75–413 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–645 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

AUGUST 2, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, from the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5949] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA Amendments Act 

of 2008 for five years, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 

2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 403(b) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–261; 122 Stat. 2474) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2) in the material preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 

‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading of section 404(b)(1) of the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2476) is amended by striking ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2017’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 5949 is to extend the authorities contained 

in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (‘‘FAA’’), currently set to expire on December 31, 2012, to December 31, 2017. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

A. INTRODUCTION

In 2008, with significant bipartisan support, Congress passed the 

FAA. The FAA modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act of 1978 to account for significant changes in technology that 

made the 30 year-old law an impractical and ineffective tool for 

combatting the quickly evolving threats facing our nation. The FAA 

gave our intelligence community the speed and agility necessary to 

meaningfully collect foreign intelligence while still preserving civil 

liberties. H.R. 5949 would extend the FAA for five years. 

H.R. 5949 was requested by the Executive Branch. The Director 

of National Intelligence and Attorney General have stated that reauthorization of the FAA, which will expire at the end of this year 

if Congress does not act, is ‘‘the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.’’ 

In seeking a clean extension of the FAA, the Administration has 

stated that the FAA ‘‘allows the Intelligence Community to collect 

vital information about international terrorists and other important targets overseas’’ while, ‘‘at the same time . . . provid[ing] a 

comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of Government to protect the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons.’’ 

Moreover, the Administration has stated that collection under the 

FAA is ‘‘vital in keeping the nation safe’’ and that the ‘‘[f]ailure to 

reauthorize [the FAA] would result in a loss of significant intelligence and impede the ability of the Intelligence Community to respond quickly to new threats and intelligence opportunities.’’ (Emphasis added). 

H.R. 5949 would reauthorize the FAA for five years from its current expiration date, extending its authorities through December 

31, 2017. Consistent with the Administration’s request, H.R. 5949, 

as reported, makes no modifications to the original FAA. The Committee notes, however, that it continues to review whether amendments should be made in the future to strengthen authorities and 

oversight procedures, consistent with issues identified as part of 

the Committee’s oversight, the needs of the Intelligence Community, and civil liberties protections. 

B. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION UNDER THE FISA

AMENDMENTS ACT

The FAA authorizes intelligence collection targeted against nonU.S. persons located outside the United States. It permits this collection to take place only under statutorily-required, court approved targeting and minimization procedures. Such procedures 

are designed to ensure that the government’s surveillance under 

this authority does not target Americans anywhere in the world 

and, to ensure that if and when the communications of Americans 

are incidentally intercepted, they are handled pursuant to specific 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

procedures designed to protect the rights of such individuals, as approved by the court. 

It is also important to note that the FAA significantly increased 

protections for Americans around the world by requiring that any 

electronic surveillance targeting a U.S. person, no matter where 

they are located, be conducted pursuant to court order. Prior to 

2008, targeting U.S. persons located outside the United States for 

intelligence collection only required Attorney General authorization 

in many circumstances. If Congress does not reauthorize the FAA, 

the requirement for court approval for such surveillance will also 

expire. 

The importance of the collection of foreign intelligence under the 

FISA Amendments Act—while challenging to describe in detail in 

an unclassified setting—cannot be underscored enough. In short, 

intelligence collected under the FAA is critically important to maintaining our national security. The information collected under this 

authority is often unique, unavailable from any other source, and 

regularly provides critically important insights and operationally 

actionable intelligence on terrorists and foreign intelligence targets 

around the world. 

The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence have 

provided the following unclassified description of specific, actionable intelligence that was obtained through the unique contribution 

of collection under the FISA Amendments Act: 

It provides information about the plans and identities of 

terrorists, allowing us to glimpse inside terrorist organizations and obtain information about how those groups function and receive support. In addition, it lets us collect information about the intentions and capabilities of weapons 

proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten 

the United States. 

The intelligence community has provided the intelligence committees in both the House and the Senate with additional details 

on the examples discussed above in a classified setting, as well as 

other even more compelling examples of specific, actionable intelligence obtained through the unique lens of FISA Amendments Act 

collections. In addition, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has and will continue to make available classified information to all Members of the House regarding the information collected under the FISA Amendments Act prior to consideration of 

the extension by the House. The Committee believes that it is important for all Members to have a better opportunity to understand 

how critically important the information obtained under these authorities is to our national security and hopes Members will avail 

themselves of the opportunity to gain a better understating of the 

FAA. 

