[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 128 (Tuesday, November 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10925-S10928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 4048. A bill to prohibit Federal funding for the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, which receives 25 percent of its budget
from the U.S., has used U.S. taxpayer money in turn to encourage and
support higher taxes on the U.S. taxpayer, in addition to its support
of U.N. global tax schemes.
The OECD has endorsed and encouraged higher taxes, new taxes, and
global taxes no fewer than 24 times in reports with titles such as
``Towards Global Tax Cooperation,'' in which the OECD identifies 35
nations guilty of ``harmful tax competition.''
[[Page S10926]]
They have advocated that the U.S. adopt a costly and bureaucratic
value added tax, a 40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a
fertilizer tax, ending the deductibility of State and local taxes from
Federal taxes, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new
and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens.
It is not only the recommending of higher taxes which concerns us;
the ultimate concern is the movement towards undermining U.S.
sovereignty. Ecogroups such as the Friends of the Earth want the OECD
to declare that dam-building for flood control and electronic power is
unacceptable as ``sustainable energy.'' In May, 2005 the OECD ministers
endorsed a proposal at the U.N. to create a system of global taxes.
The OECD has stated explicitly that low-tax policies ``unfairly erode
the tax bases of other countries and distort the location of capital
and services.'' What we have here are Paris-based bureaucrats seeking
to protect high-tax welfare states from the free market.
That is why the OECD goes on to say that free-market tax competition
``may hamper the application of progressive tax rates and the
achievement of redistributive goals.'' Clearly, free market tax
competition makes it harder to implement socialistic welfare states.
The free market evidently hasn't been fair to socialistic welfare
states. Well, it's a good thing that they have the OECD and nearly $100
million in U.S. taxpayer money to protect them.
Noted economist Walter Williams clearly sees the direction in which
this is headed when he says that ``the bottom line agenda for the OECD
is to establish a tax cartel where nations get together and collude on
taxes.'' Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill seconded that when he said
that he was ``troubled by the underlying premise that low tax rates are
somehow suspect and by the notion that any country should interfere in
any other country's'' tax policy. And John Bolton argues that the
OECD's approach ``represents a kind of worldwide centralization of
governments and interest groups.'' Who do you think bears the costs for
all this? Mr. Bolton answers and you probably guessed it--the United
States.
America's proud history of independence was driven in no small part
by the desire for sovereignty over taxation powers. In this context, it
makes no sense to relegate our sovereignty over tax policy, in any way,
to international bureaucrats.
It is very simple. U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund a bunch of
international bureaucrats who write, speak, organize, and advocate in
support of higher taxes, global taxes, and the gradual erosion of
American sovereignty over its domestic fiscal policies. I think that
most Americans would be outraged to learn that they are forced to
subsidize these types of activities with their tax dollars. I think
that they shouldn't have to any longer. That's why I am introducing
legislation today to remove the United State's contributions to the
OECD. I ask you to join me in doing so, as the following individuals
and their respective organizations have joined in helping us to combat
un-American policies emanating from the OECD in the past: Andrew F.
Quinlan, President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation;
Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Veronique
de Rugy, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; John Berthoud,
President, National Taxpayers Union; Grover Norquist, President.
Americans for Tax Reform; Tom Giovanetti, President, Institute for
Policy Innovation; Karen Kerrigan, President and CEO, Small Business
and Entrepreneurship Council; Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy,
Citizen Outreach; Roland Boucher, Chairman, United Californians for Tax
Reform; Daniel Clifton, Executive Director, American Shareholders
Association; Rick Durham, President, Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc.;
Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers
Association; Kerri Houston, Vice President of Policy, Frontiers of
Freedom; David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Matt
Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks; Thomas P. Kilgannon, President,
Freedom Alliance; Michelle Korsmo, Vice President, Americans for
Prosperity Foundation; Charles W. Jarvis, Chairman, USA Next; James L.
Martin, President, 60 Plus Association; Chuck Muth, President, Citizen
Outreach; Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network;
George Pieler, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy Innovation; John
Pugsley, Chairman, The Sovereign Society; Don Racheter, President,
Public Interest Institute; Amy Ridenour, President, The National Center
for Public Policy Research; Terrence Scanlon, President, Capital
Research Center; Thomas Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste; Bill Sizemore, Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers
United; David M. Stanley, Chairman, Iowans for Tax Relief; David M
Strom, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota; Henry L. Thaxton,
Director, West Virginians Against Government Waste; Pat Toomey,
President, Club for Growth; Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax
Limitation Committee; and Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman,
Coalitions for America.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 4051. A bill to provide sufficient resources to permit electronic
surveillance of United States persons for foreign intelligence purposes
to be conducted pursuant to individualized court-based orders for calls
originating in the United States, to provide additional resources to
enhance oversight and streamline the procedures of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to ensure review of the
Terrorist Surveillance Program by the United States Supreme Court, and
for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation which I have captioned as the ``Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Oversight and Resource Enactment Act of 2006.'' This is a
modification of legislation which had been introduced by the Senator
from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and myself and passed out of the
Judiciary Committee.
