America's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, enacted October 25, 1978, 50 U.S.C. ch.36, S. 1566) is an Act of Congress, (signed by President Jimmy Carter), which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of being engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law on territory under United States control).^[1] The law does not apply outside the US.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Protect America Act of 2007

Wikisource has original text related to this article: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Subsequent amendments[link]

The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on August 5, 2007.^[2] It expired on February 17, 2008.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008.^[3]

History[link]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977 by Senator Ted Kennedy. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The act was signed into law by President Carter in 1978.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.^[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program[link]

The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article^[5] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article^[6] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.

Scope and limits[link]

For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).

The statute includes limits on how it may be applied to US persons. A "US person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.^[7]

In sum, a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the U.S. on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. To use FISA, the government must show probable cause that the “target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.”[2]^[8]

Provisions[link]

The subchapters of FISA provide for:

• Electronic Surveillance (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.I)
• Physical Searches (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.II)
• Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.III)
• Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.IV)
• Reporting Requirement (50 U.S.C. ch.36 subch.V)

The act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.^[9] This number has steadily grown to 2224 warrants^[10] in 2006. In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.^[11]

Electronic surveillance[link]

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order[link]

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;^[7] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(1),(2),(3)^[12] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.^[13]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,^[14] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.^[15]

Since 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.^[16] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties^[17] and civil liabilities.^[18]

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."^[19]

With a court order[link]

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.^[20] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons.^[21]

Physical searches[link]

In addition to electronic surveillance, FISA permits the "physical search" of the "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power.

The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.

FISA court[link]

The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within the Department of Justice headquarters building. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven year terms.

Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.

Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Court of Review is a three judge panel. Since its creation, the court has come into session twice: in 2002 and 2008.

Remedies for violations[link]

Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.^[17]

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.^[18]

Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.

In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

Lone wolf amendment[link]

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.^[22]

Constitutionality[link]

Before FISA[link]

In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents."

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a US citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.

A plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a "foreign power or their agent", and "absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional."

Post FISA[link]

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.

However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

Criticisms[link]

K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation,^[23] and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School,^[24] among others,^[25] have argued that FISA may need to be amended (to include, among other things, procedures for programmatic approvals) as it may no longer be adequate to address certain foreign intelligence needs and technology developments, including: the transition from circuit-based communications to packet-based communications; the globalization of communications infrastructure; and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including data mining and traffic analysis.^[26]

The need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs is particularly crucial in foreign intelligence. See, for example, John R. Schmidt, the associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton,^[27] recalling early arguments made by then-Attorney General Edward Levi to the Church Committee that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets" may be required. In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."

And, in a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA “retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist.”^[28]

Amendments[link]

Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006[link]

On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),^[29][30] under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2453),^[31][32] which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty^[33] for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs." On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S. 3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.

All three competing bills were the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings throughout the summer.^[34] On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.^[35]

On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.^[36]

Protect America Act of 2007[link]

On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-55, S. 1927) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.^[37]

Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.

The Act provides procedures for the government to "certify" the legality of an acquisition program, for the government to issue directives to providers to provide data or assistance under a particular program, and for the government and recipient of a directive to seek from the FISA Court, respectively, an order to compel provider compliance or relief from an unlawful directive. Providers receive costs and full immunity from civil suits for compliance with any directives issued pursuant to the Act.

A summary of key provisions follows.

The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:

1. there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
2. the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
3. the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
4. a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
5. minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.

Once the certification is filed with the FISA Court, the Attorney General or DNI can direct a provider to undertake or assist in the undertaking of the acquisition.

If a provider fails to comply with a directive issued by the Attorney General or DNI, the Attorney General may seek an order from the FISA Court compelling compliance with the directive. Failure to obey an order of the FISA Court may be punished as a contempt of court.

Likewise, a person receiving a directive may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court. An initial review must be conducted within 48 hours of the filing to determine whether the petition is frivolous, and a final determination concerning any non-frivolous petitions must be made – in writing – within 72 hours of receipt of the petition.

Determinations of the FISA Court may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Court of Appeals, and a petition for a writ of certiorari of a decision from the FICA can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court.

All petitions must be filed under seal.

The Act allows providers to be compensated, at the prevailing rate, for providing assistance as directed by the Attorney General or DNI.

The Act provides explicit immunity from civil suit in any federal or state court for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under the Act.

Within 120 days, the Attorney General must submit to the FISA Court for its approval the procedures by which the government will determine that acquisitions authorized by the Act conform with the Act and do not involve purely domestic communications. The FISA Court then will determine whether the procedures comply with the Act. The FISA Court thereafter will enter an order either approving the procedures or directing the government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under the government procedures. The government may appeal a ruling of the FISA Court to the FICA and ultimately the Supreme Court.

