REP. PETER HOEKSTRA, (R-Mich.): I’ve been briefed over the last 16 months since I’ve been chairman of the Intelligence Committee. As Jane says, I walked out of those meetings believing that, on a bipartisan basis, we thought that this was an essential program, we recognized that it was very, very focused in its scope.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Hoekstra, in the briefings you received, did some members express reservations?

REP. HOEKSTRA: I’ve been briefed over the last 16 months since I’ve been chairman of the intelligence committee. As Jane says, I walked out of those meetings believing that on a bipartisan basis, we thought that this was an essential program, we recognized that it was very, very focused in its scope, we walked out of there believing it was legal, and we walked out of there believing it was making an impact, it was keeping America’s families, it was keeping America’s communities safer, and we needed to continue this program. As some have mentioned, the problem now is the program is really of questionable value. It’s been across the media for the last 50 days. Does anyone really believe that after 50 days of having this program on the front page of our newspapers, across talked shows across America, that al-Qaeda has not changed the way that it communicates?

MR. RUSSERT: Did anyone in the congressional branch say is this constitutional? Should we be doing this? What about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? What authority does the president have to do this?

REP. HOEKSTRA: Not in the briefings that I was in, and I’ll say that if members of Congress that were briefed—and you had the leadership in there, of the intelligence committee and of the House and the Senate—if they believed the president was violating the law, it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it. That’s one of the primary—that’s one of our primary responsibilities, to make sure that the executive branch is following the law. We have lots of tools. I meet with the speaker every week to go through intelligence issues. If I came out of that briefing and believed that the president was violating the law, I would have gone to the speaker and say, “Mr. Speaker, the president’s violating the law, you and I need to go see the president and talk to him and get this issue resolved and do it now.”

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask the Democrats.

Senator Daschle, did you have an obligation after those meetings to go see the president and say, “Mr. President, you can’t do this.”

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I think Jane is right. We have had a good deal of analysis done on what you can and cannot talk about, and I think the president’s making a false choice here, and we’re hearing again the argument this morning that somehow we—we either are for hating the terrorists or protecting our values. We both—we all support going after the terrorists. We support the wiretapping program. We support doing everything we can to ensure we’ve got the best information we can get. But we also support respecting the rule of law. That’s what this is about, respecting the rule of law, and it’s worked. This law has worked since 1978. We haven’t had a problem before. You’ve got two chief justices of the Foreign Surveillance Act court, which have now suspended this law because of concern for what the administration has done. So what good is a law if the judges themselves are suspending it? We’ve got a problem here. We say let’s—let’s abide by the law, respect the rule of law, respect our values, respect privacy, and let’s go after the terrorists aggressively.

Story continues below ↓

MR. RUSSERT: But were the Democrats so caught up in post-September 11, 2001, that they decided not to go to the president and say, “I think you’re violating the Constitution?”

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, as I said, a number of Democrats expressed concern about the way this was being implemented, expressed concerns about whether or not this was falling within the context...

MR. RUSSERT: To whom?

SEN. DASCHLE: ...of the rule of law. To the administration. To officials within the administration.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Harman, do you regret not having raised more reservations?

REP. HARMAN: Well, I wish I’d been a lot smarter in those briefings about the legal underpinnings of the program. That was not discussed in the briefings. The briefings were about the operational details of the program and only in the last briefing because I requested it ahead—this was after the president had disclosed the existence of the program—did we spend an hour on the process, which was a very valuable discussion. The vice president and others were there. But remember, we go into those briefings alone, we have no ability to consult staff, we have no ability to consult constitutional experts or legal experts on the history of FISA. Since the program has been disclosed, I—and I think all of us, at least I have become a lot smarter about all that, and now that I have read the legislative history of FISA, which was enacted in 1978 on a bipartisan basis to cure the abuses of the Nixon era that had preceded it, I understand that it is the exclusive way that we can eavesdrop on Americans in America.

Let’s—let’s understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans. Every one of us wants to catch al-Qaeda and its affiliates. All of us want the president to have the tools. I just voted again for the Patriot Act. I believe we need modern tools. And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint little old thing that doesn’t work here, it can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don’t even need to amend FISA.

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about that. It’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and this was passed in 1978, both houses of Congress, signed by President Carter. Here’s part of that legislation, Section 1809 (a): “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance, except as authorized by statute.”

The president, in his news conference in January, seemed to suggest that FISA, in his words, was an old law. Let’s listen to the president.

(Videotape January 26, 2006, Press Conference)

PRES. BUSH: The FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having this discussion in 2006.

I said, “Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law,” and people said “It doesn’t work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.”

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Roberts, it seems as though the president is saying, “This is a law that’s on the books from 1978”...

SEN. ROBERTS: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...”but it’s an old law, and my program doesn’t work under that law, so I’m just going to set it aside.” What is the authorization for the president to undertake this program, and did he violate a statute...

SEN. ROBERTS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: ...called FISA?

SEN. ROBERTS: No. The president has the constitutional authority. It rises above any law passed by the Congress. President Roosevelt did that during World War II. Every president has done that under the Constitution, saying that the president has the primary duty to protect our national security.

I have just visited the NSA. I have gone out and visited with the good people who are working very hard with this capability, and I must tell you that the biggest problem with FISA, which I disagree with my good friend Jane, I think the FISA law is a pretty good law for what it does. But now it doesn’t really match up with the threat we have in terms of terrorism, and secondly it doesn’t match up with hot pursuit or agility or to stop the terrorist act. Now...

MR. RUSSERT: Stop there. Then why not change the law

REP. HARMAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...rather than just ignore it?

SEN. ROBERTS: There was a lull about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, where that was considered. And everybody took a look at it and said, “Now wait a minute. If you change the FISA law and you have say a streamlined FISA law on top of FISA, you”—you’ve got to understand that these FISA cases are this thick and on emergency cases they are stacked up and on nonemergency cases even higher, and the time delay, we need action by minutes and hours to stop a terrorist attack. We’re talking about days—days delay. So, consequently, you could do an amendment to FISA to say this particular program does fit under FISA, but it would be a streamlined FISA.

Now, understand that’s only from a call from a foreign terrorist cell, an al-Qaeda terrorist cell to the United States; not a phone call in the United States to another person in the United States. Now, after you do all that, and you got to figure out what committee you go to and what jurisdiction you go to, and how many details you’re going to reveal, and the operational details that you reveal—and I agree with Pete. We’re to the point now where we’re about to lose the capability. That’s the big issue here in terms of going deaf. You’re right back where you started from with a president’s authority that he has under the Constitution, and you have that—the very same thing that you have now.

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print