Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On The Bingaman Amendment To The FISA Amendments Act Of 2008
July 8, 2008
I strongly oppose the immunity provisions contained in this bill,
and I have supported every effort to strike them. But if we cannot
eliminate these ill-advised provisions, then I agree that Senator
Bingaman’s amendment to delay a decision on immunity until after the
Inspectors General have conducted their review of the warrantless
surveillance program makes good sense.
I worked hard to include the Inspectors General amendment as a part
of this FISA bill. For that provision to have its full effect, we
should delay any grant of retroactive immunity until we know what
the final report says.
Senator Bingaman’s amendment would stay all pending cases against
the telecom companies related to the warrantless surveillance
program and delay the effective date of the immunity provisions in
Title II of the bill until 90 days after Congress receives the
Inspectors General reports.
I have maintained throughout this debate that it makes little sense
for Senators – many who have never been given the opportunity to
view key documents relevant to the warrantless surveillance program
– to cast an uninformed vote on retroactive immunity. That is
buying a pig in a poke. To mix farm metaphors, the Bingaman
amendment puts the horse back in front of the cart.
First, let’s get the facts. And then, only after reviewing the
relevant facts that the administration claims support granting
retroactive immunity, determine whether Congress should attempt to
legislatively determine the result of the 40 or so Federal cases
alleging violations of fundamental rights of Americans.
Again, I believe the retroactive immunity provisions in this bill
should be stripped entirely. But if that cannot be accomplished,
then I support Senator Bingaman’s amendment as a common sense way to
ensure that the Senate makes a fully-informed decision on
retroactive immunity.
# # # # #