[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1771-E1772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IMPROVING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE TO DEFEND THE NATION AND 
                      THE CONSTITUTION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 3, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I have reservations about this 
bill, but I will vote for It today.
  It has just been introduced, and we have had only a short time to 
review it. And those of us who do not serve on the Intelligence 
Committee have had to depend on news reports and the debate on the 
floor for information regarding the events that have led to its being 
considered today.
  We have been informed that Admiral McConnell, Director of National 
Intelligence, has asserted that under current law there is a critical 
collection gap in our electronic surveillance capabilities, and that 
the administration

[[Page E1772]]

wants that gap to be addressed through legislation.
  The bill before us evidently is intended to respond to that request. 
It would make clear that no warrant or court order is required for our 
intelligence agencies to monitor communications between people located 
outside the United States, even if those communications pass through 
the United States or the surveillance device is located within the 
United States. The point of this clarification is to resolve doubts 
about the status of communications between foreign persons located 
overseas that pass through routing stations here in the United States.
  I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help 
resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since 
enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I 
think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, 
based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at 
individuals in the United States.
  The bill requires the Attorney General to submit procedures for 
international surveillance to the FISA Court for approval and 
authorizes the court to issue a ``basket warrant'' for individuals or 
foreign powers, including al Qaeda, outside the United States based on 
a review of those procedures without making separate determinations 
about individuals to be subject to the surveillance. Under the bill, 
there would be an initial 15-day period when international surveillance 
can begin while a ``basket warrant'' is submitted to the FISA Court. It 
allows for up to two 15-day extensions while the court rules and allows 
the court to compel cooperation by carriers during that period. And it 
requires the Justice Department's Inspector General to conduct and 
provide to the court and the Congress an audit every 60 days of 
communications involving any U.S. persons that are intercepted under a 
``basket warrant.''
  In general, I am wary of the concept of ``basket warrants,'' which 
are not normal under our laws. But I am prepared to support this part 
of the bill on the understanding that it is limited in scope and not 
applicable within the United States and with the expectation that the 
question will be revisited if the audits indicate a need for 
reconsideration of this part of the legislation. In this context, I am 
glad to note that this legislation will expire in 120 days. I think 
that is appropriate in light of the very short time we have had to 
consider the bill and the importance of the subject. This sunset clause 
means that we will be required to revisit the issue and will reduce the 
likelihood that any errors caused by today's expedited procedure will 
persist for an undue period.
  Madam Speaker, the administration is not fully supportive of this 
bill and evidently would prefer a broader grant of authority for 
surveillance. I am prepared to consider their arguments, but in the 
meantime I will vote for this bill in order to provide an immediate 
response to the problem they have identified and to advance the measure 
to the Senate for further consideration.

                          ____________________