[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 68 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5336-S5338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     REVEREND WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to remember my friend Rev. 
William Sloane Coffin who passed away in Vermont on April 12, 2006, at 
his home in Strafford.
  Bill Coffin was an extraordinary man who leaves behind a legacy of 
inspired service for social justice that few Americans have matched. He 
dedicated his life to speaking out on behalf of those who would 
otherwise be forgotten, to improving the lives of the underprivileged, 
and to calling for justice for victims of discrimination in our 
society.
  As chaplain of Yale University, Bill used that pulpit like none 
before him, to serve not only the Yale community but to inspire the 
entire Nation. While many Senators may remember him best for his moral 
leadership and courageous activism during the Vietnam War, Bill also 
established himself as a dedicated leader for racial and social 
justice. He was a member of the Freedom Riders who rode interstate 
buses in the South to challenge segregation laws. He was a visionary 
and powerful leader in pointing out the hypocrisy of religious and 
sexual discrimination
  Mr. Gary Trudeau, creator of the cartoon ``Doonesbury'' and fellow 
Yale graduate, may have immortalized Bill Coffin in his Reverend Sloan 
character. But that was only one chapter of a lifetime of using his 
ministry to fight injustice. After his long service at Yale, Bill 
became pastor of Riverside Church in New York City where he continued 
to advocate for the downtrodden all over the world. Bill continued to 
be a forceful presence for good long after he left Riverside.
  Mr. President, Vermonters were fortunate to have Bill Coffin as a 
resident of our unique State. Vermonters have a long history of 
independent thought, of standing up for what is right, and Bill Coffin 
set a standard for all of us. I was privileged to know him personally 
and to be able to call him a friend. I know his other friends and 
neighbors felt the same way. We were all made better, and felt better 
about ourselves, when we were in the company of Bill Coffin.
  I ask unanimous consent that a column by William F. Buckley and an 
editorial in the Valley News be printed in the Congressional Record so 
that other Senators may have a further appreciation of this great and 
good man.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Valley News, April 14, 2006]

                           William S. Coffin

       The Upper Valley has its share of accomplished and 
     prominent residents, but we can think of few whose presence 
     seemed such a gift as did that of The Rev. William Sloane 
     Coffin, who lived here full time from the late 1980s until 
     his death Wednesday at his home in Strafford.
       The Upper Valley phase of Coffin's life showcased the same 
     devotion to social justice as his earlier chapters as pastor 
     of Riverside Church in New York City and chaplain of Yale 
     University. His focus shifted somewhat--the Vietnam War and 
     black Americans' civil rights while he worked in New Haven, 
     Conn., and New York City; nuclear disarmament, gay Americans' 
     civil rights and the environment while in Vermont--but the 
     larger theme remained constant. He was committed to speaking 
     truth to power, and he did that by talking about the issues 
     of the day with striking clarity and wisdom.
       One of the last op-eds he wrote for the Valley News 
     appeared just a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, and 
     reviewing it now, more than four years later, makes us wish 
     it had had more of an impact in guiding this nation's leaders 
     about the topic at hand--how to best respond to terrorism.
       ``What Americans do realize now,'' Coffin wrote, ``is that 
     life can change on a dime. On Sept. 11, we lost, and lost 
     forever, our sense of invulnerability and invincibility. Hard 
     as that may be, let us not grieve their passing; they were 
     illusions.
       ``Today it is the Devil's strategy to persuade Americans to 
     let go of the good to fight evil. I hope we will resist. I 
     hope that first we will present to the world conclusive 
     evidence of whom these hijackers were, from whence they came, 
     and who knowingly harbored them.
       ``Then I hope we shall try to build international consensus 
     for appropriate measures, both to halt the violence and the 
     circumstances that gave rise to it.''
       Here in the Upper Valley, though, we had the opportunity 
     not only to appreciate the power of Coffin's message but also 
     to witness the force of his personality. Whether at a dining 
     room table, behind a church pulpit, at a piano or on a stage 
     at a political rally, Coffin commanded, enjoyed and rewarded 
     attention. The message was difficult to separate from the 
     virtuoso performance of high-spiritedness, humor and insight. 
     Not even a failing body, including the slurred speech left in 
     the wake of a stroke, blunted the force of his personality. 
     Strafford Selectwoman Kay Campbell had it just right when she 
     noted that Coffin, despite his national stature, had a knack 
     for ``treating us like we were all special.''
       Bill Coffin was an accomplished, amazing and fascinating 
     man, and many Upper Valley residents feel blessed not just to 
     have benefited from his wisdom but for the opportunity of 
     seeing him in action.
                                  ____


                 [From Yale Daily News, Apr. 14, 2006]

                    Coffin's Passion Topped Ideology

                      (By William F. Buckley, Jr.)

