PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 3, 2007
Protect America Act of 2007 - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between persons who are not located within the United States for 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.
Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court) for an order, or the extension of an order, authorizing for up to one year the electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes of persons outside the United States.
Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the AG to authorize the immediate electronic surveillance (without prior Court order) of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if: (1) the DNI and AG determine that it is in the U.S. national security interest to begin such surveillance; and (2) the AG submits to the Court, within five days after the commencement of the surveillance, a certification of and application for such surveillance.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the AG, with respect to an authorized surveillance, to issue a directive to a communications service provider, custodian, or other person to: (1) furnish all appropriate information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance; and (2) maintain under security procedures any surveillance records.
Directs the Inspector General to report to the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees on surveillance conducted during the previous four-month period.
People & committees
Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Ordered placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 332.
Pursuant to the order of August 3, 2007, having failed to achieve the required 60 votes in the affirmative, the measure was ordered to be placed on the calendar.
Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 43 - 45. Record Vote Number: 310.
Senate roll call 310 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in Senate: Failed of passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 43 - 45. Record Vote Number: 310.
Senate roll call 310 · Individual votesMeasure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10861-10872)
Introduced in the Senate, read twice.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2011 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2011 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2011 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2011 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.