September 28, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825) because I swore to uphold the Constitution and I will not vote to provide exceptions to it. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In other words, you have to get a warrant any time you spy on an American. That is the entire text of the Amendment. It doesn't say “unless President Bush thinks the person is a terrorist,” “except in cases where it's inconvenient to file the paperwork,” or even “with limitations as defined by Congress.”

Realizing the urgent nature of some national security investigations, federal law permits wiretaps without warrants in emergencies as long as court approval is obtained within three days. If the surveillance involves only communications of agents of foreign powers, the government can conduct warrantless surveillance for up to a year. These warrants are not difficult to obtain. Since 1978, when the law was enacted, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court has approved more than 18,000 national security warrants. Only five have been turned down. But current law isn't good enough for the President. He wants to do what he wants, when he wants, without telling anyone.

This President violated the Constitution. Rather than hold him accountable, we are going to approve of his despotic behavior. Under this legislation, the President can conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans any time he declares there is an “imminent threat” likely to cause death or widespread harm. Good luck finding a time when this President, or any President for that matter, doesn't claim there's an imminent threat.

Mr. Speaker, in this Congress alone, you have attempted to close the halls of justice to detainees, gun victims, religious minorities, fast food consumers, asylum-seekers, injured patients, and now, anyone spied on by their own government. We've gone from a nation of laws to a nation of exceptions. Unless my colleagues want a nation of, by, and for the Protestant, thin, suspicionless white male, I urge them to join me in voting no.