National Security Surveillance Act of 2006: S. 3886, Title II (S. 2453 as Reported Out of the Senate Judiciary Committee)
National Security Surveillance Act of 2006:
S. 3886, Title II (S. 2453 as Reported Out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee)
Updated January 18, 2007
Elizabeth B. Bazan
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
National Security Surveillance Act of 2006:
S. 3886, Title II (S. 2453 as Reported Out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee)
Summary
In the wake of disclosures related to the National Security Agency’s Terrorist
Surveillance Program, congressional attention has been focused on issues regarding
authorization, review, and oversight of electronic surveillance programs designed to
acquire foreign intelligence information or to address international terrorism. Ath
number of legislative approaches were considered in the 109 Congress, and three
related bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress: H.R. 11, S. 187, and S. 139.
In a January 17, 2007, letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales advised them that, on
January 10, 2007, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge “issued
orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international
communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to
believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an
associated terrorist organization.” In light of these orders, which “will allow the
necessary speed and agility,” he stated that all surveillance previously occurring
under the TSP will now be conducted subject to the approval of the FISC. He
indicated further that the President has determined not to reauthorize the TSP when
the current authorization expires.
The NSA program has been challenged on legal and constitutional grounds. On
August 17, 2006, in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency,
Case No. 06-CV-10204 (E.D. Mich. August 17, 2006), Judge Taylor held the
program unconstitutional and granted a permanent injunction of the Terrorist
Surveillance Program. The decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. On October 4, 2006, the Sixth Circuit granted a motion staying
Judge Taylor’s judgment and permanent injunction pending appeal.
One of the bills considered in the 109th Congress, S. 3886, the Terrorist
Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006, was introduced by Senator
William H. Frist on September 11, 2006. Title II of S. 3886, the National Security
Surveillance Act of 2006, substantively parallels S. 2453 as reported out of the
Senate Judiciary Committee without a written report. This report summarizes Title
II of S. 3886/S. 2453, as reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and
compares its language with the existing provisions of the Foreign Intelligenceth
Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. The 110 Congress
may wish to contemplate similar or different legislative approaches to these issues,
or may choose to forego legislation in light of the new FISC orders and the
anticipated termination of the TSP, while continuing congressional oversight. This
report will not be updated.
Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Summary of Changes to Current Law..................................4
New Title VII of FISA..........................................4
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court jurisdiction...............4
Mandatory transfer of certain cases to Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review............................5
Applications for FISC approval of electronic surveillance programs..6
Congressional oversight of electronic surveillance programs
authorized under new Title VII of FISA....................7
New Title VIII: Executive Authority..............................7
FISA not to be construed to limit President’s constitutional authority
to collect foreign intelligence.............................7
Repeal of wartime authorities under FISA......................7
Conforming amendments to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(e) and (f) and
to criminal provisions in Sec. 109 of FISA..................7
Other Conforming Amendments to FISA...........................9
Definitions ...............................................9
Electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire
foreign intelligence information pursuant to Attorney General
certification .........................................11
Designation of FISC judges.................................13
Applications for FISC orders under Sec. 104 of FISA............13
Issuance of FISC order under Sec. 105 of FISA.................14
Use of information acquired by electronic surveillance under FISA..16
Congressional oversight under Sec. 108 of FISA regarding a
document management system for applications for FISC
orders authorizing electronic surveillance..................17
Second amendment of criminal provisions in Sec. 109 of FISA.....17
Physical searches.........................................18
Conforming Amendments to the Table of Contents of FISA...........19
National Security Surveillance Act of 2006:
S. 3886, Title II (S. 2453 as Reported Out
of the Senate Judiciary Committee)
Introduction
In the wake of disclosures related to the National Security Agency’s Terrorist
Surveillance Program, congressional attention has been focused on issues regarding
authorization, review, and oversight of electronic surveillance programs designed to
acquire foreign intelligence information or to address international terrorism. Several
bills were introduced in the 109th Congress to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) and to address concerns raised with respect to the Terrorist
Surveillance Program (TSP). Three related bills have been introduced to date in the
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, P.L. 95-511, Title I, October 25,
1978, 92 Stat. 1796, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., as amended, provides a
statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen
registers, and trap and trace devices to acquire foreign intelligence information.2 It
1 Three related bills have been introduced to date in the 110th Congress: H.R. 11, the NSA
Oversight Act, introduced by Representative Schiff, for himself and Representative Flake,
Representative Van Hollen, Representative Inglis of South Carolina, Representative Inslee,
and Representative Mack, on January 4, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on the
Judiciary, and, in addition, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned; S. 187, the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Oversight and Resource Enhancement Act of 2007,
introduced by Senator Specter on January 4, 2007, and referred to the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary; and S. 139, the Foreign Surveillance Expedited Review Act, introduced by
Senator Schumer on January 4, 2007, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
2 Under section 101(e) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e), “foreign intelligence information” is
defined to mean:
(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is
necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against —
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network
of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates
(continued...)
also provides statutory authority for the production of tangible things for an
investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person
or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.3
While describing electronic surveillance under FISA as a valuable tool in combating
terrorism, the Bush Administration argued that it lacked the speed and agility to deal
with such terrorists or terrorist groups.4
2 (...continued)
to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to —
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
“United States person” is defined in subsection 101(i) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c)
to mean “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
(as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial
number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted
for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but
does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in
subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.”
