Protect America Act of 2007 Extension

Floor Speech

Protect America Act of 2007 Extension

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5104. I do so because there is no reason to extend the Protect America Act. Should the Protect America Act expire, our intelligence community will not be left in the ``dark,'' as some suggest. Rather the FISA courts will simply return to operating under the original FISA law, a law which protected the civil liberties of all Americans while also granting the President the tools he needs to conduct an aggressive campaign against terror.

As many of my colleagues have argued today, the original FISA law, which passed in 1978 needs to be updated. It was passed to address surveillance concerns at a different time in our Nation's history, when some of the technological strides we have made since, were simply unimaginable. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I strongly support efforts by the Speaker and leaders of both parties to work together to update FISA. However, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of a one-month extension of the Protect America Act. I cannot do so because the reality is that the Protect America Act does not make Americans any safer--rather it allows the Government to pursue an enormous and untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts. Furthermore, it is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation against civil liberties I have seen in my eight years in the U.S. Congress.

I feel so strongly that the Protect America Act is an affront to our values, that in my opinion it is in the best interest of all Americans that this misguided bill be allowed to expire rather than extended for even one more day.

In order to understand why I feel so strongly, let me take a moment to outline some of the most abhorrent provisions in the bill we are considering extending:

First, it allows the Attorney General to issue program warrants for international calls without court review. This provision removes the FISA court, which has overseen the process for 30 years and instead places the Attorney General in charge of determining the legitimacy of surveillance. Needless to say, this is an enormous responsibility and we must all question the wisdom of placing so much authority on the shoulders of one Administration official.

Secondly, it includes no provisions to prevent ``reverse targeting,'' the practice whereby surveillance is conducted on a foreign person in order to hear their conversations with a person in the United States who is the actual target. Under the Protect America Act, these conversations can be heard, recorded and stored without a warrant.

Lastly, the Protect America Act reduces the oversight capabilities of Congress by requiring the Attorney General to provide to Congress only the information the Justice Department sees fit to report. This provision removes an important check upon America's secret surveillance program.

Taken together, the Protect America Act represents a significant infringement on each American's civil liberties and allows for a potentially dangerous abuse of power by our government. I urge each of my colleagues to vote against its extension and allow the original FISA law to be reinstated. Doing so will allow the Congress time to work on a bipartisan update of the FISA and in the meantime give the intelligence community the tools they require while also protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source