C. OVERSIGHT REGARDING COLLECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER THE FISA

AMENDMENTS ACT

Collection under the FAA is subject to extensive oversight by all 

three branches of government. By statute, the Executive Branch is 

required to conduct detailed oversight over collection conducted 

under the FAA and to report to Congress with respect to this oversight. Specifically, the FISA Amendments Act requires: (1) the AtVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:18 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 075413 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR645P2.XXX HR645P2

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

torney General and Director of National Intelligence to conduct 

semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting and minimization procedures and provided them to Congress; (2) the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and certain elements of 

the Intelligence Community to conduct reviews of the implementation of certain FISA Amendments Act authorities and provide them 

to Congress; (3) the heads of the elements of the intelligence community conducting collection under the FAA to conduct annual reviews of the implementation of certain FAA authorities and provide 

them to Congress; (4) the Attorney General to provide to Congress 

a comprehensive semiannual report on the implementation of the 

FAA, including a description of all compliance incidents. 

In addition, the Attorney General is required, under other provisions of FISA, to provide a semiannual report to Congress on the 

implementation of FISA generally, including summaries of significant legal interpretations of FISA made by the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 

of Review, and copies of all decisions, orders, or opinions of these 

courts or government pleadings that include a significant construction or interpretation of FISA. The Executive Branch also conducts 

its oversight through on-site reviews conducted every 60 days by 

the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 

Likewise, the Legislative Branch conducts extensive oversight 

over collections conducted under the FAA. As noted above, statutes 

require the provision of detailed information to the Congressional 

intelligence and judiciary committees regarding the oversight conducted by the Executive Branch and reports of noncompliance with 

statutes and required procedures. Since the passage of the FAA, 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has conducted extensive oversight on the implementation of this legislation 

and the collection conducted under its authority. In the 112th Congress alone, the House Intelligence Committee has conducted two 

hearings and over a dozen meetings and briefings specifically focused on FISA and FAA. 

Finally, the Judicial Branch, through the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court, conducts its own independent oversight of collection under the FISA Amendments Act through its review of government certifications and targeting and minimization procedures. 

The record before this Committee indicates that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court takes its job very seriously, oftentimes 

digging deep into the details of the government’s collection methodology and procedures, including the government’s efforts to fully 

comply with the law. And, rather than simply admonishing the 

government when it experiences unavoidable compliance issues, a 

review of the classified record presented to the Committee demonstrates that the Court often strongly encourages the government 

to impose stringent requirements upon itself to address or ameliorate compliance issues, often going well beyond the requirements 

of the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment. 

The oversight this Committee has conducted since the FAA was 

enacted in 2008 has shown no evidence that the Intelligence Community has engaged in any intentional or willful failure to comply 

with statutory requirements or Executive Branch policies and procedures. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

D. CHALLENGES IN COLLECTION AND OVERSIGHT MATTERS UNDER THE

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT

As the Committee reports H.R. 5949 to the full House and urges 

a clean extension for five years, it is important to note that the 

classified record before the Committee makes clear that there are 

specific amendments to the FAA that would substantially improve 

the government’s ability to collect foreign intelligence while also 

appropriately protecting the rights of Americans. 

A detailed discussion of potential changes to the authorities is 

outside the scope of this report. The Committee notes, however, 

that possible future amendments might be beneficial to ensure the 

government can collect on the full scope of communication techniques used by terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets. Future amendments may also clarify the appropriate scope and detail 

of the Foreign Intelligence Court’s review of certifications and other 

FAA matters, (including the remedial authority of that Court), and 

address the Executive Branch’s responsibility to provide full and 

timely information to Congress regarding its analysis of legal matters before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Committee is fully aware and cognizant of these matters and is prepared to return to consideration of them at the appropriate juncture. 

