Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007

Floor Speech

INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - April 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the two Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia leave the floor, let me express to them our sympathy and sorrow over the tremendous tragedy suffered in their State today.

A member of my staff has a son who attends this fine institution. Fortunately, she has learned that he is fine, but you can imagine her anxiety as she was waiting to hear from her son and had the television on hearing the reports.

I say to both of the Senators from Virginia that our hearts go out to them, to the members of this fine institution in Virginia, and to those who are affected by this terrible violence.

Before I turned to the issue that has brought me to the Senate floor, I just want to extend my condolences on behalf of the people of Maine to the people of Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am calling up this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Coleman, and Senator Akaka.

Our bipartisan amendment reaffirms the fundamental constitutional and statutory protections accorded to sealed domestic mail, even as we make provisions for sustaining our vital intelligence-gathering activity in the interests of advancing the goals of protecting our homeland from attack.

I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Carper of Delaware, who was the coauthor with me of the postal reform legislation that passed and was signed into law last year.

Senator Coleman and Senator Akaka have also been very active on postal issues. I have also had the opportunity to talk with the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee about this proposal.

For those who may not have followed this issue, let me first provide some brief background. On December 20, President Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that Senator Carper and I introduced last year. This new law makes the most sweeping changes in the Postal Service in more than 30 years.

The act will help the Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st century, establish a new rate-setting system, help ensure a stronger financial future for the Postal Service, provide more stability and predictability in rates, and protect the basic features of universal service.

One of the act's many provisions provides continued authority for the Postal Service to establish a class of mail sealed against inspection.

Now, let me make very clear, this is not new authority. This is a continuation of authority that the Postal Service already has.

Regrettably, on the day that he signed the Postal Reform Act into law, the President also issued a signing statement which has created some confusion about the continued protection of sealed domestic mail. He construed that particular provision in our bill to permit ``searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect life and safety.''

Now, since that time, the President's spokesman has made very clear that the President's signing statement was not intended in any way to change the scope of the current law. But the statement caused confusion and concern about the President's commitment to abide by the basic privacy protections afforded sealed domestic mail. For some, it raised the specter of the Government unlawfully monitoring our mail in the name of national security.

Given this unfortunate and inaccurate perception, I wish to be very clear, as the author of the postal reform legislation; nothing in the Postal Reform Act nor in the President's signing statement in any way alters the privacy and civil liberty protections provided to a person who sends or receives sealed mail.

In fact, the President's signing statement appears to do nothing more than restate current law.

By issuing the signing statement, however, the President, unfortunately, generated questions about the administration's intent.

I am confident the administration does not intend to interpret the law differently or change the constitutional or statutory protections. But, unfortunately, this is the case, again, of where the President stepped forward and issued a signing statement, upon signing this bill into law, that has created concern and confusion where none existed before. I think it is unfortunate the President did so.

Under current law, mail sealed against inspection is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches. With only limited exceptions, the Government needs a court warrant before it can search sealed mail. This is true whether the search is conducted to gather evidence under our Criminal Code or to collect foreign intelligence information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, perhaps better known as the FISA Act.

Exceptions to the warrant requirements of the fourth amendment are limited. When there is an immediate danger to life or limb or an immediate and substantial danger to property, then the Postal Service can search a domestic sealed letter or package without a warrant. Let me give you examples of what we are talking about. What we are talking about when we are talking about immediate threats could include wires protruding from a package that gives one the reasonable belief there may be a bomb inside. Another example might be odors or stains that indicate the presence of a hazardous material.

Americans depend upon the U.S. Postal Service to transact business and to communicate with friends and family. If there is any doubt in the public's mind that the Federal Government is not protecting the constitutional privacy accorded their mail, if there is a suspicion that the Government is unlawfully opening mail, then our people's confidence in the sanctity of our mail system and even in our Government itself will be undermined.

That is why I have joined my colleagues in offering this amendment today. It makes clear to all law-abiding Americans that the Federal Government will not invade their privacy by reading their sealed mail, absent a court order or exigent circumstances. Any contrary interpretation of the Postal Reform Act is just plain wrong. I think it is important that the Senate go on record affirming this basic constitutional privacy--statutory privacy, as well--that Americans have always counted on.

Our amendment will do nothing to weaken the vital protections we have created against terrorist attacks, but it will remove any doubt that our fundamental protections of privacy rights have in some way been weakened by the signing statement that, unfortunately, the President chose to issue.

So I urge my colleagues to remove any doubt, to make it clear that the new law, on which we worked so hard for 3 years and which was signed into law last December, does not change this in any way.

Again, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member for their willingness to discuss this issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source