       It was the routine, when Charles Seymour was president of 
     Yale, that the chairman (as we were then designated) of the 
     News should visit with President Seymour for a half hour 
     every week, mutual conduits for information in both 
     directions. We became friends and he told me at one meeting 
     with some enthusiasm that the student speaker at the annual 
     Alumni Day lunch at the Freshman Commons the day before 
     ``gave the single most eloquent talk I have ever heard from 
     an undergraduate.'' I thought hard about that comment one 
     year later when I was selected to give the annual talk to the 
     alumni, which speech moved nobody at all because the day 
     before, the text having been examined by public relations 
     director Richard Lee, I was asked to be so kind as to 
     withdraw; and I did. (What I did with the speech was stick it 
     into the appendix of ``God and Man at Yale'').
       I didn't meet William Sloane Coffin '49 DIV '56 until some 
     while later, when of course I congratulated him on electing 
     the correct political extremity in the controversies of the 
     day. He was never slow to catch an irony, and his wink 
     brought on a trans-ideological friendship that induced great 
     pleasure.
       The friendship was publicly confirmed by Coffin with an 
     extraordinary gesture. Garry Trudeau '70 ART '73 was lining 
     up speakers for an event celebrating the reunion of his 
     class. His reunion coincided with a reunion of my own class, 
     and he came to me and asked if I would consent to debate with 
     Bill Coffin as I had done for Trudeau's class in freshman 
     year.
       Well, I said, okay, though I knew that Charles Seymour's 
     estimate of successful speakers would certainly prevail yet 
     again. But there was a remarkable feature of that afternoon. 
     I climbed the steps at the Yale Law School Auditorium to 
     extend a hand to Bill Coffin--who brushed it aside and 
     embraced me with both arms. This was a dramatic act. It was 
     testimony not only to Coffin's wide Christian gateway to the 
     unfaithful, but also to his extraordinary histrionic skills. 
     I'd have lost the argument anyway. I have defended my 
     political faith as often as Coffin did his own, but you 
     cannot, in the end, win an argument against someone who is 
     offering free health care and an end to nuclear bombs. But 
     there was never any hope for survival after his public 
     embrace.
       We were always, however lightly, in touch. ``Sweet 
     William,'' he addressed me in June 2003, enclosing a copy of 
     a speech he had delivered at Yale the week before. ``The 
     enclosed speech to the Class of '68, you will be sorry to 
     hear, was received with tumultuous applause. Don't worry, 
     however, you, alas, represent the ruling view. I hope you 
     feel with Saint Paul, `Though our outer nature is wasted away 
     our inner nature is being renewed each day.' Affectionately 
     as always, Bill.''
       I replied ``Wm, I am not surprised your speech was greeted 
     by tumultuous applause. That is what demagogy is designed to 
     do, dear William.'' He replied some months later, enclosing a 
     copy of a page from the Boston Globe in which both of us were 
     quoted. ``Dear Wm, Could it be that in this time and our old 
     age that we might be on the same page? Do let me know, 
     affectionately, Bill.''
       I replied that I had seen his new book Letters to a Young 
     Doubter. ``... I think of you

[[Page S5337]]

