Thank you for contacting me concerning the President’s domestic surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you.
Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it.
As you know, Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. The debate continues, but the shift in party control on Capitol Hill has clearly had an impact on this critical discussion over the balance of power in our system of government. On January 17, 2007, after conducting its wiretapping program without court approval for over 5 years, the Justice Department announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court had approved its program to listen to communications between people in the U.S. and other countries if there is probable cause to believe one or the other is involved in terrorism. Then, in early February, the Justice Department announced that it would give the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both chambers of Congress access to previously withheld documents on the NSA program. The congressional committees with jurisdiction over this issue hailed the agreement as a step in the right direction.
However, there is still significant work to be done. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007, and expires after six months.
As you are aware, Congress is working on reforms to the FISA bill to be enacted before the expiration of the current legislation. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally.
On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.
The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.
Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Providing any President with the flexibility necessary to fight terrorism without compromising our constitutional rights can be a delicate balance. I agree that technological advances and changes in the nature of the threat our nation faces may require that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted in 1978, be updated to reflect the reality of the post 9/11 world. But that does not absolve the President of the responsibility to fully brief Congress on the new security challenge and to work cooperatively with Congress to address it.
As you know, Congress has been considering the issue of domestic surveillance since last year. The debate continues, but the shift in party control on Capitol Hill has clearly had an impact on this critical discussion over the balance of power in our system of government. On January 17, 2007, after conducting its wiretapping program without court approval for over 5 years, the Justice Department announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court had approved its program to listen to communications between people in the U.S. and other countries if there is probable cause to believe one or the other is involved in terrorism. Then, in early February, the Justice Department announced that it would give the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both chambers of Congress access to previously withheld documents on the NSA program. The congressional committees with jurisdiction over this issue hailed the agreement as a step in the right direction.
However, there is still significant work to be done. Just before the August recess in 2007, Congress passed hastily crafted legislation to expand the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant or real oversight, even if the targets are communicating with someone in the United States. This legislation was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007, and expires after six months.
As you are aware, Congress is working on reforms to the FISA bill to be enacted before the expiration of the current legislation. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3773, the “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007” (RESTORE Act) by a vote of 227-189. The House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for private companies that may have participated in the illegal collection of personal information, nor does it provide immunity for Administration officials who may have acted illegally.
On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed S. 2248, making its own reforms to FISA. I am disappointed that S. 2248, if signed into law, will grant an unprecedented level of immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the President's warrantless wiretapping program. I was proud to cosponsor several amendments, including the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the immunity provision, that would have enhanced privacy protections while maintaining the tools to fight terrorism. However, with the defeat of this amendment, telecom companies will not be held accountable even if it could be proven that they clearly and knowingly broke the law and nullified the privacy rights of Americans. I am frustrated by the President’s decision to play politics by threatening to veto any legislation not containing immunity. Why the President continues to try to hold this important legislation captive to that special interest provision defies explanation. The House and Senate must reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill before being signed into law.
The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe, and that our intelligence gathering capability needs to be improved. What they do not want is for the President or the Congress to use these imperatives as a pretext for promoting policies that not only go further than necessary to meet a real threat, but also violate some of the most basic tenets of our democracy. Like most members of Congress, I continue to believe that the essential objective of conducting effective domestic surveillance in the War on Terror can be achieved without discarding our constitutionally protected civil liberties.
Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch as this debate continues.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
posted by:
|
Chicago
|
-
email from durbin
Thu, June 19, 2008 - 12:48 AMThank you for your message regarding the surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and share your concerns.
Protecting both the security and the freedom of the American people is among my highest priorities. We must ensure that the federal government defends the people of the United States from external threats while preserving the civil liberties that have helped make the United States the greatest and most enduring democracy in the world.
President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of communications made by American citizens living within the United States. At the time of the President's authorization, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required the government to seek a warrant from a special court in order to conduct electronic surveillance of communications between American citizens and anyone outside the country. The NSA did not obtain approval from the FISA court or from any other court before initiating its domestic surveillance program.
For most of its existence, the NSA's program has operated without meaningful oversight. Few members of Congress were briefed about the program until its existence was revealed by the media, and those members who were aware were sworn to secrecy. The majority of the members of Congress still have not been fully briefed about the program's operational details. The Administration also has shut down its own Justice Department investigation into the NSA's program. In essence, the Administration has attempted to operate this program without any supervision or oversight. The lack of a mechanism for correcting potential abuses in the program undermines our Constitutional system of checks and balances and raises serious concerns about the possibility of excessive intrusion.