“International terrorism” is defined in subsection 101(c), 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c) to mean
activities that:
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal
violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended —
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping;
and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in
terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear
intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate
or seek asylum.
“Sabotage” is defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(d) to mean “activities that involve a
violation of chapter 105 of Title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed
against the United States.”
3 Under Sec. 106(a)(1) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(1), where such an investigation is of
a United States person, it may not be conducted “solely upon the basis of activities protected
by the first amendment to the Constitution.”
4 See U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT 34 (January 19, 2005);
Letter of December 22, 2005, from Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella to the
Honorable Pat Roberts, the Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, the Honorable Peter
Hoekstra, and the Honorable Jane Harman, at 5; Statements by Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence,
during December 19, 2005, Press Briefing available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2005/ 12/20051219-1.html ].
In a January 17, 2007, letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Gonzales advised them that, on
January 10, 2007, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge “issued
orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international
communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to
believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an
associated terrorist organization.” The Attorney General stated that, in light of these
orders, which “will allow the necessary speed and agility,” all surveillance previously
occurring under the TSP will now be conducted subject to the approval of the FISC.
He indicated further that, under these circumstances, the President has determined
not to reauthorize the TSP when the current authorization expires. The Attorney
General also noted that the Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the highly
classified details of the FISC orders and advised Chairman Leahy and Senator
Specter that he had directed the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security to provide
them a classified briefing on the details of the orders.
The NSA program has been challenged on legal and constitutional grounds. On
August 17, 2006, in one such lawsuit, American Civil Liberties Union v. National
Security Agency, Case No. 06-CV-10204 (E.D. Mich. August 17, 2006), U.S. District
Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held the program unconstitutional on the ground that
it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the
First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act (Title III), and permanently enjoined the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The
decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On
October 4, 2006, the Sixth Circuit stayed Judge Taylor’s August 17, 2006, judgment
and permanent injunction pending appeal, American Civil Liberties Union v.
National Security Agency, Docket Nos. 06-2140 and 06-2095 (6th Cir. Oct. 4, 2006).
The docket sheets for both Docket Nos. 06-2140 and 06-2095 indicate that a letter
from the attorneys for the appellants was filed on January 18, 2007, notifying the
court “concerning a letter from the Attorney General’s Office regarding orders issued
by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”
One of the bills considered in the 109th Congress, S. 3886, the Terrorist
Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006, was introduced by Senator
William H. Frist on September 11, 2006. It was placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 605, the following day. Title II of S.
2453 as reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.5 S. 2453 was introduced by
Senator Arlen Specter on March 16, 2006, and referred to the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary. Committee hearings were held on the latter measure on July 26, 2006,
and August 2, 2006. Committee consideration and markup of S. 2453 took place on
April 27, August 3, and September 7, 2006. The Committee reported S. 2453 out
5 The only differences between S. 2453 as reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee
and Title II of S. 3886 as introduced are in the respective bills’ section numbers, i.e., Sec.
1 of S. 2453 as reported out is the same as Sec. 201 of S. 3886; Sec. 2 of S. 2453 is the same
as Sec. 202 of S. 3886, etc.
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on September 13, 2006, without a
written report, and the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders that day, Calendar No. 609. This report summarizes Title II of S.
3886 (S. 2453, as reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee), and compares its
language with the existing provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.
Summary of Changes to Current Law6
New Title VII of FISA
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court jurisdiction. “The National
Security Surveillance Act of 2006,” Title II of S. 3886 (S. 2453 as reported out of7
Senate Judiciary Committee; hereinafter S. 2453) adds a new Title VII to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., which gives the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and
reauthorize electronic surveillance programs8 to obtain foreign intelligence
6 Where new language is the same as that in current law, it will not be addressed in this
report. Only those provisions which effect some change to current law are noted.
7 New Sec. 701 of FISA addresses the definitions applicable to the new Title VII of FISA,
and includes definitions for “congressional intelligence committees,” “electronic
communication,” “electronic tracking,” “electronic surveillance program,” “foreign
intelligence information,” “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” “Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review,” “intercept,” and “substance.” Sec. 203 of S. 3886, Sec. 3.
of S. 2453.
8 For purposes of the new Title VII of FISA, “electronic surveillance program” is defined
in new Sec. 701(5) of FISA to mean a program to engage in electronic tracking —
(A) that has as a significant purpose the gathering of foreign intelligence
information or protecting against international terrorism;
(B) where it is not technically feasible to name every person or address every
location to be subjected to electronic tracking;
(C) where effective gathering of foreign intelligence information requires the
flexibility to begin electronic surveillance immediately after learning of suspect
activity; and
(D) where effective gathering of foreign intelligence information requires an
extended period of electronic surveillance[.]
“Electronic tracking” is defined in new Sec. 701(4) of FISA as “the acquisition by an
electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the substance of any electronic
communication sent by, received by, or intended to be received by a person who is
reasonably believed to be in the United States, through the intentional targeting of that
person’s communications, where a person in the United States participating in the
communication has a reasonable expectation of privacy[.]”
“Substance” is defined in new Sec. 701(10) of FISA as “any information concerning the
symbols, sounds, words, purport, or meaning of a communication, and does not include
(continued...)
information,9 or to protect against international terrorism. An initial authorization
of an electronic surveillance program may be for up to 90 days, while a
reauthorization may be for a period of time not longer than the FISC determines to
be reasonable. If the FISC denies an application for authorization or reauthorization
of an electronic surveillance program, the Attorney General may submit an unlimited
number of new applications seeking approval of the program or, in the alternative,
may appeal the decision of the FISC to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review (FIS Court of Review). New Sec. 702(a) of FISA, Sec. 204 of S.
Mandatory transfer of certain cases to Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review. The bills also vest jurisdiction in the FIS Court
of Review to receive transfers from any other court of cases involving a challenge to
the legality of classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign
threat, including an electronic surveillance program, or cases in which the legality of
any such activity or program is at issue. Such a transfer would be triggered by the
filing by the Attorney General of an affidavit under oath that the case should be
transferred to the FIS Court of Review, because further proceedings in the originating
court would harm the national security of the United States. Under the proposed
language, when such an affidavit is filed, the originating court must transfer the case
to the FIS Court of Review. When the FIS Court of Review has completed its
review, the case is then retransferred to the originating court for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion of the FIS Court of Review. All litigation privileges are
to be preserved with respect to any case transferred and received under this
subsection. The decision of the FIS Court of Review is subject to U.S. Supreme
Court review on certiorari. The FIS Court or Review decision is otherwise binding
on all courts. New Sec. 702(b) of FISA, Sec. 204 of S. 3886, Sec. 4 of S. 2453.
8 (...continued)
dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling.”
9 “Foreign intelligence information” is defined in new Sec. 701(6) of FISA to have has the
same meaning as in section 101 of FISA [current 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e),], and to include
information necessary to protect against international terrorism. Under current 50 U.S.C.
§ 1801(e) the term means:
(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is
necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against —
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network
of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates
to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to —
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
Applications for FISC approval of electronic surveillance programs.
The bills lay out the requirements for applications for approval of electronic
surveillance programs to be made by the Attorney General or his designee in new
Sec. 703 of FISA, Sec. 205 of S. 3886, Sec. 5 of S. 2453. New Sec. 704(a) of FISA
sets forth the necessary findings which must be made by the FISC for it to enter an
ex parte order approving an electronic surveillance program as requested in such an
application or as modified.10 In part, the court must find that approval of
theelectronic surveillance program in the application is consistent with the U.S.
Constitution. New subsection 704(b) of FISA identifies the factors which the FISC
may consider in assessing the constitutionality of the program.11 Subsection 704(c)
10 The findings necessary to FISC approval of an application for an order authorizing
electronic surveillance include:
(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to make the application for
electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information or to protect against
international terrorism;
(2) approval of the electronic surveillance program in the application is
consistent with the Constitution of the United States;
(3) the electronic surveillance program is reasonably designed to ensure that the
communications that are intercepted are communications of or with —
(A) a foreign power that is engaged in international terrorism activities or
in preparation therefor;
(B) an agent of a foreign power that is engaged in international terrorism
activities or in preparation therefor; or
(C) a person reasonably believed to have communication with or be
associated with a foreign power that is engaged in international terrorism
activities or in preparation therefor or an agent of a foreign power that is
engaged in international terrorism activities or in preparation therefor;
(4) the proposed minimization procedures meet the definition of minimization
procedures under section 101(h); and
(5) the application contains all statements and certifications required by section
11 Such factors include
(1) whether the electronic surveillance program has been implemented in
accordance with the proposal by the Attorney General by comparing —
(A) the minimization procedures proposed with the minimization
procedures actually implemented;
(B) the nature of the information sought with the nature of the information
actually obtained; and
(C) the means and operational procedures proposed with the means and
operational procedures actually implemented; and
(2) whether foreign intelligence information has been obtained through the
electronic surveillance program.
of FISA sets out the contents of an order approving such a program.12 Sec. 206 of S.
Congressional oversight of electronic surveillance programs
authorized under new Title VII of FISA. Under Sec. 207 of S. 3886, Sec. 7 of
S. 2453, new Sec. 705 of FISA addresses congressional oversight. The Attorney
General is directed to submit a classified report at least every 180 days to the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (the “congressional intelligence committees” as defined in new Sec.
701(2) of FISA) on the activities during the previous 180 day period under any
electronic surveillance program authorized under new Title VII of FISA.
New Title VIII: Executive Authority
FISA not to be construed to limit President’s constitutional
authority to collect foreign intelligence. Sec. 208(a) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(a) of
S. 2453, creates a new Title VIII of FISA dealing with “Executive Authority.” New
Sec. 801 of FISA provides that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the
constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign
powers and agents of foreign powers.”
Repeal of wartime authorities under FISA. Sec. 208(b) of S. 3886, Sec.
1829, and 1844, which respectively permit the President, through the Attorney
General, to authorize electronic surveillance, physical searches, and the use of pen
register or trap and trace devices, without a court order to obtain foreign intelligence
information for up to 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.
Sec. 209(j) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(j) of S. 2453, and Sec. 209(k)(3) of S. 3886, Sec.
Conforming amendments to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(e) and (f) and to
criminal provisions in Sec. 109 of FISA. Sec. 208(c) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(c) of
12 Under proposed subsection 105(c), an order approving an electronic surveillance program
under this section shall direct —
(1) that the minimization procedures be followed;
(2) that, upon the request of the applicant, specified communication or other
common carriers, landlords, custodians, or other specified person, furnish the
applicant forthwith with all information, facilities, or technical assistance
necessary to undertake the electronic surveillance program in such a manner as
will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services
that such carriers, landlords, custodians, or other persons are providing potential
targets of the electronic surveillance program;
(3) that any record concerning the electronic surveillance program or the aid
furnished or retained by such carriers, landlords, custodians, or other persons are
maintained under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the
Director of National Intelligence; and
(4) that the applicant compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carriers, landlords,
custodians, or other persons for furnishing such aid.
S. 2453, makes a series of conforming amendments to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(e) and
(f), and to the criminal provisions in Sec. 109 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809. Sec. 209(i)
of S. 3886, Sec. 9(i) of S. 2453, also makes somewhat similar, but not identical,
amendments to Sec. 109 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809.
In general, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communications unless the interception falls within one of a series of
specific exceptions. Current 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(e) and (2)(f) set out two of these
exceptions. Current 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(e) provides, “ Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it
shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the
normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in
section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by
that Act.” As amended, subsection 2511(2)(e) would read, “Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of
1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States
in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance under the
Constitution or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.”
Current 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f), often referred to as the “exclusivity” provision,
states:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section
705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the
acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information
from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities
conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a
foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than
electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by
which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be
conducted.
Thus, under the current exclusivity provision in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f), electronic
surveillance is prohibited except when carried out under the provisions of FISA;
chapter 119, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. (which deals with interception of wire, oral,
or electronic communications); or chapter 121, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. (which
deals with stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records
access). As amended, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) would read, “Nothing contained in this
chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act
of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government
of foreign intelligence information that is authorized under a Federal statute or the
Constitution of the United States.”
The conforming amendments to FISA in Sec. 208(c) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(c) of S.
2453, address Sec. 109 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809, which currently provides criminal
sanctions for any person who intentionally “(1) engages in electronic surveillance
under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) discloses or uses
information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or
having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic
surveillance not authorized by statute.” As amended by Sec. 208(c)(2)(A) of S. 3886,
Sec. 8(c)(2)(A) of S. 2453, a person would face criminal liability if he or she: (1)
intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as
authorized by statute or under the Constitution; (2) intentionally discloses or uses
information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or
having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic
surveillance not authorized by statute or under the Constitution; or (3) “knowingly
discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance
in a manner or for a purpose not authorized by law.” (Italics indicate new language.)
Under Sec. 208(c)(2)(B) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(c)(2)(B) of S. 2453, the current penalties
provided in Sec. 109(c) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809(c)would be increased from a fine
of up to $10,000 to a fine of up to $100,000, whle imprisonment would be increased
from a term of up to 5 years to imprisonment for up to 15 years.
It is worthy of note that Sec. 209(i) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(i) of S. 2453, also amends
Sec. 109 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809, in a somewhat similar, but not identical manner.
Under the latter amendment, subsection 109(a) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a), would
be deleted and replaced with a new subsection 109(a) which provides that “[a] person
is guilty of an offense if he intentionally — (1) engages in electronic surveillance as
defined in section 101(f)[, 50 U.S.C. § 101(f)], under color of law except as
authorized by law; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law
by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information
was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by law.” (Emphasis
added.)
Other Conforming Amendments to FISA
Sec. 209 of S. 3886, Sec. 9 of S. 2453, makes other conforming amendments to
FISA.
Definitions. Section 209(b) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b) of S. 2453, amends several
of the definitions in Sec. 101 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801.
Agent of a foreign power. Sec. 209(b)(1) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b)(1) of S.
2453, expands the definition of “agent of a foreign power” under Sec. 101(b)(1) of
FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1), to include a person other than a United States person13
who “otherwise possesses or is expected to transmit or receive foreign intelligence
information within the United States.”
13 “United States person” is currently defined in Sec. 101(i) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i),
to mean
a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
(as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8), an unincorporated association a
substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or
aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is
incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an
association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3)
of this section.
Electronic surveillance. Sec. 209(b)(2) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b)(2) of S. 2453,
deletes the current definition of “electronic surveillance” under Sec. 101(f) of FISA,14
50 U.S.C. § 1801(f), and replaces it with a new definition. Under the new
definition, “electronic surveillance” would mean:
(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance
device for the intentional collection of information concerning a particular
known person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States by
intentionally targeting that person under circumstances in which that person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law
enforcement purposes; or
(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any communication under
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a
warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender
and all intended recipients are located within the United States.
This appears to be a shorter, but more expansive definition than that under current
law.
