FISA Debate Quotes

Speakers quoted, in chronological order:
Mr. Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
Mr. Kit Bond, Missouri
Mr. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Mr. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Mr. Jon Kyl, Arizona
Ms. Diane Feinstein, California
Mr. Kit Bond, Missouri
Mr. John Cornyn, Texas
Mr. Orrin Hatch, Utah
Ms. Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
Mr. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Mr. John Warner, Virginia
Mr. Orrin Hatch, Utah

Quotes from proponents of the Intelligence Committee bill from Senate deliberations, December 17, 2007. All quotes were taken directly from the transcripts of the [Congressional Record. http://thomas.loc.gov/r110/r110.html]

Mr. Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
Four Principle Reforms of The Patriot Act
1. "First, the special procedures provided by this bill apply only to persons outside the United States. If somebody is in the United States—an American is in the United States—all the traditional provisions and protections of FISA continue to apply. Everyone agrees this should be the case."
2. " Second, our bill recognizes that minimization procedures have been an essential part of FISA from the beginning and will continue to play an essential role. These will be explained. These are procedures to ensure, among other things, that if Americans are overheard in conversations of a foreign target or there is discussion about Americans, that the identity of those Americans only be revealed within the U.S. Government if there is a good foreign intelligence purpose for so doing.

The Protect America Act had provided that the Attorney General approve minimization procedures, but it did not provide for court review of them. Our bill corrects that deficiency. The FISA Court will now have the responsibility to ensure that the procedures comply with the law."
3. "Thirdly, our bill provides protections for U.S. citizens who are outside the United States. Under the Protect America Act, if a U.S. citizen sets foot outside the United States, he or she would be treated the same as any foreigner outside the United States.

The Intelligence Committee rejects the proposition that Americans lose rights—any kind of rights—because they travel or work elsewhere in the world. An essential part of the rights of an American is the determination by a judge whether there is probable cause to believe an American outside the United States is a lawful subject of surveillance by our own Government. "
4. The fourth principal accomplishment of the Intelligence Committee bill is that it considerably enhances oversight of these protections by each branch of Government. This is achieved through a series of annual reports to Congress on the authorized collection, including instances of noncompliance; inspector general reviews by the Justice Department and the intelligence community; and FISA Court review and approval of acquisition and minimization procedures."

Justifications for Telecommunications Company Immunity
1. the companies were not provided with any of the Justice Department legal opinions underlying the Attorney General's certifications they received ordering them to do something which has come to put them at risk.
2. what the committee approved was not—I repeat: was not—the broad and open-ended immunity sought by the administration.
3. The committee immunity provision applies only to companies that may have participated in the warrantless surveillance program from a specific period of time—from 9/11—until it was placed under FISA Court authorization in January 2007. Nothing in the bill provides immunity for Government officials for their actions
4. debate about the President's authority should not fall on telecommunications companies because they responded to the representations by Government officials at the highest levels that the program had been authorized by the President and determined to be lawful and received requests, compulsions to carry it out.
5. Companies participated at great risk of exposure and financial ruin

Mr. Kit Bond, Missouri
Support for the August bill, The Protect America Act
1. The intelligence community was shut out of the ability to go up on foreign targets which might have had vital information.
2. electronic surveillance that was done under the President's program and under the current FISA Court jurisdiction has provided valuable intelligence which has helped to thwart attacks on the United States.
3. As we heard from GEN Stan McCrystal, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, when the outmoded FISA law application shut down our ability to collect foreign intelligence, the people most greatly at risk were our men and women in the service overseas

Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. the legislation we are looking at today contains far greater protections for U.S. persons than this body ever conceived of or was ever willing to grant Americans when it passed FISA 30 years ago
2. Some of the things we attempted to do had impossible burdens that we did not understand until we laid them out for these experts. They have told us how to accomplish our purposes and do so in a manner that would be effective in protecting the interests, and yet not destroy the ability of the intelligence community to collect the information we need.
3. we must pass a good bill that will not get vetoed.
4. With two small fixes that Chairman Rockefeller and I intend to add to the bill in a manager's amendment, I have been assured that the President will sign that bill.
5. The FISA Court of Review has said, in the in re: Sealed Case, that the President's power to collect foreign intelligence remains. The President has put this bill under the FISA Court. So he has accepted the jurisdiction of the court in assessing the appropriateness of the collection means that have been requested.
6. We cannot erase by legislation a constitutional power. That constitutional power that the President has was fully laid out in the opinions and advice given by the Department of Justice and the intelligence community to any carriers that may have participated in the collection of information during the pendency of the President's terror surveillance program.