     often, and did so most directly when I published, a fortnight 
     ago, the obituary I did on William F. Rickenbacker. He is the 
     only other fleeted spirit I ever addressed as Dear Wm, which 
     he always reciprocated with letters address to me as Dear 
     Wm--both of us signing off as . . . Wm. As I am now, anxious 
     to get a note off to you, especially since you have taken to 
     writing books again, instead of reproachful letters to, your 
     pal--`Wm.' ''
       Our disagreements were heated, and it is through the 
     exercise of much restraint that I forebear doing more than 
     merely to record that they were heated; on my way, heatedly, 
     to record that Bill Coffin was a bird of paradise, and to 
     extend my sympathy to all who, however thoughtlessly, lament 
     his failure to bring the world around to his views.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce 
legislation with Senator Specter to reaffirm the exclusivity of the 
Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act of 1978, FISA, and streamline the 
process by which it works.
  This measure brings the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program 
being conducted by the National Security Agency under the process 
required by FISA. The bill will enhance our national security and 
provide constitutional protections against government intrusion into 
the privacy of ordinary Americans.
  Specifically, the bill that we introduce today would:
  Restate, in no uncertain terms, that FISA is the exclusive means by 
which our Government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. 
persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes;
  Expressly state that there is no such thing as an ``implied'' repeal 
of our FISA laws. No future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an 
exception from FISA unless it expressly makes such exception;
  Increase flexibility under FISA by extending the period of emergency 
electronic surveillance from 72 hours to 7 days, which should cover all 
contingent needs; and
  Authorize designated supervisors at the NSA and the FBI to initiate 
emergency electronic surveillance, provided that the surveillance is 
reported to the Attorney General within 24 hours, and approved by the 
AG within 3 days and the FISA Court within 7 days. The purpose of this 
is to prevent bureaucratic delay in an emergency circumstance.
  In addition to these major provisions, the legislation we introduce 
today makes several additional changes to reinforce FISA's exclusivity 
and adapt existing FISA authorities and procedures.
  These changes are designed to allow applications to move faster from 
the field to the FISA Court, and to allow that Court to handle any 
increased caseload that will result from bringing the current NSA 
program into the FISA regime.
  These additional authorities, streamlined procedures, and additional 
resources respond directly to needs described by the Attorney General, 
current and former FISA Court judges, and outside experts. 
Specifically, the bill:
  Allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to approve 
applications going to the FISA Court to two other Senate-confirmed 
Justice Department officials;
  Takes FISA's current allowance for 15 days of warrantless electronic 
surveillance following a declaration of war and extend it to the 15 
days:
  1. Following a Congressional authorization to use military force, or
  2. A major terrorist attack against our nation for the same period of 
time.
  Authorizes additional personnel at the NSA, the FBI, the Department 
of Justice, and the FISA Court, to reduce the time it takes to 
initiate, review, and file a FISA application.
  Allows for additional judges to the FISA Court as needed to manage 
the caseload;
  Facilitates a review of the FISA application process, culminating in 
a report designed to eliminate any unnecessary delay in the filings; 
and
  Mandates the creation of a secure, classified document management 
system to facilitate electronic filing.
  In addition to reaffirming FISA's exclusivity, as I mentioned before, 
the legislation:
  Prohibits the use of Federal funds for any future electronic 
surveillance of U.S. Persons that does not fully comply with the law; 
and
  Requires that the full Intelligence Committees be briefed on all 
electronic surveillance, and related, programs.
  We are in a war against terrorists, who seek to attack us in 
unpredictable and asymmetric ways.
  Intelligence is the key to our defense; we must know about the 
terrorists' intentions and capabilities to do us harm if we are to stop 
them.
  Electronic surveillance, including surveillance conducted within the 
United States on U.S. persons, is part of our defense. The men and 
women at the NSA and the FBI who do this work are careful, dedicated 
officials.
  But even in this war on terror, we should not sacrifice basic 
protections enshrined in the Constitution, including the fourth 
amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.
  The FISA Court was created in 1978, following the Church Committee's 
investigation of some of our Government's worst civil rights 
violations--J. Edgar Hoover's spying on Martin Luther King, Jr., and 
Vietnam-era ``enemies lists,'' for example. These abuses were the 
result of domestic spying--electronic surveillance--under the guise of 
foreign intelligence.
  In response, Congress, working with both the Ford and Carter 
administrations, drafted and later enacted FISA in 1978 to be the 
exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons. It 
created a special court--operating in secret--that has to approve a 
warrant for every domestic wiretap, and provides for careful 
congressional oversight.
  Over the years, this FISA court has rejected only a small handful of 
thousands of warrant requests, and has never had a significant leak. 
After the PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001, for example, the 
Justice Department stated that FISA has worked efficiently and well.
  In the past 28 years, technology has changed, as have our enemies. 
And from time to time, when requested by various administrations, we 
have made technical changes to FISA.
  But the need to protect privacy rights by requiring individual 
warrants from a FISA judge, and the exclusivity of FISA, have remained 
constant.
  The domestic electronic surveillance that has been conducted since 
October 2001 operates, for the most part, outside of the law. In 
addition, the way the administration has moved forward with this 
program has brought us to the brink of a constitutional confrontation.
  The legislation that Senator Specter and I are introducing today 
brings the surveillance program under appropriate supervision and 
restores the checks and balances between the branches of government.

  As one who has been briefed on the details of the NSA surveillance 
program, I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, 
without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued 
individualized warrants for all content collection of U.S. persons 
under the FISA process.
  Further, testimony and letters from the Attorney General, former 
Director of the NSA General Hayden, and other administration officials 
have provided no reason, other than that of timeliness, why the NSA 
program couldn't proceed under the FISA regime.
  This legislation would help transform the FISA process into one agile 
enough to meet the administration's need for timely action, while also 
preserving judicial oversight and our important constitutional privacy 
protections.
  In an April 6 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney 
General Gonzales openly suggested that warrants might have been 
obtainable for everything that the NSA is doing, and then testified 
that the main ``problem'' he saw with FISA was one of ``timing.''
  After the Attorney General's testimony, I wrote to him asking him why 
these timing problems could not be addressed directly, so that we could 
return to the FISA process followed by all Presidents since Jimmy 
Carter.
  The Justice Department's response does not provide a reason why 
FISA's timing problems are incapable of being fixed. All it 
demonstrates is that this administration is not interested in trying to 
fix them.
  This bill addresses all of the concerns noted in the Attorney 
General's letter.
  The primary concern raised was that current law requires the Attorney 
General to determine that FISA's factual predicates have been met 
before authorizing the surveillance to begin. In other words, he 
suggests that there is

