RESTORE Act of 2007

Floor Speech

RESTORE ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - October 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership in efforts to address warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and for introducing a bill that corrects many of the shortcomings of the bill that passed the House last August.

The RESTORE Act establishes a strong framework, much stronger than the administration's bill, to fight terrorism effectively, while providing reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy. There are several important clarifications made in the bill.

One important change draws the appropriate distinctions based on physical location and types of targets. There has never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people, all of whom are overseas, you don't need a warrant in that situation.

The second is that the bill removes vague and overbroad language in the bill that passed last August that would allow wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was concerning a foreign target. That by its own wording suggests that if two citizens are in the United States talking about someone overseas, you could wiretap their communications without a warrant. The bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the conversation must be overseas, not just that the subject of the conversation must be overseas.

Third, the RESTORE Act goes a step further than the administration's bill and only allows expanded wiretapping authority in cases involving foreign intelligence unless it relates specifically to national security, as opposed to the overexpansive nature of foreign intelligence. Foreign intelligence can include anything, a trade deal or anything of general foreign affairs activities. If you are talking about national security, let's talk about national security.

Finally, the RESTORE Act was made even stronger in the committee by requiring the Department of Justice in its application to the court to specify the primary purpose of the wiretapping. Under FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain a warrant, he had to certify the purpose of the wiretap. The standard was altered in the PATRIOT Act which says it only has to be a significant purpose.

We have to put this change in context because the Department of Justice has not credibly refuted the allegations that some U.S. Attorneys were fired because they failed to indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. So if the Department of Justice wiretapped someone when foreign intelligence is not the primary purpose, you have to wonder what the primary purpose is. This bill would require the administration to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap.

Mr. Speaker, in the fight against terrorism, we do not have to sacrifice constitutional protections or trust this administration to secretly protect the rights of Americans without public accountability. It is important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill it can do under this bill. We just require them to get a warrant before they do it or get a warrant after they do it if they are in a hurry, but they can wiretap and get the information. We just provide a little modicum of oversight to ensure that the laws are being obeyed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source