112th Congress Rept. 112-79\r\n HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\r\n 1st Session Part 1\r\n\r\n======================================================================\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n FISA SUNSETS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011\r\n\r\n _______\r\n \r\n\r\n May 18, 2011.--Ordered to be printed\r\n\r\n _______\r\n \r\n\r\n Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, \r\n submitted the following\r\n\r\n R E P O R T\r\n\r\n together with\r\n\r\n DISSENTING VIEWS\r\n\r\n [To accompany H.R. 1800]\r\n\r\n [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]\r\n\r\n The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the \r\nbill (H.R. 1800) to temporarily extend expiring provisions of \r\nthe USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 \r\nrelating to access to business records and roving wiretaps and \r\nto permanently extend expiring provisions of the Intelligence \r\nReform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to \r\nindividual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, having \r\nconsidered the same, reports favorably thereon without \r\namendment and recommends that the bill do pass.\r\n\r\n CONTENTS\r\n\r\n Page\r\nPurpose and Summary.............................................. 2\r\nBackground and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2\r\nHearings......................................................... 3\r\nCommittee Consideration.......................................... 4\r\nCommittee Votes.................................................. 4\r\nCommittee Oversight Findings..................................... 10\r\nNew Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 10\r\nCongressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 10\r\nPerformance Goals and Objectives................................. 12\r\nAdvisory on Earmarks............................................. 12\r\nSection-by-Section Analysis...................................... 12\r\nChanges in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 12\r\nDissenting Views................................................. 13\r\n\r\n Purpose and Summary\r\n\r\n H.R. 1800 reauthorizes three provisions of the Foreign \r\nIntelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that are scheduled to \r\nsunset on May 27, 2011. Under the bill, the business records \r\nprovision, as enacted by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, \r\nand the roving wiretaps provision, as enacted by Section 206 of \r\nthe USA PATRIOT Act, are authorized until December 31, 2017. \r\nThe FISA lone wolf definition, enacted by Section 6001 of the \r\nIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 \r\n(IRTPA), is permanently authorized.\r\n\r\n Background and Need for the Legislation\r\n\r\n In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, \r\nCongress passed, and the President signed into law, the USA \r\nPATRIOT Act. That act, which amended FISA, was intended to \r\nensure that law enforcement agencies and the intelligence \r\ncommunity have the tools they need to stop and deter future \r\nterrorist attacks.\r\n The Section 215 business records authority allows the \r\nFederal government to seek approval from the FISA Court of \r\norders granting the government access to any tangible items \r\n(including books, records, papers, and other documents) in \r\nforeign intelligence, international terrorism, and clandestine \r\nintelligence cases. This authority is similar to the widely-\r\nused grand jury subpoena authority in criminal investigations. \r\nHowever, business records, which by definition reside in the \r\nhands of a third party, do not implicate the Fourth Amendment.\r\n There are numerous protections written into FISA to ensure \r\nthat the business records authority is not misused. Under \r\nSection 215, only an Article III FISA judge can issue an order \r\nfor business records; an investigation of a U.S. person cannot \r\nbe based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment; \r\nthe records must be for a foreign intelligence or international \r\nterrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must be \r\nused. In addition, requests for certain records--including \r\nlibrary circulation, book sales, and firearms sales records--\r\nmust first be approved by the FBI Director, the Deputy \r\nDirector, or the head of the FBI's National Security Division.\r\n The Section 206 roving wiretap provision authorizes FISA \r\nCourt orders for multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps in foreign \r\nintelligence investigations. A ``roving'' wiretap applies to an \r\nindividual and allows the government to a use a single wiretap \r\norder to cover any communications device that the target uses \r\nor may use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators \r\nwould be forced to seek a new court order each time they need \r\nto change the location, phone, or computer that needs to be \r\nmonitored. Roving wiretap authority has been available for \r\ncriminal investigations since 1986.\r\n In order to use a roving wiretap, intelligence agents must \r\nfirst establish, and the FISA Court must approve, all of the \r\ncriteria for a traditional wiretap. These include probable \r\ncause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or \r\nagent of a foreign power and probable cause that the device is \r\nbeing used or about to be used by a foreign power or agent of a \r\nforeign power. Then the agents must also show, and the FISA \r\nCourt must also agree, that the actions of the target may have \r\nthe effect of thwarting their identification. Once a roving \r\nwarrant is approved, the government must also notify the FISA \r\nCourt within 10 days after beginning surveillance on a new \r\nphone or computer.\r\n The ``lone wolf'' provision is a definitional change \r\nintended to address the growing threat from individual \r\noffenders. The provision allows the government to track a \r\nforeign national who engages in acts to prepare for a terrorist \r\nattack against the U.S. but is not affiliated, or cannot \r\nimmediately be shown to be affiliated, with a foreign terrorist \r\norganization. The lone wolf definition cannot be used to \r\ninvestigate U.S. persons, and only applies in cases of \r\nsuspected international terrorism.\r\n To date, the government has never used the lone wolf \r\nprovision, which critics use as justification to let the \r\nprovision expire. This provision, however, is a crucial tool \r\nagainst the growing threat of individual foreign terrorists \r\nworking alone in the United States. Some critics also argue \r\nthat the government can use Title III criminal wiretaps to \r\nmonitor lone wolf terrorists. Criminal wiretaps, however, are \r\nill-suited for use in intelligence operations for a number of \r\nreasons. First, criminal wiretaps are authorized under the \r\npresumption that the information collected will be used as \r\nevidence in a trial and turned over to targets when they become \r\ndefendants in a criminal case. By contrast, FISA wiretaps are \r\nused to collect foreign intelligence information that may never \r\nbe used in an Article III criminal trial. Second, unlike \r\ncriminal wiretaps, FISA wiretaps protect the sources and \r\nmethods of the government surveillance. This is crucial when \r\ndealing with matters of national security. Third, criminal \r\nwiretaps require ``live minimization'' to ensure that the \r\ngovernment does not improperly surveil protected activities. \r\nHowever, live minimization is impossible in foreign \r\nintelligence collection because most of the information \r\ncaptured by FISA wiretaps is in a foreign language. Information \r\ncollected under FISA is recorded live, but is later translated \r\nby linguists at the intelligence agencies. Under this approach, \r\nthere is no opportunity for the government to ``minimize'' \r\ninformation as it is collected.