[[Page S5338]]

important surveillance he might delay, or even avoid, if he must 
determine in advance that a court will grant approval. But this bill 
eliminates the requirement for Attorney General approval before 
surveillance begins.
  Under this bill, if the circumstances warrant, an Attorney General-
designated supervisor of the NSA or FBI can begin emergency 
surveillance immediately. The designated officer would have to notify 
the Attorney General's office within 24 hours of starting, and then get 
approval from the AG within 72 hours. The Department of Justice would 
then need to obtain an emergency warrant from the FISA court within 7 
days of the initiation of surveillance.
  The Attorney General's role would simply be to decide whether to stop 
the surveillance--not authorize it on the front end. And even on this 
decision to stop surveillance, the bill allows him to delegate that 
decision to two other Department of Justice officials. If the Court 
does not issue a warrant, the information cannot be used in any legal 
proceeding.
  This provision is respectful of the administration's needs. The 7-day 
emergency window in this bill more than doubles the existing 3-day 
period that exists for emergencies now. It also extends substantial 
additional resources to the Department of Justice and the intelligence 
agencies. And as I say, our bill expressly authorizes a designated 
agent to go ahead with necessary surveillance right away.
  The Attorney General's letter also asserts that FISA is unworkable 
because prompt action increases the chance that the target of 
surveillance may ultimately be notified if the FISA Court later turns 
down the warrant.
  The risk here is no different than the risk every prior 
Administration has faced. And it is also infinitesimal, since only a 
small handful of FISA applications--only 4 out of 18,747 from 1979-
2005, according to press reports--have ever been refused by the FISA 
Court.
  Even in the extremely rare case of where a FISA Court denies an 
emergency warrant, and therefore directs notification of the target of 
surveillance, the FISA law has a provision that exempts the Attorney 
General from notifying the target if he certifies that doing so would 
imperil national security.
  Despite the remote chances of national security being compromised, 
the legislation gives the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt, 
and provides that if the Attorney General or his designees stops the 
NSA or FBI surveillance within 72 hours, the target of surveillance 
will not be notified.
  Beyond the Attorney's General letter, the White House, the Department 
of Justice, and intelligence officials say that court review of the 
surveillance is not necessary for three reasons:
  First, they argue that the President has the constitutional authority 
to order the surveillance, regardless of statutory prohibitions. This 
is a question for the courts to decide.
  It is highly debatable whether the President has plenary article II 
constitutional power, but even if he does, he clearly does not have 
plenary authority to decide which of his powers are plenary. If he did, 
any Executive Branch official could open mail, or enter homes at any 
time without a warrant in the name of national security, and the 
doctrine of separation of powers as we know it would end.

  Secondly, the administration argues that the NSA electronic 
surveillance program is subject to numerous reviews and safeguards at 
both the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, thus 
making outside oversight unnecessary.
  This argument flies in the face of our system of government. We have 
three separate branches of government, each with checks and balances on 
the other two. The framers of the Constitution did not vest the 
Executive Branch with the right to oversee itself; that is the 
responsibility of the Congress and the Courts.
  We have also recently seen how this arrangement of internal reviews, 
even if it were acceptable, simply does not work. Within the Department 
of Justice, the Office of Professional Responsibility was recently 
asked to review the legality of the activities of those involved in the 
surveillance program outside of FISA, but we have learned that OPR was 
denied the security clearances needed to do their work.
  Finally, as I noted before, the Executive Branch says that outside 
review by the Congress and the courts would hamstring their ability to 
prevent terrorist attacks. I do not believe that is true, based on the 
briefings I have received, but even if it were, the answer is to amend 
FISA, not to throw it out. The FISA law has been changed since 
September 11 through the PATRIOT Act and the renewal of the PATRIOT 
Act. It can be done again. In short, if the President sees problems 
with an existing law, the simple answer is that he should ask to change 
it--not refuse to follow the law.
  This war on terror will be a long war, and it will be mostly fought 
in the shadows.
  It is thus especially important that the Congress and the American 
people be assured that we are waging that war in a way that upholds our 
principles and follows the Constitution.
  I believe that our national security and core privacy interests can 
both be protected, given the right tools and authorities, if each 
branch of government will work together to fulfill their respective 
roles and obligations.
  Congress was able to do that more than 25 years ago when it first 
enacted FISA, and I am confident we can do it again today.
  I have been waiting for the NSA to submit views regarding metadata--
that is, information about communications that does not include 
content. It is my strong belief that any and all metadata collection 
programs should be approved by FISA on a program basis. I would hope to 
add such a provision to this bill at a later time or to introduce a new 
bill to cover this subject.

                          ____________________