If it is in accordance with the rules, I ask that this bill be held
at the desk.
The purpose of this legislation is to provide for oversight on the
administration's electronic surveillance program which has been in
effect for many years and which was publicly disclosed in mid-December
last year. We now are at a state where the provisions of earlier
legislation which I introduced, which would call for judicial review by
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, are no longer necessary.
Events have overtaken the situation, with litigation having been
started in a number of district courts, and a decision has come out of
the U.S. district court in Detroit. The issue is now on appeal to the
Sixth Circuit, and there is no longer any need to provide for a
referral to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court because the
matter is now in litigation and will be carried through on the
appellate process.
The legislation which I am introducing tracks the Feinstein-Specter
bill in that it provides additional resources to the administration. It
expands the time when the administration can get approval for an
electronic surveillance that has already been accomplished. With these
additional resources, I am advised that the NSA will be in a position
to have individual warrants for all calls which originate in the United
States and go overseas. The bill does not touch the calls which
originate overseas and come through checkpoints or transmission in the
United States and go back overseas, where both the point of origin and
the point of conclusion is overseas. And, we do not deal with calls
which originate overseas and come into the United States.
The President has contended that notwithstanding the provisions of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it is the exclusive way
to get a wiretap warrant, he has article II power. And, there will be a
test of that in the court system, which is now underway. That test will
involve what the courts have said is the balancing test: the invasion
of privacy versus the value for law enforcement and for national
security. So that as to calls to repeat--when they originate overseas
and come into the United States, that will be the issue which will
remain to be tested.
This proposal does not deal with the existing language that the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive remedy, nor does
it deal with any assertion about the article II power of the President.
[[Page S10927]]
It has been my view, expressed on the floor on a number of occasions,
that the article II power is what it is, congressional power is what it
is, and if there is genuine article II power, then it supersedes an act
of Congress because the Constitution trumps an act of Congress. This
legislation does not deal with those issues which had created what I
thought was a needless controversy.
The bill further provides that there will be review by the Supreme
Court of the United States. I think there doubtless would be review by
the Supreme Court as a matter of course, but in order not to take any
chance on that, Congress has the authority to mandate review with the
Supreme Court, and this bill does that.
In addition, the legislation provides for expedited review so that
there will be a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of
what the President has done with respect to the calls originating
overseas and ending in the United States. I think this bill is a
significant advance in protecting civil liberties by having
individualized warrants on calls which originate in the United States
and which go overseas.
We have had this electronic surveillance in existence for a long
time. The effort which I have made has been to have it subjected to
judicial review, and it is my hope that this stripped-down legislation,
which does enhance civil liberties by providing for individual warrants
on calls originating in the United States and expedited review in the
Federal courts and expedited review by the Supreme Court, would be
acceptable.
We have time yet in this session this year to legislate on this
important subject.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was trying, as the Senator from
Pennsylvania spoke, to figure out exactly what bill it is he is
speaking of. I gather this is his bill, not our bill, on which he is
adding some of our bill's provisions, but he leaves out the critical
part, which is reinforcing the exclusive authority of FISA; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the exclusive authority of FISA remains.
This bill does not touch that. FISA is now the law of the land, and
FISA says that it is the exclusive remedy for wiretapping. This
legislation which I am introducing does not alter that, so it remains
as provided in FISA that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is
the exclusive remedy for wiretapping.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, a second question: Will this bill allow the
President to use his plenary authority to wiretap outside of FISA,
first, and secondly, will it allow for program authority for wiretaps?
Mr. SPECTER. It does not deal with program authority at all. That was
in the original legislation that I introduced as a way of getting the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the program. But this
does not deal with that, and it does not give the President any
enhanced authority at all to conduct warrantless wiretaps. The bill
doesn't deal with that.
Whatever authority the President has under article II, he has. What
this bill does is submit for expedited review by the Supreme Court a
determination as to whether the President has article II power to have
a warrantless wiretap with a call that originates overseas and ends in
the United States.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, through the Chair, if the Senator will put up
with this for a moment more, is that to handle the switching issue, or
would this apply to all calls coming in from outside the United States
are exempt?
Mr. SPECTER. To repeat, the bill I am introducing does not touch that
point. The bill I am introducing leaves the status quo on that point,
and that is where some contend that it is illegal to have a wiretap
where the call originates outside the United States and comes inside.