On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall inform the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate of incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the DNI, incidents of noncompliance with FISA Court-approved procedures by the Intelligence Community, and the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”^[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

Subsequent developments[link]

Legal experts experienced in national security issues are divided on how broadly the new law could be interpreted or applied. Some believe that due to subtle changes in the definitions of terms such as "electronic surveillance," it could empower the government to conduct warrantless physical searches and even seizures of communications and computer devices and their data which belong to U.S. citizens while they are in the United States, if the government contended that those searches and potential seizures were related to its surveillance of parties outside the United States. Intelligence officials, while declining to comment directly on such possibilities, respond that such interpretations are overly broad readings of the act, and unlikely to actually occur. Democratic lawmakers have nonetheless indicated that they are planning to introduce a revised version of the legislation for consideration as early as September 2007.^[39]

In a September 10, 2007 address at a symposium on modernizing FISA held at Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Center, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, argued against the current six-month sunset provision in the Protect America Act of 2007, saying that the broadened surveillance powers the act provides for should be made permanent. Wainstein proposed that internal audits by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Division of the Justice Department, with reporting to select groups of Congressmen, would ensure that the expanded capability would not be abused.^[40]

Also on September 10, DNI Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that the Protect America Act had helped foil a major terror plot in Germany. U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell's testimony and urged his office to correct it, which he did in a statement issued September 12, 2007. Critics cited the incident as an example of the Bush administration's exaggerated claims and contradictory statements about surveillance activities. Counterterrorism officials familiar with the background of McConnell's testimony said they did not believe he made inaccurate statements intentionally as part of any strategy by the administration to persuade Congress to make the new eavesdropping law permanent. Those officials said they believed McConnell gave the wrong answer because he was overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts.^[41]

Speaking at National Security Agency headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President George W. Bush urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks."^[42]

On October 4, 2007, the bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee of the Constitution Project, co-chaired by David Keene and David D. Cole, issued its "Statement on the Protect America Act." [3] The Statement urged Congress not to reauthorize the PAA, saying the language of the bill "runs contrary to the tripartite balance of power the Framers envisioned for our constitutional democracy, and poses a serious threat to the very notion of government of the people, by the people and for the people." Some in the legal community have questioned the constitutionality of any legislation that would retroactively immunize telecommunications firms alleged to have cooperated with the government from civil liability for having potentially violated their customers' privacy rights.^[43]

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry found significant flaws in the technical implementation of the Protect America Act which they said created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by the government.^[44]

On October 7, 2007, The Washington Post reported that House Democrats planned to introduce alternative legislation which would provide for one-year "umbrella" warrants, and would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of those warrants and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. The proposed bill would not include immunity for telecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with the administration's NSA warrantless surveillance program. House Democrats said that as long as the administration withholds requested documents explaining the basis for the program that they cannot consider immunity for firms alleged to have facilitated it.^[45] On October 10, 2007 comments on the White House South Lawn, President Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations.^[46]

On October 18, 2007, the House Democratic leadership put off a vote on the proposed legislation by the full chamber to avoid consideration of a Republican measure that made specific references to Osama bin Laden. At the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly reached a compromise with the White House on a different proposal that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.^[47]

On November 15, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 along party lines to send an alternative measure to the full Senate other than the one the intelligence committee had crafted with the White House. The proposal would leave to the full Senate whether or not to provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the NSA. Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said that granting such immunity would give the Bush administration a "blank check" to do what it wants without regard to the law. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, said that court cases may be the only way Congress can learn exactly how far outside the law the administration has gone in eavesdropping in the United States. When the full Senate takes up the bill, Specter is expected to offer a compromise that would shield the companies from financial ruin but allow lawsuits to go forward by having the federal government stand in for the companies at trial.^[48]

On the same day, the House of Representatives voted 227-189 to approve a Democratic bill that would expand court oversight of government surveillance inside the United States while denying immunity to telecom companies. House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers left the door open to an immunity deal in the future, but said that the White House must first give Congress access to classified documents specifying what the companies did that requires legal immunity.^[49]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate

In February 2008, the Senate passed the version of the new FISA that would allow telecom companies immunity. On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss related information. On March 14, the House voted 213-197 to approve a bill that would not grant telecom immunity — far short of the 2/3 majority required to override a Presidential veto.^[50] The Senate and House bills are compared and contrasted in a June 12, 2008 report from the Congressional Research Service.^[51]

On the evening of November 11, 2008, the House of Representatives held a secret, closed door meeting to debate changes to the FISA bill. [4]^[52]

See also[link]

• Operation Minaret
• Project Shamrock
• Watergate
• Church Committee
• United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon
• United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
  • United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
• NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

References[link]

External links[link]

• Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance - For Victims Of FISA Abuse
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ
• EPIC FISA page
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resources from the Federation of American Scientists
• The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues, Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2008
• The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions, Congressional Research Service, September 22, 2004
• NOW on PBS Uncovers Surveillance Details Through AT&T Whistleblower
• 2004 FISA Annual Report to Congress, via FAS
• FBI memo, "What do I have to do to get a FISA?
• "So Judge, How Do I Get That FISA Warrant?" The Policy and Procedure for Conducting Electronic Surveillance. The Army Lawyer, October 1997
• Executive Order 12139 - Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes
• Executive Order 12949 - Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
• David Alan Jordan, Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol - Boston College Law Review, Vol. 47, 2006
• K. A. Taipale, The Ear of Dionysus: Rethinking Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, 9 Yale J. L. & Tech. 128 (Spring 2007).
• Plural Politics Protect American Act Plainspeak Legal Primer
• Guide to lawful intercept legislation around the world
• Prepared Remarks of Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Center Symposium on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Modernization, September 10, 2007
• Department of Justice on FISA and the Protect America Act
• OpenCongress on S.2248 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007
• Secret House meeting on FISA
• The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs, by Arlen Specter, The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 8 · May 14, 2009

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2009)

Intelligence assessment is the development of forecasts of behaviour or recommended courses of action to the leadership of an organization, based on a wide range of available information sources both overt and covert. Assessments are developed in response to requirements declared by the leadership in order to inform decision making. Assessment may be carried out on behalf of a state, military or commercial organisation with a range of available sources of information available to each.

An intelligence assessment reviews both available information and previous assessments for relevance and currency, where additional information is required some collection may be directed by the analyst.

Process[link]

The Intelligence Cycle

Intelligence assessment is based on a customer requirement which may be a standing requirement or tailored to a specific circumstance, a Request for Information (RFI). The "requirement" is passed in to the assessing agency and worked through the intelligence cycle, a structured method for responding to the request for information.

The RFI may indicate in what format the requester prefers to consume the product.

The RFI is reviewed by a Requirements Manager who will then direct appropriate tasks to respond to the request. This will involve a review of existing material, the tasking of new analytical product or the collection of new information to inform an analysis.

New information may be collected through one or more of the various collection disciplines; human source, electronic and communications intercept, imagery or open sources. The nature of the RFI and the urgency placed on it may indicate that some collection types are unsuitable due to the time taken to collect or validate the information gathered. Intelligence gathering disciplines and the sources and methods used are often highly classified and compartmentalised with analysts requiring an appropriate high level of security clearance.

The process of taking known information about situations and entities of importance to the RFI, characterising what is known and attempting to forecast future events is termed "all source" assessment, analysis or processing. The analyst uses multiple sources to mutually corroborate, or exclude, the information collected, reaching a conclusion along with a measure of confidence around that conclusion.

Where sufficient current information already exists the analysis may be tasked directly without reference to further collection.

The analysis is then communicated back to the requester in the format directed, although subject to the constraints on both the RFI and the methods used in the analysis may be made available for other uses as well and disseminated accordingly. The analysis will be written to a defined classification level with alternative versions potentially available at a number of classification levels for further dissemination.

Target centric intelligence cycle[link]

Target centric intelligence cycle

Where the subject of the assessment is clearly identifiable and provisions exist to make some form of intervention against that subject the target centric assessment approach may be used. This approach, known as F3EA, is complementary to the intelligence cycle and focussed on the intervention itself.

The subject for action, or target, is identified and efforts are initially made to find the target for further development. This activity will identify where intervention against the target will have the most beneficial effects.

When the decision is made to intervene action is taken to fix the target, confirming that the intervention will have a high probability of success and restricting the ability of the target to take independent action.

During the finish stage the intervention is executed, potentially an arrest or detention or the placement of other collection methods.

Following the intervention exploitation of the target is carried out which may lead to further refinement of the process for related targets. the output from the exploit stage will also be passed into other intelligence assessment activities.

See also[link]

• List of intelligence gathering disciplines
• Military intelligence

Further reading[link]

Surveys

• Andrew, Christopher. For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush (1996)
• Black, Ian and Morris, Benny Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services (1991)
• Bungert, Heike et al. eds. Secret Intelligence in the Twentieth Century (2003) essays by scholars
• Dulles, Allen W. The Craft of Intelligence: America's Legendary Spy Master on the Fundamentals of Intelligence Gathering for a Free World (2006)
• Kahn, David The Codebreakers: The Comprehensive History of Secret Communication from Ancient Times to the Internet (1996), 1200 pages
• Lerner, K. Lee and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, eds. Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security (2003), 1100 pages. 850 articles, strongest on technology
• Odom, Gen. William E. Fixing Intelligence: For a More Secure America, Second Edition (Yale Nota Bene) (2004)
• O'Toole, George. Honorable Treachery: A History of U.S. Intelligence, Espionage, Covert Action from the American Revolution to the CIA (1991)
• Owen, David. Hidden Secrets: A Complete History of Espionage and the Technology Used to Support It (2002), popular
• Richelson, Jeffery T. A Century of Spies: Intelligence in the Twentieth Century (1997)
• Richelson, Jeffery T. The U.S. Intelligence Community (4th ed. 1999)
• Shulsky, Abram N. and Schmitt, Gary J. "Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence" (3rd ed. 2002), 285 pages
• West, Nigel. MI6: British Secret Intelligence Service Operations 1909–1945 (1983)
• West, Nigel. Secret War: The Story of SOE, Britain's Wartime Sabotage Organization (1992)
• Wohlstetter, Roberta. Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962)

World War I

• Beesly, Patrick. Room 40. (1982). Covers the breaking of German codes by RN intelligence, including the Turkish bribe, Zimmermann telegram, and failure at Jutland.
• May, Ernest (ed.) Knowing One's Enemies: Intelligence Assessment before the Two World Wars (1984)
• Tuchman, Barbara W. The Zimmermann Telegram (1966)
• Yardley, Herbert O. American Black Chamber (2004)

World War II

1931–1945

• Babington Smith, Constance. Air Spy: the Story of Photo Intelligence in World War II (1957) - originally published as Evidence in Camera in the UK
• Beesly, Patrick. Very Special Intelligence: the Story of the Admiralty's Operational Intelligence Centre, 1939–1945 (1977)
• Hinsley, F. H. British Intelligence in the Second World War (1996) (abridged version of multivolume official history)
• Jones, R. V. Most Secret War: British Scientific Intelligence 1939–1945 (2009)
• Kahn, David. Hitler's Spies: German Military Intelligence in World War II (1978)
• Kahn, David. Seizing the Enigma: the Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes, 1939–1943 (1991)
• Kitson, Simon. The Hunt for Nazi Spies: Fighting Espionage in Vichy France, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (2008). ISBN 978-0-226-43893-1
• Lewin, Ronald. The American Magic: Codes, Ciphers and the Defeat of Japan (1982)
• May, Ernest (ed.) Knowing One's Enemies: Intelligence Assessment before the Two World Wars (1984)
• Smith, Richard Harris. OSS: the Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency (2005)
• Stanley, Roy M. World War II Photo Intelligence (1981)
• Stevenson, William. A Man Called Intrepid: The Incredible WWII Narrative of the Hero Whose Spy Network and Secret Diplomacy Changed the Course of History (2009)
• Wark, Wesley K. The Ultimate Enemy: British Intelligence and Nazi Germany, 1933–1939 (1985)
• Wark, Wesley K. "Cryptographic Innocence: the Origins of Signals Intelligence in Canada in the Second World War", in: Journal of Contemporary History 22 (1987)

Cold War Era

1945–1991

• Aldrich, Richard J. The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence (2002).
• Ambrose, Stephen E. Ike's Spies: Eisenhower and the Intelligence Establishment (1981).
• Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (1999)
• Andrew, Christopher, and Oleg Gordievsky. KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (1990).
• Bogle, Lori, ed. Cold War Espionage and Spying (2001), essays by scholars
• Boiling, Graham. Secret Students on Parade: Cold War Memories of JSSL, CRAIL, PlaneTree, 2005. ISBN 1-84294-169-0
• Dorril, Stephen. MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service (2000).
• Dziak, John J. Chekisty: A History of the KGB (1988)
• Elliott, Geoffrey and Shukman, Harold. Secret Classrooms. An Untold Story of the Cold War. London, St Ermin’s Press, Revised Edition, 2003. ISBN 1-903608-13-9
• Koehler, John O. Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police (1999)
• Ostrovsky, Viktor By Way of Deception (1990)
• Persico, Joseph. Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey-From the OSS to the CIA (1991)
• Prados, John. Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II (1996)
• Rositzke, Harry. The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage, Counterespionage, and Covert Action (1988)
• Trahair, Richard C. S. Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies and Secret Operations (2004), by an Australian scholar; contains excellent historiographical introduction
• Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev. The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era (1999).

External links[link]

• Intelligence Literature: Suggested Reading List (CIA)
• The Relations between the CIA and the Executive Power since 2001, ISRIA, February 5, 2006.
• The Role of Open Sources in Intelligence, ISRIA, December 31, 2005.
• Read Congressonal Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Intelligence issues
• The Literature of Intelligence: A Bibliography of Materials, with Essays, Reviews, and Comments by J. Ransom Clark, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Muskingum College
• Proposal for a Privacy Protection Guideline on Secret Personal Data Gathering and Transborder Flows of Such Data in the Fight against Terrorism and Serious Crime
• Intelligence Online Investigative news and reporting on intelligence activities worldwide, including secret service and industrial espionage (subscription required).

Chris Dodd
Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America
Incumbent
Assumed office March 17, 2011
Preceded by	Dan Glickman
United States Senator from Connecticut
In office January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Abraham A. Ribicoff
Succeeded by	Richard Blumenthal
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Connecticut's 2nd district
In office January 3, 1975 – January 3, 1981
Preceded by	Robert H. Steele
Succeeded by	Sam Gejdenson
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
In office January 3, 2001 – January 20, 2001
Preceded by	Mitch McConnell
Succeeded by	Mitch McConnell
In office June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003
Preceded by	Mitch McConnell
Succeeded by	Trent Lott
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
In office January 4, 2007 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Richard Shelby
Succeeded by	Tim Johnson
General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
In office 1995 – 1997 with Donald Fowler
Preceded by	Debra DeLee
Succeeded by	Steve Grossman & Roy Romer
Personal details
Born	Christopher John Dodd (1944-05-27) May 27, 1944 (age 68) Willimantic, Connecticut
Nationality	American
Political party	Democratic Party
Spouse(s)	Susan Mooney (1970-1982) Jackie Marie Clegg (1999-present)
Children	Grace Dodd Christina Dodd
Residence	East Haddam, Connecticut
Alma mater	Providence College (B.A.) University of Louisville (J.D.)
Occupation	Attorney
Religion	Roman Catholic
Signature
Website	Chris Dodd
Military service
Service/branch	United States Army Reserve
Years of service	1969-1975

Christopher John "Chris" Dodd (born May 27, 1944) is an American lawyer, lobbyist, and Democratic Party politician who served as a United States Senator from Connecticut for a thirty-year period ending with the 111th United States Congress.

Dodd is a Connecticut native and a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Maryland, and Providence College. His father, Thomas J. Dodd, was one of Connecticut's United States Senators from 1959-1971. Chris Dodd served in the Peace Corps for two years prior to entering law school at the University of Louisville, and during law school concurrently served in the United States Army Reserve.

Dodd returned to Connecticut, winning election in 1974 to the United States House of Representatives from Connecticut's 2nd congressional district and was reelected in 1976 and 1978. He was elected United States Senator in the elections of 1980, and was the longest-serving senator in Connecticut's history.

Dodd served as general chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995 to 1997. He served as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee until his retirement.^[1] In 2006, Dodd decided to run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, but eventually withdrew after running behind several other competitors. In January 2010, Dodd announced that he would not run for re-election in the 2010 midterm elections.^[2] Dodd was succeeded by Richard Blumenthal. On March 1, 2011, the Motion Picture Association of America announced that Dodd will head that organization.^[3]

Early life, education, and early political career[link]

Dodd was born in Willimantic, Connecticut. His parents were Grace Mary Dodd (née Murphy) and U.S. Senator Thomas Joseph Dodd; all eight of his great-grandparents were born in Ireland.^[4] He is the fifth of six children;^[5] his eldest brother, Thomas J. Dodd, Jr., is a professor emeritus of the School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University, and served as the U.S. ambassador to Uruguay and Costa Rica under President Bill Clinton.

Dodd attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit boys' school in Bethesda, Maryland. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in English literature from Providence College in 1966. He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in a small rural town in the Dominican Republic from 1966 to 1968. While there, he became fluent in Spanish.^[6] Dodd then joined the United States Army Reserve, serving until 1975 (and thereby avoiding active duty service in Vietnam).

Dodd was part of the "Watergate class of '74" which CNN pundit David Gergen credited with bringing "a fresh burst of liberal energy to the Capitol."^[7] Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Connecticut's 2nd congressional district and reelected twice, he served from January 4, 1975 to January 3, 1981. During his tenure in the House, he served on the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations.

U.S. Senate (1981-2011)[link]

Elections[link]

Dodd was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1980, and was subsequently reelected in 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2004. He is the first senator from Connecticut to serve five consecutive terms.

Facing a competitive reelection bid for his Senate seat in 2010 and trailing against both of his likely Republican challengers in public opinion polling,^[8] Dodd announced in January 2010 that he would not seek re-election for a sixth term in the Senate. Polls of Connecticut voters in 2008 and 2009 had consistently suggested Dodd would have difficulty winning re-election, with 46% viewing his job performance as fair or poor and a majority stating they would vote to replace Dodd in the 2010 election.^[9]

Tenure[link]

During the 1994 elections, the Republicans won the majority in both houses of Congress. Dodd therefore entered the minority for the second time in his Senate career. He ran for the now vacant position of Senate Minority Leader, but was defeated by South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle by one vote. The vote was tied 23-23, and it was Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell who cast the deciding vote by absentee ballot in favor of Daschle.

From 1995 to 1997, he served as General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As General Chairman, Dodd was the DNC's spokesman. Donald Fowler served as National Chairman, running the party's day to day operations. Dodd has also involved himself in children’s and family issues, founding the first Senate Children’s Caucus^[10] and authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),^[11] which requires larger employers to provide employees unpaid leave in the event of illness, a sick family member, or the birth or adoption of a child. To date, more than 50 million employees have taken advantage of FMLA mandates. He is working to support a bill that would require employers to provide paid family and medical leave. For his work on behalf of children and families, the National Head Start association named him “Senator of the Decade” in 1990.^[11]

Dodd briefly considered running for President in 2004, but ultimately decided against such a campaign and endorsed fellow Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. He then was considered as a likely running mate for his friend, eventual Democratic nominee John Kerry. He was also considered a possible candidate for replacing Daschle as Senate Minority Leader in the 109th Congress, but he declined, and that position was instead filled by Harry Reid.

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
  • Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
  • Subcommittee on European Affairs
• Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Chairman)
  • As Chairman of the committee, Dodd may serve an ex officio member of all subcommittees of which he is not already a full member.
  • Subcommittee on Economic Policy
  • Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance
  • Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
  • Subcommittee on Children and Families (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
• Committee on Rules and Administration
• Joint Committee on the Library
• Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

2008 Presidential campaign[link]

On January 11, 2007, Dodd announced his candidacy for the office of President of the United States on the Imus in the Morning show. On January 19, 2007, Dodd made a formal announcement with supporters at the Old State House in Hartford.

Dodd speaking on the campaign trail, January 2007.

The watchdog group opensecrets.org pointed out that the Dodd campaign was heavily funded by the financial services industry, which is regulated by committees Dodd chairs in the Senate.^[12][13]

In May, he trailed in state and national polls and acknowledged he wasn't keeping pace with rival campaigns' fund raising. However, he said that as more voters became aware of his opposition to the Iraq War, they would support his campaign.^[14] However, his prospects did not improve; a November 7, 2007 Gallup poll placed him at 1%.^[15] Dodd dropped out of the primary race on the night of the January 3, 2008 Iowa caucuses after placing seventh with almost all precincts reporting, even though he had recently moved from his home state to Iowa for the campaign.^[16]

Among eight major candidates for the nomination Dodd, even with later states where he was on the ballot after withdrawal, won last place by popular vote in primary (after Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel, also including uncommitted delegates and scattering votes).^[17] He won a total of 25,252 votes in delegates primaries and 9,940 in penalized contests.

Dodd later said he was not interested in running for Vice President or Senate Majority Leader.^[18] Dodd endorsed former rival Barack Obama on February 26, 2008.^[19]

CEO of MPAA (2011-Present)[link]

In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"^[20][21] Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).^[22] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011,^[23] with his salary estimated at $1.5 million per year.^[24]

On January 17, 2012, Dodd released a statement criticizing "the so-called 'Blackout Day' protesting anti-piracy legislation."^[26] Referring to the websites participating in the blackout, Dodd said, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power... when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."^[26] In further comments, Dodd threatened to cut off campaign contributions to politicians who did not support PIPA and SOPA, legislation supported by the MPAA.^[27]

Controversies[link]

Countrywide Financial loan controversy[link]

In his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Dodd proposed a program in June 2008 that would assist troubled sub-prime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse.^[28] Condé Nast Portfolio reported allegations that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being placed in the "Friends of Angelo" VIP program, so named for Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes.^[28] Dodd had not disclosed the below-market mortgages in any of six financial disclosure statements he filed with the Senate or Office of Government Ethics since obtaining the mortgages in 2003.^[29]

Dodd's press secretary said "The Dodds received a competitive rate on their loans", and that they "did not seek or anticipate any special treatment, and they were not aware of any", then declined further comment.^[30] The Hartford Courant reported Dodd had taken "a major credibility hit" from the scandal.^[31] At the same time, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad and the head of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson received mortgages on favorable terms due to their association with Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.^[32] The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and two Connecticut papers have demanded further disclosure from Dodd regarding the Mozilo loans.^{[33][34][35][36]}

On June 17, 2008, Dodd met twice with reporters and gave accounts of his mortgages with Countrywide. He admitted to reporters in Washington, D.C. that he knew as of 2003 that he was in a VIP program, but claimed it was due to being a longtime Countrywide customer, not due to his political position. He omitted this detail in a press availability to Connecticut media.^[37]

On July 30, 2009, Dodd responded to news reports about his mortgages by releasing information from the Wall Street Journal showing that both mortgages he received were in line with those being offered to general public in fall 2003 in terms of points and interest rate.^[38]

On August 7, 2009, a Senate ethics panel issued its decision on the controversy. The Select Committee on Ethics said it found "no credible evidence" that Dodd knowingly sought out a special loan or treatment because of his position, but the panel also said in an open letter to Mr. Dodd that the lawmaker should have questioned why he was being put in the "Friends of Angelo" VIP program at Countrywide: "Once you became aware that your loans were in fact being handled through a program with the name 'V.I.P.,' that should have raised red flags for you."^[39]

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac controversies[link]

Dodd was involved in issues related to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. As part of Dodd's overall mortgage bill the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 before Congress in the summer of 2008, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson sought provisions enabling the Treasury to add additional capital and regulatory oversight over these government sponsored enterprises. At the time, it was estimated that the federal government would need to spend $25 billion on a bailout of the firms.^[40]

During this period, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial crisis. He called the firms "fundamentally strong",^[41] said they were in "sound situation" and "in good shape" and to "suggest they are in major trouble is not accurate".^[42] In early September, after the firms continued to report huge losses,^[43] Secretary Paulson announced a federal takeover of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd expressed skepticism of the action, which the Treasury estimated could cost as much as $200 billion.

Dodd is the number one recipient in Congress of campaign funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.^[44]

Irish Cottage controversy[link]

In February 2009, Kevin Rennie, a columnist at the Hartford Courant, ran an op-ed concerning Dodd's acquisition of his vacation home in Roundstone, Ireland.^[45] The article alleged that Dodd's former partner in buying the home had ties to disgraced Bear Stearns principal Edward Downe, Jr. who has since been convicted of insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission.^[46] After paying an $11 million fine for his role in the scam, Downe later obtained a pardon in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration. The controversial pardon was granted after Dodd lobbied Clinton on Downe's behalf. Dodd's letter to the President said, "Mr. President, Ed Downe is a good person, who is truly sorry for the hurt he caused others".^[47] After Downes' pardon, Dodd bought out the interests of his partner for a price allegedly based on a 2002 bank appraisal of the Roundstone home, which yielded little profit for Dodd's partner.^[48][49] Rennie criticized Dodd for claiming the Roundstone home was worth less than $250,000 in Senate ethics filings; some observers estimated the likely value in excess of $1 million USD.^[50]

In June 2009, Dodd provided a new statement to the Senate reporting the actual value of his Irish property at $658,000.^[51] The Wall Street Journal later compared this issue to the ethical charges which led to the political demise of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.^[52]

AIG federal assistance and bonuses controversy[link]

From the fall of 2008 through early 2009, the United States government spent nearly $170 Billion to assist failing insurance giant, AIG. AIG then spent $165 million of this money to hand out executive "retention" bonuses to its top executives. Public outrage ensued over this perceived misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Dodd was responsible for the inclusion of a clause limiting excessive executive pay in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. On February 14, 2009, the Wall Street Journal published an article, Bankers Face Strict New Pay Cap, discussing a retroactive limit to bonus compensation inserted by Chris Dodd into the stimulus bill that passed in the Senate.^[53]

The same article went on to mention that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers "had called Sen. Dodd and asked him to reconsider".

When the bill left conference, Dodd's provision had been amended to include a provision preventing limits on bonuses previously negotiated and under contract. This provision was lobbied for by Geithner and Summers.

As Dodd explained in his March 18 interview on CNN,^[54] at Geithner and the Obama Administration's insistence he allowed his provision's original language to include Geithner and Summers' request, which in turn allowed AIG to give out bonuses under previously negotiated contracts. However, Dodd's provision also includes language allowing the Treasury Secretary to examine bonuses doled out and, if they are found to be in violation of the public interest, recoup those funds.

Dodd retreated from his original statement that he did not know how the amendment was changed.^[55] Dodd was criticized by many in the Connecticut media for the apparent flip-flop.^[56][57] In a March 20, 2009 editorial the New Haven Register called Dodd "a lying weasel"^[58] The same day, Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green called on Dodd not to seek re-election in 2010.^[59]

The Hill.com described Dodd as "reeling" from the controversy^[60] and having "stepped in it" after changing his story as to the bonus amendment.^[61]

At a press conference in Enfield, Connecticut, on Friday, March 20, Dodd responded to critics and explained that his original answer to a CNN answer was based on a misunderstanding of the question.^[62] He also said he was disappointed that the Treasury officials who asked him to make the legislative changes had not identified themselves, refusing to confirm the actual identity of the individuals responsible for changing the amendment.^[63]

The next day, voters in Ridgefield rallied against Dodd and the Obama economic agenda^[64][65] The Manchester Journal Inquirer suggested that "Chris Dodd's explaining may have only begun".^[66]

Opensecrets.org reports Dodd has received over $223,000 from AIG employees, many of whom were Connecticut residents, for his recent campaigns.^[67] Additionally, it has recently been revealed that Dodd's wife is a former Director for Bermuda-based IPC Holdings, a company controlled by AIG. She held this position before she married him.^[68] On May 3, 2009, the Courant reported Dodd's wife served on a number of corporate boards, including the CME Group and could be earning as much as $500,000 annually for her service on said boards.^[69] On March 30, 2009, it was reported that former AIG Financial Products head Joseph Cassano personally solicited contributions from his employees in Connecticut via an e-mail in fall 2006 suggesting that the contributions were related to Dodd's ascension to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee.^[70]

Political positions[link]

Dodd giving a speech at Naval Submarine Base New London, July 1985.

Dodd has supported amending the Family and Medical Leave Act, which he authored in 1993, to include paid leave,^[71] and a corporate carbon tax to combat global warming.^[72]

Dodd is credited with inserting the last-minute pay limit into American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The pay restrictions included prohibition of bonuses in excess of one-third of total salary for any company receiving any money from the plan and was retroactive to companies that received funds under Troubled Assets Relief Program.^[73] Fortune magazine however, panned this provision as likely to "drive the craftiest financial minds away from the most troubled institutions". This article also pointed out the Dodd bill delegated to the Treasury Secretary the right to approve appropriate restaurants for client entertainment.^[74]

In May 2009, Dodd was the author and lead sponsor of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009. The law requires card companies give cardholders 45 days notice of any interest rate increases, prevents card companies from retroactively increasing interest rates on the existing balance of a cardholder in good standing for reasons unrelated to the cardholder's behavior with that card, and prohibits card companies from arbitrarily changing the terms of their contract with a cardholder, banning the so-called practice of "any-time, any-reason repricing." Also included in the bill were provisions requiring companies to give cardholders time to pay their bills by requiring card companies to mail billing statements 25 calendar days before the due date and individuals under the age of 21 to either show income or have a co-signer in order to obtain a credit card. In a conference call with reporters after the bill was signed, Dodd stated his intention to continue work on capping credit card interest rates at thirty percent and to establish limits on fees that merchants pay when a customer uses a credit card for a purchase.^[75]

Dodd announced on June 22, 2009, that he supports same-sex marriage. He had opposed gay marriage in the 2008 election, but stated that his daughters are growing up in a different generation than his and that his views have evolved over time.^[76] Same-sex couples have been able to marry in Connecticut since November 12, 2008, following the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling.^[77][78] In April 2009, the legislature overwhelmingly passed and Governor Jodi Rell signed a bill making all references to marriage in law gender neutral.^[79][80]

Dodd was also responsible for writing and getting passed S. 1858 (Public Law 110-204): Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.^[81] The implications of this law are many, including that any child born after April 2008 have a sample of their blood taken for DNA analysis. This sample is taken without consent or knowledge of the parents and then becomes property of the Federal Government. This data is supposed to be used for the good of the children such as testing for rare genetic disorders but is controversial in that it is not optional.^[82]

Personal life[link]

In July 1970, Dodd married Susan Mooney; they divorced in October 1982. Afterwards, he dated at different times Bianca Jagger and Carrie Fisher, among others.^[83] In 1999, he married his second wife, Jackie Marie Clegg, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The couple has two daughters, Grace (born September 2001) and Christina Dodd (born May 2005). Dodd is also the godfather of singer/actress Christy Carlson Romano, who once interned in his office.

On July 31, 2009, he announced he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, which his aides said was at an early stage and would result in surgery during the Senate August recess.^[84] Dodd has since had the operation, and says his operation was fully successful.

Dodd won the Washington Office on Latin America's prestigious Human Rights Award^[85] in 2008.

Electoral history[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original works written by or about: Christopher Dodd

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Chris Dodd

• Chris Dodd official campaign site
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times

v t e United States Senators from Connecticut Class 1 Ellsworth Hillhouse Dana Boardman Edwards Foot N. Smith Niles Betts Huntington R.S. Baldwin Toucey Dixon Buckingham Eaton Hawley Bulkeley McLean Walcott Maloney Hart R.E. Baldwin Benton Purtell T. Dodd Weicker Lieberman Class 3 Johnson Sherman Mitchell Trumbull Tracy Goodrich Daggett Lanman Willey Tomlinson P. Smith Niles T. Smith Gillette Foster Ferry English Barnum Platt Brandegee Bingham Lonergan Danaher McMahon Purtell Bush Ribicoff C. Dodd Blumenthal