\r\n Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert \r\nMueller both requested in hearings before the Committee on the \r\nJudiciary that Congress reauthorize these three provisions. The \r\nCommittee also received letters in support of reauthorizing the \r\nthree expiring provisions from the FBI Agents Association, the \r\nSociety of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of \r\nInvestigation, Inc., the Federal Law Enforcement Officers \r\nAssociation, the Sergeants Benevolent Association (Police \r\nDepartment, City of New York), the National Association of \r\nAssistant United States Attorneys, the National District \r\nAttorneys Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, \r\nthe Major County Sheriffs' Association and Keep America Safe.\r\n\r\n Hearings\r\n\r\n The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, \r\nTerrorism, and Homeland Security held three hearings on the USA \r\nPATRIOT Act on March 9, 2011, March 30, 2011, and May 11, 2011. \r\nTestimony was received from: Mr. Todd Hinnen, U.S. Department \r\nof Justice; Mr. Robert S. Litt, Office of the Director of \r\nNational Intelligence; Professor Nathan Sales, George Mason \r\nUniversity; Mr. Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute; Mr. Kenneth \r\nWainstein, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP; Mr. Michael German, American \r\nCivil Liberties Union; Mr. Patrick Rowan, McGuireWoods LLP; The \r\nHonorable Bob Barr, former Member of Congress; Mr. Bruce Fein, \r\nCampaign for Liberty; and Sergeant Ed Mullins, Sergeant \r\nBenevolent Association of New York City. Additional materials \r\nwere submitted by: the American Civil Liberties Union, Keep \r\nAmerica Safe, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, \r\nthe Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, the \r\nCato Institute, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New \r\nYork City, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, the \r\nNational Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and \r\nthe Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. The \r\nCommittee on the Judiciary held no legislative hearings on H.R. \r\n1800.\r\n\r\n Committee Consideration\r\n\r\n On May 12, 2011, the Committee met in open session and \r\nordered the bill H.R. 1800 favorably reported without \r\namendment, by a roll call vote of 22 to 13, a quorum being \r\npresent.\r\n\r\n Committee Votes\r\n\r\n In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of \r\nthe House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the \r\nfollowing roll call votes occurred during the Committee's \r\nconsideration of H.R. 1800.\r\n 1. An amendment by Mr. Conyers to prohibit an application \r\nfor a 215 business record order requiring the production of \r\nlibrary and bookseller records. Defeated 10-17.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 1\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................ X\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert.....................................................\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy.......................................................\r\nMr. Ross........................................................\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle......................................................\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman......................................................\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee................................................. X\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen.......................................................\r\nMr. Johnson.....................................................\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 10 17\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 2. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to extend the lone wolf, \r\nroving wiretap, and business records provisions until December \r\n31, 2014. Defeated 11-20.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 2\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert.....................................................\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman......................................................\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee................................................. X\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen.......................................................\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 11 20\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 3. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to require the President \r\nto submit a report to relevant congressional committees on FISA \r\ncourt secrecy. Defeated 11-20.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 3\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert.....................................................\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman......................................................\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee................................................. X\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen.......................................................\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 11 20\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 4. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to raise standards for the \r\ncollection, pursuant to section 215, of personally identifiable \r\nrecords held by libraries and booksellers. Defeated 11-21.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 4\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................ X\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert.....................................................\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman...................................................... X\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee.................................................\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen....................................................... X\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch......................................................\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 11 21\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 5. An amendment by Mr. Johnson to require that, if a FISA \r\ntarget's identity is not known, that the surveillance \r\napplication to describe the target ``with particularity.'' \r\nDefeated 11-18.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 5\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble.......................................................\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence.......................................................\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................ X\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert.....................................................\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe.........................................................\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman......................................................