[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 104 (Monday, June 23, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1316-E1317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 20, 2008

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 6304, the 
FISA Amendments Act.
  Among the casualties of the ``war on terror'' has been the guarantee 
of civil liberties and right to privacy of American citizens upon which 
our nation was founded. Time and again, throughout his Presidency, 
George Bush has shown absolute indifference to the Constitution and the 
principles upon which it stands.
  This disregard for the Constitution was never clearer than last 
summer when President Bush signed into law the Protect America Act, 
which I opposed then and continue to oppose to this day, a law that 
gave the President unprecedented authority to spy on Americans.
  As Congress began to consider new legislation, I had hoped that we 
could reach a compromise that strikes the right balance between 
protecting the rights of individual Americans and protecting our 
nation's security. Like all of my colleagues in Congress, I believe 
that our nation must aggressively pursue terrorist targets in the 
United States and abroad. However, I know the United States is capable 
of doing so within a framework that respects the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Many provisions within this bill are an improvement over the Protect 
America Act, especially the provision on exclusively, which affirms 
that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is the exclusive 
means to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans for the purpose 
of foreign intelligence collection.
  However, I believe firmly that the bill before us today does not do 
enough to protect the privacy rights of individual Americans and 
therefore I cannot in good conscience vote for its passage. Here are 
some of the problems with the bill before us today:
  H.R. 6304 contains an ``exigent circumstances'' loophole that permits 
the Administration to conduct surveillance on Americans without getting 
a warrant for up to seven days every time ``intelligence important to 
the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.'' 
The problem with language this open-ended is that an Administration, 
like the Bush Administration, can use this language as an invitation to 
repeatedly spy on

[[Page E1317]]

Americans without a court order and in each case claim that 
circumstances demanded it.
  Secondly, while H.R. 6304 contains a general prohibition on 
``reverse'' targeting, it lacks clear statuary directives about when 
the government should return to the FISA court and obtain a warrant. 
Reverse targeting refers to the possibility that the Government will 
try to subvert FISA by wiretapping someone overseas, when the real 
target is an American with whom that foreign person is communicating. 
As is the case with the exigent circumstances provision, this open-
ended language leaves the law vulnerable to misuse by an 
Administration.
  Lastly, the retroactive immunity language in Title II virtually 
ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the 
telecommunications companies that facilitated warrantless wiretapping 
over the last seven years. This violates the fundamental American 
principle that people are entitled to their day in court, and that the 
courts, not Congress, should decide whether people were injured by the 
illegal acts of others. It is unacceptable for Congress to protect 
private companies from lawsuits filed by people the may have harmed 
through illegal actions.
  Ultimately, I believe that the President has presented Congress with 
a false choice. Ever since September 11, the Bush Administration has 
put forward the idea that Congress must choose between the liberties we 
cherish and the security we demand. I disagree wholeheartedly with this 
premise. The Congress can and must take stronger steps to protect the 
civil liberties of ever American, to do anything less is simply 
contrary to everything for which this country has stood.
  I would like to close by reading a quote from Benjamin Franklin. 
Though delivered centuries ago, it remains salient to today's debate. 
He said ``Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.''
  I urge my colleagues to consider Benjamin Franklin's views as they 
vote today.

                          ____________________