Mr. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Support for the August bill, The Protect America Act
1. We are capable of getting excited about an issue and taking theoretical positions that end up, as a practical matter, leaving our country at greater risk
2. We have made two dramatic errors some years ago in a situation just like this, on emotion driven by our civil libertarian friends, such that a wall was put up between the FBI and the CIA which barred the sharing of information between those two critical agencies.
3. We also mandated that the Central Intelligence Agency officers could not obtain information from people deemed to be dangerous.
4. Many Members of this body were warned when they were made the law of the United States, they were warned then that if we did these things it was not wise. But, oh no, the others loved the Constitution more, they loved liberty more, so these unwise laws were passed.
5. Last year, a Federal court ruled, based on changes in technology, that those laws we passed effectively limited the collection of critical communications of foreign intelligence.
6. [Admiral McConnell said] The United States was unable to conduct critical surveillance of ..... foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside our country.
7. As of this date, there has been no example of abuse of that act.
8. A court ruled that these procedures we had been using for some time, must, according to statutes we passed, go through a certain number of procedural hoops that, as a practical matter, would have eliminated the possibility of us continuing these surveillance techniques.
9. I don't think it is fair to say the program was illegal. But certainly the procedures were not unconstitutional because this summer, when we passed the Protect America Act, we effectively concluded the program was good and constitutional. We affirmed the program.
10. perhaps we ought to write President Bush a letter and tell him: Thank you. We are sorry we accused you of violating our Constitution and basic civil liberties. After the Congress spent weeks studying this, we passed a law that basically allowed the program to continue as it was.

Mr. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. This bill only infringes on one group's right to privacy, and that is terrorists.
2. Prior to congressional action in August, and again if we do not make permanent these changes, our intelligence community was unable to collect vital foreign intelligence without the prior approval of a court
3. If our intelligence community wanted to direct surveillance at an al-Qaida member located in Waziristan who was communicating with another terrorist in Germany, they would have to first petition the FISA court for approval.
4. Congress must act swiftly before our core collectors are faced with losing valuable intelligence as a result of inaction by Congress.
5. When FISA was enacted in 1978, it was meant to provide our Government with the means to collect foreign intelligence within the United States while not infringing upon U.S. citizens' rights.
6. Regulating the collection of foreign intelligence, including the electronic surveillance of foreign communications made by terrorists, was neither contemplated during FISA nor by the courts after enactment of FISA.
7. These amendments to FISA would only apply to surveillance directed at individuals who are located outside the United States.
8. The Government still would be required to seek the permission of the FISA Court for any surveillance done against people physically located within the United States, whether a citizen or not.
9. They wish to extend the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment currently not bestowed under U.S. criminal law and procedure to American citizens overseas. The U.S. laws do not extend beyond our border, but the Supreme Court has held that certain fundamental rights such as those protected by the fifth and sixth amendments, as well as the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment, do extend to U.S. citizens outside the country.
10. However, despite the opportunity, the Supreme Court has refused to hold that the warrant clause of the fourth amendment applies abroad for U.S. citizens.
11. In a criminal prosecution, U.S. courts will accept evidence against U.S. citizens obtained by foreign governments without the probable cause demanded by U.S. law. U.S. courts recognize that the Bill of Rights does not protect Americans from the acts of foreign sovereigns, and excluding evidence obtained by them will not deter foreign governments from collecting it. Therefore, the evidence can be turned over to the United States and used in a criminal prosecution.
12. Currently, under Executive Order 12333, section 2.5, the Attorney General may authorize the targeting of a U.S. person overseas upon finding probable cause to believe that the individual is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. The intelligence community will now be required to obtain authorization from the FISA Court prior to conducting surveillance against terrorists or spies overseas who assist foreign governments merely because they are United States persons.
13. It is my belief that the intelligence community has demonstrated to Congress how judicious, selective and careful they have been when it comes to protecting the very small number of U.S. citizens this applies to and does not necessarily need the court to approve their actions every step along the way.
14. it prevents the intelligence community from acting quickly and with discretion in a process which has worked well to protect U.S. citizens for almost 30 years.
15. I believe that the bill which was ultimately adopted by the committee, and with my support, contains troubling language which should be altered before enactment.
16. The ability to collect the intelligence necessary to protect our country from foreign adversaries and terrorists should not be subjected to partisan politics in Congress.

