<Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the Protect America Act.  I appreciate having the benefit of your views and am grateful for the opportunity to respond.</p>

<As you may know, I voted in favor of the Protect America Act this past August in order to close - albeit, temporarily - the dangerous loophole in our national defense that allowed foreign terrorists to avoid our intelligence network.  This legislation amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably beleived to be located outside the United States.  The bill also mandates that minimization procedures be ised to ensure the smallest level of privacy intrusion while obtaining information.  In order to ensure accountability and oversight, the Protect America Act requires the Attorney General to report to the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees semiannually concerning acquisitions made during the previous six-month period.>

<Because of the cumbersome nature of the 1978 FISA law, the government often needed to obtain a court order before vital intelligence collection could begin against a terrorist or other foreign intelligence target located in a foreign country.  The Protect America Act, passed by a bipartisan majority in the House, empowers our intelligence professionals to collect foreign intelligence information on targets in foreign lands without first receiving court approval.>

<Under the Protect America Act, a FISA court order is still required for any surveillance that would target an American, and the civil liberties of our citizens are protected.  As the Protect America Act will expire on February 1, 2008, I believe Congress must act to renew the provisions contained in the legislation.  I believe collecting foreign intelligence on foreign targets is a matter of common sense.  In doing so, we stand to learn much about terrorist activities, including likely targets of attacks.>  

<Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats recently offered a FISA extention that would have rolled back many reforms and constrained the ability of our intelligence officials to combat the efforts of our enemies.  The bill (HR 3773) would have granted unprecendented constitutional protections to foreign terrorists by requiring the intelligence community to seek a court order to collect foreign intelligence on foreign targets.  H.R. 3773 was pulled from the House floor after it was determined thatwe would waste precious time consulting government attorneysand consulting with the FISA court in order to conduct surveillance on Osama bin Laden.>

Not a word on immunity.  Outright lies regarding the "cumbersome" 1978 provisions.  Blatant lies regarding HR 3773.  This is what concerned citizens stuck with Republican representatives are getting for answers.  Just wanted to share this in hopes that we may further repel the other side's rhetoric, which isn't even consistent from day to day (as witness Mike McConnell's revelation).

Sorry if I messed up the block quotes; it should be fairly easy to tell which parts were Gingrey's response.