\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee.................................................\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen....................................................... X\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 11 18\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 6. An amendment by Ms. Chu to allow petitions to challenge \r\nnondisclosure to be brought immediately and makes other changes \r\nto the procedures for Sec. 215 nondisclosure orders; and an \r\namendment to institute annual Audits by the Inspector General \r\nto Congress for years 2006-2007. It also institutes an annual \r\nunclassified report by the Attorney General on how the powers \r\nunder this act are used. Defeated 12-19.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 6\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence.......................................................\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert..................................................... X\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe.........................................................\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman...................................................... X\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee.................................................\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen....................................................... X\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 12 19\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 7. An amendment by Mr. Quigley to permit the Attorney \r\nGeneral to ban the sale of firearms to any individual who, \r\nbased on information collection under FISA, is or has been \r\nengaged in terrorist acts, if the Attorney General also has a \r\nreasonable suspicion that the firearm would be used in \r\nconnection with terrorism. Defeated 11-21.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 7\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert..................................................... X\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman...................................................... X\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee.................................................\r\nMs. Waters......................................................\r\nMr. Cohen....................................................... X\r\nMr. Johnson.....................................................\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 11 21\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n 8. Motion to order the bill favorably reported without \r\namendment. Approved 22-13.\r\n\r\n ROLLCALL NO. 8\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ayes Nays Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X\r\nMr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X\r\nMr. Coble....................................................... X\r\nMr. Gallegly.................................................... X\r\nMr. Goodlatte................................................... X\r\nMr. Lungren..................................................... X\r\nMr. Chabot...................................................... X\r\nMr. Issa........................................................ X\r\nMr. Pence....................................................... X\r\nMr. Forbes...................................................... X\r\nMr. King........................................................\r\nMr. Franks...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gohmert..................................................... X\r\nMr. Jordan...................................................... X\r\nMr. Poe......................................................... X\r\nMr. Chaffetz.................................................... X\r\nMr. Griffin..................................................... X\r\nMr. Marino...................................................... X\r\nMr. Gowdy....................................................... X\r\nMr. Ross........................................................ X\r\nMs. Adams....................................................... X\r\nMr. Quayle...................................................... X\r\nMr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X\r\nMr. Berman...................................................... X\r\nMr. Nadler...................................................... X\r\nMr. Scott....................................................... X\r\nMr. Watt........................................................ X\r\nMs. Lofgren..................................................... X\r\nMs. Jackson Lee.................................................\r\nMs. Waters...................................................... X\r\nMr. Cohen....................................................... X\r\nMr. Johnson..................................................... X\r\nMr. Pierluisi................................................... X\r\nMr. Quigley..................................................... X\r\nMs. Chu......................................................... X\r\nMr. Deutch...................................................... X\r\nMs. Sanchez..................................................... X\r\n -----------------------------------------------\r\n Total....................................................... 22 13\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n Committee Oversight Findings\r\n\r\n In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules \r\nof the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the \r\nfindings and recommendations of the Committee, based on \r\noversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the \r\nRules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the \r\ndescriptive portions of this report.\r\n\r\n New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures\r\n\r\n Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of \r\nRepresentatives is inapplicable because this legislation does \r\nnot provide new budgetary authority or increased tax \r\nexpenditures.\r\n\r\n Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate\r\n\r\n In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules \r\nof the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with \r\nrespect to the bill, H.R. 1800, the following estimate and \r\ncomparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget \r\nOffice under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of \r\n1974:\r\n\r\n U.S. Congress,\r\n Congressional Budget Office,\r\n Washington, DC, May 18, 2011.\r\nHon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,\r\nCommittee on the Judiciary,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has \r\nprepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1800, the ``FISA \r\nSunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.''\r\n If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be \r\npleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark \r\nGrabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.\r\n Sincerely,\r\n Douglas W. Elmendorf,\r\n Director.\r\n\r\nEnclosure\r\n\r\ncc:\r\n Honorable John Conyers, Jr.\r\n Ranking Member\r\nH.R. 1800--FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.\r\n CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1800 would have no \r\nsignificant costs to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill \r\ncould affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-\r\nyou-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any \r\neffects would be insignificant for each year.