FISA Reauthorization

Floor Speech

FISA REAUTHORIZATION -- (Senate - October 17, 2007)

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the House prepares to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I wish to remind our colleagues what we decided about this program a little over 2 months ago.

In August, a bipartisan Senate majority voted to embrace the two principles behind the original FISA law in 1978: that foreign terrorists overseas are a legitimate target--a legitimate target--for warrantless surveillance, and that Americans at home are not.

We did this because we had been informed by the Director of National Intelligence that advances in technology and an outdated provision in law had made it impossible for the intelligence community to act on the first of these principles, causing us to miss significant actionable intelligence.

The Senate responded to this information accordingly. We addressed the
change in technology and updated the law, restoring to the intelligence community a tool it had effectively used even before the 9/11 attacks to track terrorist activity abroad.

Congress made sure in 1978 that the intelligence community was free to collect intelligence on foreign targets overseas and act on it quickly. In a post-9/11 world, we were insisting they continue to have this vital capability. Now we will have the chance to insist on it again, by voting against the bill that is being considered in the House or by approving an alternative that corrects its flaws.

The bill that is being taken up in the House has two major weaknesses. First, it requires intelligence officials to obtain a warrant before listening in on foreign terrorist suspects abroad. In other words, if we want to listen in on a terrorist in Tehran who may be talking about blowing up Los Angeles, we would have to stop and get a court approval first. I guarantee you, there is not a single person in this country outside this building who thinks that makes a bit of sense.

It is common sense that our ability to act quickly on the intelligence we get is a crucial part of our ability to prevent terror attacks here at home. This dangerous provision would create a new hurdle for intelligence officials to jump before they can collect and act on a live potential threat. Allowing it to stand would have been foolish before 9/11. It would be inexcusable now, which is exactly why we acted to remove it in August and why the President has rightly said he will veto any law that retains it.

Now, the second problem: This bill would expose U.S. phone companies to giant lawsuits for cooperating with the intelligence community in pursuit of terrorists, for doing their part--their part--to defend this country from terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. We need to be making it easier for our intelligence officials to detect terrorist plots against us, not harder, and we need to be rewarding people for helping us in this fight, not penalizing them or

scaring them with the threat of a lawsuit if they do.

So let's make something clear right now: Any bill that leaves this Chamber must restore to intelligence officials the same tools they have had in fighting terrorism for decades. And it should reassure U.S. businesses that they have no reason to regret cooperating with intelligence officials in the past and that they should not be the least bit afraid to do so in the future.

The Bill of Rights does not extend to terrorists overseas who want to hurt us here at home. Our laws have always reflected that. In a post-9/11 world we are being asked to affirm it. We did not hesitate in August. We should not hesitate now.

The House bill that is being considered needs some major work. In addition to the two points I have raised, House Democrats have also struck a provision that allows the United States to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign suspects who have information relating to the conduct of foreign affairs. In a time of heightened threats, we cannot throw away the tools we have always used to keep this country safe. I would urge my colleagues to give intelligence officials the tools they need to protect us, to give them a bill that the President will sign into law.

We cannot let our enemies exploit a weakness that we--and now they--can clearly see. We know the threat is real. The bill we pass should reflect that.

Source