Spy Chief Faces Skeptics on Capitol Hill

Sept. 25, 2007 — -- Michael McConnell, the director of National Intelligence, faced some skeptical Democrats as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning about making permanent changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"We're asked to trust that the government will not misuse its authority. When the issue is giving significant new powers to government, 'just trust us' is not quite enough," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in his opening statement.

McConnell and the administration have been pushing Congress to make recently passed changes in the surveillance law permanent, as the current provisions are set to expire in February.

The key element is exempting intelligence and counterterrorism officials from requiring a warrant to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications. A secret order from the FISA court, in February, required that any foreign-to-foreign communications carried on U.S. circuits, via the Internet or fiber optic cables, required a warrant.

While most members agree on fixing this measure, concerned members of Congress have debated a section of the law that exempts telecommunication firms from litigation, for complying with government requests in investigations.

"The Rockefeller-Levin measure, by contrast, would have allowed the basket surveillance orders that the administration says are needed and that McConnell says are needed with no individual probable cause determinations, but at least had the FISA court issuing those orders to communications carriers after reviewing the administration's procedures," Leahy told McConnell.

AT&T and other major telecommunications firms have become the subject of civil lawsuits for participating in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program — the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

In his prepared statement, McConnell continued to voice his concerns about having open public discussions about FISA. "I will be as open as possible, but much of … these discussions come with some degree of risk. This is because open discussion of specific foreign intelligence collection capabilities causes us to lose those very same capabilities."