Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Changes To The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
U.S. Senate
August 3, 2007

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Rockefeller-Levin bill might not be precisely the bill I would have written to fix the problem, but it is a responsible and targeted fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, problem that has been identified. It is an appropriate response to the need expressed by Director of National Intelligence McConnell regarding our foreign intelligence collection overseas. In addition, it tries to preserve some balance and some protections for the civil liberties of Americans by keeping the FISA Court involved when there are significant communications to and from the United States.

I have been briefed by the DNI and his staff and met with him several times recently about a problem that our intelligence agencies are having in collecting information from overseas. I have said that I am willing to fix this problem, and I am. I have proposed ways to fix this identified problem. It might not be everything he would like, his wish list, but it solves his problem. The Congress has shown that it is willing and able to reform FISA when changes are needed. We have done so many times since FISA was first passed in 1978 and at least half a dozen times since September 11, 2001. I believe such a targeted, responsible fix is justified.

To achieve that fix, I would vote for Rockefeller-Levin. We could enact the needed change immediately. As I have indicated, it is not everything that I would have wanted or drafted precisely as I would have written it. But it does the job and achieves a better balance than any viable alternative. I have worked with Senator ROCKEFELLER for weeks on this matter and appreciate his leadership on this matter, as well as that of Senator LEVIN.

The problem our intelligence agencies are having is with targeting communications overseas. We want them to be able to intercept calls between two people overseas with a minimum of difficulty. Obviously, the situation is complicated when people overseas might be talking to people here in the United States. These calls could be innocent conversations of businesspeople, tourists, our troops overseas to their families, or to other friends or family in the United States. We should want to give the Government great flexibility to listen to foreign-to-foreign calls, while still protecting privacy of innocent Americans by making sure the Government gets warrants when they are involved.

The Rockefeller-Levin bill accomplishes both of these things. It provides a very flexible standard up front for the Government--it is only required to go to the court for approval of procedures for how it will know that the targets are, in fact, overseas. There is no case-by-case application and approval of warrants for these overseas targets. There is even an initial emergency provision that would allow the Government to start these interceptions before the court has done anything.

To protect Americans, the House bill requires the Government to have guidelines--and show them to the Congress--for how it will determine when a target is having regular communications with the United States. Then they need to go back to the regular FISA procedures and show probable cause. Also, the Department of Justice inspector general must do an audit of the conduct under this bill to see how much information about people in the United States is being collected and must provide that audit to the court and Congress. Because this process has been so expedited and the issues involved are so significant, the bill would sunset in 180 days, so the Congress and the administration will have an opportunity to review it and act in a more deliberative way on these important issues.

Some things were added here that I might not have done. It now applies to all foreign intelligence targets, not just those involving international terrorism. It also does not require the court to review

and approve the guidelines for handling significant communications with the United States, only the Congress sees this. These aspects trouble me. They are significant. The Director of National Intelligence has said that with these changes, the bill solves his problems and would significantly enhance our national security. This bill should resolve the matter, but this administration does not know how to take ``yes'' for an answer.

Regrettably, what has come over from the administration and has been introduced here by Senator BOND and Senator MCCONNELL goes far beyond what the DNI said he needs and I fear would be very harmful to the civil liberties of Americans. The bill the administration has proposed is a vast rewrite of the FISA law that undercuts the purposes of that act in significant ways. What the administration has done is leverage a fixable problem into passage of a wish list of ways to give the Attorney General and through him the White House virtual unfettered authority to conduct surveillance. It would take away any meaningful role for the FISA Court for calls between overseas and the United States. In fact, because it is not restricted to terrorism but involves any foreign intelligence, the administration's bill gives them far greater authority than they had claimed in their secret, warrantless surveillance program.

This bill allows Attorney General Gonzales to order surveillance. This Attorney General is in charge of decisions about when to conduct surveillance and can instruct the court to enforce those decisions. In effect, the only role for the court under this bill is as an enforcement agent--it is to rubberstamp the Attorney General's decisions and use its authority to order telephone companies to comply. The court would be stripped of its authority to serve as a check and to protect the privacy of people within the United States. Their bill likewise requires no review or audit by the Justice Department or anyone else about the number of U.S. communications that are being gathered by these orders.

I believe it is important to solve the problem our intelligence agencies are having right now. It is also essential to preserve the critical role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans. The House bill will do both of these things better than its alternatives.

# # # # #