9. STAFF OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 10. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

SEC. 11. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF.

SEC. 12. REPORTS OF COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

SEC. 13. FUNDING.

END