The House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held several hearings the week of Sept. 17 on the implications of the Protect America Act (PAA) and its revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell argued that the changes need to be made permanent, while others argued that PAA unnecessarily violates civil liberties.

On Aug. 5, President Bush signed the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA), granting the government the authority to wiretap anyone, including U.S. citizens, without court approval as long as the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be located outside the country. The legislation expires February 2008, but the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees held hearings this week to consider immediate changes. Public interest organizations and many members of Congress are seeking revisions to address the invasion of privacy and erosion of civil liberties they believe provisions of the act represent.

DNI McConnell strongly argued before the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the importance and necessity of PAA. "The Protect America Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007, has already made the nation safer by allowing the Intelligence Community to close existing gaps in our foreign intelligence collection," said McConnell. "After the Protect America Act was signed we took immediate action to close critical foreign intelligence gaps related to the terrorist threat, particularly the pre-eminent threats to our national security."

Kenneth Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division of the Department of Justice, argued for three changes in law. "First, the Protect America Act should be made permanent. Second, Congress should provide liability protection to companies that are alleged to have assisted the nation in the conduct of intelligence activities in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Third, it is important that Congress consider and ultimately pass other provisions in our proposal." Among the specific provisions included in the third request are streamlining of the FISA application process and modifying the definition of "agent of a foreign power."

James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology argued for revisions in PAA's amendment to FISA. Dempsey asserted that because the PAA permits searches and wiretaps that are presumptively unconstitutional, "it is highly likely that a search under the PAA of international communications of US persons would be unconstitutional."

Dempsey went on to note that the intelligence community can be provided with the tools necessary to collect intelligence without infringing on rights to privacy. "The legitimate goal of providing the NSA with speed and agility in targeting persons overseas can be accomplished in a way that builds on the constitutional system of judicial review."

Kate Martin and Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies also argued that, "the far-reaching changes written into FISA [by PAA] are unconstitutional. They are unnecessary because there are alternatives that would provide additional flexibility to the intelligence community and increase its effectiveness while preserving Americans' constitutional rights, and constitutional checks and balances."

The House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are expected to consider legislation on FISA as early as Oct. 4. "For more than 200 years we have managed to have both liberty and security," stated Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, "and I intend to do my part to ensure that we continue to maintain this careful balance for years to come."