But let's be clear: When this issue came before the Intelligence Committee, we worked on a bipartisan basis to compromise. I think we had, as I have said before, a very good compromise. Everybody gave. I did not want any sunset. I felt providing our intelligence community the ability to establish a good, strong, adequately protected but yet effective means of intercepting foreign intelligence communications was vitally important so the intelligence community would know they had this ability. Moreover, I have had the opportunity, in the last couple years, to meet with many of our allies abroad. Our allies depend upon our ability to intercept communications that lead to the disruption of terrorist attacks in other countries. Again, I ask my colleagues who want to know what the Protect America Act has done to review the classified communication that the Director of National Intelligence sent us saying how many times and where in foreign countries we were able to provide vital information through our collection of electronic signals to the governments that wanted to be able to prevent terrorist attacks and were significantly enabled to do so by means of our collection efforts.
On the recordFebruary 4, 2008
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of the Protect America Act and its impact on intelligence gathering.
Share
More from Julian Bond
Jun 24, 2008
The bill we passed in the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan majority protected civil liberties of American citizens much further than they have ever been protected even under existing criminal law, we provided more protection. The…
Feb 9, 2009
these last few days, I have been traveling across my State of Missouri, and to say that people are outraged over this $1 trillion budget buster would be an understatement. Unfortunately, many of the people have called the office and talked…
Mar 28, 2012
It's the most -- one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of or seen spelled out in this way.





