[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Page 29358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, merely hours after the Bush administration 
was celebrating the Iraqi election as a triumph for human freedom, what 
did we discover courtesy of the New York Times? That our own 
government, through the National Security Agency, is secretly spying on 
the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant or a 
court order. And they have been doing so for nearly 4 years at the 
explicit direction of the President of the United States of America 
himself.
  This is even more egregious than any of the other suspensions of 
civil liberties that we have seen in the last 4 years. It makes the 
PATRIOT Act look like it was written by the ACLU. Has anyone in the 
White House read the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment about the 
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? It is a part of the 
same Constitution that the President has sworn to preserve, protect, 
and defend.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not exaggerating when I say that sometimes I do not 
recognize my own country. Secret gulags in Eastern Europe, the Vice 
President personally lobbying Senators to give the CIA the right to 
torture detainees, and now this. What do I tell my grandchildren about 
what America stands for?
  Does this White House believe in any transparency or oversight for 
anything they do, or do they think that getting 51 percent, or 51 out 
of every 100 votes gives them a mandate to operate behind a veil 
shielded from the day-in and day-out accountability that sustains a 
functioning democracy?
  Remember, this is coming from the folks who preach about limited 
government. It turns out that they only want limited government as long 
as it would protect the wealthy and the powerful from high taxes and 
burdensome regulations. When it comes to privacy rights and ordinary 
Americans, they are in favor of the most intrusive and invasive big 
government imaginable.
  The whole thing is Orwellian, Mr. Speaker. To defeat totalitarian 
extremism, we are adopting extremist totalitarian tactics of our own. 
In defense of freedom, we are undermining freedom. The whole thing is 
morally incoherent.
  Let us remember that the war on terrorism is partly an ideological 
struggle. It is about winning over hearts and minds. But when we 
violate the very principles of freedom that we are preaching in the 
Middle East, what happens to our moral authority? What happens to our 
global credibility? Why should anyone take us seriously?
  Those around the world who are skeptical of American values are 
surely noticing that we do not honor those values ourselves. And those 
who hate us will hate us even more when our government's hypocrisy is 
exposed.
  And even if you do not believe this surveillance authority holds the 
key to victory on the war on terrorism, let us think for a minute about 
whom we have empowered to exercise it. The very same intelligence 
apparatus that has proven itself dysfunctional time and time again over 
recent years.
  After all, the President himself just got through telling us this 
week that the U.S. intelligence community got it wrong on the most 
monumental and consequential issue it has faced in decades: whether 
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If they blew it on something as 
fundamental as that, why should we have confidence that they are 
conducting this domestic spying operation competently, without any 
abuses or overreach.
  Mr. Speaker, is that what more than 2,100 Americans have given their 
lives for in Iraq, the right for a government to snoop and eavesdrop on 
its own people without probable cause? If we, the supposed liberators, 
endorse and adopt these kinds of oppressive tactics, then what was the 
point of toppling Saddam Hussein, especially given that he did not even 
have weapons of mass destruction?
  This disgraceful episode makes me believe more strongly than ever 
that we must reevaluate our entire approach to providing national 
security, and it should start with bringing our troops home from Iraq. 
Not one more American should have to die for values that our government 
is willing to sacrifice here at home.

                          ____________________