Congress has tried to work with Administration officials to update FISA in light of technological advances in communications. Too often, however, the Administration has taken advantage of the program's secrecy in its negotiations with Congress. In August 2007, the Administration proposed amending FISA through legislation known as the Protect America Act. I voted against the measure because I believed the bill provided too much opportunity for abuse by the NSA and other intelligence officials. Nonetheless, Congress passed the bill and the President signed it into law.
Congress currently is engaged in a debate about the appropriate scope of FISA. At the center of this debate is the issue of whether telecommunications companies that assisted in illegal surveillance should receive retroactive immunity from prosecution.
I oppose retroactive immunity for these companies and supported an amendment to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (S. 2248) that would have prevented them from obtaining retroactive immunity. This amendment, however, was unsuccessful. After the amendment failed, I voted against the bill, but it passed by a vote of 68-29.
The House of Representatives has refused to support any similar bill containing a retroactive immunity provision, and negotiations on this matter are continuing. Any legislation amending FISA should hold telecommunications companies responsible for their unlawful actions. The legislation should bring to light the role telecommunications companies played in the Administration's unlawful attempts to listen in on the communications of American citizens.
When the President and his Administration order surveillance of American citizens, these actions must be conducted in a manner consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution's commitment to civil liberties. I am deeply concerned about the manner in which the Executive Branch has initiated and conducted the NSA surveillance programs. I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to debate this issue.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
-
email from nadelmann
Thu, June 19, 2008 - 1:21 AMI have been traveling back and forth to California this year, working on a ballot initiative that represents the most significant reform of prisons and sentencing in the history of the United States. We’re calling it the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act or “NORA” for short and we’ve just heard from the California Secretary of State that it has officially qualified for the ballot.
We wrote this measure and we are spearheading the campaign. I’m telling you about it because, as with past campaigns, our success in California, the most populous state, will have a national impact.
Now I need you to make a donation to help us build our fund for voter education and television advertising in the days leading up to the election.
Our research shows a substantial majority of Californians really like what’s in NORA. It provides a solution to the state’s prison overcrowding crisis through a combination of measures that will simultaneously and safely reduce the size of the prison population, provide effective treatment and rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and crime, and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
It would be great if NORA could be enacted into law by the State Legislature, but our friends in Sacramento tell us the only way to get it done is through the ballot initiative process. That’s why I need your help. I’ve raised millions from wealthy folks -- including some who live outside California and regard this as a fundamental issue of human rights, smart public policy and/or fiscal responsibility -- but we can’t get to the finish line without lots of support from people across the country who care. Please make a donation now.
I should tell you that NORA isn’t just about solving California’s prison overcrowding crisis and saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It’s also about reforming California’s prison industrial complex in ways that will transform the state into a leader in sensible drug and sentencing policy, and serve as a model for other states.
California used to be known as the State of Higher Education. Now it’s known as the State of Higher Incarceration. NORA can change that with your help.
You might also be interested to know that NORA includes a provision that changes the penalty for marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction -- like a traffic ticket. This single change will protect some 40,000 people a year convicted of simple marijuana possession from the serious and life-long collateral consequences of a criminal record.
So, if you want to know more about the details of NORA, click here, but please also take the opportunity to make a generous donation to ensure NORA wins on Election Day. There are still millions of people in California and across the country who think the best solution to every problem is to lock people up. Don’t let them win the day.
And after you’ve made your donation, please forward this email to everyone you know and encourage them to support NORA as well. There’s never been an opportunity like this to accomplish so much good for so many people.
One in eight Americans lives in California, and a victory in November will send a clear message to policy makers across the country that the American people want a public health approach to drug problems, not more wasteful prison spending. Your support of this California initiative will mean similar reforms will be more likely to pass across the country.
We’re talking about freedom, compassion and responsibility. Smart drug policy. Smart crime policy. And good government for a change.
Many thanks,
Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance Network
-
email from melissa bean
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 10:44 AMDear Friend,
It's been a busy few weeks in Washington, and I've been grateful for the chance to speak with many of you during our recent telephone town halls. What I've heard are the same things I've been told by many of you at the grocery store, our schools and at local businesses - concerns about the economy and rising gas prices.