On telecom Immunity
1. The Government often needs assistance from the private sector in order to protect our national security and, in return, they should be able to rely on the Government's assurances that the assistance they provide is lawful and necessary for our national security.
2. As a result of this assistance, America's telecommunications carriers should not have to front heavy legal battles shrouded in secrecy on the Government's behalf.

Mr. Jon Kyl, Arizona
Support for the August bill, The Protect America Act
1. We are now able to collect intelligence in ways that were never understood or contemplated years ago when the law was drafted. As a result, we need to change the law to accommodate that collection.
2. Before we changed the law last year, we had lost about two-thirds of the ability to collect intelligence against al-Qaida.
3. When we did the Protect America Act last summer, we regained the capability to collect that intelligence by conforming the legal procedures to the technology that enables us to collect this material.

Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. We also know that the best way to deal with al-Qaida and the like is to collect intelligence so we can prevent attacks from occurring rather than worrying about them after they have occurred.
2. he agencies executing wiretaps and conducting other surveillance must report their activities to Congress and to others, so the opportunities for domestic political abuse of these authorities is eliminated.
3. Our people certainly don't have time to try to spy on Americans. That is not what is involved.
4. We have to be careful that in creating this oversight we don't cut deeply into the capabilities of our intelligence community, that we don't in effect limit what they are able to do.
5. If you compare the Intelligence Committee bill with the Judiciary bill, you will see that the Judiciary bill would severely limit this collection of intelligence
6. The Intelligence Committee bill, which is the bill we are taking up first and which we should adopt, includes a provision that has been labeled the Wyden amendment which, as written, would require a warrant for any overseas surveillance that is conducted for foreign intelligence purposes and targets a U.S. person.
7. we already have protocols to deal with that, to minimize any potential problems that might arise in conducting intelligence that would include a U.S. person. But the way the Wyden amendment is written is overly broad and unprecedented.
8. Under current law, a warrant would not be required for overseas surveillance that is targeted to a U.S. person if that surveillance is conducted for purposes of a criminal investigation.
9. the Wyden amendment would create a requirement for a warrant to go after foreign terrorists involving also potentially U.S. persons, but it would not require a warrant in those circumstances of drug trafficking or money laundering that involve the very same people.
10. Do we want to allow our intelligence agencies to use the most up-to-date technology to track and prevent attacks by the most evil people in the world today, these al-Qaida terrorists, or are we so concerned about some potential theoretical, possible situation in which an American citizen's communications might be temporarily intercepted, if they call an al-Qaida person or an al-Qaida person calls them, that we are not going to take advantage of these intelligence-collection techniques?

Ms. Diane Feinstein, California
On Telecom Immunity
1. The language would only cover cases where the Attorney General certifies that the defendant companies received written requests or directives from top levels of the Government for their assistance.
2. In other words, the Government, in writing, I stress in writing, assured those companies that the program was legal, the President had authorized the program, and that its legality has been approved by the Attorney General.
3. No individual immunity of anyone in the government is included in this bill.
4. The companies in these cases are prevented from making their own defense.
5. They are prevented from responding to inaccurate news articles, inaccurate press releases, they cannot come before the Congress and testify in public, they cannot respond to anything that is said in the public sector, and they are prevented from defending themselves in court.
6. So, in effect, they are handcuffed and gagged by the administration's claim of state secrets.
7. These companies have no financial motives in providing assistance to the Government. In fact, they incurred a substantial risk in doing so.
8. They were given written requests, legal assurances in the weeks after September 11. The letters went out within 5 weeks of September 11, when we all feared this Nation might suffer additional attacks.
9. It was this administration, not the companies, that made a flawed legal determination.
10. It has been pointed out that there is a longstanding common law provision that allows citizens to rely on the assumption that the Government acted legally when it asks a private citizen or a company to assist it for the common good. All that is required is that the citizen act in good faith.
11. A small number of telecom officials were acting under the cloak of secrecy and a directive not to disclose the Government's request. They are not experts on article II of the Constitution.

