Mike Levin: “I wish to read the key section of our bill. It says that: A court order is not required for the acquisition of the…”

“I wish to read the key section of our bill. It says that: A court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located in the United States, for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States, or the surveillance device is located within the United States. That is the heart of the matter. That is what Admiral McConnell has requested. That is what both bills provide, both bills cure the problem that exists. There is a problem. We have to cure it. Our bill, in addition to the Bond bill, both bills do that. Now, what are the major differences between the bills? What Admiral McConnell has indicated to us in a statement: The intelligence community should not be required to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence, from foreign targets, located overseas. That is in both bills. Except our bill is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill, which does not have that key limitation and which, it seems to me, very clearly applies to U.S. citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to U.S. citizens, we obviously will permit that. That is not the problem. It is called minimization. We do not try to affect that.”