\r\n CBO has determined that the provisions of H.R. 1800 are \r\neither excluded from review for mandates under the Unfunded \r\nMandates Reform Act because they are necessary for national \r\nsecurity or they contain no intergovernmental or private-sector \r\nmandates as defined by that act.\r\n The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of \r\n2004 (Public Law 108-458) and the USA PATRIOT Improvement and \r\nReauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177) expanded the \r\npowers of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to \r\ninvestigate and prosecute terrorist acts. H.R. 1800 would \r\nextend or make permanent certain provisions of those acts that \r\nwould otherwise expire later this month.\r\n Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1800 \r\ncould be subject to civil and criminal fines, the Federal \r\nGovernment might collect additional fines if the legislation is \r\nenacted. Collections of civil fines are recorded in the budget \r\nas revenues. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited \r\nin the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that \r\nany additional revenues and direct spending would not be \r\nsignificant because of the small number of cases likely to be \r\naffected.\r\n On March 31, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. \r\n193, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, as \r\nreported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 17, \r\n2011. The two bills contain similar provisions to extend the \r\nFederal Government's current authority to investigate terrorist \r\nacts. However, S. 193 also would require audits and reports by \r\nthe Department of Justice (DOJ) and the intelligence community \r\nand would rescind unobligated balances from the DOJ's Assets \r\nForfeiture Fund. The cost estimates reflect the differences \r\nbetween the two bills.\r\n The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. \r\nThe estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant \r\nDirector for Budget Analysis.\r\n\r\n Performance Goals and Objectives\r\n\r\n The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of \r\nrule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. \r\n1800 authorizes Section 215 business records and Section 206 \r\nroving wiretap authority until December 31, 2017, and \r\npermanently authorizes FISA's lone wolf definition.\r\n\r\n Advisory on Earmarks\r\n\r\n In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the \r\nHouse of Representatives, H.R. 1800 does not contain any \r\ncongressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff \r\nbenefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.\r\n\r\n Section-by-Section Analysis\r\n\r\n The following discussion describes the bill as reported by \r\nthe Committee.\r\nSection 1: Short Title\r\n Section 1 provides that H.R. 1800 may be cited as the \r\n``FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.''\r\nSection 2: Extension of Sunsets of Provisions Relating to Access to \r\n Business Records, Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign \r\n Powers, and Roving Wiretaps\r\n Section 2 temporarily extends the authorization of Section \r\n215 business records collection and roving wiretaps until \r\nDecember 31, 2017. Section 2 also permanently extends the \r\nauthorization for the lone wolf provision.\r\n\r\n Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported\r\n\r\n In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules \r\nof the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made \r\nby the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law \r\nproposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new \r\nmatter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change \r\nis proposed is shown in roman):\r\n\r\n USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\nTITLE I--USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n\r\nSEC. 102. USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET PROVISIONS.\r\n\r\n (a) * * *\r\n (b) Sections 206 and 215 Sunset.--\r\n (1) In general.--Effective [May 27, 2011] December \r\n 31, 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of \r\n 1978 is amended so that sections 501, 502, and \r\n 105(c)(2) read as they read on October 25, 2001.\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n ---------- \r\n\r\n\r\n INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\n TITLE VI--TERRORISM PREVENTION\r\n\r\n Subtitle A--Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers\r\n\r\nSEC. 6001. INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.\r\n\r\n [(a) In General.--Section] Section 101(b)(1) of the Foreign \r\nIntelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) is \r\namended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:\r\n ``(C) * * *\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n [(b) Sunset.--\r\n [(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph \r\n (2), the amendment made by subsection (a) shall cease \r\n to have effect on May 27, 2011.\r\n [(2) Exception.--With respect to any particular \r\n foreign intelligence investigation that began before \r\n the date on which the provisions referred to in \r\n paragraph (1) cease to have effect, or with respect to \r\n any particular offense or potential offense that began \r\n or occurred before the date on which the provisions \r\n cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in \r\n effect.]\r\n\r\n * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n\r\n Dissenting Views\r\n\r\n INTRODUCTION\r\n\r\n H.R. 1800 is a missed opportunity. This legislation deals \r\nwith three surveillance powers set to expire on May 27, 2011--\r\nthe ``lone wolf'' definition for individual terrorist suspects, \r\nthe ``Section 215'' business records collection power, and the \r\nroving wiretap authority. Members on both sides of the aisle \r\nhave expressed serious concerns with each of these provisions, \r\nbut the bill addresses none of these misgivings. It makes no \r\nsubstantive changes to the PATRIOT Act whatsoever. The Majority \r\ncould have worked to reach consensus and craft a compromise \r\nthat improves the underlying law. Instead, they chose to ignore \r\ndiffering opinions and push through a bill that does not make a \r\nsingle correction or adopt even those amendments that enjoy \r\nbipartisan support.\r\n\r\n CONCERNS ABOUT H.R. 1800 AND THE EXPIRING PROVISIONS OF \r\n THE USA PATRIOT ACT\r\n\r\n The USA PATRIOT Act raises serious questions about the \r\nproper balance between individual liberty and government \r\nauthority. The three specific surveillance powers that expire \r\non May 27 are not the most controversial portions of the law, \r\nbut they do raise significant concerns.\\1\\ Reauthorization \r\nwould have provided an important opportunity for Congress to \r\nreevaluate and improve these authorities. H.R. 1800 instead \r\nextends the expiring provisions without addressing any of the \r\nconcerns that have been raised.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\1\\The issues raised below relate to unclassified uses of these \r\nauthorities. Committee members have been briefed on classified matters \r\nthat also raise civil liberties questions. Those concerns, of course, \r\nmay not be aired in this public report.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nConcerns regarding Section 215\r\n Relevance is too broad a standard. Section 215 allows the \r\ngovernment to seize virtually any record or information from \r\nany person or business in the United States simply by showing \r\nthe information is ``relevant'' to a national security \r\ninvestigation.