Mr. Kit Bond, Missouri
Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. But I was a little puzzled to hear how this bill—this bill, which includes significantly more protections for Americans' civil liberties and constitutional rights—somehow goes back on the original FISA. The original FISA required a court review of targeting of U.S. persons. We have gone far beyond that in this bill. As a matter of fact, the Protect America Act, which he decried, contained all of the protections that were in the original FISA bill.
2. I think we have prepared a very good bill that by any fair reading—any fair reading—will extend the protections beyond what the original FISA, and even the Protect America Act, had for the surveillance, electronic surveillance of anybody either in the United States or a U.S. person abroad.
3. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided this issue, held that the President did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.
4. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
5. The President does have the power under article II of the Constitution to conduct warrantless surveillances.

On Telecom immunity
1. said it pretty well when talking about why providing immunity—and it is not amnesty because these companies, the companies alleged to have done wrong, did nothing wrong.
2. The providers had a good faith basis for responding to the request for assistance they received.
3. The intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from these companies.
4. Companies in the future may be less willing to assist the government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each time they are alleged to have provided assistance.
5. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.
6. Allowing continued litigation also risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding intelligence sources and methods.
7. [litigation provides] an advantage to our adversaries by revealing sources and methods during the course of litigation
8. potential disclosure of classified information puts both the facilities and personnel of electronic communications service providers and our country's continued ability to protect our homeland at risk
9. then to go back and say that any company, any U.S. person, or any corporation that got a notice from the Attorney General to carry out an order of the President through the Intelligence Committee to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance is breaking the law is just absolutely beyond the bounds.
10. And to say now that these people should be dragged back into court where they will be subjected not only to the potential of large legal bills
11. I don't think anybody is going to be able to show any harm that would warrant the court to grant a monetary recovery—but what they will find, what they will find is great damage to their reputation, as the people who are enemies of the United States go out actively and trash any company or any individual who cooperates with the United States.
12. There are evil people out there who would love to be able to get information and confirm what companies may have participated. Once that happens, those companies would be at great risk abroad. Their reputations would suffer, and they and their personnel could be at great risk of physical harm.
13. this measure only protects the private sector people who might have cooperated. It does not protect Government employees.

Mr. John Cornyn, Texas
Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. [Old FISA law made it so] we were being blocked from receiving as many as two-thirds of the communications of one foreign terrorist to another foreign terrorist because of the way these calls were being routed.
2. We were told time and time again that the burdensome requirement of getting the paperwork necessary in order to get a FISA authorization in cases where the Congress never intended to require that sort of authorization, which was required because of these changes in technology, that it was actually causing delays in our ability to get timely information in a way to protect our country and our men and women in uniform serving in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We know the ability to obtain the right information at the right time is of critical importance in our struggle against radical Islamic terrorists who hide among civilian populations and who don't abide by the Geneva Conventions.
4. They don't wear a uniform. They don't recognize a chain of command or the laws of war.
5. Changes in technology, combined with a court ruling that hampered the intelligence community, required that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be updated.
6. the likelihood that being blind to two out of every three communications between terrorists would likely make us less safe and would make it more likely that they would be successful in killing innocent Americans and our allies
7. Our intelligence analysts should not be distracted from the important job of listening in and using information to deter further attacks by having to fill out a bunch of paperwork
8. The Senate and House Democratic Judiciary Committee proposals, I am sorry to say, would greatly hamper our intelligence community
9. The House bill would require court orders for foreign targets in foreign lands—something that has never been required in the 30 years since FISA was enacted
10. This last summer, three American soldiers were thought to be kidnapped by al-Qaida in Iraq. Because of delays in obtaining emergency authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, our intelligence community was unable to set into place surveillance that may have saved the lives of these soldiers on May 12, 2007. There was a 10-hour delay while the authorities did the paperwork necessary for them to listen in on communications they never should have been required to get a FISA order to listen to in the first place—clearly, foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, PFC Joseph Anzack was found dead a few weeks later in the Euphrates River, and an al-Qaida subsidiary claims to have killed and buried SPC Alex Jiminez and PFC Byron Fouty. Those 10 hours of delay, I believe, contributed to the deaths of these 3 American soldiers. If they hadn't been required to wait 10 hours to do the paperwork, I think there was a better chance that they could have been found safely and returned to the arms of their loved ones.
11. Erecting more walls and barriers to the collection and sharing of intelligence material ignores this important lesson and gives our adversaries an unacceptable tactical advantage
12. But the Senate, unfortunately—the Judiciary Committee—saw important suggestions from the Intelligence Community rejected, again, along partisan lines. No attempt was made to craft a bipartisan proposal.
13. This Senate bill will allow the Attorney General to authorize targeting persons outside of the United States to acquire this necessary information. No longer will they be required to go to the FISA Court for an approval to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas

On Telecom immunity
1. Why in the world would we want to do anything to discourage private citizens, whether they be individuals or corporate citizens, from cooperating in the security interests of our country? This is perhaps analogous to a police officer who knocks on your window and says, I need your car to go capture a dangerous criminal before they do harm to somebody else. Well, if an individual were worried that they would be sued as a result of their being a good volunteer and a good member of the community in allowing a law enforcement officer the use of their car to capture a dangerous criminal, do you think they would be more inclined or less inclined to cooperate with the lawful authorities? I think it is pretty clear that they would be far less inclined.
2. To tell them that you are going to have to endure ruinous litigation costs,
3. you are not even going to be able to defend yourself because some of the evidence is the subject of a State secrets privilege
4. you are not even going to be able to explain what you did, while at the same time suffering the reputation damage that they could very well suffer if their participation was known in other parts of the world
5. It is not fair to them and, even more importantly, it is not fair to us because to fail to give them the immunity for their cooperation with the lawful request of the President of the United States
6. I think the thing more likely to protect our security from this point forward is to show citizens who cooperate with the lawful authorities of the U.S. Government to help keep us safe that they are going to be protected against litigation and the vast costs that could be associated with it—not to mention the potential that classified information might become public and be known to our enemies.

Mr. Orrin Hatch, Utah
On Telecom immunity
1. it was an easy thing for 13 members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to vote to grant retroactive immunity to companies that patriotically adhered to legal letters to provide the means whereby we might be able to protect citizens in this country and perhaps all over the world.
2. we have been able to protect this country in ways that most people will never know because this area is one of the areas that we don't talk about. It is, this whole area, highly classified. We can talk about the law here.
3. Close inspection of the lawsuits against the telecoms reveals dubious claims.
4. The plaintiffs have confused speculation for established facts. This is dangerous and the continuation of these lawsuits could lead to serious consequences for our national security.
5. It is very simple—Congress should not condone oversight through litigation.
6. The lawsuits represent irrational fears of Government conspiracy, and seek to expose classified information, regardless of who is harmed in the process.
7. The risks that classified details could be revealed through these lawsuits are severe. Remember, the very point of these lawsuits is to prove plaintiffs' claims by disclosing classified information.
8. Our enemies have tough decisions to make regarding how they communicate. They can't stay silent forever, and they have to weigh the need to communicate against the chance that their communications are intercepted. Given this, they are carefully watching us and reading every proceeding to see how our government collects information. If they think they see a weakness in our collection capabilities, they will certainly try and take advantage of it.
9. the committee voted to include retroactive immunity for service providers that were alleged to have cooperated with the intelligence community following 9/11.
10. It goes without saying, companies in the future will certainly be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat of extremely costly lawsuits each time they are alleged to have provided assistance
11. Their attorneys will scour future Government requests, feverishly looking for any technicality to avoid compliance.
12. And even if these private attorneys approve future participation, the company will have to listen to cautious stockholders, whose financial interests will undoubtedly make them adamantly opposed to situations which could lead to any financial risk or exposure.
13. If the financial foundations of these companies crumble due to frivolous litigation, they will rebuild it to withstand future Government requests that may again lead to their collapse.
14. Quite simply, the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege prevents these companies from defending themselves.
15. Given the necessity for the state secrets privilege, the drawback is that the companies being sued are forbidden from making their case. In fact, the companies cannot even confirm or deny any involvement in the program whatsoever.
16. The identities of any company that assisted the Government following the attacks of September 11 are highly classified.
17. The Committee reached the conclusion that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this case after holding numerous hearings...That is after numerous top-secret Intelligence Committee hearings.

Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. One of the basic requirements of any FISA modernization proposal is we should not have any provisions which could be interpreted as requiring warrants to target foreign terrorists overseas.
2. Quite simply, foreign terrorists living overseas should never receive protections provided by the fourth amendment to the Constitution
3. Even though reverse targeting is already considered unlawful, a provision is included in the Intelligence bill which makes it explicit.
4. Now, where before the provision said you cannot target a foreign person if the purpose is to target a U.S. person, the new language [to Judiciary bill] adds the ambiguous term `significant purpose.'
5. If this amendment becomes law, an analyst would now have to ask himself this question when targeting a terrorist overseas: Is a 'significant purpose' of why I am targeting this foreign terrorist overseas the fact that the terrorist may call an airline in America to make flight reservations or a terrorist with a green card living in the USA?
6. Enactment of this amendment could lead to our analysts seeking warrants when targeting any foreign terrorists, since the analyst may be afraid he or she is otherwise breaking our new law.
7. President's other senior advisers will recommend that he veto this bill.

Ms. Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
On Telecom Amnesty
1. Quite frankly, I was in a meeting with Senator Daschle when the Pentagon was hit. Sixty Marylanders died, and I thought I might die that day
2. I remember on the eve of the Army-Navy game, wondering what would that mean with the best and brightest of our leadership, would even the Army-Navy game be attacked?
3. We were all asked to do our part. It was in this context, then, that the Bush administration went to the telecom companies. These companies were asked to assist with a communications program to prevent further attacks
4. They were given letters of assurance that essentially said: The Attorney General of the United States, then John Ashcroft, deemed what they were being asked to do legal and necessary.
5. There was a subsequent letter where then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales also assured these companies that what they were doing was legal and necessary. The correspondence declares that these activities were also authorized by the President of the United States during this time of anxiety.
6. Within this context, the telecom companies thought what they were doing was patriotic and legal.

Mr. Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. Our Intelligence Committee, more than our Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, was deeply involved in exactly what is being done in foreign intelligence and how it was being done.
2. We had a 9/11 Commission that said we did not have good intelligence, we did not share the intelligence we had correctly, we were not analyzing properly the intelligence we had, and we ought to do much better with regard to intelligence.
3. the President authorized these programs, some of which basically had been authorized for years and had never been considered to be improper in any way
4. . I know it is being driven by a lot of leftist, the `blame America first' folks who seek to undo every single thing that is done to protect America from attack by foreign adversaries.
5. we have now passed laws, including the Protect America Act, that allows them to continue. If they are so horrible, why did we overwhelmingly vote to allow them to continue?
6. Why have we never had the Supreme Court, which has ruled on surveillance in the United States, declare its power on the issue of surveillance abroad? Think about this: Can the Supreme Court—can a Federal judge in America approve a surveillance, electronic surveillance in a foreign country of an American citizen? The answer is, no, because they don't have jurisdiction.
7. he suggestions that have been made by some that they are sitting out there trying to listen in on somebody's private conversation about Christmas from Paris or Afghanistan is beyond reality. They are out there trying to protect America.

