[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2535-S2537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 2468. A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory 
and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic 
communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic 
surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, one of the issues that has been hovering 
over this Chamber--and this country, of course--is the NSA program, the 
President's program to do wiretaps on American citizens if part of the 
call originated in a foreign country.
  First, let me stress that I think most of us in this Chamber, 
Democrat and Republican--certainly myself--believe the President should 
be given the tools he needs to fight terror. In this brave new world, 
the tools are different, and because a rule worked in 1960 or 1980 does 
not necessarily mean it works in 2005 or 2006 or 2004. We have to be 
flexible. I think you can be flexible in a way that both protects our 
security and protects our liberty. In most issues, this does not 
conflict. My watchword on most of these issues is: Have a debate, have 
a standard, and have an independent arbiter check that that standard is 
being met.
  That worked, for instance, in wiretaps. Before 1971, it was a mess. 
J. Edgar Hoover was listening in on whomever he chose. There was a 
debate on this issue. There was a standard--probable cause--and there 
is an independent arbiter, a federal judge, who determines whether 
probable cause is met. And it works. Neither the prosecutors nor the 
defense bar have any complaints.
  We could come to the same exact conclusion in the new world we face, 
where warrants are needed far more quickly regarding many more people. 
If you are doing information gathering where you look for patterns, 
that might be needed. Again, because one way worked in the past doesn't 
mean it still works, and I think most Members, myself included, want to 
be flexible. The problem is when the executive branch arrogates this 
issue to itself and says, We can decide to do whatever we want, either 
under the constitutional executive power--that is pretty broad--or even 
under a grant of war powers, a grant to use force which, as most know, 
I supported back when the President asked for it in 2001.
  Now there is a great debate. The President and his supporters say he 
was allowed to do these wiretaps without changing the law, without 
congressional approval. Some on the other side say he never should have 
been allowed to do it. I think that is a small minority. Many others 
say: Yes, he should be allowed to do it, but there ought to be a 
congressional debate, a change in the law, and perhaps a standard would 
be applied.
  Right now we are deadlocked on that issue. We are deadlocked because, 
whether it is the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee on 
which I serve, this body in general, or the Nation--nobody knows, did 
the President go outside the ambit of the law about asking for a 
warrant? Some think yes, and they are pretty sure of that. Some think 
no, and they are pretty sure of it. They are pretty sure that he 
couldn't. Many are not sure at all.
  I ask you, who is the logical group or person to make that 
determination? The executive branch generally through our history has 
had a lean to expand executive power. That is natural.
  The legislative branch has had a lean on the other side. That is how 
the Founding Fathers set up our Government in their wisdom and it seems 
to have worked very well ever since 1789. To say we should just go 
along with what the executive branch wants is not going to work. 
Frankly, even though I am a Senator and believe in protecting the 
legislative prerogative, if we only did what the legislative branch 
wanted, that probably wouldn't work, either; and, needless to say, we 
are divided on this.
  The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. Supreme 
Court. They don't side with executive or legislative power, 
necessarily. They are authoritative, they are respected, in a sense 
they are the supreme arbiters, and they could put this question to rest 
and we could move on.
  There is one difficulty. There will be people who will challenge 
these wiretaps through the normal process and we might get to the 
Supreme Court in 3 or 4 years. During all that time, the gridlock and 
deadlock we face on this issue, and the concomitant gridlock and 
deadlock that occurs in other issues related to this, would be hanging 
over this body. So I tried to figure out how can we get the Supreme 
Court to hear this case quickly.
  The bill I am introducing right now will do just that. We have 
consulted some expert authorities and there are two basic problems--one 
easier, one harder. The easier is to simply expedite the judicial 
process, to grant expedited review. The minute a case is decided in the 
district court, it goes right up to the Supreme Court because time is 
of the essence--and I believe it is here. We have good precedent for 
this. It was done recently so the Supreme Court could hear on an 
expedited basis McCain-Feingold, and they came to a conclusion, and 
elections could be held and we moved forward. That is a typical example 
of where you would do that.
  Our bill does grant such expedited review. But what about standing? 
How do you quickly get into the district court to do this? And, by the 
way, I have a feeling very few in this body would want to grant an 
expedited hearing to someone who might be participating in or accused 
of terrorism. So you have a dilemma that, while you want expedited 
review and it would seem logical that the Supreme Court should be the 
place, the cases that are out there are not the ones that would seem to 
merit that kind of expedited review--a special case; particularly if 
someone is accused of terrorism. We in New York know better than 
anywhere else that is a dastardly act.
  What we have done--frankly, in consultation with some leading experts 
on this--is we have granted standing to a

[[Page S2536]]

very narrow class of citizens who actually have refrained from making 
overseas calls because of a fear that they might be listened to under 
the NSA program. But these are not people who are accused of terrorism 
in any way. These are, rather, people who maybe would be--and it is a 
small class--business people who would regularly call, say, 
Afghanistan. Maybe they are importing rugs, who knows? But they are 
afraid to because their calls might be listened in to.
  It might be academics, maybe a professor of linguistics who might be 
doing research into the Pashtun language, and now has refrained from 
making calls. These are people who have been chilled by the reports 
that their calls might be listened in to. They are American citizens 
calling the foreign country and would have standing.
  Our bill gives those people standing, gives them a right to go to 
district court quickly and then with expedited review to the Supreme 
Court, so we could actually get a decision, very possibly, on whether 
the President's wiretapping was under the ambit of the law very 
quickly. It is very authoritative. It might break through the dilemmas 
we face.
  I am introducing this legislation this afternoon and I ask my 
colleagues to give it careful consideration. It is clearly not partisan 
legislation. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court and the 
two new Justices who have just been added, it is hardly a liberal or 
Democratic court, and it could settle the issue once and for all so our 
country could achieve some comity on this issue and move on and discuss 
other issues.
  I urge my colleagues and everyone else in this great country of ours 
to examine this legislation, see if they wish to support this 
legislation or something close to it, and maybe we can move this kind 
of bill on the floor quickly so we could get the kind of expedited 
review that I think many of us would seek from the one body that would 
have the authority to make such review ultimately, and that is the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  The bill will be handed to the desk for introduction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 2470. A bill to authorize early repayment of obligations to the 
Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation District in the State 
of Idaho; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern 
Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2006. This Act authorizes 
prepayment by landowners of their allocated portion of the obligations 
to the Bureau of Reclamation within A&B Irrigation District and will 
allow individual landowners to prepay their obligations if they so 
desire. Additionally, the Act will allow the landowners who have 
prepaid to be exempt from the acreage limitation provisions set in the 
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, thereby creating an appropriate market 
for the sale of those lands now owned by landowners who have either 
died or have retired.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this necessary 
bill through the legislative process quickly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 2475. A bill to establish the Commission to Study the Potential 
Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community, to 
develop a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a 
National Museum of the American Latino Community in Washington, DC, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation I am 
introducing today which I believe will enhance the experience of the 
millions of visitors who visit our Nation's Capital every year, and 
will contribute to the ongoing, deeply rewarding, and profoundly 
important process of national self-discovery. As we learn more about 
who we are as Americans, we gain strength from our history and enrich 
our vision for the future.
  In that spirit, together with Senators Martinez, Hatch, Bingaman, 
Hutchison, and Menendez, I have introduced the National Museum of the 
American Latino Community Commission Act. The bill will establish a 
Commission to study the potential creation of a National Museum of the 
American Latino Community. The Commission members, selected by the 
President and Members of Congress, will be tasked with studying the 
impact of such a Museum, developing a plan of action and a fundraising 
plan, and proposing recommendations to make the Museum a reality.
  I am pleased to be building on the work of several members of 
Congress during the 108th Congress, most notably Senator Hatch and 
Congressman Xavier Becerra.
  On May 10, 2005, Congressman Xavier Becerra re-introduced the 
Commission bill in the House of Representatives with Congresswoman 
Illeana Ros-Lehtinen. Since then, 107 Representatives have lent their 
support to H.R. 2134, and tomorrow, the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Recreation and Public Lands in the House Resources Committee will meet 
to examine the proposal.
  Washington, DC is more than the seat of our government; it is the 
symbolic heart of our country. When American travel to their Capital, 
they expect the museums, monuments, and national parks they visit to 
reflect the complete American experience. I celebrate the recent 
opening of the National Museum of the American Indian and the 
announcement of the location of the new National Museum of African 
American History and Culture. I believe we must celebrate the diversity 
of our Nation and her rich national heritage.
  Many assume that Hispanics have just arrived on our country's shores. 
But these newly arrived Hispanics are only a small segment of a much 
larger community that has been an integral part of American history 
since before our country was founded.
  Hispanics soldiers fought in the American Revolution alongside 
General George Washington, our first Commander-in-Chief, and have 
served in every subsequent military conflict in which the U.S. has 
fought. During the war that led to our Nation's birth, General 
Washington's army was successful at Yorktown in part because of support 
from a diverse army led by Bernardo de Galvez on a southern front 
against the British, driving them out of the Gulf of Mexico, fighting 
them on the Mississippi and in Florida.
  In the Korean War, 140,000 Hispanic soldiers served. During the 
Vietnam War, more than 80,000 Hispanics served. While Hispanics 
comprised only 4.5 percent of the U.S. population at the time, they 
represented 5.5 percent of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for 
their country. More recently, 20,000 Hispanics took part in Operation 
Desert Shield and Desert Storm. And today, more than 10 percent of the 
United States Armed Forces are Hispanics.
  In sum, we will honor the more than 1.1 million Hispanic veterans 
living in America today, by sharing this long history with all who come 
to our Nation's Capital.
  My own family's story speaks to this truth.
  Over 400 years ago, in 1598, my family helped found the oldest city 
in what is now these United States. They named the city Santa Fe--the 
City of Holy Faith--because they knew the hand of God would guide them 
through the struggles of survival in the ages ahead.
  For the next four centuries, that faith in their future guided them 
to overcome extremely painful and challenging times. As humble and poor 
farmers, the circumstances of their lives forged the priceless and 
timeless values my father Henry and mother Emma instilled in their 
eight children.
  They were indeed a part of our country's greatest generation. My 
mother traveled across the country to work in the Pentagon's War 
Department, and my father was a proud veteran of World War II. In fact, 
one of his last requests was to be buried in his uniform.
  Although neither had a college degree, they taught us about the 
values and promise of America. All eight of their children became first 
generation college graduates, inspired by their

[[Page S2537]]

dedication to God, family, community and country.
  As the National Capital Planning Commission states: ``the memorials 
and museums that define Washington's Monumental Core express America's 
connections to its past and its direction for the future. They help us 
understand what it means to be an American.''
  As a proud American, I want to ensure that every individual who 
visits Washington has a chance to learn the full history of who we are 
and who we are becoming as Americans. It is my hope that the Senate can 
work to pass this important bill that will record and preserve our 
shard American history.
  In the coming months, I will work with the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resource Committee to advance the Commission bill. I look forward to 
speaking with my Senate colleagues about the Commission bill, and hope 
we can take the important step of establishing the Commission.

                          ____________________