\\2\\ In addition, the statute says that certain \r\ncategories of information are ``presumptively relevant''--\r\nincluding any information that ``pertains'' to a person ``in \r\ncontact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign \r\npower.'' Under Section 215, information can be collected about \r\nany innocent American, who is not suspected of terrorism or \r\nanything else, simply if it is relevant to an investigation of \r\nsome other person or group. This includes highly personal \r\ninformation such as library records and reading history, \r\nmedical records, and social networking information.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\2\\50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b)(2).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Ranking Member Conyers and Rep. Nadler each offered \r\namendments that would provide specific protections to libraries \r\nand booksellers. The Conyers amendment would have prohibited \r\nintelligence agencies from making a Section 215 demand for \r\n``library circulations records, library patron lists, book \r\nsales records, [and] book customer lists.'' The limitation \r\nwould have applied only to Section 215; all of these records \r\nwould have remained available to law enforcement via normal \r\ncriminal investigation processes. Notably, the Ranking Member--\r\njoined by Rep. Nadler, Rep. Ron Paul, and Rep. Walter Jones--\r\nintroduced an identical amendment to the Continuing Resolution \r\ndebated on the House floor this past February. At that time, 32 \r\nRepublicans--including Reps. Adams and Chaffetz\r\n--voted in favor of the proposal.\\3\\ At the markup, Reps. Adams \r\nand Chaffetz reversed their position, and the amendment was \r\ndefeated by a party line vote.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\3\\H.R. 1, Roll Call Vote 95, 112th Cong., Feb. 18, 2011.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Rep. Nadler offered a modified version of this amendment. \r\nUnder his proposal, library and bookseller records are only \r\navailable under Section 215 with ``a statement of specific and \r\narticulable facts showing . . . reasonable grounds to believe \r\nthat the records sought are relevant to an authorized \r\ninvestigation to obtain foreign intelligence information,'' and \r\nthat the records have a sufficient nexus to a suspected \r\nterrorist or foreign agent. The amendment would have raised the \r\nSection 215 standard from mere ``relevance'' and provided a \r\nbasic layer of protection to the privacy of individual \r\ncitizens. Simply put, ``Americans do not want the government \r\nlooking into what they read.''\\4\\ Nonetheless, the amendment \r\nwas again defeated on a party vote.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\4\\Markup of H.R. 1800, FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011, \r\nH. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong., May 12, 2011 (remarks of Rep. \r\nSensenbrenner) (unofficial transcript).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n ``Presumptive Relevance'' is unreasonable. The Section 215 \r\nstatute makes certain categories of information ``presumptively \r\nrelevant''--including any information that ``pertains'' to a \r\nperson ``in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a \r\nforeign power.''\\5\\ This presumption--which cannot be \r\nchallenged or rejected by the Court--is sweeping. For example, \r\nif the child of a foreign diplomat (``an agent of a foreign \r\npower'') attended a birthday party at a classmate's home, the \r\nSection 215 presumptive relevance standard could enable the FBI \r\nto obtain any information that ``pertains'' to that classmate's \r\nfamily, including bank records, drivers license files, or \r\nworkplace personnel files. Similarly, if a suspect of a \r\nterrorism investigation viewed a person's public Facebook page, \r\nor responded to a classified advertisement, the FBI could \r\nlikely use a Section 215 order to collect all of that person's \r\nonline records.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\5\\50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b)(2)(i)-(iii).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Intelligence operations are not the same as ordinary \r\ncriminal investigations. Although the Section 215 authority is \r\nsimilar to the subpoena power held by grand juries, the \r\nprocedural checks that deter abuse in the criminal context do \r\nnot necessarily apply in the intelligence context. First, \r\nevidence seized with a criminal subpoena is intended for use in \r\ncourt, whereas Section 215 orders may be used for long term \r\nintelligence gathering with no expectation of courtroom \r\nproceedings. Thus, while the exclusionary rule and criminal \r\ndiscovery obligations deter abusive or overreaching use of \r\nsubpoenas in the criminal context, there is no comparable \r\ndeterrent to abuse in intelligence operations. In addition, \r\nSection 215 orders come with powerful nondisclosure (or \r\n``gag'') rules which can prevent the subject of a Section 215 \r\norder from ever knowing their private information has been \r\ntaken by the government. In markup, Rep. Chu offered an \r\namendment that would have limited these gag orders and given \r\ncitizens an immediate right to challenge the legality of a \r\nSection 215 order in a court of law. The amendment was defeated \r\non party lines.\r\n The Justice Department Inspector General has identified \r\nproblems with the use of Section 215 orders. Recent reports \r\npublished by the DOJ Inspector General have identified a number \r\nof improper or otherwise problematic 215 orders.\r\n\r\n LIn one case, the FBI obtained a Section 215 \r\n order for information regarding a telephone line that \r\n was not actually used by the subject of the \r\n investigation. According to the Office of the Inspector \r\n General, ``this resulted in the FBI receiving \r\n unauthorized information, which is called `over \r\n collection,' between March 2005 and October 2005.''\\6\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\6\\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal \r\nBureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business \r\nRecords, at page xii (March 2007).\r\n\r\n LIn another case, the FBI was collecting \r\n information about a certain telephone line. During this \r\n time, the phone company assigned the number to a \r\n different person, but failed to inform the FBI of this \r\n fact for several weeks. As a result, the FBI used its \r\n Section 215 authority to collect information about an \r\n innocent person who was not connected to the \r\n investigation.\\7\\ There is no suggestion that the over \r\n collection here was intentional, but that does not \r\n necessarily lessen the personal intrusion.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\7\\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal \r\nBureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business \r\nRecords, at page xii (March 2007).\r\n\r\n LIn April 2005, the FBI learned that a source, \r\n who had provided significant information about the \r\n target of a Section 215 order, had changed his mind and \r\n no longer believed that the target was involved with a \r\n particular terrorist group. However, this changed \r\n information was not reported to the FISA court until \r\n January 2006, prompting the court to demand an \r\n explanation of the failure to timely report this \r\n information.\\8\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\8\\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal \r\nBureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business \r\nRecords, at page xiii (March 2007).\r\n\r\n The Justice Department's Inspector General is currently \r\nconducting a review of the use of Section 215. It is \r\nirresponsible to pass an unprecedented 6-year extension of this \r\nauthority without the benefit of the information contained in \r\nthe forthcoming audit.\r\nConcerns regarding Roving Wiretaps\r\n The risk of tapping the wrong person is too high in the \r\nFISA context. Roving wiretap authority is commonly used in the \r\ncriminal context and is not especially controversial. However, \r\nFISA authorizes the government to obtain roving power by \r\nproviding a ``description of the target'' if the person's \r\nidentity is not known. This loose standard increases the \r\nlikelihood that the wrong person will accidentally be targeted \r\nfor FISA wiretapping.\r\n This concern is heightened in the intelligence context \r\nwhere the lack of notice to the suspect and the focus on \r\nintelligence gathering, rather than eventual prosecution, \r\ncreate poor incentives and undermine deterrents to abuse.\r\n In markup, Rep. Johnson offered an amendment that would \r\nhave required law enforcement to describe the target ``with \r\nparticularity'' before a warrant may for a roving wiretap. The \r\namendment would have merely codified current practice--the \r\nDepartment of Justice has testified that it already provides \r\nthe court with sufficient detail to describe a target with \r\nparticularity.\\9\\ The government has, in essence, conceded that \r\nthis assurance of privacy will have no impact on its \r\noperational flexibility. Nonetheless, the Majority defeated the \r\namendment on party lines.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\9\\Hearing on the Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, H. Comm. on \r\nthe Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, \r\nMarch 9, 2011 (testimony of Acting Attorney General Todd Hinnen, \r\nDepartment of Justice, National Security Division).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nConcerns Regarding Lone Wolf Surveillance\r\n FISA powers are not necessary to investigate individual \r\nlone actors. FISA brings extraordinarily intrusive search and \r\nsurveillance powers to bear on the targets of national security \r\ninvestigations, including inside the United States. Those \r\nintrusions are justified in part on the grounds that the target \r\nis a foreign government or terrorist group or other significant \r\npower. But lone wolf brings these powers to bear on single \r\nindividuals if they are suspected of ``acts in preparation'' \r\nfor international terrorism.\r\n FISA's constitutionality depends in part on the fact that \r\nits search and seizure powers apply in grave national security \r\nmatters, rather than in ordinary criminal investigation. In \r\n2009, national security law expert Suzanne Spaulding testified \r\nthat allowing FISA powers to be used via lone wolf in what may \r\nbe rather mundane criminal investigations puts the \r\nconstitutionality of FISA at risk. \\10\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\10\\Testimony of Suzanne Spaulding before the House Committee on \r\nthe Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and \r\nCivil Liberties, at 11-15, September 22, 2009.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Lone Wolf has never been used. The executive branch has \r\nnever used the lone wolf provision. Without this authority, \r\nthey would retain ample means under our robust criminal \r\ninvestigatory system to deal with single individuals suspected \r\nof terrorist acts or preparation therefore. We appreciate that \r\nsome Members feel we should retain the lone wolf provision even \r\nthough it has not proven necessary during the last 7 years of \r\nheightened terror threats. The record of non-use suggests, \r\nhowever, that--at a minimum--a new sunset is needed to ensure \r\neffective oversight and reporting to Congress on this novel \r\npower. Making this provision permanent when it has no track \r\nrecord is simply reckless.\r\n\r\n THE MAJORITY HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE\r\n\r\n On March 30, 2011, in a subcommittee oversight hearing on \r\nthe ``Permanent Provisions of the PATRIOT Act,'' Ranking Member \r\nConyers began his opening statement with a fair and \r\nuncontroversial request:\r\n\r\n [W]e come here today to request of you that we have \r\n another meeting on this subject without the \r\n distinguished witnesses that are here where we can \r\n discuss some of the unclassified and classified \r\n materials that would be the subject of such a meeting. \r\n I am fully aware that the month after next we are going \r\n to have to dispose of this matter, and I think that \r\n this would be a very important meeting in terms of \r\n reaching some kind of consensus about where we are. . . \r\n . I would like this discussed here today, of course, \r\n but I would like us to meet with the Committee in a \r\n non-public hearing on that issue.\\11\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\11\\Hearing on the Permanent Provisions of the PATRIOT Act, H. \r\nComm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland \r\nSecurity, March 30, 2011 (remarks of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.).\r\n\r\n In past months, Committee Democrats have sought \r\nopportunities to discuss the PATRIOT Act. Each time, the \r\nMajority was unwilling to meet or unwilling to discuss \r\nsubstantive changes to the underlying law.\r\nH.R. 1805--A Better Vehicle for Consensus\r\n There is a better way to craft legislation. A responsible \r\nlegislative effort based on winning broad support--rather than \r\nforcing through a controversial bill on party line votes--would \r\nhave allowed consideration of concerns raised by members of \r\nboth parties but that fall outside the narrow scope of H.R. \r\n1800.\r\n To this end, Ranking Member Conyers introduced H.R. 1805, \r\nthe ``USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011.'' The bill is \r\ncosponsored by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Ranking Member of the \r\nHouse Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence. It represents a \r\nresponsible effort to improve the expiring authorities while \r\npreserving their operational utility.\r\n H.R. 1805 is the companion to S. 193, a bipartisan measure \r\ncrafted by Senator Patrick Leahy and reported out of the Senate \r\nJudiciary Committee earlier this year.\\12\\ It embodies an \r\napproach that has the ready support of the executive branch and \r\nthe intelligence community. At a PATRIOT Act hearing before the \r\nCrime Subcommittee earlier this year, for example, General \r\nCounsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence \r\nstated that ``I think the provisions in [S. 193] are examples \r\nof the kinds of provisions . . . that would provide enhanced \r\nprotection for civil liberties without affecting operational \r\nutility.''\\13\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\12\\See S. Rep. 112-13 to accompany S. 193, ``The USA PATRIOT \r\nSunset Extension Act of 2011,'' April 11, 2011.\r\n \\13\\Hearing on the Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, H. Comm. on \r\nthe Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, \r\nMarch 9, 2011 (response of Robert Lit to a question by Ranking Member \r\nConyers).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Unlike the Majority's bill, H.R. 1805 directly addresses \r\nmany of the concerns raised by the use of the PATRIOT Act. It \r\ndoes not allow any of the expiring provisions to lapse. It \r\nincludes reasonable 2\\1\/2\\ year sunsets for all three \r\nauthorities. It provides heightened protection for libraries \r\nand booksellers, but does not bar collection of even this \r\nsensitive information. It tightens standards for roving \r\nwiretaps, while allowing roving authority to still be used. It \r\neliminates the overbroad presumption of relevance in Section \r\n215, and requires a thorough statement of facts to be presented \r\nin support of all Section 215 applications--but does not \r\notherwise heighten the basic Section 215 standard. And it fixes \r\na number of constitutional and practical problems with Section \r\n215 nondisclosure orders, while allowing appropriate secrecy to \r\nbe maintained.\r\n H.R. 1805 also strengthens National Security Letter \r\nprocesses, requiring creation and retention of better NSL \r\nrecords, improving NSL nondisclosure order practices, and \r\nplacing a sunset on NSLs. The bill also coordinates a number of \r\nsurveillance authorities sunsets so that the whole range of \r\ninterrelated intelligence tools can be considered together in a \r\ncomprehensive manner next time around, rather than in bits and \r\npieces, year by year.\r\nH.R. 1800 Follows Past Practice for the Majority\r\n For a decade, House Republicans have promised open debate \r\nand compromise on the PATRIOT Act. Instead, the Majority has \r\nreneged on deals with House and Senate Democrats, walked away \r\nfrom the bargaining table, and created a hostile environment \r\nfor Members and witnesses who disagree with the scope and reach \r\nof the bill.\r\n In 2001, within days of the September 11 attacks, Attorney \r\nGeneral John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department \r\nwould draft a bill outlining new powers needed for the federal \r\ngovernment to fight terrorism. A subsequent hearing held on \r\nSeptember 24, 2001, was so rushed that the Attorney General \r\nwould not submit to a full round of questions by the members. \r\nNonetheless, the Committee worked out a compromise with the \r\nBush Administration. On October 3, 2001, the Committee reported \r\nout H.R. 2975 by a unanimous 36-0 vote.\\14\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\14\\H.R. Rep. No. 236, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (2001).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n While H.R. 2975 was being prepared for floor consideration, \r\nand in the middle of the 2001 anthrax scare on Capitol Hill, \r\nthe Administration reneged on its deal. Chairman Sensenbrenner \r\nintroduced a new and more aggressive version of the bill that \r\nbecame the basis for the final PATRIOT Act. Compromise talks \r\nwere abandoned. At no point was the Committee permitted to \r\nconsider this version of the legislation.\r\n This Congress, the Majority dropped H.R. 1800 late on a \r\nFriday afternoon, while the House was in pro forma session and \r\nmembers were in their districts. The bill ignores concerns \r\nraised by both members of both parties. It has never had the \r\nbenefit of a legislative hearing. From this lack of notice, and \r\nfrom the lack of respect shown to differing opinions throughout \r\nthis process, we can only conclude that the Majority cannot be \r\nexpected to meaningfully negotiate--with members of either \r\nparty--to resolve the many outstanding concerns we have with \r\nthis legislation.\r\n\r\n THERE IS STRONG BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1800\r\n\r\n Opposition to this bill runs wide and deep across the \r\npolitical spectrum. Traditional defenders of civil liberties \r\noppose the bill because it extends (or makes permanent) these \r\nsurveillance authorities without any additional protections for \r\nprivacy and civil liberties. These opponents include the \r\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier \r\nFoundation.\\15\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\15\\The PATRIOT Act has long been opposed by civil liberties and \r\nlaw reform organizations. In 2005, for example, the following groups \r\nopposed re-authorization: The Center for Constitutional Rights, the \r\nAmerican Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, \r\nAmerican Library Association, the Center for Democracy and Technology, \r\nCommon Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers' \r\nCommittee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of \r\nColored People (NAACP), National Association of Criminal Defense \r\nLawyers, People for the American Way, the American-Arab Anti-\r\nDiscrimination Committee, American Association of Law Libraries, \r\nAmerican Baptist Churches USA, American Humanist Association, American \r\nPolicy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, Arab American Institute, Asian \r\nAmericans for Equality, Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, \r\nAssociation of American Physicians and Surgeons, Association of \r\nResearch Libraries, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Human \r\nRights and Constitutional Law, Center for Justice and Accountability, \r\nCenter for National Security Studies, Chicago Committee to Defend the \r\nBill of Rights, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Consumer \r\nAction, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Electronic Privacy \r\nInformation Center, First Amendment Foundation, F.I.R.S.T. Project, \r\nInc., Friends Committee on National Legislation, Hate Free Zone \r\nCampaign of Washington, Immigrant Defense Project of the New York State \r\nDefenders Association, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, International \r\nInstitute of Boston, Japanese American Citizens League, Korean Resource \r\nCenter, Latin American Integration Center, Lawyers Committee for Human \r\nRights, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mennonite Central \r\nCommittee U.S., Washington Office, Mexican American Legal Defense and \r\nEducational Fund (MALDEF), Multiracial Activist, National Asian Pacific \r\nAmerican Legal Consortium, National Coalition Against Repressive \r\nLegislation, National Council of La Raza, National Employment Law \r\nProject, National Immigration Law Center, National Lawyers Guild, New \r\nYork Immigration Coalition, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, OMB \r\nWatch, Organization of Chinese Americans, Police Accountability \r\nProject, Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office, and the Special \r\nLibraries Association. See Dissenting Views regarding H.R. 3199 \r\n(109th), House Report 109-174 at 444.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n We have also seen a powerful new wave of conservative \r\nopposition to the overreaching government surveillance \r\nauthorized by the PATRIOT Act. When the first PATRIOT Act \r\nreauthorization was brought to the floor this Congress, it was \r\ndefeated on suspension, with 26 Republicans voting against.\\16\\ \r\nWeeks later, Reps. Conyers, Nadler, Paul and Jones offered a \r\nbipartisan amendment to the Republican continuing budget \r\nresolution that would have protected libraries and booksellers \r\nfrom having their records seized, which received 32 Republican \r\nvotes on the floor.\\17\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\16\\Roll Call 26 on H.R. 514 (112th Congress) (February 8, 2011).\r\n \\17\\Roll Call 95 on Amendment 524 to H.R. 1 (112th Congress) \r\n(February 18, 2011).