On Telecom immunity
1. These companies were given a legal statement from the Attorney General that said the President had declared their cooperation to be important to national security, that it was legal, and asked them to help.
2. The basic principle that has been embedded in our law for hundreds of years, from our British heritage, is that a citizen—when called upon by a law officer, the gendarme, the Federal official, or the State law officer who has apparent legal authority, to help in a situation involving a danger in the community—that citizen should respond
3. an example would be where somebody is running from a building, and apparently, a burglary has occurred. Several uniformed police officers are chasing the apparent burglar. They ask a citizen to help. The citizen assaults, tackles, and holds the person he has been told to try to capture. He helps the police officers capture that person, and it turns out he is not the burglar, but an innocent person.
4. If we now are going to place the burden on the CEO or the legal counsel of every company in America to conduct their own independent research as to whether a request to participate in helping to defend America is constitutional, and they now are required to go beyond a certified letter from the Attorney General of the United States and have their lawyers express their own opinion, we are at a point where we are not going to get help in the future.

Mr. John Warner, Virginia
On Telecom Immunity
1.Some companies facing lawsuits, even if they never participated in the program, can likewise not defend themselves.
2. It is a recognized fact that lawsuits are most often extremely costly to a company in terms of damage to the business reputation and stock valuation could fluctuate. Even if a company ultimately prevails, they will suffer not only money damages possibly, costs possibly, in all probability even though there may be Government reimbursement, but damage which is incalculable in amount to their reputation and standing in their community.
3. I myself engaged in the practice of law before I entered public service many years ago, and not much has changed.
4. Without this retroactive liability provision, I believe companies will no longer, and understandably, voluntarily participate in this program.

Mr. Orrin Hatch, Utah
Support for Intelligence committee version of FISA
1. Many individuals, particularly on partisan blogs, are spreading misleading and malicious information in order to incite fear of alleged governmental activities. This bill should not include text which panders to people who believe in imaginary Government conspiracies. There is such a thing as irrational fear of Government.
2. The indisputable fact is terrorists have committed heinous attacks on Americans and have pledged themselves to conduct more. It is not politics of fear to acknowledge this.
3. Let me tell you what our Government does to protect us. It hires the finest men and women of this great country to utilize their skills to help prevent these types of attacks. Our job in Congress is to make sure these people who have sworn to defend us have the necessary tools to try and prevent terrorist attacks. What they don't need are laws with ambiguous language, as has been proposed, making their jobs more difficult.
4. The only great expansion I see in this bill is judicial jurisdiction. In fact, I am amazed we don't rename the bill the unlimited expansion of judicial authority act.
5. This bill amends FISA so we can continue to target foreign terrorists when they utilize communications over a wire, not just communications over radio or satellite.
6. We have even heard our Government could spy on American military members who are overseas defending our country. I find these scare tactics not only ridiculous but extremely offensive
7. They walk a fine line in seemingly questioning the integrity and the judgment of these fine men and women who work for us and who don't have a political agenda, who have dedicated their professional lives to prevent catastrophic attacks on Americans.
8. Do we think our intelligence analysts are sitting around waiting for the Smith family to go on their family vacation to Italy so they can tap their cell phones? Give me a break. To imply that our country's intelligence analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign terrorists overseas is a slap in the face to the people who protect our Nation. Our Government is focusing their attention on terrorists who wish us death, not on innocent Americans.
9. I wonder if they realize the 1978 FISA law itself provides no statutory protections for Americans overseas.
10. Yet we have called that the gold standard all these years. I would, however, tell my colleagues that Americans overseas are protected by the most important document in the history of our great Nation, and that is the U.S. Constitution.
11. Do we think an intelligence analyst is going to disregard an executive order and wiretap innocent Americans overseas? Of course not.
12. Here is something that should make all Americans scratch their heads. Before September 11, the Government would not need a warrant to target this criminal [Adam Gadahn is an American citizen from Orange County, CA.] After September 11, the Government would not need a warrant to target Gadahn. But after this bill is signed, the Government will be required to get a warrant to target Gadahn.
13. Here, as shown on this chart, is a call from the United States of America to overseas; or a call from overseas to the United States of America. Is that a domestic call? I hardly think so. Is this such a hard concept to grasp? The last time I flew overseas, I did not fly on a domestic flight. I flew on an international flight. ``Domestic spying may sound catchy and mysterious, but it is a completely inaccurate way to describe the terrorist surveillance program. Why don't the partisan blogs describe it as ``international spying? Isn't that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our Government.