E. CONCLUSION

If Congress does not reauthorize the authorities proposed to be 

extended by H.R. 5949 the risk of potential catastrophic results is 

real and significant. The Committee has conducted substantial, ongoing, detailed oversight and the record supports extension for—at 

a minimum—the proposed five-year period. The Committee therefore unanimously reports H.R. 5949 favorably and urges the House 

to approve it expeditiously in the interest of our national security. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Committee held two hearings and multiple classified briefings in the 112th Congress on the implementation of and performance under authorities that would be extended by this bill. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND ROLLCALL VOTES

On June 28, 2012, the Committee met in open session and considered the bill H.R. 5949. Ms. Schakowsky offered an amendment 

to H.R. 5949 that would amend the date of sunset from December 

31, 2017 to June 1, 2015. 

The amendment was not agreed to by a record vote of 13 noes 

and 4 ayes: 

Noes: Mr. Rogers (Chairman), Mr. Thornberry, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 

Miller, Mr. Conaway, Mr. King, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Heck, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Chandler. 

Ayes: Mr. Thompson, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Ms. Schakowsky offered an amendment that would amend the 

form of the assessments of procedures targeting certain persons located outside the United States. The amendment was not agreed 

to by a record vote of 15 noes and 2 ayes: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Noes: Chairman Rogers, Mr. Thornberry, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Miller, Mr. Conaway, Mr. King, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Heck, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Langevin, 

Mr. Schiff, Mr. Chandler. 

Ayes: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gutierrez. 

The Committee then adopted a motion by the Chairman to favorably report the bill H.R. 5949 to the House. The motion was agreed 

to by record vote of 17 ayes and 0 noes. 

Ayes: Mr. Rogers (Chairman), Mr. Thornberry, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 

Miller, Mr. Conaway, Mr. King, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Heck, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Chandler. 

Noes: None. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION

Section 1. Short Title 

The short title of the Act is the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012. 

Section 2. Five-Year Extension of the FISA Amendments Act 

Section [ ]: In General 

This section of the Act amends Section 403 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 by striking December 31, 2012 and replacing it 

with December 31, 2017, in each appropriate location in order to 

extend the expiration of the FISA Amendments Act for five years. 

In addition, this section of the Act makes conforming changes to 

other appropriate portions of the FISA Amendments Act. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises the findings and 

recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities 

under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Committee held two hearings and multiple classified briefings in the 112th Congress on the implementation of and 

performance under authorities that would be extended by this bill. 

The findings have been incorporated in the Committee’s classified 

annex to annual Intelligence Authorization bills. In addition, the 

bill extends requirements to include FAA provisions in the Attorney General’s long existing semi-annual report, and additional, extensive semi-annual reporting to Congress on the new authorities. 

The bill, as reported by the Committee, reflects conclusions reached 

by the Committee in light of this oversight activity. The Committee’s views are further described in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation does not authorize funding, and therefore clause 3(c)(4) does not apply. The Committee’s 

general performance goals and objectives for the legislation are, 

however, reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement, the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 5949 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 19, 2012. 

Hon. MIKE ROGERS, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 

The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost 

estimate for H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization 

Act of 2012. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jason Wheelock. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5949—FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 

H.R. 5949 would extend the authority of the federal government 

to conduct surveillance pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act of 

2008 (Public Law 110–261). Because CBO does not provide cost estimates for classified programs, this estimate addresses only the 

budgetary effects on unclassified programs affected by the bill. On 

that basis, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5949 would 

have no significant cost to the federal government. 

Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates 

that any effects would be insignificant for each year. 

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 clarified the authority of the 

federal government to surveil and intercept communications of cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:18 Aug 07, 2012 Jkt 075413 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR645P2.XXX HR645P2

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

tain persons located outside the United States. H.R. 5949 would extend the provisions of that act by five years (otherwise they expire 

after December 31, 2012). As a result, the government might be 

able to prosecute criminal cases that it otherwise would not be able 

to pursue. CBO expects that H.R. 5949 would apply to a relatively 

small number of additional offenders, however, so any increase in 

costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations 

would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 5949 could 

be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect 

additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are deposited as revenues in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent. 

CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending 

would not be significant because of the relatively small number of 

cases likely to be affected. 