Attorney General. Sec. 209(b) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b) of S. 2453, broadens the
definition of “Attorney General” under Sec. 101(g) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(g) to
include, among others, “a person or persons designated by the Attorney General or
the Acting Attorney General.” Thus, as amended, the term “Attorney General,”
under Sec. 101(g) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(g), would mean the “Attorney General
of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or,
upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General
14 Under current Sec. 101(f) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f), “electronic surveillance” is
defined to mean:
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of
the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be
received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States,
if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person,
under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of
the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States,
without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United
States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer
trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of Title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance
device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in
which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended
recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance
device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than
from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has
a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law
enforcement purposes.
designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security under section
507A of title 28, United States Code or a person or persons designated by the
Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General.” (New language in italics.)
Minimization Procedures with respect to electronic surveillance.
Minimization procedures under FISA are designed to minimize the acquisition,
retention, and prohibit dissemination of non-publicly available information regarding
unconsenting U.S. persons acquired during the course of electronic surveillance or
physical search for foreign intelligence purposes, consistent with the need of the
United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.
Such procedures permit retention and dissemination to law enforcement of evidence
of criminal activity. Under these procedures, nonpublicly available information
which is not foreign intelligence information shall not be disseminated in a manner
that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such
person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess
its importance. Current Sec. 101(h)(4) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h)(4), also
includes minimization procedures applicable to any electronic surveillance without
a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information upon Attorney General
certification pursuant to Sec. 102(a) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802. In that context,
minimization procedures also encompass procedures requiring that no contents of
any communication to which a United States person is a party be disclosed,
disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a
court order under Sec. 105 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805, is obtained or unless the
Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or
serious bodily harm to any person. Subsection 104(h)(4) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §
Sec. 209(b) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b) of S. 2453, modifies the definition of
“minimization procedures” in Sec. 101(f) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) to delete
subsection 101(f)(4), which covers —
Contents. In addition, Sec. 209(b) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(b) of S. 2453, replaces
the current definition of “contents” under Sec. 101(n) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(n)
with a new definition cross-referencing 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8).15
Electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign
intelligence information pursuant to Attorney General certification. Sec.
102 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802, authorizes electronic surveillance without a court
order to acquire foreign intelligence information for up to one year upon certification
by the Attorney General in writing under oath that certain criteria have been met.16
As amended by Sec. 209(c) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(c) of S. 2453, the application of Sec.
15 Under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8) “‘contents,’ when used with respect to any wire, oral, or
electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or
meaning of that communication.”
16 Current Sec. 102(a)(1) requires that the Attorney General certify in writing under oath
that “the electronic surveillance is solely directed at” the acquisition of the types of
information specified. This clause is omitted in the amended language in Sec. 209(c) of S.
102 of FISA would be expanded to include, among other things, the acquisition of
the contents of communications of foreign powers, as defined in section 101(a) of
FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a), or an agent of a foreign powers other than a U.S. person,
as defined under Sec. 101(b)(1) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1).17 The amendment
also deletes a requirement in current Sec. 102(a)(1)(B) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §
1801(a)(1)(B), that the Attorney General certify that “there is no substantial
likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to
which a U.S. person is a party.”
As amended, a new subsection (b) would be added to Sec. 102 of FISA,
authorizing the Attorney General to require any provider of electronic
communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer,
employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) who has access to electronic
communications as transmitted or while stored, or to equipment that is being or may
be used to transmit or store such communications, to furnish any information,
facilities, or technical assistance to an official authorized by the President to engage
in electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes for periods of up to one
year, if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath to the carrier that such
provision of information, facilities, or technical assistance does not constitute
electronic surveillance under Sec. 101(f) of FISA (which was amended earlier in Sec.
Under current Sec.102(a)(4), 50 U.S.C. § 102(a)(4), the Attorney General may
direct a specified common carrier to provide any information, facilities, or technical
assistance necessary to accomplish an electronic surveillance authorized under
subsection 102(a) in a manner which will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
of interference with the services such carrier is providing to its customers, and to
maintain any records the carrier wishes to retain concerning such surveillance or the
aid furnished with respect thereto under security procedures approved by the
Attorney General and the Director of National Security. As amended, the Attorney
General could so direct a provider of any electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified
person thereof) who has access to electronic communications, either as they are
transmitted or while they are being stored or equipment that is being or may be used
to transmit or store such communications. As in current law, the Government is
required to compensate the provider at the prevailing rate for furnishing such aid.
17 Current law does not include the acquisition of the contents of communications of agents
of foreign powers, and covers only “foreign powers” as defined in Sec. 101(a)(1), (2), or
(3) of FISA. These subsections include a foreign government or any component thereof; a
faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
or an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be
directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments. As amended, this
provision would also cover the acquisition of the contents of communications of a group
engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; a foreign-based
political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or an entity that
is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. Under current law, the
contents of communications acquired must be transmitted by means of communications used
exclusively between or among such foreign powers.
A new subsection 102(d) of FISA, new 50 U.S.C. § 102(d), would provide that
“electronic surveillance directed solely at the collection of international radio
communications of diplomatically immune persons in the United States may be
authorized by an official authorized by the President to engage in electronic
surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes in accordance with procedures
approved by the Attorney General.”
Designation of FISC judges. Under Sec. 209(d) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(d) of S.
2453, Sec. 103(a) of FISA is amended to authorize the Chief Justice of the United
States to publicly designate 11 district court judges from at least seven of the U.S.18
judicial circuits to be FISC judges, of whom no fewer than three shall reside within
Applications for FISC orders under Sec. 104 of FISA. Sec. 209(e) of
S. 3886, Sec. 9(e) of S. 2453, makes a series of amendments to Sec. 104 of FISA, 50
U.S.C. § 1804. Current subsections 104(a)(6) through (11) are deleted from FISA
and replaced by new subsections 104(a)(6) and (7). An application for a court order
to authorize electronic surveillance under FISA must contain, among other things, a
certification that certain requirements are met. Under current law, such certification
or certifications are made by the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from
among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense
and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. As
amended, the certification would be made by “the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs or an executive branch official authorized by the President
to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.”19
18 The amendment indicates that “at least” should be inserted into Sec.103(a) of FISA before
“seven of the United States Judiciary.” It seems likely that “Judiciary” was intended to be
“judicial circuits” as in the current language of the subsection.
19 As amended, such official must certify:
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign
intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence
information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative
techniques; and
(D) including a statement of the basis for the certification that —
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information
designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative
techniques[.]
With respect to the matters that must be certified by this official, new subsections
104(a)(6)(A)-(C) are the same as current subsections 104(a)(7)(A)-(C). The new language
deletes a requirement in current subsection 104(a)(7)(D) that the application include a
certification from such an official that designates the type of foreign intelligence
information being sought according to the categories described in Sec. 101(e) of FISA. New
subsection 104(a)(6)(D) is the same as the current 104(a)(7)(E).
(continued...)
Under current law, subsection 104(b) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1804(b) deals with
the exclusion of certain information from an application for a FISC order authorizing
electronic surveillance where the target is a foreign power as defined in subsection
101(a)(1), (2), or (3), and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is
directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power. In such
circumstances, the application currently is required to include a statement as to
whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance, and to contain such
information about the surveillance techniques and communications or other
information concerning U.S. persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to
assess the proposed minimization procedures. Sec. 209(e)(2) and (3) of S. 3886, Sec.
Issuance of FISC order under Sec. 105 of FISA. Sec. 209(f) of S. 3886,
Sec. 9(f) of S. 2453, would amend Sec. 105 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805, in a number
of respects. Current subsection 105(a)(1) provides that, upon an application under
Sec. 104 of FISA, the FISC judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as
modified approving the electronic surveillance in the application if he finds that “the
President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic
surveillance for foreign intelligence information.” As amended, this subsection
would be stricken and subsections 105(a)(2) through (a)(5) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§
1805(a)(2) through (a)(5), would be redesignated subsections 105(a)(1) through
(a)(4), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805(a)(1) through (a)(4).
Specifications to be included in a FISC order for electronic
surveillance. Current subsection 105(c)(1) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805(c)(1), which
deals with specifications to be included in an order approving electronic surveillance
under Sec. 105 of FISA, would also be deleted and replaced with a new subsection
105(c)(1), which includes the current subsections 105(c)(1)(A), (B), and (E), and
deletes current requirements in subsections 105(c)(1)(C),(D), and (F). The new
subsection 105(c)(1) would read: “(1) An order approving an electronic surveillance
under this section shall specify — (A) the identity, if known, or a description of the
specific target of the electronic surveillance identified or described in the application
pursuant to section 104(a)(3); (B) the nature and location of each of the facilities or
places at which the electronic surveillance will be directed, if known; and (C) the
period of time during which the electronic surveillance is approved.”
Current subsection 105(d) deals with the exclusion of certain information from
applications for court orders authorizing electronic surveillance where the target of
19 (...continued)
As amended, subsection 104(a)(7) requires that, an application for a court order
authorizing electronic surveillance must include “a statement of the period of time for which
the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence
gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this title
should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been
obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same
type will be obtained thereafter.” This language is the same as the current subsection
the surveillance is a foreign power as defined in Sec. 101(a)(1), (2), or (3), and each
facility or place to be surveilled is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign
power. It also requires description of information sought, the communications to be
subject to surveillance, and the type of electronic surveillance involved, including
whether physical entry would be required. As amended, the current language would
be stricken and replaced with a requirement that, “Each order under this section
specify the type of electronic surveillance involved, including whether physical entry
is required.”
Duration and extension of FISC orders under Sec. 105 of FISA.
Current subsections 105(e)(1) and (2) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805(e)(1) and (2), deal
with duration and extension of orders under Sec. 105 of FISA. Current law provides
generally for electronic surveillance for the period specified in the application or for
up to 90 days, whichever is less; for the period specified in the application or for up
to 120 days, whichever is less, where the target is an agent of a foreign power who
is not a U.S. person; and for the period specified in the application or for up to one
year, for foreign power targets who are foreign governments or components thereof;
foreign nation or nations or factions thereof, not substantially composed of United
States persons; or entities openly acknowledged by a foreign government or
governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or
governments. This language would be deleted and replaced by a new subsection
105(e)(1) and (2). Under the new language, orders for electronic surveillance may
be approved for up to one year. If emergency electronic surveillance is authorized,
the official authorizing it must require compliance with the same minimization
procedures as are required for electronic surveillance pursuant to FISC orders under20
this title. Extensions for up to one year may be granted by the FISC on the same
basis as the original order, upon an application for an extension filed and new
findings made in the same manner as required for the original order.
Emergency authorization of electronic surveillance without a court
order. Current subsection 105(f), 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f), provides for emergency
authorization of electronic surveillance without a court order for up to 72 hours by
the Attorney General if he reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists
with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign
intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can, with due
diligence, be obtained; and that the factual basis for issuance of an order under this
title to approve such surveillance exists. The Attorney General must notify an FISC
judge of the emergency employment of electronic surveillance at the time of its
authorization. During this 72 hour window, a court order under Sec. 105 must be
sought. Subsection 105(f) also currently requires termination of the surveillance
when the information sought is acquired, if a FISC order approving the surveillance
is denied, or at the end of the 72 hours, whichever is earliest; and restricts use or
disclosure of information acquired or derived from that surveillance if a court order
is not obtained.
20 This is the same as is currently required under subsection 105(f) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §
As amended, this provision would be deleted and replaced by a new subsection
(f)(1) which would permit “an official authorized by the President to conduct
electronic surveillance” to authorize emergency electronic surveillance without a
court order for up to seven days (rather than 72 hours) when that official reasonably
determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of
electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order
authorizing such surveillance can, with due diligence, be obtained; and the factual
basis for issuance of an order under this title to approve such surveillance exists.
Although the authority to trigger such emergency electronic surveillance is not
limited to the Attorney General, as in current law, the Attorney General must be
informed of the emergency electronic surveillance. While current law required notice
to a FISC judge at the time of the authorization, the new provision would require that
a FISC judge be informed as soon as practicable following such an authorization.
During the seven-day period, a court order approving the surveillance must be sought
from an FISC judge as soon as practicable. The surveillance must terminate when
the information sought is obtained, when the application is denied, or at the end of
the seven-day period, whichever is earliest. In the absence of a court order
authorizing the electronic surveillance, the proposed provision imposes the same
restrictions on use and disclosure of information acquired or derived from an
emergency electronic surveillance as those in current law.
Limitations on liability for providers aiding in a FISA electronic
surveillance or physical search. Sec. 209(f) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(f) of S. 2453,
would also modify subsection 105(i) dealing with limitations in liability for those
who provide information, facilities, or technical assistance with respect to execution
of a FISA electronic surveillance or physical search. As amended, no cause of action
would lie against any provider of electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified
person thereof) that furnishes any such aid in accordance with a court order or a
request for emergency assistance under this title for electronic surveillance or
physical search, or in response to a certification by the Attorney General or his
designee seeking information, facilities, or technical assistance from such person that
does not constitute electronic surveillance as defined in Sec. 101(f) of FISA.
Use of information acquired by electronic surveillance under FISA.
Sec. 106 of FISA limits the use by federal, state, or local governments of information
regarding unconsenting U.S. persons acquired or derived from electronic surveillance
under FISA. It also includes notification requirements and provides an opportunity
for an aggrieved person against whom such information is proffered in an official
proceeding to move to suppress such information if it was unlawfully acquired or if
the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or
approval.
Under Sec. 209(g) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(g) of S. 2453, Sec. 106(i) of FISA, 50
U.S.C. § 1806(i), which deals with destruction of unintentionally acquired
information, would be modified to provide that, where any communication is
unintentionally acquired by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device,
in circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a
warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and
all intended recipients are located in the United States, such contents shall be
destroyed upon recognition, unless the Attorney General determines that the contents
indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. Current subsection
106(i) includes parallel provisions, but applies only to unintentionally acquired radio
communications. (Emphasis added.)
The import of a second amendment to subsection 106(i) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §
1806(i), in Sec. 209(g)(1)(B) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(g)(1)(B) of S. 2453, is unclear. The
provision indicates that subsection 106(i) of FISA would be amended by “inserting
‘Attorney General determines that the contents’ after ‘contain significant foreign
intelligence information or.’” However, the current provision being amended does
not include the phrase “contain significant foreign intelligence information or.”21
Sec. 209(g)(2) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(g)(2) of S. 2453, makes a conforming
amendment to subsection 106(k), replacing “104(a)(7)” with “104(a)(6),” reflecting
a change made to Sec. 104 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1804, by Sec. 209(e) of S. 3886,
Sec. 9(e) of S. 2453.
Congressional oversight under Sec. 108 of FISA regarding a
document management system for applications for FISC orders
authorizing electronic surveillance. Sec. 209(h) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(h) of S.
§ 1808, to add a new subsection 108(c) requiring the Attorney General and the
Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the FBI, the
Director of the NSA, the Director of the CIA, and the FISC, to conduct a feasibility
study to develop and implement a secure, classified document management system
that would permit prompt preparation, modification, and review by appropriate
personnel of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the NSA, and other applicable U.S.
government elements, of applications for FISC orders authorizing electronic
surveillance before their submittal to the FISC. Such a system would permit and
facilitate prompt submittal of applications and all other matters, including electronic22
filings to the FISC under Sections 104 or 105(g)(5) of FISA, and would permit and
facilitate the prompt transmittal of FISC rulings to personnel submitting such
applications.
Second amendment of criminal provisions in Sec. 109 of FISA. Sec.
to delete subsection 109(a) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a), and to replace it with a new
subsection 109(a), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of an offense if he
intentionally — (1) engages in electronic surveillance as defined in section 101(f)[,
21 The phrase “Attorney General determines that the content” does exist in the current
provision. One possible question might be whether the phrase “contain significant foreign
intelligence information or” was intended to be inserted after “Attorney General determines
that the content,” rather than the reverse, as is provided in this section of the bills.
22 There is no current Sec. 105(g)(5) of FISA. Sec. 105(g) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1805(g)
deals with “testing of electronic equipment; discovering unauthorized electronic
surveillance; training of intelligence personnel.”
or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing
or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic
surveillance not authorized by law.” Sec. 109(a) was previously amended in Sec.
(1) intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as
authorized by statute or under the Constitution; (2) intentionally discloses or uses
information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or
having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic
surveillance not authorized by statute or under the Constitution; or (3) “knowingly
discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance
in a manner or for a purpose not authorized by law.” (Italics indicate new language.)
These changes are earlier in the respective bills, and Sec. 209(i) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(i)
of S. 2453, deletes subsection 109(a) and replaces it with its own new language.
Therefore, it would seem that while Sec. 208(c)(2)(A) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(c)(2)(A) of
S. 2453, would operate to amend the current subsection 109(a) of FISA; Sec. 209(i)
would have the effect of deleting subsection 109(a) of FISA as amended by Sec.
208(c)(2)(A) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(c)(2)(A) of S. 2453, and replacing it with its own
language.
Striking of previously repealed provisions authorizing electronic
surveillances and physical searches without a court order for up to 15
calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress. Sec. 209(j) of
S. 3886, Sec. 9(j) of S. 2453, and Sec. 209(k)(3) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(k)(3) of S. 2453,
strike Sections 111 and 309 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1811 and 1829, respectively. Sec.
111 of FISA permits the President, through the Attorney General, to authorize
electronic surveillance without a court order to obtain foreign intelligence
information for up to 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.
Sec. 309 of FISA permits the President, through the Attorney General, to authorize
physical searches without a court order to obtain foreign intelligence information for
up to 15 calendar days following a congressional declaration of war. Both of these
provisions were repealed earlier in the bills by Sec. 208(b) of S. 3886, Sec. 8(b) of
S. 2453, which also repealed Sec. 404 of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1844, a parallel authority
regarding the use of pen registers or trap and trace devices without a court order for
up to 15 calendar days following a congressional declaration of war.
Physical searches. Under Sec. 209(k) of S. 3886, Sec. 9(k) of S. 2453, the
definition of “physical search” under current Sec. 301(5) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §
23 Under current Sec. 301(5) of FISA, “physical search” is defined to mean “any physical
intrusion within the United States into premises or property (including examination of the
interior of property by technical means) that is intended to result in a seizure, reproduction,
inspection, or alteration of information, material, or property, under circumstances in which
a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law
enforcement purposes, but does not include (A) “electronic surveillance”, as defined in
section 101(f) [50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)], or (B) the acquisition by the United States Government
of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign
intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law
(continued...)
search” to mean “any physical intrusion within the United States into premises or
property (including examination of the interior of property by technical means) that
is intended to result in a seizure, reproduction, inspection, or alteration of
information, material, or property, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law
enforcement purposes, but does not include activities conducted in accordance with
sections 102 or 105.”
Criminal provisions relating to physical searches. Sec. 209(k)(2) of
S. 3886, Sec. 9(k)(2) of S. 2453, would delete the current criminal provisions in
subsection 307(a) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1827(a), and replace it with a new subsection
307(a). Under the new language, a person would be guilty of an offense if he
intentionally — “(1) under color of law for the purpose of obtaining foreign
intelligence information, executes a physical search within the United States except
as authorized by statute or under the Constitution; or (2) discloses or uses
information obtained under color of law by physical search within the United States,
knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through
physical search not authorized by statute or the Constitution.” This is similar to
current law, but, in subsection 307(a)(1) the current phrase “as authorized by statute”
is replaced with “as authorized by statute or under the Constitution;” and, in
subsection 307(a)(2) the current phrase “not authorized by statute for the purpose of
obtaining intelligence information” is replaced by the phrase “not authorized by
statute or the Constitution.” The deletion in subsection 307(a)(2) of “for the purpose
of obtaining intelligence information” may suggest that the new language may have
a potentially broader application than the current provision. For example, it would
appear that it might criminalize the intentional disclosure or use of information
obtained under color of law by physical search within the United States, knowing or
having reason to know that the information was obtained through a physical search
not authorized by statute or the Constitution for intelligence gathering purposes,
criminal investigative purposes, or other purposes.
Conforming Amendments to the Table of Contents of FISA
Sec. 210 of S. 3886, Sec. 10 of S. 2453, would amend the table of contents to
FISA to strike the items related to the current Title VII of FISA, and to reflect the
creation of the new Titles VII and VIII of FISA in these bills.
23 (...continued)
involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than
electronic surveillance as defined in section 101(f) [50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)].”