Russ Feingold: “It is sort of odd that we are debating these two amendments together. But there is one advantage. Under our system of…”

“It is sort of odd that we are debating these two amendments together. But there is one advantage. Under our system of government, the way we make sure that abuses don't occur is by passing laws to make it absolutely clear that abuses aren't occurring and can't occur. We are supposed to accept the say-so of one Senator who says we are not doing these things. We are not conducting bulk collection. We are not doing reverse targeting so don't worry. Yet he resists two amendments that simply make it clear you can't do these things. What is the objection on the merits to these two amendments? They would apply to an administration that initiated an illegal wiretapping program in disregard of the statutes. We have reason to believe that maybe they would do things we don't know about and don't like and don't think are legal, but we are supposed to simply take the word of one Senator instead of passing a law to clearly protect the American people. With regard to reverse targeting, the Senator asserts that somehow having a provision that says 'the' purpose would have to be targeting an American before a court order is required is going to protect us. But that doesn't protect us. That language would mean that any incidental reason for targeting a foreign person when the government wants to listen to the American would be a sufficient basis for ongoing warrantless surveillance of the American.”