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 

(UMRA) for private-sector mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation). However, few public entities receive 

requests for such information, and the costs on them would be 

small. The bill also would extend an existing preemption on state 

and local governments regarding legal rights of action. CBO estimates that the costs to public entities of all the intergovernmental 

mandates in the bill would be small and well below the annual 

threshold established in UMRA ($73 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation). 

On July 2, 2012, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 5949, 

the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, as ordered 

reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 19, 

2012. Both versions of H.R. 5949 and their estimated costs are the 

same. On July 19, 2012, CBO also transmitted a cost estimate for 

S. 3276, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, 

as reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 

June 7, 2012. That bill is very similar to both versions of H.R. 

5949, and the estimated costs are also the same. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jason Wheelock and 

Mark Grabowicz (for federal costs), J’nell L. Blanco (for the impact 

on state and local governments), and Elizabeth Bass (for the impact on the private sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa 

Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—OTHER PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 403. REPEALS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in section 404, effective 

øDecember 31, 2012¿ December 31, 2017, title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by section 101(a), is repealed. 

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Effective 

øDecember 31, 2012¿ December 31, 2017— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 404. TRANSITION PROCEDURES. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TRANSITION PROCEDURES FOR FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF

2008 PROVISIONS.— 

(1) ORDERS IN EFFECT ON øDECEMBER 31, 2012¿ DECEMBER 31, 

2017.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any 

amendment made by this Act, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), any order, authorization, or directive issued or made under title VII of the 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by 

section 101(a), shall continue in effect until the date of the expiration of such order, authorization, or directive. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(10) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

As Members of the House Intelligence Committee, we have a 

uniquely dual responsibility to ensure the Intelligence Community 

has the resources, tools, and authorities needed to protect America, 

and that the civil liberties of U.S. persons are protected in the 

course of pursuing this goal. The uniqueness of the responsibility 

is particularly relevant in the context of the FISA Amendments Act 

(FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2012. 

The FAA provides the government with several of the authorities 

it needs to facilitate our national security. As members of the 

House Intelligence Committee, we have received briefings on several of the benefits and accomplishments of actions conducting 

using this authority. We are confident that agency personnel implementing this authority do so with deliberate consideration of the 

law. We are also confident that the authority has proven beneficial 

to the protection of our national security. 

As Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, we remain 

particularly committed to keeping our citizens informed, without 

providing our adversaries with information that can be used to circumvent our national security efforts. Amendments offered by Rep. 

Schakowsky emphasized several factors that were considered in the 

course of drafting this legislation. 

The goal of the first amendment was to shorten the sunset provision of December 31, 2017 to June 1, 2015. This would ensure a 

more timely review of the Executive branch’s use of this authority. 

Delaying the responsibility to review this authority for 5 years is 

too long. We will be in the 115th Congress, an entire presidential 

administration will have passed, and all without a statutory demand to reconsider and potentially realign this law with the desires of the American people. The proposed amendment was one 

way to give Congress the opportunity to ensure the implementation 

of this authority matched its aspirations. 

The goal of the second amendment was to create an unclassified 

version of the Intelligence Community’s numerous assessments and 

reviews reports. This would make certain that Congress could provide the public with an understanding of the actions of their government. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was initially 

passed to curb abuses in the collection and use of intelligence information, foreign and domestic. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 

goes a step further by authorizing the government to collect foreign 

intelligence information reasonably believed to be outside the 

United States without a warrant. Today, the Intelligence Community conducts oversight, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 

reviews the procedures for legal sufficiency, and the Intelligence 

Committee conducts its own oversight of this effort. Nearly all of 

this oversight, however, is conducted in secret. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

While the Committee has the benefit and responsibility of having 

access to classified information, it is important that the public has 

an understanding of the foreign intelligence surveillance conducted 

under the FAA. The amendment to craft an unclassified report on 

the reviews that are conducted is a modest step towards that understanding. 

Americans have the right to be informed that the Government 

uses its authorities narrowly, responsibly, and exclusively for foreign intelligence purposes. We will continue to strive to provide 

this assurance to our citizens. While the amendments were not 

adopted, they reflect several of the factors that were considered by 

this committee in the course of reaching its bi-partisan 17–0 vote 

in favor of the bill. This vote reflects a tradition of fully considering 

the tensions between security and civil liberties when crafting intelligence related legislation. 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY. LUIS GUTIERREZ. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING