In the wake of press reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) was conducting a secret Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), a national debate emerged about whether the program was subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), whether the Administration needed additional authority to continue the program, and how and whether Congress should oversee the program. The TSP involved surveillance without a warrant or court order under FISA of international communications of persons within the United States, where one party to the communication is believed to be a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. The Bush Administration asserted constitutional and statutory support for its program. The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 was introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell, for himself and Senator William H. Frist, on Friday, September 22, 2006, as a free-standing bill, S. 3931 . On the same day, Senator McConnell, for himself and Senator Frist, introduced S. 3929 , the Terrorist Tracking, Identification and Prosecution Act of 2006, Title II of which is the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006. These were among a series of bills introduced in the 109 th Congress addressing the authorization, review, and oversight of electronic surveillance programs designed to acquire foreign intelligence or to provide information to assist in detecting and preventing international terrorist threats to the United States. Three related bills have been introduced to date in the 110 th Congress: H.R. 11 , S. 187 , and S. 139 . The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, P.L. 95-511 , Title I, October 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. , as amended, provides a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers, and trap and trace devices to acquire foreign intelligence information. It also provides statutory authority for the production of tangible things for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. While describing electronic surveillance under FISA as a valuable tool in combating terrorism, the Bush Administration argued that it lacked the speed and agility to deal with such terrorists or terrorist groups. In a January 17, 2007, letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales advised them that, on January 10, 2007, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge "issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization." The Attorney General stated that, in light of these orders, which "will allow the necessary speed and agility," all surveillance previously occurring under the TSP will now be conducted subject to the approval of the FISC. He indicated further that, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the TSP when the current authorization expires. The Attorney General also noted that the Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the highly classified details of the FISC orders and advised Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter that he had directed the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security to provide them a classified briefing on the details of the orders. The NSA program has been challenged on legal and constitutional grounds. On August 17, 2006, in one such lawsuit, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency , Case No. 06-CV-10204 (E.D. Mich. August 17, 2006), U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held the program unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Title III), and permanently enjoined the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 4, 2006, the Sixth Circuit stayed Judge Taylor's August 17, 2006, judgment and permanent injunction pending appeal, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency , Docket Nos. 06-2140 and 06-2095 (6 th Cir. Oct. 4, 2006). The docket sheets for both Nos. 06-2140 and 06-2095 indicate that a letter from the attorneys for the appellants was filed on January 18, 2007, notifying the court "concerning a letter from the Attorney General's Office regarding orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." S. 3931 and Title II of S. 3929 would create a new Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended (FISA), 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. , to address electronic surveillance programs. In addition, the measures would amend other provisions of FISA dealing with electronic surveillance without a warrant pursuant to an Attorney General certification, applications for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders authorizing electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, the contents of such orders, emergency electronic surveillance under FISA, limitations on liability for those who aid the federal government in connection with electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information, and applicable congressional oversight. The bills would repeal the current wartime authorities for electronic surveillance without a warrant following a congressional declaration of war. Changes would be made to the FISA definitions of "electronic surveillance" and "agent of a foreign power," among others. Other provisions would modify the criminal provisions of FISA and the exclusivity clause 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). Still other provisions amend FISA to address those who engage in the development or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to accommodate the international movements of targets of electronic surveillance under FISA. This report will discuss the substantive provisions of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 and their impact on existing law. Sec. 3 of S. 3931 , Sec. 203 of S. 3929 , creates a new Title VII in FISA, which deals with electronic surveillance programs. "Electronic surveillance program" is defined under the new Section 701 of FISA to mean "a program to engage in electronic surveillance": (A) that has as a significant purpose the gathering of foreign intelligence information or protecting against international terrorism; (B) where it is not feasible to name every person, address, or location to be subjected to electronic surveillance; (C) where effective gathering of foreign intelligence information requires the flexibility to begin electronic surveillance immediately after learning of suspect activity; and (D) where effective gathering of foreign intelligence information requires an extended period of electronic surveillance. Under Sec. 4 of S. 3931 , Sec. 204 of S. 3929 , a new Section 702(a) of FISA would vest jurisdiction in the FISC to review, authorize, and reauthorize such electronic surveillance programs to obtain foreign intelligence information or to protect against international terrorism. Under this subsection, an initial authorization of an electronic surveillance program may be for up to 90 days, while a reauthorization may be for a period of time not longer than the FISC determines to be reasonable. If the FISC denies an application for authorization or reauthorization of an electronic surveillance program, the Attorney General may submit an unlimited number of new applications seeking approval of the program or, in the alternative, may appeal the decision of the FISC to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FIS Court of Review). If, at any time, the Attorney General determines that the known facts and circumstances relating to any target within the United States who is being surveilled under Title VII of FISA satisfy the criteria for an application for electronic surveillance of that target under Section 104 of Title I of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1804, then the Attorney General would be required to discontinue the surveillance of that target under the electronic surveillance program authorized under Title VII of FISA, unless certain conditions are met. The Attorney General could continue surveillance under Title VII only if, as soon as he determines practicable after he makes the determination to continue the surveillance of the target under Title VII, he makes an application under Section 104 of FISA for an FISC order authorizing electronic surveillance of the target under Section 105 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805. New Section 702(a)(4) of FISA, Sec. 4(a) of S. 3931 , Sec. 204(a) of  S. 3929 . The bills also authorize the transfer from any other court of cases involving a challenge to the legality of classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign threat, including an electronic surveillance program, or cases in which the legality of any such activity or program is at issue. Such a transfer would be triggered by the filing by the Attorney General of an affidavit under oath that the case should be transferred to the FIS Court of Review, because further proceedings in the originating court would harm the national security of the United States. Under the proposed language in new Section 702(b)(1) of FISA, Sec. 4(a) of S. 3931 , Sec. 204(a) of S. 3929 , when such an affidavit is filed, originating court must transfer the case. While the implication of the Attorney General's affidavit may be that the transfer from the originating court would be to the FIS Court of Review, this is not clear from the language of proposed subsection 702(b)(1), which states "the originating court shall transfer the case of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance for further proceedings under this subsection." As written, it appears that some words may be missing from this clause.