Approved For Release 2008/09/15 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000200330014-1
3
of the authorization for the applicant agency to conduct the surveillance. There may, however, be secondary orders directed to
communications common carriers, landlords or others, instructing
them to render necessary assistance to the government. After the
Clerk has recorded the orders and affixed the seal of the Court, the
orders are returned to the applicant agency for execution.
While the judges of the Court have been designated from seven
different judicial circuits, the Court always sits in Washington,
D.C. Normally a judge is scheduled to sit one or two days, twice a
month, on 4 rotational basis. Applications requiring action in between scheduled Court days, usually those that arise unexpectedly,
are presented to one of two local judges who are members of the
Court. The bulk of the applications are pesented on regularly
scheduled court days.
III. OVERSIGHT
In the approximately 5 years since the new statutory procedures
for foreign intelligence electronic surveillance within the United
States have been in effect, the Committee has received 10 written
reports on its implementation from the Attorney General.
It is through
these
written
reports,
which
are
classified,
and
through regular discussions with the relevant executive branch
personnel, that the Committee has been able to obtain the information necessary to perform effectively its oversight function in this
sensitive area.
Congressional oversight is particularly important in regard to
electronic surveillance performed under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. In enacting FISA, the Congress concluded that
the necessary secrecy with which foreign intelligence activities
must be conducted justified establishing procedures for foreign intelligence electronic surveillance that differ from those which regulate electronic surveillance for law enforcement purposes.
These differences (see. Appendix B) place a unique and heavy
burden on the two Intelligence Committees of the Congress to
ensure that the FISA is being interpreted and applied as intended,
that what was intended remains wise policy, and that probable
cause determinations are correct and consistent. This burden lies
with the Intelligence Committees
because,
unlike what
obtains in
connection with law enforcement searches, the bench, the bar, the
press, and the public are not permitted, after the fact, to review or
comment
urt.
on the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
The Committee has a duty to the Congress and the public to be
especially vigilant and thorough in its oversight of surveillances of
U.S. persons. Immediately prior to the enactment of FISA, there
existed, according to the testimony of Attorney General Bell, two
ongoing cases of electronic surveillance of U.S. persons in the
United States for foreign intelligence purposes. This number has
increased each year since the enactment of FISA.*
*The
overwhelming
person targets.
number
of FISA
surveillances continue to be direted against non-U.S.
Approved For Release 2008/09/15 : CIA-RDP86B00338R000200330014-1