The contention is made that it's governed by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act and is, therefore, illegal. The President has a
different argument. He is asserting article II power as Commander in
Chief, and he says that his article II power, constitutional power,
supersedes or trumps a statute. Whether he is right or wrong depends
upon a judicial interpretation. Only the court can weigh, as the
existing law is in this area, whether the importance of national
security outweighs the invasion of privacy, and that determination is
reserved for the Federal courts.
We are now having that determination in the Detroit case, ACLU v.
NSA, where the district judge says it is unconstitutional and the Sixth
Circuit now has taken the case. They have issued a stay, in effect, but
they will take up the case on the merits.
Once the litigation is this far advanced, we are not now in the
situation we were in last December when the Judiciary Committee, as the
Senator from California knows, had four hearings and I had a bill to
submit to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That is bypassed
now. Events have overtaken it.
This will provide for judicial review. It is my thought--and the
Senator from California and I have talked about this again and again
and have worked on her bill which I supported, voted out of committee
10 to 8 with 2 Republicans and 8 Democrats--this will expedite a
determination as to whether all those calls originating overseas and
coming in are or are not constitutionally tapped. And, it will help out
with what the Senator from California has been the leader on--and that
is to have individualized warrants for calls originating in the United
States. That is a big advance on civil liberties if those calls are not
tapped without a warrant.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. He has been a very distinguished
chairman of the committee. This is an issue in which, as a member of
the Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee, I have had an
intense interest. The Senator from Pennsylvania recognizes that. I
appreciate that.
I am unsure whether this bill is for the purpose of judicial review
of the President's article II authority--I think I understand what the
Senator is doing. He is essentially exempting all those calls which
come into the United States, not calls from point A to point B in the
United States. I think that bears further discussion, but I trust no
action will be taken on this bill in this session but that the Senator
from Pennsylvania is submitting it as a marker for next year.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my hope that we could act on
it this session. I say that, subject to review by the Senator from
California and by other Members and by the House of Representatives.
The Senator from California and I and others have thought about this
issue long and hard. This bill is a real effort to try to accommodate
all of the concerns the Senator from California has raised. That is to
maintain the status of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the
exclusive way to wiretap. That stands.
There is no statement about the authority of the President under
article II, which had been objected to before. As I say, whatever the
constitutional authority is, it is, regardless of what the bill says,
but this bill says nothing about that. It says nothing.
The Senator from California and I have wanted to have individualized
warrants wherever we could get them, and now the Senator from
California took the lead on this. She has had access to this program,
where I have not, because she is on the Intelligence Committee. It is
anomalous that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would not know
the program, but I respect the division which gives that intelligence
to the oversight committee. But she and I both wanted to have
individualized warrants everywhere if we could get them. And, now we
know we can get them on calls originating in the United States if we
add the resources that were in the legislation crafted initially by the
Senator from California, which I joined, which passed out of committee
and onto the floor. And it does not deal with the ones overseas into
the United States. Whatever authority the President has on that, he is
going to have to assert in Federal court and satisfy ultimately the
Supreme Court that he has that article II power. My view is the sooner
we have this determination, the better off we are.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. I would like to look very
closely
[[Page S10928]]
at this bill. I am very reluctant to move right now. You have mentioned
the case percolating up through the courts now. I am really unsure why
passage of this bill now would achieve anything. It seems to me it
would be better to wait and see what the court does. I would appreciate
your response to that.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am glad to respond, and I thank the
Senator from California for the question. It would achieve
individualized review of warrants on calls originating in the United
States, and there are a lot of them. How many there are, I don't know,
but the NSA officials have told us that if we give them the additional
resources, which was suggested originally by the Senator from
California and which I concur in on the Feinstein-Specter bill, that
they could have individualized warrants. And, I think that would be a
big step forward on civil rights.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Except what you are doing is effectively exempting,
then, a call from outside into the United States because of the change
in technology.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my bill does not exempt them. My bill
just doesn't deal with them. Some say that FISA controls them and,
therefore, they are illegal. The President says: No, he has article II
power. And the only way that controversy can be resolved is in a
Federal court, which will weigh them. And the Federal court in Detroit
weighed them and said it was unconstitutional. And the Sixth Circuit
has said they will review it. In the meantime, the program stands. But
as the program stands, all of these warrantless wiretaps are going on
and on and on. And we go one step further. We make sure the Supreme
Court will take the case. We also have power in the Congress to
expedite the review, set a timetable to get it done faster.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be very interested to look at the bill, and I
thank you very much for this dialog. And this completes my questions.
Thank you.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from California for the colloquy
which has further explained the bill.
____________________