GovTrack’s Bill Summary
We don’t have a summary available yet.
The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.
We don’t have a summary available yet.
The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.
The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
This summary can be found at http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr5949.
The following is information provided per the House Committee on the Judiciary House Report 112-645,
“In 2006 and 2007, then-Director of National Intelligence Admiral Mike McConnell explained to Congress that due to recent FISA court decisions, the government was forced to devote substantial resources to obtaining court approvals—based on a showing of probable cause—to conduct surveillance against terrorists located overseas in some circumstances. This is contrary to what Congress intended when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978 and had come about due to changes in telecommunication technology. Admiral McConnell stated that the Intelligence Community was not collecting approximately two-thirds of the foreign intelligence information that it collected prior to legal interpretations that required the government to obtain individualized FISA court orders for overseas surveillance.
“On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed into law the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which passed with a bipartisan majority of Congress and broad support from the intelligence community. The Act allows intelligence professionals to more quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications, while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Among other things, the law accomplishes the following:
“Specifically, the new law authorizes the targeting of non-U.S. persons overseas to acquire foreign intelligence information, subject to specific targeting and minimization procedures that are reviewed by the FISA Court.
“The Act permits the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to obtain an annual certification from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to target foreign persons reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. to acquire foreign intelligence information. Under exigent circumstances, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence may immediately authorize such targeting based upon a determination that without immediate implementation of an authorization, intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order.
“The Act strengthens protections for U.S. citizens by requiring the government to obtain an order from the FISC to target them outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information. Prior to 2008, targeting of U.S. persons outside the U.S. was governed by Executive Order 12333, which allowed the Attorney General to certify the targeting of U.S. persons overseas.
“The Act expands congressional oversight with a semi-annual report to Congress from the Administration on certifications or orders obtained under the Act, compliance reviews, and incidents of noncompliance. The Act amends an existing reporting requirement that requires the Attorney General to submit to Congress a copy of any FISC order, opinion, or decision, and the accompanying pleadings, briefs, and other memoranda of law when the court's decision includes ‘significant construction or interpretation of any provision’ of FISA. This expands the amount of background and supporting material that the Committee will receive in connection with a significant decision by the FISC. Prior to enactment of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, only ‘decisions and opinions’ containing significant construction or interpretation of FISA were required to be submitted to Congress.
“With the FAA set to expire at the end of this year, the Administration has strongly urged Congress to reauthorize the legislation. In a recent letter to Congress, both the Attorney General and the DNI explain that the FAA ‘has proven to be an extremely valuable authority in protecting our nation from terrorism and other national security threats.’ They represent that the oversight of its implementation has been comprehensive, citing the findings of their semi-annual assessments that agencies have ‘continued to implement the procedures and follow the guidelines in a manner that reflects a focused and concerted effort by agency personnel to comply with the [FAA] requirements’ and that agency personnel ‘are appropriately focused on directing their efforts at non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.’ And importantly, they conclude that the reauthorization of the FAA ‘is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.’”
H.R. 5949 would extend the authority of the federal government to conduct surveillance pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 until December 31, 2017. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG) the authority to acquire foreign intelligence information from non-U.S. citizens outside the U.S. This authority is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, under current law.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5949 would have no significant cost to the federal government. According to CBO, the bill would impose both private-sector and intergovernmental mandates by extending an existing mandate that would limit civil actions and require providers of communication services to provide information. There is little information about the prevalence of electronic surveillance in those cases or the scope or size of potential awards from such cases. Consequently, CBO cannot determine whether the costs of those mandates would exceed the annual threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.
So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.
We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.
The bill contains the following citations to other parts of U.S. law:
Slip laws refer to enacted bills and joint resolutions in their original form as enacted by Congress, that is, before other laws amend them. Slip laws are cited as “Public Law XXX-YYY”, where XXX is the number of the Congress in which the bill or resolution was introduced.
The United States Statutes at Large is the compilation of all laws enacted by Congress.