Particularly in our current economy, I’ve also heard many of you stress that you want to know exactly what Congress is doing with your tax dollars. To that end, I have introduced my Congressional Accountability Initiative to increase transparency in Congress.
Below you’ll find information on this initiative and a few of the bills we have been working on over last few weeks to help bolster our economy and lower gas prices.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008
Here in the Northwest suburbs, we face some of the nation’s highest prices at the pump. At over $4.00 a gallon, many of us find ourselves carpooling and delaying summer road trips. While conservation at the individual level is important, I have also been working with my colleagues in Washington on measures to stabilize gas prices.
To lower prices at the pump in the near term, Congress passed H.R. 6022, The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008, which was signed into law by the President on May 19. This law temporarily suspends filling of our strategic petroleum reserve — which is currently 97 percent full — until oil prices fall to a more reasonable level. Experts agree that this move will have measurable and swift results at the pump.
The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008
While taking steps to alleviate the impact high gas prices are currently having on consumers, Congress has also been working toward long-term solutions to our nation's energy dependency.
In May we passed H.R. 6049, The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, to promote investment in energy efficiency, create thousands of “green jobs,” and encourage innovation by American businesses. This bill provides incentives for investment in renewable energy and extends expiring tax provisions including the R&D tax credit and tax deductions for teachers and students. It will also help homeowners by creating a new deduction for property taxes.
I have also supported H.R. 6, the Energy Security and Independence Bill Act, which encourages investment in alternative energy and raises fuel standards for our nation’s automobiles for the first time in 30 years. I also introduced my Green Innovation Agenda, a trio of bills that promote construction of more energy efficient homes and commercial buildings.
Congressional Accountability Initiative
At a time when families are working harder than usual to balance their household budgets, Congress has more of a responsibility than ever to exercise fiscal restraint and be held accountable for how we spend taxpayers’ dollars. That’s why I introduced a pair of bills to increase transparency in the legislative branch.
The Voting Record Transparency Act, H.Res. 1222, will require all Members of Congress to post a link to their voting records on their official websites. While I already post my votes on key issues on my website, there is no requirement for others to do so, and constituents who want to know how their representatives voted have to look up each bill separately. My bill will ensure that voters have the information necessary to hold their public officials accountable at the polling place.
I also helped introduce the Bipartisan Earmark Reform Commission Act of 2008, H.R. 5755, to create an independent commission to investigate congressional and executive earmark spending. It would ensure that federal funds are spent appropriately on our highest-priority projects. This bipartisan group would report its findings to the President and Congress, which would be required to implement its recommendations within 60 days.
If you have questions about this legislation, or would like to share your concerns about any of my work at home or in Washington, I encourage you to contact my office or visit my website at any time.
Thank you, and it’s an honor to represent you.
Sincerely,
Melissa L. Bean
Member of Congress -
-
Re: email from melissa bean
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 10:55 AMGerbil,
Sadly those are not letters that I would be proud of writing. -
-
Re: email from melissa bean
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 11:16 AMwhy? where?
whats wrong with bean's plan to have every congressperson post links to their voting records on their websites? -
-
Re: email from melissa bean
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 11:19 AMGerbil,
I guess it's just a style thing that I have a problem with. -
-
Re: email from melissa bean
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 11:22 AMhonestly...i'm more concerned with content than style...but that's just me.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 11:29 AMFortunately I haven't started getting a bunch of crap from Barry - but I heard that my girl turned over her email lists to him, so it won't be long.
So that's another thing to add to my list of things that a Hillary supporter can still do: tell Obama you don't want any email from him, and tell him why. Something along these lines:
"I'll vote for you - but that's it. My money and enthusiasm will go into local and state races, especially to Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton." -
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 11:30 AMthese aren't campaign emails. these are constituent emails. -
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 12:17 PM<these aren't campaign emails. these are constituent emails. >
And the difference would be ... ? -
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 1:43 PMthese are "direct" responses to emails i sent to my senators (obama and durbin). a campaign email is more directed at the general population and come on a more consistent basis.
-
-
-
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 1:41 PMSort of looks almost like the same computer is generating these messages.
I think the software that generates this type is titled "Wiggle-Room" by the company that produces it.
-
-
Re: email from obama
Tue, June 24, 2008 - 3:22 PMStaffer's for Durbin and Obama just went to the 201 Lounge got drunk, hammered out the letter and their bosses would not be the wiser...
-