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n Since then, numerous Republicans and conservatives have \r\nspoken out against the approach reflected in this legislation. \r\nFor example, our former Colleague Bob Barr of Georgia testified \r\nat a recent hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, \r\nTerrorism, and Homeland Security that:\r\n\r\n ``I understand the Chairman introduced legislation last \r\n week that would make the so-called `lone-wolf' \r\n authority in the USA PATRIOT Act permanent; and would \r\n extend the Section 215 and roving `John Doe' wiretap \r\n authorities in the Act for another 6 years, until 2017. \r\n I urge this committee to reject this approach tomorrow \r\n during its markup, and either amend these sections in \r\n order to bring them into full compliance with the \r\n letter and the intent of our Constitution, or else \r\n allow them to expire.''\\18\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\18\\Prepared Testimony of Hon. Robert Barr at a ``Hearing on the \r\nUSA PATRIOT Act: Dispelling the Myths,'' before the Subcomm. on Crime, \r\nTerrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary \r\n(112th Cong.) (May 11, 2011).\r\n\r\nBruce Fein, a conservative scholar and former Reagan \r\nAdministration official, also testified against the PATRIOT \r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nAct. Mr. Fein explained:\r\n\r\n ``Despite the good intentions of its architects, the \r\n PATRIOT Act betrays bedrock constitutional principles. \r\n The individual is the center of the Constitution's \r\n universe. Aggrandizing government is the center of the \r\n PATRIOT Act. The Constitution salutes freedom and \r\n citizen sovereignty over absolute safety and citizen \r\n vassalage. The PATRIOT Act turns that hierarchy on its \r\n head.''\\19\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\19\\Prepared Testimony of Bruce Fein at a ``Hearing on the USA \r\nPATRIOT Act: Dispelling the Myths,'' before the Subcomm. on Crime, \r\nTerrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary \r\n(112th Cong.) (May 11, 2011).\r\n\r\nAnd Senator Rand Paul released a letter to his colleagues \r\nstating his opposition to extending these authorities. Senator \r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nPaul wrote:\r\n\r\n ``The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst \r\n act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-\r\n intentioned. However, rather than examine what went \r\n wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily \r\n passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like \r\n warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The \r\n government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring \r\n obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of \r\n the police state. It is not acceptable to willfully \r\n ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution--\r\n in this case the Fourth and First Amendments--in the \r\n name of `security.'''\\20\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\20\\Letter from Senator Rand Paul to Colleagues at 1-2 (February \r\n15, 2011). Many other conservatives have opposed the bill. CATO \r\nInstitute research fellow Julian Sanchez testified at a March 9, 2011, \r\nJudiciary Subcommittee hearing that ``these emergency powers should not \r\nbe made permanent until they are further tailored to ensure that the \r\ntools employed to investigate and apprehend terrorists are consistent \r\nwith our Constitutional tradition of respect for the privacy and civil \r\nliberties of innocent Americans.'' And conservative lawyer John \r\nWhitehead of the Rutherford Institute recently published his \r\nopposition, arguing ``the freedoms in the Bill of Rights are being \r\neviscerated, and if they are not restored and soon, freedom as we have \r\nknown it in America will be lost. Thus, whether it's a short-term or \r\nlong-term scenario, Congress should not renew the USA Patriot Act, nor \r\nshould President Obama sign it into law.'' Whitehead, Renewing the \r\nPatriot Act: Who Will Protect Us From Our Government (May 16, 2011).\r\n\r\n The opposition to H.R. 1800 even has a strong base within \r\nthe House Republican caucus. Citing a need ``to evaluate, \r\namend, improve, and potentially replace all provisions of the \r\nPATRIOT Act, not just the three provisions at issue here,'' \r\nRep. Chaffetz stated: ``I have at least three specific \r\nconcerns, and look forward to incorporating your concerns with \r\nmine as I draft amendments during the hearing and markup \r\nprocess.''\\21\\ Indeed, Judiciary Republicans filed six \r\namendments to H.R. 1800 in advance of the markup.\\22\\ Some of \r\nthese amendments were identical to proposals offered by the \r\nMinority; others were compromise measures that would have \r\nlikely enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. All of these \r\nRepublican amendments were withdrawn overnight.\\23\\ Every \r\nDemocratic amendment, even those closely resembling Republican \r\nproposals, was voted down along party lines.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n \\21\\Press Release, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, ``Renewal of PATRIOT Act \r\nProvisions,'' Feb. 23, 2011 (available at http:\/\/chaffetz.house.gov\/\r\nlegislative-issues\/2011\/02\/renewal-of-patriot-act-provisions.shtml).\r\n \\22\\The Committee's rules permit members of both parties to review \r\nproposed amendments at least a day before markup begins. H. Comm. on \r\nthe Judiciary, 112th Cong. Rules of Proc., Rule II(f). Rep. Issa ``pre-\r\nfiled'' two amendments to H.R. 1800. Rep. Chaffetz pre-filed four \r\namendments. The Majority did not permit the Committee to consider any \r\nof these proposals at markup.\r\n \\23\\See John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman, ``GOP Struggles for \r\nPATRIOT Act Votes,'' Politico, p. 1, May 12, 2001. ``House Republican \r\nleaders are aggressively lobbying rank-and-file GOP lawmakers to pass a \r\nlong-term extension of the PATRIOT Act, a Bush-era anti-terrorism law \r\nthat has already provided Republicans with an embarrassing defeat early \r\nin their majority.'' Id.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n The Committee favorably reported H.R. 1800 by a vote of 22-\r\n13, with Republican Jason Chaffetz of Utah voting against. The \r\nMajority may succeed in their attempt to push through another \r\naggressive PATRIOT Act reauthorization--but they will face \r\nsubstantial and bipartisan opposition, and they will have \r\nmissed an opportunity to reach consensus on this bill.\r\n\r\n John Conyers, Jr.\r\n Jerrold Nadler.\r\n Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.\r\n Melvin L. Watt.\r\n Sheila Jackson Lee.\r\n Maxine Waters.\r\n Steve Cohen.\r\n Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.\r\n Judy Chu.\r\n Ted Deutch.\r\n<\/pre>\n
112th Congress Rept. 112-79 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 ====================================================================== FISA SUNSETS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011 _______ May 18, 2011.–Ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4181,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[72,57],"tags":[116,118],"class_list":["post-6249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hearings-u-s-house-of-representatives","category-legislation","tag-hearings","tag-legislation"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Government-Congress.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-1CN","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6249"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6249\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6252,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6249\/revisions\/6252"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}